Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Past and Future

87 views
Skip to first unread message

The Starmaker

unread,
Feb 28, 2015, 3:23:01 AM2/28/15
to
I'm having differculty
spotting where the past ends and
future begins.

You know...that line
between the past and the future.

Where exactly is that line?

Poutnik

unread,
Feb 28, 2015, 3:44:01 AM2/28/15
to
Dne 28/02/2015 v 09:23 The Starmaker napsal(a):
> I'm having differculty
> spotting where the past ends and
> future begins.

Looks like you as a time traveller have difficulties
to stop at present milestone.

What you observe is for you simultaneously the present
and end point of 2 open intervals of past and future.
>
> You know...that line
> between the past and the future.
>
> Where exactly is that line?

Like before, at, after visit at dentist ?

Past was observable, but is not anymore,
while future is not observable, but will be.

Information propagation delay is included,
so you always get info about past only.

--
Poutnik

Don Kuenz

unread,
Feb 28, 2015, 12:33:39 PM2/28/15
to
Maurice Nicoll's argues that *now* is spiritual. It is orthogonal to the
conventional time line favored by those who limit cogitation to the
confines of their own senses.

Ouspensky argues that *now*, as viewed from his fifth dimension, is also
orthogonal to the conventional time line. His fifth dimension contains
the one actualization chosen from all of the infinite candidates
available in his sixth dimension.

ObSF:

The pragmatic scientist would agree with Leibniz. After all,
what does it mean to talk of time unless you can measure it. And
what you use to measure time is a clock, some kind of a changing
configuration of matter (such as spinning gears, ticking
pendulums, and rotating dial pointers). Mere unchanging matter
alone is not sufficient to measure time, as a still clock
records nothing. Changing matter seems to be required.

-Paul J Nahin, _Time Machines_

###

"There was a smell of Time in the air tonight. He smiled and
turned the fancy in his mind. There was a thought. What did time
smell like? Like dust and clocks and people. And if you wondered
what Time sounded like it sounded like water running in a dark
cave and voices crying and dirt dropping down upon hollow box
lids, and rain. And, going further, what did Time look like?
Time looked like snow dropping silently into a black room or it
looked like a silent film in an ancient theater, 100 billion
faces falling like those New Year balloons, down and down into
nothing. That was how Time smelled and looked and sounded. And
tonight - Tomas shoved a hand into the wind outside the truck -
tonight you could almost taste time."

- Ray Bradbury, The Martian Chronicles


--
,-. GIVE MORE expect less LOVE MORE
\_/ argue less LISTEN MORE talk less
{|||)< Don Kuenz LAUGH MORE complain less DREAM MORE
/ \ doubt less HOPE MORE fear less
`-' BREATHE MORE whine less

The Starmaker

unread,
Feb 28, 2015, 3:26:46 PM2/28/15
to
i wasn't talking about *now*...I was talking about past and future.

I can remember the past, ...I just don't remember where the past began
at.

Poutnik

unread,
Feb 28, 2015, 3:59:56 PM2/28/15
to
Dne 28/02/2015 v 21:26 The Starmaker napsal(a):

>
>
>
> i wasn't talking about *now*...I was talking about past and future.
>
> I can remember the past, ...I just don't remember where the past began
> at.

Began or ended ?
As I do not suppose you were a witness of Big Bang.

If ended you have meant, search this end at the ond
of real number interval (-inf,0)
Round brackets mean border symbols are not members of the interval.



--
Poutnik

The Starmaker

unread,
Feb 28, 2015, 6:27:31 PM2/28/15
to
Began, not ended...I'm talking about the past events, not when the event ended, but when the past began, when it begins.

The line where the past begins...


and the line where the future begins.


Maybes yous don't knows what I means by the word..."line"?

Sam Wormley

unread,
Feb 28, 2015, 6:33:38 PM2/28/15
to
On 2/28/15 5:27 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> The line where the past begins...

Pictorial representation of Past, Present and Future
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/World_line.svg/600px-World_line.svg.png


More Information
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone

> A light cone is the path that a flash of light, emanating from a
> single event (localized to a single point in space and a single
> moment in time) and traveling in all directions, would take through
> spacetime. If we imagine the light confined to a two-dimensional
> plane, the light from the flash spreads out in a circle after the
> event E occurs, and if we graph the growing circle with the vertical
> axis of the graph representing time, the result is a cone, known as
> the future light cone. The past light cone behaves like the future
> light cone in reverse, a circle which contracts in radius at the
> speed of light until it converges to a point at the exact position
> and time of the event E. In reality, there are three space
> dimensions, so the light would actually form an expanding or
> contracting sphere in 3D space rather than a circle in 2D, and the
> light cone would actually be a four-dimensional version of a cone
> whose cross-sections form 3D spheres (analogous to a normal
> three-dimensional cone whose cross-sections form 2D circles), but the
> concept is easier to visualize with the number of spatial dimensions
> reduced from three to two.
>
> Because signals and other causal influences cannot travel faster than
> light (see special relativity and quantum entanglement), the light
> cone plays an essential role in defining the concept of causality:
> for a given event E, the set of events that lie on or inside the past
> light cone of E would also be the set of all events that could send a
> signal that would have time to reach E and influence it in some way.
> For example, at a time ten years before E, if we consider the set of
> all events in the past light cone of E which occur at that time, the
> result would be a sphere (2D: disk) with a radius of ten light-years
> centered on the future position E will occur. So, any point on or
> inside the sphere could send a signal moving at the speed of light or
> slower that would have time to influence the event E, while points
> outside the sphere at that moment would not be able to have any
> causal influence on E. Likewise, the set of events that lie on or
> inside the future light cone of E would also be the set of events
> that could receive a signal sent out from the position and time of E,
> so the future light cone contains all the events that could
> potentially be causally influenced by E. Events which lie neither in
> the past or future light cone of E cannot influence or be influenced
> by E in relativity.


--

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion
of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related
social issues.


Poutnik

unread,
Feb 28, 2015, 6:37:08 PM2/28/15
to
Dne 01/03/2015 v 00:27 The Starmaker napsal(a):
You did not mention line before.
future begins at (0,+inf).

When past begins is metaphysics, wrt to properties of spacetime.


--
Poutnik

The Starmaker

unread,
Feb 28, 2015, 7:01:16 PM2/28/15
to
Are you aware Sam, or Son of Sam...that the link you posted is filled with...nonsense?

"future light cone"?


The only cone I know is an ice creme cone..


(a past light cone would have to be upsidedown since the past comes to a point, a singleularity...)


Anyone who posts any link from .wikipedia, is going to make themselves look foolish.


.wikipedia is an arena for crakpots, edited by crakpots.


(bad enough it's from the ...internet)


People used to say "I heard it on the radio!!!"


In todays news...Google

google-wants-to-rank-websites-based-on-facts-not-links

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22530102.600-google-wants-to-rank-websites-based-on-facts-not-links.html#.VPIznl1NJhH

The first sentence of the article reads: THE internet is stuffed with garbage.




Do you think they will use .wikipedia as a source for ...facts? I don't think so, that will be stupid.

There are no "facts" on .wikipedia.


The Starmaker

The Starmaker

unread,
Feb 28, 2015, 8:06:02 PM2/28/15
to
The original poster of the thread, ...me, wrote:

I'm having differculty
spotting where the past ends and
future begins.

Sam Wormley

unread,
Feb 28, 2015, 10:34:58 PM2/28/15
to
On 2/28/15 7:06 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> I'm having differculty spotting where the past ends and future
> begins.



Sylvia Else

unread,
Feb 28, 2015, 10:52:57 PM2/28/15
to
It doesn't exist. It might seem that you can define "now" as an event in
your head, and then put every event in the universe into their
respective past or future pigeon holes. However, that doesn't work for
events that are space-like separated from your "now" event, at least not
without choosing a frame of reference. So you choose a frame of
reference in which your head is stationary.

Is that sufficient? It might appear so. But it's not. Your head consists
of matter and its various bits can be in relative motion due both to
blood flow, and the matter waves that move through your less than rigid
brain as your move your head around. So if you want to further pin down
the space-like separated events, you have to make a rather arbitrary
choice about which bit of your brain your reference frame is to be tied
to. At this level of precision even the events in your brain can be
space-like separated.

So, as is so often the case, it turns out that there's an irreducible
grey area. Not that your brain will ever notice it without the help of
special instruments.

Sylvia.


The Starmaker

unread,
Mar 1, 2015, 3:12:47 AM3/1/15
to
I'm not talking about "now"..

I'm talking about the past line and the future line, not the "now" line.

The line that indicates you have reached the future...or the past. The
starting point of the future...the line that indicates
you have reached the future and any point beyond that line is the
future.

HVAC

unread,
Mar 1, 2015, 7:23:45 AM3/1/15
to
On 3/1/2015 3:12 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>
>> So, as is so often the case, it turns out that there's an irreducible
>> grey area. Not that your brain will ever notice it without the help of
>> special instruments.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
>
> I'm not talking about "now"..
>
> I'm talking about the past line and the future line, not the "now" line.
>
> The line that indicates you have reached the future...or the past. The
> starting point of the future...the line that indicates
> you have reached the future and any point beyond that line is the
> future.


The past existed, the future will exist. The only time that is not real
is the present. Counterintuitively, it is the only point of time that we
can photograph.




--
Cut off one head, two more shall take its place.
HAIL HYDRA!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZcG5UOY224

Sylvia Else

unread,
Mar 1, 2015, 7:46:37 AM3/1/15
to
That would be the "now" line.

Sylvia.

The Starmaker

unread,
Mar 1, 2015, 5:50:44 PM3/1/15
to
HVAC wrote:
>
> On 3/1/2015 3:12 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> >> So, as is so often the case, it turns out that there's an irreducible
> >> grey area. Not that your brain will ever notice it without the help of
> >> special instruments.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> >
> >
> > I'm not talking about "now"..
> >
> > I'm talking about the past line and the future line, not the "now" line.
> >
> > The line that indicates you have reached the future...or the past. The
> > starting point of the future...the line that indicates
> > you have reached the future and any point beyond that line is the
> > future.
>
> The past existed, the future will exist. The only time that is not real
> is the present. Counterintuitively, it is the only point of time that we
> can photograph.


"Counterintuitively"?? You're just contradiciting your own self...you're a walking contradicition.


slap yourself...wake up.

tell your wife to slap you..

The Starmaker

unread,
Mar 1, 2015, 8:27:59 PM3/1/15
to
So, right now is the past?

Sylvia Else

unread,
Mar 1, 2015, 11:38:22 PM3/1/15
to
You have no adequate definition of "right now".

Sylvia.

benj

unread,
Mar 1, 2015, 11:46:01 PM3/1/15
to
Oh gosh, asshat, nobody has ever seen this cartoon before!

Only it's missing a few other dimensions!





--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/

benj

unread,
Mar 1, 2015, 11:50:09 PM3/1/15
to
On 03/01/2015 07:23 AM, HVAC wrote:
> On 3/1/2015 3:12 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>>> So, as is so often the case, it turns out that there's an irreducible
>>> grey area. Not that your brain will ever notice it without the help of
>>> special instruments.
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
>>
>>
>> I'm not talking about "now"..
>>
>> I'm talking about the past line and the future line, not the "now" line.
>>
>> The line that indicates you have reached the future...or the past. The
>> starting point of the future...the line that indicates
>> you have reached the future and any point beyond that line is the
>> future.
>
>
> The past existed, the future will exist. The only time that is not real
> is the present. Counterintuitively, it is the only point of time that we
> can photograph.

Well, with current (unclassified) technology...

The Starmaker

unread,
Mar 2, 2015, 2:08:59 AM3/2/15
to
Okay, so "now"...or 'the "now" line' is the past??

Sylvia Else

unread,
Mar 2, 2015, 2:38:59 AM3/2/15
to
On 2/03/2015 6:09 PM, The Starmaker wrote:

>
> Okay, so "now"...or 'the "now" line' is the past??
>

This has to be a windup.

Sylvia.

HVAC

unread,
Mar 2, 2015, 6:46:17 AM3/2/15
to
On 3/1/2015 5:50 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>
>>> The line that indicates you have reached the future...or the past. The
>>> starting point of the future...the line that indicates
>>> you have reached the future and any point beyond that line is the
>>> future.
>>
>> The past existed, the future will exist. The only time that is not real
>> is the present. Counterintuitively, it is the only point of time that we
>> can photograph.
>
>
> "Counterintuitively"?? You're just contradiciting your own self...you're a walking contradicition.


Lol retard.

HVAC

unread,
Mar 2, 2015, 10:39:28 AM3/2/15
to
On 3/1/2015 11:50 PM, benj wrote:
>
>>
>> The past existed, the future will exist. The only time that is not real
>> is the present. Counterintuitively, it is the only point of time that we
>> can photograph.
>
> Well, with current (unclassified) technology...


Oh my fucking god....Are you serious?
You actually believe we have a method of taking pictures of the future?



BJ and the kook checklist:

Aliens: Check

Ghosts: Check

God: Check

9/11 conspiracy: Check

Bigfoot: Check

Future pictures: Check

Men didn't go to the moon: Check


Congratulation BJ...You've got all the bases covered.

Feel free to add to my list.

benj

unread,
Mar 2, 2015, 11:31:24 AM3/2/15
to
On 03/02/2015 10:39 AM, HVAC wrote:
> On 3/1/2015 11:50 PM, benj wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The past existed, the future will exist. The only time that is not real
>>> is the present. Counterintuitively, it is the only point of time that we
>>> can photograph.
>>
>> Well, with current (unclassified) technology...
>
>
> Oh my fucking god....Are you serious?
> You actually believe we have a method of taking pictures of the future?

Harlow puts on his strategic writer cap and begins work:

> BJ and the kook checklist:
>
> Aliens: Check

Number of stars in galaxies times galaxies in universe creates
overwhelming probabilty that other life exists. Only you gummint
debunkers with your agenda try to cover this plain fact.

> Ghosts: Check

Have categorically denied ever seeing a ghost of any type.

> God: Check

I define God as the universe. Universe clearly exists.

> 9/11 conspiracy: Check

Lessee. Your story is that building 7 collapsed because it felt so bad
at the loss of it's two long-time pals that it just fell down in a heap.
Yeah, great science there hardblow.

> Bigfoot: Check

Bigfoot DID save my van! But I never actually saw one (don't ask)

> Future pictures: Check

There are books on this Harlow. But then it's your job to deny anything
of interest to tyranny like say NSA spying on everyone or remote
viewing. Right sure. We always believe anything people say, especially
gummint spokesmen. Hell, we even believe G=Emc^2

> Men didn't go to the moon: Check

Lie. Lies are what you do best, spookerator. I NEVER said men did not go
to the moon!

> Congratulation BJ...You've got all the bases covered.
>
> Feel free to add to my list.

How about the Harlow check list:

Killing gooks:

Check

Killing ragheads:

check

Eugenics:

Check

governments never lie:

check

New science is best answered with accusations of insanity:

check

AntiGay:

Check

Sex with young underage girls (especially if foreigners):

Check

Belief in totalitarian slave state run by "overlords":

check

Death to "useless eaters":

check

Shooting traffic signs:

check

Fishing:

check

Need I go on blowhard?

Feel free to add to my list.




--

The Starmaker

unread,
Mar 2, 2015, 1:39:44 PM3/2/15
to
I always thought the past was...in the past.

I always thought the future was...In the future.


This is very simple.

In the past.


Meaning...enclosed, within, surrounded by a line.


Now, the past is


...in the past.


In, is the operative word.

The Starmaker

unread,
Mar 2, 2015, 1:47:24 PM3/2/15
to
HVAC wrote:
>
> On 3/1/2015 5:50 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> >>> The line that indicates you have reached the future...or the past. The
> >>> starting point of the future...the line that indicates
> >>> you have reached the future and any point beyond that line is the
> >>> future.
> >>
> >> The past existed, the future will exist. The only time that is not real
> >> is the present. Counterintuitively, it is the only point of time that we
> >> can photograph.
> >
> >
> > "Counterintuitively"?? You're just contradiciting your own self...you're a walking contradicition.
>
> Lol retard.


you shoudn't use big werds...

you just make your mother look like a retard.


How many times have you mumbled to your mother..."you fukin retard."????


How about your sister?


Your girlfriend, oh..she a fuckin retard.

Your wife! She's gotta be a retard to marry you!


I guess from where you're standing...everybody looks like a retard.



Counterintuitively...you're not the retard.

HVAC

unread,
Mar 2, 2015, 1:53:17 PM3/2/15
to
On 3/2/2015 11:31 AM, benj wrote:
>
> Harlow puts on his strategic writer cap and begins work:
>
>> BJ and the kook checklist:
>>
>> Aliens: Check
>
> Number of stars in galaxies times galaxies in universe creates
> overwhelming probabilty that other life exists. Only you gummint
> debunkers with your agenda try to cover this plain fact.


Anyone who believes aliens are visiting the earth are kooks.
YOU believe this BJ. You are a kook.



>> Ghosts: Check
>
> Have categorically denied ever seeing a ghost of any type.


You believe in an afterlife = You are a kook.



>> God: Check
>
> I define God as the universe. Universe clearly exists.


Yet you believe in a prime mover, a god = Kook


>> 9/11 conspiracy: Check
>
> Lessee. Your story is that building 7 collapsed because it felt so bad
> at the loss of it's two long-time pals that it just fell down in a heap.
> Yeah, great science there hardblow.


You're a kook. No different than Rocky or Blast.



>> Bigfoot: Check
>
> Bigfoot DID save my van! But I never actually saw one (don't ask)


Yet you BELIEVE = Kook



>> Future pictures: Check
>
> There are books on this Harlow. But then it's your job to deny anything
> of interest to tyranny like say NSA spying on everyone or remote
> viewing. Right sure. We always believe anything people say, especially
> gummint spokesmen. Hell, we even believe G=Emc^2


= Kook


> How about the Harlow check list:


Request denied

The Starmaker

unread,
Mar 2, 2015, 1:56:01 PM3/2/15
to
HVAC wrote:
>
> On 3/1/2015 11:50 PM, benj wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> The past existed, the future will exist. The only time that is not real
> >> is the present. Counterintuitively, it is the only point of time that we
> >> can photograph.
> >
> > Well, with current (unclassified) technology...
>
> Oh my fucking god....Are you serious?
> You actually believe we have a method of taking pictures of the future?


If I want to take a picture of tomorrow, I can call somebody in China
and tell them to take a picture.


Then he emails me the picture of tomorrow
and I tell everyone
today is Monday, but here is a picute of tomorrow Tuesday.

Now, is anybody taking bets on what horse is going to win? I know
tommorow race results.

The Starmaker

unread,
Mar 2, 2015, 1:58:10 PM3/2/15
to
Now, if you look at your photo album...all the pictures were taken...in the past.

benj

unread,
Mar 2, 2015, 3:08:51 PM3/2/15
to
On 03/02/2015 01:53 PM, HVAC wrote:
> On 3/2/2015 11:31 AM, benj wrote:
>>
>> Harlow puts on his strategic writer cap and begins work:
>>
>>> BJ and the kook checklist:
>>>
>>> Aliens: Check
>>
>> Number of stars in galaxies times galaxies in universe creates
>> overwhelming probabilty that other life exists. Only you gummint
>> debunkers with your agenda try to cover this plain fact.
>
>
> Anyone who believes aliens are visiting the earth are kooks.
> YOU believe this BJ. You are a kook.
>

Given overwhelming probabilities no intelligent person could deny the
probability of alien life. Yet you deny it. That makes you ignorant or a
liar, Harlow.

>>> Ghosts: Check
>>
>> Have categorically denied ever seeing a ghost of any type.
>
>
> You believe in an afterlife = You are a kook.

Ghost are the afterlife and I've never seen one. You are just making up
what other people believe again, aren't you? Do you ever tell the truth?

>
>>> God: Check
>>
>> I define God as the universe. Universe clearly exists.
>
>
> Yet you believe in a prime mover, a god = Kook

You do not believe that the universe exists? You do not believe that all
action in the universe is created by some "prime moving principle"? You
probably even believe in the big bang! That makes you a kook and
ignorant. Did I ever tell you about my BBB theory? It's a given.
>
>>> 9/11 conspiracy: Check
>>
>> Lessee. Your story is that building 7 collapsed because it felt so bad
>> at the loss of it's two long-time pals that it just fell down in a heap.
>> Yeah, great science there hardblow.
>
>
> You're a kook. No different than Rocky or Blast.

No denial. Just name calling. That means I"m right-on about 9/11. That
is a given! Get the picture?

>
>
>>> Bigfoot: Check
>>
>> Bigfoot DID save my van! But I never actually saw one (don't ask)
>
>
> Yet you BELIEVE = Kook

Just making stuff up. You think anyone pays attention to your fantasies,
about "kooks" or little girls? They don't.
>
>
>>> Future pictures: Check
>>
>> There are books on this Harlow. But then it's your job to deny anything
>> of interest to tyranny like say NSA spying on everyone or remote
>> viewing. Right sure. We always believe anything people say, especially
>> gummint spokesmen. Hell, we even believe G=Emc^2
>
>
> = Kook

Harlow prefers ignorance to reading. Then people feel sorry for him and
shovel his drive. It's the same trick Glazier uses.

>
>> How about the Harlow check list:
>
>
> Request denied
>

Interesting. My fantasies about Harlow not up for discussion. He won't
even deny "fishing" or sign shooting. How much of a paranoid kook is that?

HVAC

unread,
Mar 2, 2015, 3:30:20 PM3/2/15
to
On 3/2/2015 3:08 PM, benj wrote:
>
>>>> God: Check
>>>
>>> I define God as the universe. Universe clearly exists.
>>
>>
>> Yet you believe in a prime mover, a god = Kook
>
> You do not believe that the universe exists? You do not believe that all
> action in the universe is created by some "prime moving principle"? You
> probably even believe in the big bang! That makes you a kook and
> ignorant. Did I ever tell you about my BBB theory? It's a given.


Again you are being disingenuous. To say that god is the universe is
bullshit, plain and simple. Just by way of making you look stupid,
(again) I will point out that you capitalized God, yet not universe.

You mad now?

benj

unread,
Mar 2, 2015, 4:44:14 PM3/2/15
to
On 03/02/2015 03:30 PM, HVAC wrote:
> On 3/2/2015 3:08 PM, benj wrote:
>>
>>>>> God: Check
>>>>
>>>> I define God as the universe. Universe clearly exists.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yet you believe in a prime mover, a god = Kook
>>
>> You do not believe that the universe exists? You do not believe that all
>> action in the universe is created by some "prime moving principle"? You
>> probably even believe in the big bang! That makes you a kook and
>> ignorant. Did I ever tell you about my BBB theory? It's a given.
>
>
> Again you are being disingenuous. To say that god is the universe is
> bullshit, plain and simple. Just by way of making you look stupid,
> (again) I will point out that you capitalized God, yet not universe.
>
> You mad now?

Ah! A capitalization flame! Now THAT is some "science" that a
professional "strategic Writer" can handle! Learn anything else is school?

Yeah, Harlow we all know that atheism was the state religion of the USSR
and the USSR was the "envy of the world".

Sylvia Else

unread,
Mar 2, 2015, 8:13:03 PM3/2/15
to
It's absurd to seen to take the word "in" literally in such a context.

Like I said. A wind-up.

Sylvia.

Greg Goss

unread,
Mar 2, 2015, 10:13:05 PM3/2/15
to
benj <nob...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> 9/11 conspiracy: Check
>
>Lessee. Your story is that building 7 collapsed because it felt so bad
>at the loss of it's two long-time pals that it just fell down in a heap.
>Yeah, great science there hardblow.

Huge diesel tanks for Guiliani's silly crisis management offices to
fuel the fire. Felt so bad because its long-time pals sliced the front
off the shell-based building. Because of the fires and smoke from the
"pals", all the pictures are of the side of the building that wasn't
sliced off, and don't show Guiliani's burning diesel tanks.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

Greg Goss

unread,
Mar 2, 2015, 10:15:25 PM3/2/15
to
benj <nob...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Yeah, Harlow we all know that atheism was the state religion of the USSR
>and the USSR was the "envy of the world".

The USSR replaced the worship of a god with the worship of two
founding personalities raised to godhood. Kinda like the godhood of
the Roman caesars.

HVAC

unread,
Mar 3, 2015, 6:31:32 AM3/3/15
to
On 3/2/2015 4:44 PM, benj wrote:
>
>>>>>> God: Check
>>>>>
>>>>> I define God as the universe. Universe clearly exists.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yet you believe in a prime mover, a god = Kook
>>>
>>> You do not believe that the universe exists? You do not believe that all
>>> action in the universe is created by some "prime moving principle"? You
>>> probably even believe in the big bang! That makes you a kook and
>>> ignorant. Did I ever tell you about my BBB theory? It's a given.
>>
>>
>> Again you are being disingenuous. To say that god is the universe is
>> bullshit, plain and simple. Just by way of making you look stupid,
>> (again) I will point out that you capitalized God, yet not universe.
>>
>> You mad now?
>
> Ah! A capitalization flame! Now THAT is some "science" that a
> professional "strategic Writer" can handle! Learn anything else is school?


So I was correct. You *are* mad.

As far as it being a 'lame', of course I disagree. It is just my keen
powers of observation and attention to detail which sunk you THIS time
BJ. Your use of the capital in God vs. NOT capitalizing universe shows
your underlying belief in a god.


> Yeah, Harlow we all know that atheism was the state religion of the USSR
> and the USSR was the "envy of the world".


I am not an atheist.

benj

unread,
Mar 3, 2015, 12:38:08 PM3/3/15
to
On 03/03/2015 06:31 AM, HVAC wrote:
> On 3/2/2015 4:44 PM, benj wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> God: Check
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I define God as the universe. Universe clearly exists.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet you believe in a prime mover, a god = Kook
>>>>
>>>> You do not believe that the universe exists? You do not believe that
>>>> all
>>>> action in the universe is created by some "prime moving principle"? You
>>>> probably even believe in the big bang! That makes you a kook and
>>>> ignorant. Did I ever tell you about my BBB theory? It's a given.
>>>
>>>
>>> Again you are being disingenuous. To say that god is the universe is
>>> bullshit, plain and simple. Just by way of making you look stupid,
>>> (again) I will point out that you capitalized God, yet not universe.
>>>
>>> You mad now?
>>
>> Ah! A capitalization flame! Now THAT is some "science" that a
>> professional "strategic Writer" can handle! Learn anything else is
>> school?
>
>
> So I was correct. You *are* mad.

You think capitalization and grammar are science and they accuse ME of
being mad? You have lost again (except in your own mind, natch) You and
Treeb both are so wonderful in your own minds. Too bad nobody else has
noticed or agrees.

> As far as it being a 'lame', of course I disagree. It is just my keen
> powers of observation and attention to detail which sunk you THIS time
> BJ. Your use of the capital in God vs. NOT capitalizing universe shows
> your underlying belief in a god.

Wow! That's a stretch! This is your "capitalization shows
fundamentalism" theory? I hear it's quite well received. That is a
given! Get the picture?




>> Yeah, Harlow we all know that atheism was the state religion of the USSR
>> and the USSR was the "envy of the world".
>
>
> I am not an atheist.

STOP THE PRESSES! After all that accusation from Harlow on people who
he "asserts" believe in God, theny it turns out he is one of those
fundies all along? Well that's the kind of honesty one can expect from
gummint lackeys.

HVAC

unread,
Mar 3, 2015, 2:30:28 PM3/3/15
to
On 3/3/2015 12:38 PM, benj wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> I define God as the universe. Universe clearly exists.
>
>> As far as it being a 'lame', of course I disagree. It is just my keen
>> powers of observation and attention to detail which sunk you THIS time
>> BJ. Your use of the capital in God vs. NOT capitalizing universe shows
>> your underlying belief in a god.
>
> Wow! That's a stretch! This is your "capitalization shows
> fundamentalism" theory? I hear it's quite well received. That is a
> given! Get the picture?


Your underlying beliefs are well laid out in your subconscious.
Fortunately, *I* am both trained and prepared to deal with your
subconscious mind. So when I tell you something, accept it as if it were
from god's lips to your ear.


>> I am not an atheist.
>
> STOP THE PRESSES! After all that accusation from Harlow on people who
> he "asserts" believe in God, theny it turns out he is one of those
> fundies all along? Well that's the kind of honesty one can expect from
> gummint lackeys.


I didn't say I believed in your gods. I just do not identify as an
atheist. Does that fact make you mad?

benj

unread,
Mar 3, 2015, 5:47:59 PM3/3/15
to
On 03/03/2015 02:30 PM, HVAC wrote:
> On 3/3/2015 12:38 PM, benj wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> I define God as the universe. Universe clearly exists.
> >
>>> As far as it being a 'lame', of course I disagree. It is just my keen
>>> powers of observation and attention to detail which sunk you THIS time
>>> BJ. Your use of the capital in God vs. NOT capitalizing universe shows
>>> your underlying belief in a god.
>>
>> Wow! That's a stretch! This is your "capitalization shows
>> fundamentalism" theory? I hear it's quite well received. That is a
>> given! Get the picture?
>
>
> Your underlying beliefs are well laid out in your subconscious.
> Fortunately, *I* am both trained and prepared to deal with your
> subconscious mind. So when I tell you something, accept it as if it were
> from god's lips to your ear.

Come on Harlow. We all know that without your little black doctor bag of
drugs that you used to carry in 'Nam and your water board, you can't
learn shit from anybody.



>>> I am not an atheist.
>>
>> STOP THE PRESSES! After all that accusation from Harlow on people who
>> he "asserts" believe in God, theny it turns out he is one of those
>> fundies all along? Well that's the kind of honesty one can expect from
>> gummint lackeys.
>
>
> I didn't say I believed in your gods. I just do not identify as an
> atheist. Does that fact make you mad?

"gods"? When did I say I was pagan? Is the lower case g intended as a
rejection of the beliefs of others no matter how soundly grounded in
science? I think so. I think I like your "subconscious punctuation
theory"! I"ll have to tell Treeb about it so he can steal it and say he
invented it!

Clearly you are a god worshipper (lower g because it's not my "God") You
just try to cover it up with a bunch of bluster and ridicule of your
fellow believers! You are a piece of work, Hardblow!

Why do you wonder if everyone is mad? You don't have enough credibility
here to make anyone mad! We pity you hardblow. We look at you like a
poor wet cold puppy without enough sense to come in out of the rain. We
love you Hardblow!

Dismissed.

HVAC

unread,
Mar 3, 2015, 8:12:09 PM3/3/15
to
On 3/3/2015 5:47 PM, benj wrote:
> We pity you hardblow. We look at you like a
> poor wet cold puppy without enough sense to come in out of the rain. We
> love you Hardblow!


"We"?

benj

unread,
Mar 3, 2015, 9:20:43 PM3/3/15
to
On 03/03/2015 08:12 PM, HVAC wrote:
> On 3/3/2015 5:47 PM, benj wrote:
>> We pity you hardblow. We look at you like a
>> poor wet cold puppy without enough sense to come in out of the rain. We
>> love you Hardblow!
>
>
> "We"?

Since you have no fans, Hardblow, "we" pretty much includes anyone
except you who is reading this.

HVAC

unread,
Mar 4, 2015, 5:10:40 AM3/4/15
to
On 3/3/2015 9:20 PM, benj wrote:
>
>>> We pity you hardblow. We look at you like a
>>> poor wet cold puppy without enough sense to come in out of the rain. We
>>> love you Hardblow!
>>
>>
>> "We"?
>
> Since you have no fans, Hardblow, "we" pretty much includes anyone
> except you who is reading this.


You mean...I'm not accepted by the group? (Lil tear)

William December Starr

unread,
Mar 16, 2015, 12:12:17 PM3/16/15
to
In article <mcv0b3$sqn$1...@dont-email.me>,
HVAC <Mr....@gmail.com> said:

> The past existed, the future will exist. The only time that is not
> real is the present. Counterintuitively, it is the only point of
> time that we can photograph.

We can? As opposed to photographing the state of things a short
time ago, when the relevant photons began their journey to the camera?

-- wds

William December Starr

unread,
Mar 16, 2015, 12:14:17 PM3/16/15
to
In article <clkna8...@mid.individual.net>,
Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> said:

> The USSR replaced the worship of a god with the worship of two
> founding personalities raised to godhood.

Well they tried anyway.

-- wds

William December Starr

unread,
Mar 16, 2015, 12:15:58 PM3/16/15
to
In article <cliice...@mid.individual.net>,
It's from Starmaker, so yes.

-- wds

Greg Goss

unread,
Mar 16, 2015, 10:19:31 PM3/16/15
to
That's why there's an "observable universe" and a non-observable
portion. Eventually there hasn't been enough time since time began
for the light to get to us.

The Starmaker

unread,
Mar 24, 2015, 3:53:52 AM3/24/15
to
If the past and the future is just an illusion, that means there is no
fourth dimension.



(thats if you can name all four dimensions) (i doubt most people in the
scientific community can name all four dimensions....and
if you have to look it up...)

Quadibloc

unread,
Mar 24, 2015, 11:36:32 AM3/24/15
to
On Saturday, February 28, 2015 at 1:23:01 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> I'm having differculty
> spotting where the past ends and
> future begins.

The past is what you know.

The future is what you still can change.

The spacelike is that to which you can do neither.

John Savard

Quadibloc

unread,
Mar 24, 2015, 11:43:31 AM3/24/15
to
On Saturday, February 28, 2015 at 10:33:39 AM UTC-7, Don Kuenz wrote:

> Ouspensky argues that *now*, as viewed from his fifth dimension, is also
> orthogonal to the conventional time line.

Ouspensky!

"A Russian author who wrote a booklet about the Tarot, P. D. Ouspensky, made an attempt to break this tradition and to consider the Arcana in pairs.

....

"But this theory - which requires the Arcana to be studied in pairs - does not find any support among the foremost of the authoritative writers on the Tarot. Moreover, the actual interpretation of the Arcana as given by Ouspensky, is more poetical than scientific or logical. A peculiar property of the East-European mind manifests itself in Ouspensky, when, in his interpretation he very often allows himself to yield to the 'feeling of fear'. Some of the Arcana are 'terrifying' for him. I cannot agree with such an attitude, and as far as I know neither does any other author.

....

"Another point on which I disagree with Ouspensky is his unjust treatment of Dr. Gérard Encausse ('Papus'), who contributed incomparably more to the wisdom of the Tarot than Ouspensky."
- Mouni Sadhu, _The Tarot_.

So much for Ouspensky!

John Savard

Quadibloc

unread,
Mar 24, 2015, 11:44:59 AM3/24/15
to
On Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 1:12:47 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
>
> I'm not talking about "now"..
>
> I'm talking about the past line and the future line, not the "now" line.
>
> The line that indicates you have reached the future...or the past. The
> starting point of the future...the line that indicates
> you have reached the future and any point beyond that line is the
> future.

But your description of that line is the definition of "now". So you won't find
that line by looking somewhere else instead of where it is.

John Savard

Quadibloc

unread,
Mar 24, 2015, 11:46:57 AM3/24/15
to
On Monday, March 2, 2015 at 8:39:28 AM UTC-7, HVAC wrote:
> On 3/1/2015 11:50 PM, benj wrote:

> >> The past existed, the future will exist. The only time that is not real
> >> is the present. Counterintuitively, it is the only point of time that we
> >> can photograph.

> > Well, with current (unclassified) technology...

> Oh my fucking god....Are you serious?
> You actually believe we have a method of taking pictures of the future?

Maybe pictures of the present by Kirilian remote viewing?

John Savard

Quadibloc

unread,
Mar 24, 2015, 11:49:40 AM3/24/15
to
On Monday, March 2, 2015 at 11:53:17 AM UTC-7, HVAC wrote:
> On 3/2/2015 11:31 AM, benj wrote:

> > Number of stars in galaxies times galaxies in universe creates
> > overwhelming probabilty that other life exists. Only you gummint
> > debunkers with your agenda try to cover this plain fact.

> Anyone who believes aliens are visiting the earth are kooks.
> YOU believe this BJ. You are a kook.

Although it is likely that he is a kook, it is not because he believes that
aliens are visiting the Earth. Believing that they got _caught_ visiting the
Earth, and the government knows about it and is covering it up... that's kooky.
But that there probably _are_ aliens out there, and that for all we know they
_might_ be very sneakily observing us, in ways far beyond our ability to
detect...

Neither Carl Sagan nor Arthur C. Clarke were kooks.

John Savard

Quadibloc

unread,
Mar 24, 2015, 11:55:43 AM3/24/15
to
On Monday, March 2, 2015 at 11:53:17 AM UTC-7, HVAC wrote:

> You believe in an afterlife = You are a kook.

> Yet you believe in a prime mover, a god = Kook

Now *that* is a broader definition of "kook" than is generally accepted.

Most people don't think that J. R. R. Tolkien and C. S. Lewis were kooks, for
example.

For that matter, even the Gyalpo Rinpoche is not thought of as a kook by most
people; instead, he is widely respected, even among non-Buddhists. (Of course,
outsiders are more familiar with him by the title given him by the Mongols -
the Dalai Lama.)

John Savard

Quadibloc

unread,
Mar 24, 2015, 11:58:33 AM3/24/15
to
On Monday, March 2, 2015 at 9:31:24 AM UTC-7, benj wrote:
> On 03/02/2015 10:39 AM, HVAC wrote:

> > Future pictures: Check

> There are books on this Harlow. But then it's your job to deny anything
> of interest to tyranny like say NSA spying on everyone or remote
> viewing. Right sure. We always believe anything people say, especially
> gummint spokesmen. Hell, we even believe G=Emc^2

I hate to break this to you, but people have written books without necessarily
being factually correct about what they put in them.

There are books out there which are comparable to Ed Conrad's USENET posts for
factual veracity. This is an unavoidable consequence of things being written in
books that disagree with each other.

John Savard

Don Kuenz

unread,
Mar 29, 2015, 10:09:31 PM3/29/15
to

Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Saturday, February 28, 2015 at 10:33:39 AM UTC-7, Don Kuenz wrote:
>
>> Maurice Nicoll argues that *now* is spiritual. It is orthogonal to the
>> conventional time line favored by those who limit cogitation to the
>> confines of their own senses.
>>
>> Ouspensky argues that *now*, as viewed from his fifth dimension, is also
>> orthogonal to the conventional time line. His fifth dimension contains
>> the one actualization chosen from all of the infinite candidates
>> available in his sixth dimension.
>
> Ouspensky!
>
> "A Russian author who wrote a booklet about the Tarot, P. D.
> Ouspensky, made an attempt to break this tradition and to consider
> the Arcana in pairs.
>
> ....
>
> "But this theory - which requires the Arcana to be studied in pairs -
> does not find any support among the foremost of the authoritative
> writers on the Tarot. Moreover, the actual interpretation of the
> Arcana as given by Ouspensky, is more poetical than scientific or
> logical. A peculiar property of the East-European mind manifests
> itself in Ouspensky, when, in his interpretation he very often allows
> himself to yield to the 'feeling of fear'. Some of the Arcana are
> 'terrifying' for him. I cannot agree with such an attitude, and as
> far as I know neither does any other author.
>
> ....
>
> "Another point on which I disagree with Ouspensky is his unjust
> treatment of Dr. G?rard Encausse ('Papus'), who contributed
> incomparably more to the wisdom of the Tarot than Ouspensky."
> - Mouni Sadhu, _The Tarot_.
>
> So much for Ouspensky!

I tend to agree. OTOH Priestly uses Ouspensky "cafeteria style." He
picks and chooses the parts of Ouspensky that he finds useful and
relatively credible, and then discards the remainder. [1]

Priestly finds Ouspensky's notion of three dimensions of time useful.
You can also think of them as the fourth, fifth, and sixth dimensions
appended to the three dimensions of space.

The fourth dimension is conventional spacetime. The fifth dimension is
the one path through spacetime that we took in history. The sixth
dimension contains that particular path in additional to all other
possible paths.

Priestly uses precognition and intervention to illustrate a sixth
dimension. [2] The precognition takes the form of a mother's dream where
her baby drowns. Later, in real life, the mother experiences deja vu and
saves her baby in the nick of time. Priestly argues that the tragic
chain of events from the dream coexist with the historic chain of events
(OTL) in Ouspensky's sixth dimension.

Notes.

1. _Man and Time_ by J B Priestley.

2. "Precognition and Intervention," by Dr Louisa E Rhine, American
Journal of Parapsychology.

--
,-. GIVE MORE expect less LOVE MORE
\_/ argue less LISTEN MORE talk less
{|||)< Don Kuenz LAUGH MORE complain less DREAM MORE
/ \ doubt less HOPE MORE fear less
`-' BREATHE MORE whine less

The Starmaker

unread,
Apr 3, 2015, 3:29:56 AM4/3/15
to
Okay, i'll give it a try...
but something isn't working...
and I haven't figured it out yet...so here goes..

taking a scene from the movie The Time Machine:

DR. HILLYER
Certainly!
(he demonstrates
pompously)
When I move in a straight line,
forward or backward, that's one
dimension. - When I move to the
left or right, two dimensions. -
When I move up and down, three
dimensions.
(a bright idea lights up
his face. At last he can
get ahold of the box, but
Filby interferes before
Dr. Hillyer can get his
fingers on it and he has
to be satisfied with merely
pointing)
For instance, this box has three
dimensions: length, breadth, and
height.

BRIDEWELL (amazed)
Well, then, what's the fourth
dimension?

DR. HILLYER
Well, that's...that's mere theory!
No one can really say what the
fourth dimension is or even that
it exists.




So, here is where I get...mixed-up,


the fourth dimension would have to be then...

Time, if you will...past and future..meaning, that way, and this way.



So that way is the Future, and this way is the Past, right? So,


"When I move in a straight line,
forward or backward, that's one
dimension. - When I move to the
left or right, two dimensions. -
When I move up and down, three
dimensions."


Then, this way and that way is the fourth deminsion, Time...but, but, the Past is fixed..you cannot go.."this way".

So, how can time be a fourth dimension?



My conclusion that it's...the math department's idea...it's bad math, Pseudomathematics...pseudo math.


The Starmaker

hanson

unread,
Apr 3, 2015, 5:10:05 AM4/3/15
to
Sternmacher aka "The Starmaker" <star...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote about moving in the 3 dimension of space
"to/fro -- up/down -- left/right" and then wondered:
> Then, this way and that way is the fourth deminsion, Time...but,
> but, the Past is fixed..you cannot go.."this way".
> So, how can time be a fourth dimension?
>
hanson wrote:
Sternmacher, you fell victim to a classical middle school
issue that is seldom suffciently explained in the intro
lectures of physics.
>
Imagine your tf-ud-lr to be the 3 LENGTH DIMENSIONS
of a cinder block. EOS.
There is NO other Length dimension to the block.
>
Now, you can look at the block for 20 minutes and then
DECLARE that this TIME span is the 4th Dimenson
of the envent or picture that you are engaged with.
>
Since all this happens together, **physics parlance** refers
to it as a 4 dimensional, or 3D+1, or 3DT "continuum".
>
Google: -- [ Definition "Dimension" ] -- and you will
get some more info along these lines of rational and
real-world explanations.
>
It's just fucking shop-talk, Stermacher... and that's where
it gets bizarre, since it is there where the schmucks
enter a world of imagination with its "tesseracts" and
other objects from those higher dimensional worlds,
(which are pure brain farts), that nobody has ever seen.
>
They claim for instance that you can regard your 3D cinder
block as not being real but simply being a shadow of a
higher 4-Linear Dimensional world, like the 2D-shadow
of the cinder bloc that is produced in/by our 3D world.
>
Their shop-talk argument is that in their mind these higher
dinemsioal worlds are REAL, and it is NOT their fault that
the rest of us e peasants cannot see THEIR TRUTH, cuz
>
it is beyond our horizion and we will never understand that
space curves or expands, that lengths do contract, times get
slower or faster which they prove by the painted examples
of Jew Pablo Picasso's depiction of the human body, or in
its numercial counterpart by Jew Einstein's SR & GR.
>
Back in the real world, their flights of fancy has produced
**nothing** more but Einstein Dingleberries who worship
Albert's Sphincter, or other schmucks who fork over big
time money for Pablo's Schmier, and neither ones do know
why, except for them getting the feeling to gain brain&fame
by associatrion.
>
The "why" for this bizarre behavior has been elegantly and
honestly explained by the the eminent Jewish Scholar
Harold Wallace Rosenthal
( ||R:|| ) who has elucidated it perfectly in his epic:
<http://tinyurl.com/The-HW-Rosenthal-interview-XT>
wherein he said:
>
||R:|| Our Jewish beliefs are entirely different from yours.
||R:|| Our Talmud/Nedarim/Kol Nidre = "all vows" allows
||R:|| us Jews to lie, subvert and cheat, you, the Goyim.
||R:|| It's no secret that we do not respect you gentiles
||R:|| -- all of you are our enemies.
>
>
>
> The Starmaker wrote:
in message news:551E4F...@ix.netcom.com...>>

Chrysi Cat

unread,
Apr 3, 2015, 9:37:54 AM4/3/15
to
Oh, joy, Chronicles-of-the-Elders-of-Zion-style antisemitism. You'd
think we'd have moved beyond that after we nearly exterminated an entire
race of people in barely-still-living history, but no, apparently
bigotry is the gift that keeps on giving…
--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!

hanson

unread,
Apr 3, 2015, 12:00:41 PM4/3/15
to
in news:PIwTw.149111$Dd3....@fx19.iad...
"Chrysi Cat" <chry...@gmail.com> aka "CC" which
is short for "Cranial Cripple" is a fucked up kike or a
Zio-Evangelical Sphincter Licker who cranked itself
over what hanson CITED & QUOTED, stuff that was
written by Jews. "CC" is so fucking fanatical AND
stupid, that s/he refers to Jews as a RACE.... ahahaha...
>
Listen up, you Dreidel. Read HWR's link again. HWR,
the Jew, describes Dreidels like yourself perfectly in
the below mentioned link. ... ROTFLMAO!... ahahaha...

benj

unread,
Apr 3, 2015, 3:37:28 PM4/3/15
to
"Starmaker" like all Lib media idiots, actual science is WAY outside
your fence. Don't even TRY to go there!

The truth, "starmaker" is that time is not A dimension it is ALL other
dimensions!

Consider a 3D object like a "chair" as viewed by 2D "Flatlanders". To
them a "chair" is only known by a series of circles and lines that
proceed in an orderly and well-defined sequence as the "chair" passes
through flatland. So "time" is the mechanism by which beings perceive
all higher dimensions! So-called "miracles" are simply higher
dimension objects passing through our space.

Got it? Didn't think so.

The Starmaker

unread,
Apr 5, 2015, 6:07:35 PM4/5/15
to
i still don't get.


it should be simple..

the past is fixed
it has no direction
no direction
no dimension.

Sam Wormley

unread,
Apr 5, 2015, 6:21:17 PM4/5/15
to
On 4/5/15 6:08 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> i still don't get.

My image didn't help?
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/World_line.svg/600px-World_line.svg.png


The Starmaker

unread,
Apr 5, 2015, 7:31:09 PM4/5/15
to
okay, you see that comic book on the newstand?
http://www.dialbforblog.com/archives/531/nakedcity2a.jpg

I want you to go back and get it for me.



Start here:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/World_line.svg/600px-World_line.svg.png

hanson

unread,
Apr 6, 2015, 4:54:12 AM4/6/15
to
 
"The Starmaker" <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

hanson wrote:

Sternmacher, it does NOT matter whether you

got it or not. Most 7 & 8 graders do get it.

>

Yet, you are also somehow right. It is simple

like in your case where/since it shows the

point when your mental development stopped.

>

Don't fret over it, Sternmancher. Be happy.

Consider yourself to be better off then is Glazier

during whose meiosis far fewer than 23

chromosomes transferred properly.

Result, 9 months later: "Cretin Herbert Glazier"

>

He stole, some 32 years later, "G=EMC^2" off

a Farmer’s Barn, but Glazier did not realize that

it was short for, and explicitly shows that

"Glazier Exhibits Micro-Cephalic Cretinism"

>

In your case, Sternmacher, some slight bio-

chemical, chiral aberration merely caused you

to become obsessed with you becoming a

charter member of www.WHYCRAP.org. …

Cool! … And Thx for MROTFLMAO...

 

 

Quadibloc

unread,
Apr 6, 2015, 9:27:44 AM4/6/15
to
On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 1:29:56 AM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:

> So, how can time be a fourth dimension?

As the Time Traveller asked in the book:

"Can an _instantaneous_ cube exist?"

... so duration seems to be as necessary for any real object as height, width,
and depth.

John Savard

James Silverton

unread,
Apr 6, 2015, 10:32:36 AM4/6/15
to
It might be interesting to contemplate a transformation that would
rotate a time coordinate into a distance.

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not." in Reply To.

William December Starr

unread,
Apr 6, 2015, 11:12:45 AM4/6/15
to
In article <mfu5cb$j6m$1...@dont-email.me>,
James Silverton <not.jim....@verizon.net> said:

> It might be interesting to contemplate a transformation that would
> rotate a time coordinate into a distance.

I believe that's what happened in Larry Niven's "One Face," or at
least the inverse (distance rotated into time). Also I never quite
understood what was done in he opening of Stross' IRON SUNRISE but
I think it was something like that.

-- wds

David Johnston

unread,
Apr 6, 2015, 1:11:44 PM4/6/15
to
But then so does mass, and mass is not a dimension.

The Starmaker

unread,
Apr 6, 2015, 2:51:47 PM4/6/15
to
That image is...RIDICULOUS!


Some how, some time ago..
somebody drew a ...cone,
and now you have cone madness.

That image looked like
it was created by a conehead.

You have a cone on top
a cone on the bottom
why not put a cone
left and on the right?

It's just cone.


Accorddng to the image:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/World_line.svg/600px-World_line.svg.png


where the Observer is standing...the Past is under him and the Future is above him.


Shouldn't it be the Past behind me and the Future in front of me? Not above and below me.



That image is...RIDICULOUS! In more ways than one...


It's like you guys never seen a cone before...


Let me put it this way...
if you put one cone this way, and the other cone that way...the ice cream will fall off.


How many things can you do to a cone?




Besides, the cone representing the Past is 'upside-down'.



The Past should include all of the Present, and recede to a point.


Any 6th grader can tell you that....(i skipped 7th and 8th grade)



The Starmaker





The inmates here are running the asylum.

Future
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
VVVVVVVVVVVVV
VVVVVVVVVVV
VVVVVVVVV
VVVVVVV
VVVVV
VVV
V
____observer_________________________________Present
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
VVVVVVVVVVVVV
VVVVVVVVVVV
VVVVVVVVV
VVVVVVV
VVVVV
VVV
V

Past, from the beggining.

The Starmaker

unread,
Apr 6, 2015, 5:55:48 PM4/6/15
to
The Starmaker wrote:

> Future
> VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV - the end of the universe
> VVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
> VVVVVVVVVVVVV
> VVVVVVVVVVV
> VVVVVVVVV
> VVVVVVV
> VVVVV
> VVV
> V ---Future-a brand new day
> ____observer_________________________________Present, Now, Today
> VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV - all that has happend
> VVVVVVVVVVVVVVV - a day after all that has happen...less a day
> VVVVVVVVVVVVV
> VVVVVVVVVVV
> VVVVVVVVV
> VVVVVVV
> VVVVV
> VVV
> V -- the big bang
>
> Past, from the beggining.



You guys in the math and scientific community seem to have everything wrong, ...why is that?



Do you eat ice cream cones upside down?



This is Science, one guy gets it wrong, ...and the rest of yous repeat it.


lemmings....is that what you all are?


lem·ming
'lemiNG/
noun
plural noun: lemmings


a person who unthinkingly joins a mass movement, especially a headlong rush to destruction.

benj

unread,
Apr 6, 2015, 9:45:14 PM4/6/15
to
On 04/06/2015 05:55 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
>
>> Future
>> VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV - the end of the universe
>> VVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
>> VVVVVVVVVVVVV
>> VVVVVVVVVVV
>> VVVVVVVVV
>> VVVVVVV
>> VVVVV
>> VVV
>> V ---Future-a brand new day
>> ____observer_________________________________Present, Now, Today
>> VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV - all that has happend
>> VVVVVVVVVVVVVVV - a day after all that has happen...less a day
>> VVVVVVVVVVVVV
>> VVVVVVVVVVV
>> VVVVVVVVV
>> VVVVVVV
>> VVVVV
>> VVV
>> V -- the big bang
>>
>> Past, from the beggining.

What is this "starmaker"? You so desperate you have to answer your own
posts?

> You guys in the math and scientific community seem to have everything wrong, ...why is that?

Like you'd know of something is "wrong". What you mean, of course is the
usual media lib "my feelings tell me this is wrong!

>
> Do you eat ice cream cones upside down?

Ah yes, Ice Cream. Anyone can understand an ice cream cone And THOSE
EMOTIONS from Child hood! This is a perfect medial lib story! Don't
think just FEEL and do as I say!

Starmaker you idiot do I have to post that "antisemitic" essay on just
how dumb you are again?

> This is Science, one guy gets it wrong, ...and the rest of yous repeat it.

You are a moron. Admit it. You've flunked every math or science course
you ever took! And yet it still fascinates you because you KNOW (and
FEEL IN YOUR EMOTIONS) that there is truth there!


> lemmings....is that what you all are?
>
>
> lem·ming
> 'lemiNG/
> noun
> plural noun: lemmings
>
>
> a person who unthinkingly joins a mass movement, especially a headlong rush to destruction.

Nay. Lemmings are what Wormley is recruiting. He wants the world to
follow him and his bosses over the cliff back to the middle ages.
Remember how great those were? Remember how SAFE without guns? Remember
how HEALTHY without all that fossil fuel exhaust? Don't you want to join
the parade? You KNOW you do!
0 new messages