7n7is said:
I once traded emails with Alexander Abian one of the first usenet super-kooks. He was quite cordial and truly believed in his theories. I was surprised he actually returned unsolicited mail considering how much he probably got.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Abian
I was watching a video tape of CNBC today (Sunday 21, 2008) that I recorded Friday and found one part where Jack Bogle and Ken Heebner were discussing the stock market and economy. They seemed optimistic. I looked on the internet to see if I could find a transcript and found the video of this talk here:
Bogle and Heebner Talk US Business
http://toddsullivan.duedee.com/2008/9/18/Bogle-and-Heebner-Talk-US-Business/39817/
On the same website theres a video about the 1929 stock market crash. While watching it I thought of some similarities with 1929 and the stock market today. Even though you can't technically be on margin more than 50% now, somehow a lot of investment banks and hedge funds were leveraged as much as 30 to 1 during the recent credit crisis from what I've heard on CNBC. A lot of it was derivatives.
1929..........On Film...More on "Golconda"
http://tinyurl.com/3oq52l
Bogle and Heebner Talk US Business
http://toddsullivan.duedee.com/2008/9/18/Bogle-and-Heebner-Talk-US-Business/39817/
On the same website theres a video about the 1929 stock market crash. While watching it I thought of some similarities with 1929 and the stock market today. Even though you can't technically be on margin more than 50% now, somehow a lot of investment banks and hedge funds were leveraged as much as 30 to 1 during the recent credit crisis from what I've heard on CNBC. A lot of it was derivatives.
1929..........On Film...More on "Golconda"
http://tinyurl.com/3oq52l
too funny, the thread got threadjacked
just look at the first page of the thread and the last page
just look at the first page of the thread and the last page
Yes Uncle,
I started this thread for THREADJACKING only😀 😀
And everyone is jacking the thread
😎
Its one of the biggest thread now in offtopic category
I started this thread for THREADJACKING only😀 😀
And everyone is jacking the thread
😎 Its one of the biggest thread now in offtopic category
oh, i get it. kind of a catharsis thing. if we spend our time jacking this thread, we will get it out of our system and not do it so much elsewhere.......
Read what it says about an acute sense of novelty and philosophical concerns in this article.
http://ephysics.fileave.com/audio/AmpPsych.pdf
http://ephysics.fileave.com/audio/AmpPsych.pdf
More on my signature:
Lawrence Livermore labs, this time. ---No coincidence there.
Gold, hit by lasers...emits huge gobs of 'antimatter'.
Imagine that.
So..I guess the idea of the human consumption of nanopowdered (to create charged inter-dimensional superconducting 'cooper paired' versions of the platinum elements) platinum metals group, ie the philosopher's stone ...(done in ancient times via slow baking an oxidizing mixture)..does not seem so far fetched now, does it?
Remember. The Philosopher's Stone is consumed to be enable the user to gain access to inter-dimensional doorways. That. Is. It's. Primary. Purpose.
But it is NO GAME. Play with this stuff when your mind is not totally clear, and you will mess yourself up quite well.
I conservatively estimate that no more than 1 in 4000 to 1 in 10,000 of you is ready.
It is a great time to be alive. As stated earlier, a big change in human life is coming.
Are you ready? Here it comes.
Read:
http://www.physorg.com/news146160767.html
Lawrence Livermore labs, this time. ---No coincidence there.
Gold, hit by lasers...emits huge gobs of 'antimatter'.
Imagine that.
So..I guess the idea of the human consumption of nanopowdered (to create charged inter-dimensional superconducting 'cooper paired' versions of the platinum elements) platinum metals group, ie the philosopher's stone ...(done in ancient times via slow baking an oxidizing mixture)..does not seem so far fetched now, does it?
Remember. The Philosopher's Stone is consumed to be enable the user to gain access to inter-dimensional doorways. That. Is. It's. Primary. Purpose.
But it is NO GAME. Play with this stuff when your mind is not totally clear, and you will mess yourself up quite well.
I conservatively estimate that no more than 1 in 4000 to 1 in 10,000 of you is ready.
It is a great time to be alive. As stated earlier, a big change in human life is coming.
Are you ready? Here it comes.
Read:
http://www.physorg.com/news146160767.html
scott wurcer said:
Quit Kidding yourself Scott. No-one alive today in the field of architecture and physics can replicate, in any way shape or form, the arches of Notre Dame. They are theoretically and practically impossible. Period!
Now, just like the Great pyramid, go make some. Go build some. Make it happen. Good luck.
KBK said:
I was refering to Schwaller de Lubicz, upon careful re-examination his "perfect" golden mean instances just do not stand up.
The arches of Notre Dame >theoretically< impossible, I'm not sure what that means. Have you been to Temple Expiatori de la Sagrada Família? Gaudi et al are making a good stab at it. As James Burke would say, "religion at work"
How can anyone take seriously a person who makes a statement like this? What arches are you referring to? You really should explain yourself when saying such outlandish things.
John
This stuff is funny. I was talking to a guy that does high end kitchens. They slice granite up like butter these days with a 50' diamond impregnated wire saw. Huge blocks no problem, we have the technology. Building a pyramid would be trivial, pointless, and expensive.
As for aliens they must have had a few blind spots since ruins of several failed pyramids are still there today.
As for aliens they must have had a few blind spots since ruins of several failed pyramids are still there today.
Uh-oh. I must be ultra-serious here. 🙂
I'm afraid I must refute this. "Square" and "Circle" are language terms. The only reason you cannot "square" a "circle" is that they are defined as different, not because they fundamentally are different. Like I have said (and probably others too), we are all connected and part of a bigger picture, but we have forgotten this and have thus come under the illusion that we are separate. Language is a clarifier only: it breaks things apart and separates them so that there is a difference. It does not say what something is, because something only is what it is. The only reason we see the whole picture is because of example. The words represent things we have seen or experienced.
In order to refute any argument you must provide an adequate counterexample. Logic dictates that since the theory you are trying to refute actually revises many common views including the workings of the universe, you must think entirely in the terms of the theory; you must provide a counterexample in which case the theory contradicts itself without your logic hinging on views that the theory states are false. Otherwise it is possible that your counterexample will break down in the case that your supporting criteria are false.
My counterexample to your counterexample would be: according to my information, the great pyramid is still standing while the others are not because the others are poorly constructed imitations.
Hi KBK: I found this link on monoatomic gold a while back and thought it was interesting. Unfortunately so many "prominent" figures have different views that trying to verify this with anything other than personal experience seems a slim chance.
http://educate-yourself.org/lte/AshayanaDeaneonwhitegold17sep06.shtml
- keantoken
I'm afraid I must refute this. "Square" and "Circle" are language terms. The only reason you cannot "square" a "circle" is that they are defined as different, not because they fundamentally are different. Like I have said (and probably others too), we are all connected and part of a bigger picture, but we have forgotten this and have thus come under the illusion that we are separate. Language is a clarifier only: it breaks things apart and separates them so that there is a difference. It does not say what something is, because something only is what it is. The only reason we see the whole picture is because of example. The words represent things we have seen or experienced.
In order to refute any argument you must provide an adequate counterexample. Logic dictates that since the theory you are trying to refute actually revises many common views including the workings of the universe, you must think entirely in the terms of the theory; you must provide a counterexample in which case the theory contradicts itself without your logic hinging on views that the theory states are false. Otherwise it is possible that your counterexample will break down in the case that your supporting criteria are false.
My counterexample to your counterexample would be: according to my information, the great pyramid is still standing while the others are not because the others are poorly constructed imitations.
Hi KBK: I found this link on monoatomic gold a while back and thought it was interesting. Unfortunately so many "prominent" figures have different views that trying to verify this with anything other than personal experience seems a slim chance.
http://educate-yourself.org/lte/AshayanaDeaneonwhitegold17sep06.shtml
- keantoken
