THE GUY WHO BROUGHT YOU HOW G-D SAVES SOULS, E8 IN MITOCHONDRIAL DNA (?;) AND INFORMATIONAL GRAVITY, NOW PROVES ORIGINALITY OF ROTATING "GRAVITY" DATA FIELDS
witchdoctorwithdogma
Fast-spinning quasars and black holes establish data fields as do
the spinning discs in your non-flash hard drives.
The major galaxies, and the solar systems rotate and appear to warp
around
heavy objects not because of pull but because of the data field.
This idea came to me while playing with dreidls with the niece of one
of my
daughters-in-law.
This is consistent with these observations:
October 19, 2010: In quantum mechanics, angular momentum is quantized
– that is, it cannot vary continuously, but only in "quantum leaps"
between certain allowed values. This has never made sense
intuitively, but makes perfect sense now "informationally."
October 20, 2010: totally same deal, quantum entanglement.
Autymn D. C.
<witchdoctorwithdo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> witchdoctorwithdogma because formerly atheist.
http://google.com/groups?q=%22Warfare+by+Autymn%22
> Fast-spinning quasars and black holes establish data fields as do
> the spinning discs in your non-flash hard drives.
http://google.com/groups?q=%22motes+are+fleet%22
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/43970#comment8733
> The major galaxies, and the solar systems rotate and appear to warp
> around
> heavy objects not because of pull but because of the data field.
Data fields are epifænomena, information arbitrary.
-Aut
Brian Davis
> On Nov 10, 6:31 pm, witchdoctorwithdogma
>
> <witchdoctorwithdo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > witchdoctorwithdogma because formerly atheist.
>
> http://google.com/groups?q=%22Warfare+by+Autymn%22
>
> > Fast-spinning quasars and black holes establish data fields as do
> > the spinning discs in your non-flash hard drives.
>
>
> > The major galaxies, and the solar systems rotate and appear to warp
> > around
> > heavy objects not because of pull but because of the data field.
>
> Data fields are epifænomena, information arbitrary.
>
> -Aut
Erik... are you *sure* Autymn has a low probability of being a
chatterbot? I actually played with one of the on-line ones last night,
and it had a striking resemblance to Autymn. Perhaps we should discuss
at what point it's a chatterbot even if the templates and keyword
searching routines are emulated on poor-quality wetware, instead of
fast hardware (is that the reverse Turing test? What it takes to have
a human being *fail* the Turing test?)
--
Brian Davis
witchdoctorwithdogma
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++....>>>>
What the UFO's are doing when you see them spinning:
Creating data fields.
They're essentially clicking from here to there, though it's surely
still requiring some energy input, as surely does/do your own
computer(s.)
alie...@gmail.com
> On Nov 13, 2:45 pm, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 10, 6:31 pm, witchdoctorwithdogma
>
> > <witchdoctorwithdo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > witchdoctorwithdogma because formerly atheist.
>
> >http://google.com/groups?q=%22Warfare+by+Autymn%22
>
> > > Fast-spinning quasars and black holes establish data fields as do
> > > the spinning discs in your non-flash hard drives.
>
>
> > > The major galaxies, and the solar systems rotate and appear to warp
> > > around
> > > heavy objects not because of pull but because of the data field.
>
> > Data fields are epifænomena, information arbitrary.
>
> > -Aut
>
> Erik... are you *sure* Autymn has a low probability of being a
> chatterbot? I actually played with one of the on-line ones last night,
> and it had a striking resemblance to Autymn. Perhaps we should discuss
> at what point it's a chatterbot even if the templates and keyword
> searching routines are emulated on poor-quality wetware, instead of
> fast hardware (is that the reverse Turing test? What it takes to have
> a human being *fail* the Turing test?)
Fascinating. I've met many such people, now that I think about it.
One criterion might be the inability to synthesize new information
from old information, or the refusal to recognize when somebody else
does it. That would cover anti-Einstein types, too...
Mark L. Fergerson
Autymn D. C.
>
>
>
> > On Nov 10, 6:31 pm, witchdoctorwithdogma
>
> > <witchdoctorwithdo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > witchdoctorwithdogma because formerly atheist.
>
> >http://google.com/groups?q=%22Warfare+by+Autymn%22
>
> > > Fast-spinning quasars and black holes establish data fields as do
> > > the spinning discs in your non-flash hard drives.
>
>
> > > The major galaxies, and the solar systems rotate and appear to warp
> > > around
> > > heavy objects not because of pull but because of the data field.
>
> > Data fields are epifænomena, information arbitrary.
>
> > -Aut
>
> Erik... are you *sure* Autymn has a low probability of being a
> chatterbot? I actually played with one of the on-line ones last night,
> and it had a striking resemblance to Autymn. Perhaps we should discuss
Screw you.
Cryptoengineer
9ffe-1f0...@p11g2000vbn.googlegroups.com:
>
> Screw you.
Now, is that good English, by Autymn's rules? Or has it dropped back to
Muttish?
pt
Brian Davis
> Now, is that good English, by Autymn's rules? Or has it dropped back to
> Muttish?
That's another interesting aspect. While it's become fairly easy to
produce a simple chatterbot based on keywords and scripts (especially
if it's about an esoteric branch of information, and one of the script
techniques is to try to intimidate correspondents), is it possible to
work backwards? Is there enough information on-line with the Autymn
chatterbot's rants to reverse engineer some of the rules or scripts?
Not for the invented language obviously, just for the conversational
rules.
Being able to summarize, say, 95% of responses of an entity into a
scripting language might be an interesting reverse-Turing experiment.
What's the minimum size description that can encapsulate the
responses? With almost 14,000 messages dating back to 2005, that might
be enough.
--
Brian Davis
Autymn D. C.
and cover Erik, Brad, Androcles, and J·xij-el (Porat) who'll not learn.