FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » New Theories
Hey georgie...
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 230 of 232 [3478 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, ..., 228, 229, 230, 231, 232 Next
Author Message
fwd: from Erik
science forum addict


Joined: 13 Oct 2005
Posts: 97

PostPosted: Tue Jul 04, 2006 11:52 pm    Post subject: Re: EIGENVECTOR OF THE GODS Reply with quote

On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 23:49:55 +0100, Phineas T Puddleduck
<PhineasPuddleduck@googlemail.com_NOSPAM> wrote:


Quote:
[Puddleduck]
Our mouse who art in heaven,
Mickey is thy name,
Thy cartoon comes, thy laughs be done
On video as on tv
And forgive Donald for his squeaky voice,
As we forgive his nephews for being naughty,
For thine is the cash cow,
The marketing rights and merchandise
For ever and ever, Amen

[Hammond]
Leave it to the royal entertainment freak to
hazard some clumbsy religous blasphemy when
people start talking over his head.

========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
========================================
Back to top
Phineas T Puddleduck
science forum Guru


Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 759

PostPosted: Tue Jul 04, 2006 11:57 pm    Post subject: Re: EIGENVECTOR OF THE GODS Reply with quote

In article <laula2djtcc3ho7k075lj80mlfctjbnlgj@4ax.com>, George Hammond
<nowhere1@notspam.org> wrote:

Quote:
On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 23:49:55 +0100, Phineas T Puddleduck
PhineasPuddleduck@googlemail.com_NOSPAM> wrote:


[Puddleduck]
Our mouse who art in heaven,
Mickey is thy name,
Thy cartoon comes, thy laughs be done
On video as on tv
And forgive Donald for his squeaky voice,
As we forgive his nephews for being naughty,
For thine is the cash cow,
The marketing rights and merchandise
For ever and ever, Amen

[Hammond]
Leave it to the royal entertainment freak to
hazard some clumbsy religous blasphemy when
people start talking over his head.



And there was lill ol' me thinking you'd killfiled me! I'm honoured to
be so mentioned by the king of kook...

"Royal entertainment freak" - you really should stop huffing the oven
cleaner.

You couldn't talk over the head of an ant. Your SPOG, like you is
kookiness personified - a Kornukookia.

Stop pissing off alt.history.ancient-egypt - its blatantly obvious you
have no clue about Egypt, ancient or modern. Much like your physics
knowledge.
Quote:




--
Relf's Law? -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Official emperor of sci.physics, head mumbler of the "Cult of INSANE SCIENCE".
Please pay no attention to my butt poking forward, it is expanding.
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
PWNER of Vert and TomGee since 2006
"I don't know that much math." - tomgee; 2 April 2006
"I don't claim to know what I'm talking about" - tomgee; 10 May 2006
PWNED

"Puddlefuck tou are on my kill file. Good bye" - Vert admits he cannot
calculate \gamma for a photon and admits defeat - 2nd July 2006
PWNED
Back to top
Phineas T Puddleduck
science forum Guru


Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 759

PostPosted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 1:44 am    Post subject: Re: EIGENVECTOR OF THE GODS Reply with quote

In article <l4CdneniXpRFhTbZnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@comcast.com>, TMG
<TMG@Nowhere.org> wrote:

Quote:
based on an "animal headed god" and
containing at least half a dozen
well known "animal headed gods"...
(including wabbits, pigs, and ducks...)

DUCK SEASON! - WABBIT SEASON@! - DUCK SEASON! - WABBIT SEASON!!

Shhhhhhhhh, I'm huntin' wabbit.............

--
Relf's Law? -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Official emperor of sci.physics, head mumbler of the "Cult of INSANE SCIENCE".
Please pay no attention to my butt poking forward, it is expanding.
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
PWNER of Vert and TomGee since 2006
"I don't know that much math." - tomgee; 2 April 2006
"I don't claim to know what I'm talking about" - tomgee; 10 May 2006
PWNED
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Puddlefuck tou are on my kill file. Good bye" - Vert admits he cannot
calculate \gamma for a photon and admits defeat - 2nd July 2006
PWNED
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Back to top
TMG
science forum Guru


Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 390

PostPosted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 1:46 am    Post subject: Re: EIGENVECTOR OF THE GODS Reply with quote

George Hammond wrote:
Quote:
On 4 Jul 2006 14:23:43 -0700, riplin@Azonic.co.nz wrote:

[Hammond]
SAY THAT AGAIN ...!!!!!!!!!


OK, you're insane.


Quote:
DID I HEAR YOU CORRECTLY...? DID YOU SAY:

"MICKEY MOUSE
IS NOT A GOD" ...???

Yes - and that you're insane.

Quote:
WHADDAU A SCHMUCK!!?

Because I don't think Mickey is a GOD?

"Y",.. yes, because you're insane
"E",.. everyone says you're insane!
"S",.. some think you're REALLY insane.

M
O
U
S
Eeeeeee....


<snip>

Quote:
[Hammond]
Really... whaddau call DISNEYLAND and the
"Mousekateers" and the billions in
"offerings" they've taken in.....

You crazy putz. Is any character involved in commerce a GOD in your world?

Quote:
You don't think the cult of
"Mickey Mouse" is a "pagan religious cult"

No - no sane person would, except as parody.

Quote:
based on an "animal headed god" and
containing at least half a dozen
well known "animal headed gods"...
(including wabbits, pigs, and ducks...)

DUCK SEASON! - WABBIT SEASON@! - DUCK SEASON! - WABBIT SEASON!!

A religious argument?

Quote:
of which MICKEY MOUSE is the "chief god"...
....you must be deaf dumb and blind!

Noooo - that's Tommy!

Quote:
MICKEY MOUSE is to the Disney cult
of "animal-headed gods" what OSIRIS
is to the Egyptian pantheon you
mentally challenged fool!

Of course, of course. No, wait, that's Mr. Ed.
Back to top
T Wake
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 1978

PostPosted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 4:55 pm    Post subject: Re: EIGENVECTOR OF THE GODS Reply with quote

"George Hammond" <nowhere1@notspam.org> wrote in message
news:laula2djtcc3ho7k075lj80mlfctjbnlgj@4ax.com...
Quote:
On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 23:49:55 +0100, Phineas T Puddleduck
PhineasPuddleduck@googlemail.com_NOSPAM> wrote:


[Puddleduck]
Our mouse who art in heaven,
Mickey is thy name,
Thy cartoon comes, thy laughs be done
On video as on tv
And forgive Donald for his squeaky voice,
As we forgive his nephews for being naughty,
For thine is the cash cow,
The marketing rights and merchandise
For ever and ever, Amen

[Hammond]
Leave it to the royal entertainment freak to
hazard some clumbsy religous blasphemy when
people start talking over his head.

Well, this is interesting. First off Hammond implies Mickey Mouse is God,
yet when PTP makes the required changes to the prayer _that_ is blasphemy.

Fantastic example of Hammond-esque double standards.
Back to top
Immortalist
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 19 Jul 2005
Posts: 114

PostPosted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 6:08 pm    Post subject: Re: EIGENVECTOR OF THE GODS Reply with quote

George Hammond wrote:
Quote:
On 4 Jul 2006 14:23:43 -0700, riplin@Azonic.co.nz wrote:


There is no deification of
cartoon characters, no one asks forgivness
from Bugs Bunny, or gives
them offerings. You are deranged.


[Hammond]
Really... whaddau call DISNEYLAND and the
"Mousekateers" and the billions in
"offerings" they've taken in.....

You don't think the cult of
"Mickey Mouse" is a "pagan religious cult"
based on an "animal headed god" and
containing at least half a dozen
well known "animal headed gods"...
(including wabbits, pigs, and ducks...)
of which MICKEY MOUSE is the "chief god"...
....you must be deaf dumb and blind!
MICKEY MOUSE is to the Disney cult
of "animal-headed gods" what OSIRI
is to the Egyptian pantheon you
mentally challenged fool!

A totem is any natural or supernatural object, being or animal which
has personal symbolic meaning to an individual and to whose phenomena
and energy one feels closely associated with during one's life.

A simplified dramatic example of this belief in practice is in the Walt
Disney Pictures animated film, Brother Bear. In the film, a boy from a
proto-Inuit tribe receives a totem of the Bear, which represents Love.
Although he initially rejects it, by the end of the story he follows
its ideals more literally than anyone ever dreamed possible.

For some tribes, totems can represent larger groups than the individual
person, and clans and tribes can have a totem. In kinship and descent,
if the apical ancestor of a clan is nonhuman, it is called a totem.
Normally this belief is accompanied by a totem myth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totemism

[E] - GODS/SPIRITS AS PARTNERS: IMAGINARY COMPANIONS/FRIENDS

Although we are not aware of it, the inference systems that manage our
interaction with other people are full-time workers. We constantly use
intuitions delivered by these systems. Indeed, we also use them when we
are not actually interacting with people. All inference systems can run
in a decoupled mode, that is, disengaged from actual external inputs
from the environment or external output in behavior. A crucial human
capacity is to imagine counterfactuals-What would happen if I had less
meat than I actually have? What would happen if I chose this path
rather than that one?-and this applies to interaction too. Before we
make a particular move in any social interaction, we automatically
consider several scenarios. This capacity allows us, for instance, to
choose this rather than that course of action because we can imagine
other people's reactions to what we would do.

In fact, we can run such decoupled inferences not only about persons
who are not around but also about purely imaginary characters. It is
striking that this capacity seems to appear very early in children's
development. From an early age (between three and ten years) many
children engage in durable and complex relationships with "imaginary
companions." Psychologist Marjorie Taylor, who has studied this
phenomenon extensively, estimates that about half of the children she
has worked with had some such companions. These imagined persons or
person-like animals, sometimes but not always derived from stories or
cartoons or other cultural folklore, follow the child around, play with
her, converse with her, etc. One girl describes her companions Nutsy
and Nutsy as a couple of birds, one male and one female, who accompany
her as she goes for a walk, goes to school or gets in the car.

Taylor's studies show that having long-term relationships with
nonexistent characters is not a sign of confusion between fantasy and
reality. Developmental psychologists now use precise tests to determine
how children mark off the real from the fantastic. Those with
companions pass such tests from the age of three and are often better
than other children at differentiating between the real and the
imagined. They know perfectly well that their friends the invisible
lizard, the awkward monkey, or the amazing magician, are not there in
the same sense as real friends and other people. Also, children with
companions are often better than others at tasks that require a subtle
use of intuitive psychology. They seem to have a firmer grasp of the
difference between their own and other people's perspectives on a given
situation and are better at construing other people's mental states and
emotions.

All this led Taylor to the intriguing hypothesis that imaginary
companions may well provide a very useful form of training for the
social mind. The relationship with such a companion is a stable one,
which means that the child computes the companion's reactions by taking
into account not just the imagined friend's personality but also past
events in their relationship. Taylor's studies show that wishful
thinking plays only a minor role in such fantasies. What the companions
do or say is constrained by the persons they are, and this has to
remain consistent and plausible even in this fantastic domain. A
four-year-old has sophisticated skills at representing not only an
agent where there is none but also an agent with a specific history and
personality, with particular tastes and capacities different from one's
own. Companions are often used to provide an alternative viewpoint on a
situation. They may find odd information unsurprising, or frightening
situations manageable.

So it is extremely easy, from an early age, to maintain social
relations in a decoupled mode. From an early age, children have the
social capacities required to maintain coherent representations of
interaction with persons even when these persons are not actually
around and do not in fact exist.

It would be tempting at this point to drift into a not-too-rigorous
parallel between such imagined companions and the supernatural agents
with which people seem to establish long and important relations, such
as guardian angels, spirits and ancestors. (Indeed, the very term
imaginary companion used by modern-day psychologists seems to echo the
phrase invisible friend [aoratos philos] used to describe the saints in
early Christianity.) But the differences are as great as the
similarities. First, for many people spirits and ancestors are
emphatically not fantasies, there is a sense that they are actually
around. Second, believers do not just construct their own decoupled
interaction; they share with others information about who the spirits
are and what they do. Third and most important, the tenor of people's
relations with spirits and gods is special because of one crucial
characteristic of these supernatural agents, as we will see presently.

Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought
Pascal Boyer
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0465006965/
Back to top
fwd: from Erik
science forum addict


Joined: 13 Oct 2005
Posts: 97

PostPosted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 6:45 pm    Post subject: Re: EIGENVECTOR OF THE GODS Reply with quote

On 5 Jul 2006 11:08:39 -0700, "Immortalist"
<reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:

Quote:

George Hammond wrote:
On 4 Jul 2006 14:23:43 -0700, riplin@Azonic.co.nz wrote:


There is no deification of
cartoon characters, no one asks forgivness
from Bugs Bunny, or gives
them offerings. You are deranged.


[Hammond]
Really... whaddau call DISNEYLAND and the
"Mousekateers" and the billions in
"offerings" they've taken in.....

You don't think the cult of
"Mickey Mouse" is a "pagan religious cult"
based on an "animal headed god" and
containing at least half a dozen
well known "animal headed gods"...
(including wabbits, pigs, and ducks...)
of which MICKEY MOUSE is the "chief god"...
....you must be deaf dumb and blind!
MICKEY MOUSE is to the Disney cult
of "animal-headed gods" what OSIRI
is to the Egyptian pantheon you
mentally challenged fool!

A totem is any natural or supernatural object, being or animal which
has personal symbolic meaning to an individual and to whose phenomena
and energy one feels closely associated with during one's life.



[Hammond]
Hey a*****le.... we don't need 250 lines of AMATEUR SPUTE
to tell us what the characters on a totem pole are.

ANY FUCKIN AVERAGE PERSON knows they are the different

PERSONALITY TYPES

ruling the local village or region that the Totem Pole
is erected in arranged in descending order of POLITICAL AUTHORITY...
(i.e., chiefS, assistant chiefS, tribal councilors, sheriffS,
judges, doctors, etc. etc.) thus a "totem pole" was a "political
roadmap" to visitors or strangers letting them know WHO
(what personality type) ruled the local village...
thus giving them a WARNING about where their
own particular personality might fit into the
pecking order and thus advising them of proper
behavior.

PLASE DON'T POST IDIOTIC QUOTES FROM
"ACADEMIC AUTHORITIES" CONCERNING

COMMON KNOWLEGE

for chrissakes... the academics are
the last people in the world to know what
COMMON KNOWLEGE IS !!!!

========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
========================================
Back to top
Phineas T Puddleduck
science forum Guru


Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 759

PostPosted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 6:46 pm    Post subject: Re: EIGENVECTOR OF THE GODS Reply with quote

In article <sd1oa2di5p57n2d50od5sqkql90tu91s01@4ax.com>, George Hammond
<nowhere1@notspam.org> wrote:

Quote:
PLASE DON'T POST IDIOTIC QUOTES

Follow your own advice, kook!

--
Relf's Law? -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Official emperor of sci.physics, head mumbler of the "Cult of INSANE SCIENCE".
Please pay no attention to my butt poking forward, it is expanding.
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
PWNER of Vert and TomGee since 2006
"I don't know that much math." - 2 April 2006
"I don't claim to know what I'm talking about" - 10 May 2006
"There is no such thing as relativistic momentum" - July 2006
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Puddlefuck tou are on my kill file. Good bye" - Vert admits he cannot
calculate \gamma for a photon and admits defeat - 2nd July 2006
PWNED
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Back to top
T Wake
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 1978

PostPosted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 6:52 pm    Post subject: Re: EIGENVECTOR OF THE GODS Reply with quote

"George Hammond" <nowhere1@notspam.org> wrote in message
news:sd1oa2di5p57n2d50od5sqkql90tu91s01@4ax.com...
Quote:
[Hammond]
Hey a*****le.... we don't need 250 lines of AMATEUR SPUTE
to tell us what the characters on a totem pole are.

Yeah, you have that corner of the market sewn up, don't you?
Back to top
Immortalist
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 19 Jul 2005
Posts: 114

PostPosted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 8:29 pm    Post subject: Re: EIGENVECTOR OF THE GODS Reply with quote

T Wake wrote:
Quote:
"George Hammond" <nowhere1@notspam.org> wrote in message
news:sd1oa2di5p57n2d50od5sqkql90tu91s01@4ax.com...
[Hammond]
Hey a*****le.... we don't need 250 lines of AMATEUR SPUTE
to tell us what the characters on a totem pole are.

Yeah, you have that corner of the market sewn up, don't you?

I think he wants to prove something about a match between his brain and
god and he is saying cursin' words which make him feel bad if says to
him

http://youtube.com/results?search=passion+hill

1. Certain religious ideas, specifically, the personal nature of
"spirit" persist in cultures worldwide.

2. There are certain concepts that our minds easily entertain. Much
like language acquisition, the mind automatically receives certain
concepts more readily than others.

3. Religion ...is the normal product of normal human minds, functioning
in the normal way, and that the normal way is the normal way because of
the evolutionary design of the human mind.

4. An agent is just some entity that is moved or guided by its own
awareness and goals; for humans, other human beings are among the most
important agents in our environments, but there are also the various
non-human animals.

5. Given that the presence of other agents (and what they are doing)
matters to our prospects for survival and reproduction, partially
explains why we are over-sensitive to their presence.

6. Detecting a predator that is not there is not a terribly bad thing;
failing to detect a predator that is there is much more serious. And
something very similar goes for prey: Detecting lunch that isn't there
is much less serious than failing to detect lunch when it is there.

7. Our capacities for agency detection should be tuned to generate more
false positives than false negatives. For evolutionary reasons, we
should expect to 'detect' some agents which are not there.

8. The perception of (accidental) patterns of cues in our environment
may be at the root of the detection of supernatural agents, of gods.

http://personal.bgsu.edu/~roberth/log2002.html

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/2002/aug02/Sellick.htm

Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought
Pascal Boyer
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0465006965/
Back to top
fwd: from Erik
science forum addict


Joined: 13 Oct 2005
Posts: 97

PostPosted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 1:46 am    Post subject: Re: EIGENVECTOR OF THE GODS Reply with quote

On 5 Jul 2006 13:29:39 -0700, "Immortalist"
<reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:

Quote:

T Wake wrote:
"George Hammond" <nowhere1@notspam.org> wrote in message
news:sd1oa2di5p57n2d50od5sqkql90tu91s01@4ax.com...
[Hammond]
Hey a*****le.... we don't need 250 lines of AMATEUR SPUTE
to tell us what the characters on a totem pole are.


8. The perception of (accidental) patterns of cues in our environment
may be at the root of the detection of supernatural agents, of gods.


[Hammond]
sure... and your mother is proof that anal sex
can cause accidental pregnancy.

========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
========================================
Back to top
Phineas T Puddleduck
science forum Guru


Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 759

PostPosted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 1:50 am    Post subject: Re: EIGENVECTOR OF THE GODS Reply with quote

On 6/7/06 02:46, in article amqoa25iq758ivjggvuc0slksrhgd0bd92@4ax.com,
"George Hammond" <nowhere1@notspam.org> wrote:

Quote:

[Hammond]
sure... and your mother is proof that anal sex
can cause accidental pregnancy.

Kooky is sore because after being spnaked by physics people, he now gets
spnaked by the a.h.a-e lot. At this rate, he'll be forced to soil himself
outside shopping malls for attention soon....

--

Relf's Law? -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orange jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson
Why parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Official emperor of sci.physics, head mumbler of the "Cult of INSANE
SCIENCE". Pay no attention to my butt poking forward, it is expanding.
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
TomGee proves his physics education is beyond measure...
"I don't know that much math." - 2 April 2006
"I don't claim to know what I'm talking about" - 10 May 2006
"There is no such thing as relativistic momentum" - July 2006
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Puddlefuck tou are on my kill file. Good bye" - Vert admits he cannot
calculate \gamma for a photon and admits defeat - 2nd July 2006
PWNED
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Back to top
TMG
science forum Guru


Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 390

PostPosted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 2:17 am    Post subject: Re: EIGENVECTOR OF THE GODS Reply with quote

George Hammond wrote:

Quote:
[Hammond]
sure... and your mother is proof that anal sex
can cause accidental pregnancy.

And, here we have it.

George Hammond's entire point.

Nicely summarized.

Clearly posted.

Now, if you feel the need to explore the entire [Hammond] pond, feel
free. But he doesn't get any funnier or articulate.
Back to top
Gary Eickmeier
science forum Guru


Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 402

PostPosted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 3:08 am    Post subject: Re: EIGENVECTOR OF THE GODS Reply with quote

Immortalist wrote:

Quote:
[E] - GODS/SPIRITS AS PARTNERS: IMAGINARY COMPANIONS/FRIENDS

Although we are not aware of it, the inference systems that manage our
interaction with other people are full-time workers. We constantly use
intuitions delivered by these systems. Indeed, we also use them when we
are not actually interacting with people. All inference systems can run
in a decoupled mode, that is, disengaged from actual external inputs
from the environment or external output in behavior. A crucial human
capacity is to imagine counterfactuals-What would happen if I had less
meat than I actually have? What would happen if I chose this path
rather than that one?-and this applies to interaction too. Before we
make a particular move in any social interaction, we automatically
consider several scenarios. This capacity allows us, for instance, to
choose this rather than that course of action because we can imagine
other people's reactions to what we would do.

In fact, we can run such decoupled inferences not only about persons
who are not around but also about purely imaginary characters. It is
striking that this capacity seems to appear very early in children's
development. From an early age (between three and ten years) many
children engage in durable and complex relationships with "imaginary
companions." Psychologist Marjorie Taylor, who has studied this
phenomenon extensively, estimates that about half of the children she
has worked with had some such companions. These imagined persons or
person-like animals, sometimes but not always derived from stories or
cartoons or other cultural folklore, follow the child around, play with
her, converse with her, etc. One girl describes her companions Nutsy
and Nutsy as a couple of birds, one male and one female, who accompany
her as she goes for a walk, goes to school or gets in the car.

Taylor's studies show that having long-term relationships with
nonexistent characters is not a sign of confusion between fantasy and
reality. Developmental psychologists now use precise tests to determine
how children mark off the real from the fantastic. Those with
companions pass such tests from the age of three and are often better
than other children at differentiating between the real and the
imagined. They know perfectly well that their friends the invisible
lizard, the awkward monkey, or the amazing magician, are not there in
the same sense as real friends and other people. Also, children with
companions are often better than others at tasks that require a subtle
use of intuitive psychology. They seem to have a firmer grasp of the
difference between their own and other people's perspectives on a given
situation and are better at construing other people's mental states and
emotions.

All this led Taylor to the intriguing hypothesis that imaginary
companions may well provide a very useful form of training for the
social mind. The relationship with such a companion is a stable one,
which means that the child computes the companion's reactions by taking
into account not just the imagined friend's personality but also past
events in their relationship. Taylor's studies show that wishful
thinking plays only a minor role in such fantasies. What the companions
do or say is constrained by the persons they are, and this has to
remain consistent and plausible even in this fantastic domain. A
four-year-old has sophisticated skills at representing not only an
agent where there is none but also an agent with a specific history and
personality, with particular tastes and capacities different from one's
own. Companions are often used to provide an alternative viewpoint on a
situation. They may find odd information unsurprising, or frightening
situations manageable.

So it is extremely easy, from an early age, to maintain social
relations in a decoupled mode. From an early age, children have the
social capacities required to maintain coherent representations of
interaction with persons even when these persons are not actually
around and do not in fact exist.

It would be tempting at this point to drift into a not-too-rigorous
parallel between such imagined companions and the supernatural agents
with which people seem to establish long and important relations, such
as guardian angels, spirits and ancestors. (Indeed, the very term
imaginary companion used by modern-day psychologists seems to echo the
phrase invisible friend [aoratos philos] used to describe the saints in
early Christianity.) But the differences are as great as the
similarities. First, for many people spirits and ancestors are
emphatically not fantasies, there is a sense that they are actually
around. Second, believers do not just construct their own decoupled
interaction; they share with others information about who the spirits
are and what they do. Third and most important, the tenor of people's
relations with spirits and gods is special because of one crucial
characteristic of these supernatural agents, as we will see presently.

Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought
Pascal Boyer
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0465006965/

Now THAT is an interesting book! I am studying right now how
Christianity developed, but I might pursue the path of that book some
day. I think that basically, people will grab onto whatever lifeline
someone is selling, and Christianity was one of them. Right now I am
reading The Christ Myth; The Greatest Story Ever Sold, by Acharya S. The
main thesis is that Christianity is a totally made up religion, crafted
from the major beliefs of most of the world's religions, with a
historicized central character thrown in. They then browbeat the
population into believing the doctrines, and went on a rampage of book
burning and persecution to root out all traces of the true story, which
led to the dark ages, the inquisition, and the main history of the world
until the Renaissance.

Gary Eickmeier
Back to top
gb6724
science forum Guru


Joined: 15 Jun 2005
Posts: 1119

PostPosted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 8:51 am    Post subject: Re: So we live in a dull galactic hurricane Reply with quote

Quote:
The energy is in the swirling, and not in the orbit of stars around
the galaxy nucleus. That uncovers dark energy and why the
galaxy doesn´t fly apart, as swirling builds binding forces.
A hurricane runs off its own energy, and this binding which
compresses the system is needed to explain the missing
invisible mass energies or inertial energies. As a large volume
of mass forms in the environment, it gains rotational momentum
and inertial energies generate currents and a central eye formation.

Its hard to think outside the box, that stars do not just orbit around
the galaxy´s nucleus but abide to swirling energies which build
up as a large volume of mass in the environment begins rotating.

(The eye does not reject all matter, a central star had been
detected in the center of the torus´ opening (eye). A torus
made of gas and dust exist in the center of spiral galaxies.
I was originally speculating if the galactic eye is similar to
hurricane eyes and the inertial acceleration is strong enough
to keep all matter out in a white hole fashion, but matter
does stick and accumulate at the center point of the spiral
galaxy to form a solar object. I have come to recognize that
there is a law which weakens gravity toward the center of
masses, as does gravity weakens gradually toward the
center of Earth if Earth is made of identical atomic elements.
The closer an object is from the perimeter of an equally
distributed mass in a spiral galaxy to its nucleus, the
less it is pulled toward its center. But that again discounts
the energies of rotation and the inertial energies (dark energy)
behind the spiral galaxy´s swirl-rotation)
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 230 of 232 [3478 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, ..., 228, 229, 230, 231, 232 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Sat Aug 19, 2017 8:42 pm | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » New Theories
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts Lawyer: come georgie, pay me pay me Geo Incog New Theories 0 Mon Mar 14, 2005 5:13 pm

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0755s ][ Queries: 12 (0.0274s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]