about time I had a bit of FUN
temptrader said:
If you were Mr Newton living in the 17th century, how would you like it if someone who only read bits of your work propose that light is the same speed within all inertial frames, or that one day it is possible to split the atom and harness that energy, and offer no proof or background to go about this and instead talk a load of total BS about "willing" and "positive thinking"? Notwithstanding that the person is right, of what f*cking practical use would it be in the 17th century when all the groundwork has not even been laid yet?
I wouldn't be so caught up in my own self congratulatory wealth of knowledge as to suggest what the person was talking about was illrelevent, impossible and "total BS".
Then again, I like to come from a point of view of investigating an idea before I discard it because it doesn't fit with what I think is so.
hmmmm. . . . . Are you by any chance high on drugs, self esteem, or just messed up in the head? I mean, come on, there are limits to people's patience but I didn't realised I let this BS of yours slip by. There is no limits to imagination, of that I would agree. But there are limits to our logical understanding and experimental capabilities, and that defines our bounds. To reach and understand the latter requires a lot of hard work, it also involves the supreme use of one's intelligence and patience. It also involves admitting you are wrong when you are wrong - something that few are able to do. Imagination costs nothing, to discover/prove something in a scientific framework does. It needs to be refereed, discussed openly and empirically tested. And all this done with total transparency and impartiality.
I wouldn't be so caught up in my own self congratulatory wealth of knowledge as to suggest what the person was talking about was illrelevent, impossible and "total BS".
My point, if you have not bothered to realise, is that there are loads of nutcases, cranks, idiots on this earth claiming this and that, with no proof or experimental evidence, or it's just that what they claim is not technological feasible to prove at this moment in time. So what does one do with such claims? We treat them as either wrong (because they contradict other established theories/notions) or cast them as anomalies (something not possible to explain yet; surprise, surprise even the scientists don't have all the answers!!) or they belong to the unfalsifiable (in which case there is no point in discussing them, because if we did it would get nowhere). I am all for a revolutionary set of ideas and ways of looking at things, but those revolutions have always been within a testable/logical/scientific framework.
PKF_so_sad_its_not_funny_anymore said:
And lets not forget how you stated it is not worth your time discussing things without the other person being able to understand some theorem or other and noting that only 20 people on earth can. Implying(without specifically stating I note) that you are one of those 20. No that doesn't smack of a self congratulatory egotistical superiority complex a little does it?
So you claim to be good at math. Once again, that doesn't prove you know squat about the latest research and evidence into the nature of matter and the malleability of matter by thought. If you ever do care to educate yourself in that area then feel free to come back and debate the issues I have raised. Until then you are simply proving your own ignorance in this area and whilst it is quite amusing to me it is also a little sad now.
No actually, I'm not one of the 20 that understand the proof
I have the proof and a few books on it. For me to get to
partially understanding the proof would probably take 10 years. I am ignorant of most things because that's what specialisation does to you, if you ever trodden that path that is.
Did you say: "latest research and evidence into the nature of matter and the malleability of matter by thought"? LOL!!! I'm sure FW is in on this crap as well.
I'll be honest here: my reason on this thread has always been the same - seeing how people believe what they want to believe and how they defend their beliefs. And it's sad, because it's to do with the ego. The ego in the sense that people want to believe in strange/weird crap because they have not got much in life, are not particularly intelligent, generally lazy and any suggestions/concepts that might seem plausible and which fits/strengthens their beliefs they latch onto as a form of social identity. That's why idiots like David Icke will always have followers, because his followers are messed up people who basically have no real intelligence, and think with their feelings instead of logic and common sense. And there's also a need to feel special and have an "us and them" game with the outside world.