Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2  [ show all ]
InvisibleLunarEclipse
Enlil's Official Story
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/31/04
Posts: 21,407
Loc: Building 7
If you can't see it
    #23581544 - 08/26/16 08:02 PM (7 years, 5 months ago)

Does that mean it doesn't exist?

Really?

If you can't feel the damage from wifi, I guess they should beam it into every structure, just because connectivity is always good?


--------------------
Anxiety is what you make it.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineakira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
Re: If you can't see it [Re: LunarEclipse]
    #23581696 - 08/26/16 08:41 PM (7 years, 5 months ago)

do thoughts really exist, or are they pregenerational?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEternalCowabunga
Being of Great Significance
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/04/05
Posts: 7,152
Loc: Time and Space
Re: If you can't see it [Re: akira_akuma]
    #23581925 - 08/26/16 10:04 PM (7 years, 5 months ago)

A lot of people can't see all the possibilities but there they are, waiting to be manifested.

But I think you were talking about something else. Immaterial Energy can't  be seen but felt. However, energy is transmuted by physical objects.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineakira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
Re: If you can't see it [Re: EternalCowabunga]
    #23581955 - 08/26/16 10:14 PM (7 years, 5 months ago)

so does that energy, to transmute, exist as an idea, already?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleiiilil
Stranger


Registered: 01/08/16
Posts: 369
Re: If you can't see it [Re: LunarEclipse] * 1
    #23584161 - 08/27/16 04:18 PM (7 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

LunarEclipse said:
Does that mean it doesn't exist?

Really?

If you can't feel the damage from wifi, I guess they should beam it into every structure, just because connectivity is always good?




Nope, just means you probably aren't able to perceive it.. yet.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_absorption_rate


http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/ucla-scientists-use-ultrasound-to-jump-start-a-mans-brain-after-coma

Matter is structured. Energy is structured . Different forms interact in different ways


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinenuentoter
conduit
Male User Gallery


Registered: 09/17/08
Posts: 2,721
Last seen: 7 years, 21 days
Re: If you can't see it [Re: iiilil]
    #23584200 - 08/27/16 04:25 PM (7 years, 5 months ago)

http://www.wired.com/2014/01/bells-theorem/

Nothing to add, but this is a relevant articles I remembered that is interesting the subject.


--------------------

The geometry of us is no chance. We are antennae, we are tuning forks, we are receiver and transmitters of all energy. We are more than we know.  - @entheolove

"I found I could say things with color and shapes that I couldn't say any other way - things I had no words for"  - Georgia O'Keefe

I think the word is vagina


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLunarEclipse
Enlil's Official Story
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/31/04
Posts: 21,407
Loc: Building 7
Re: If you can't see it [Re: nuentoter]
    #23584347 - 08/27/16 05:03 PM (7 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

nuentoter said:
http://www.wired.com/2014/01/bells-theorem/

Nothing to add, but this is a relevant articles I remembered that is interesting the subject.




Well there really is no subject.  Most of you will be sucking in radiation, nano sized particulates, and a lot of dust mites.  Nothing to see here folks.


--------------------
Anxiety is what you make it.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleiiilil
Stranger


Registered: 01/08/16
Posts: 369
Re: If you can't see it [Re: nuentoter] * 1
    #23584392 - 08/27/16 05:12 PM (7 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

nuentoter said:
http://www.wired.com/2014/01/bells-theorem/

Nothing to add, but this is a relevant articles I remembered that is interesting the subject.




Yes, this was quite the theorem pit against Bohr and Einstein's 'variable view'
My view is that an incomplete understanding and account for variables will yield an incomplete test. Thus, there is no proof for Bell's theorem until we discover all of the system variables.

Bell's theorem has ground only so long as you believe that we have a complete account of all the system variables and, even w/ it, are unable to the predict perfectly.

The stuff that makes up the universe exists whether or not we observe it.
Suggesting otherwise is absurd, ungrounded, and a function of the ego IMO.

A simple 'look away' thought experiment examples this :
Open a box and put a red marble in it. Open the box every 5 minutes and confirm it is indeed still a red marble. The object doesn't come into existence just because you were looking at it. It stays in existence even when you're not looking and it remains as it was unless a force acts on it to change it.

When you go down the rabbit hole of breaking the marble down to compounds and then atoms and then subatomic particles and then quantum constituents, the only thing you lose is understanding and an accounting of variables and structure . The nobel scientist call this 'randomness'/uncertainty ..  No, you just dont have an understanding and accounting of the variables at lower and lower granularities. Godel's incompleteness theorem posits that we never will. That is a limit of our capability residing in the system not the system as a whole or anything outside of it.

Many times these guys get off into la-la land IMO with improper philosophies and thought experiments and fool even themselves w/ complexity, probability, and math which has no basis...

Bell's theorem did 'open up the mind' and spark new thoughts but way too much is attributed to it given how little we actually know about quantum theory. Special relativity actually still holds as does most of Einstein's actual physics. What Einstein was wrestling with was 'seeing' that there is indeed an absolution to the universe and Bell provided a convenient theory which 'brought this into question'.  Win/win

The questions are : What are all the system variables? Can we ever account for them inside the system? How about outside? If one does account for all of the system variables is there indeed no randomness?

The most important aspect of answering these questions is the proper perception frame. We quite clearly don't have that yet thus why Bell's theorem appeals : It allows us to believe, in the meantime, that things are not predestined and random.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleiiilil
Stranger


Registered: 01/08/16
Posts: 369
Re: If you can't see it [Re: LunarEclipse]
    #23584426 - 08/27/16 05:21 PM (7 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

LunarEclipse said:
Quote:

nuentoter said:
http://www.wired.com/2014/01/bells-theorem/

Nothing to add, but this is a relevant articles I remembered that is interesting the subject.




Well there really is no subject.  Most of you will be sucking in radiation, nano sized particulates, and a lot of dust mites.  Nothing to see here folks.




Pretty much ^.
Different forms of matter and energy -> different effects and time horizons of perceivable effects.

But, have no doubt, you're getting irradiated 50 ways to Sunday
:likeaboss:

This should only make you appreciate the capability of biological life to stay in cohesion. But yeah... Don't push your luck ! :tongue:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: If you can't see it [Re: iiilil] * 1
    #23584469 - 08/27/16 05:31 PM (7 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

iiilil said:
Quote:

nuentoter said:
http://www.wired.com/2014/01/bells-theorem/

Nothing to add, but this is a relevant articles I remembered that is interesting the subject.




Yes, this was quite the theorem pit against Bohr and Einstein's 'variable view'
My view is that an incomplete understanding and account for variables will yield an incomplete test. Thus, there is no proof for Bell's theorem until we discover all of the system variables.

Bell's theorem has ground only so long as you believe that we have a complete account of all the system variables and, even w/ it, are unable to the predict perfectly.

The stuff that makes up the universe exists whether or not we observe it.
Suggesting otherwise is absurd, ungrounded, and a function of the ego IMO.

A simple 'look away' thought experiment examples this :
Open a box and put a red marble in it. Open the box every 5 minutes and confirm it is indeed still a red marble. The object doesn't come into existence just because you were looking at it. It stays in existence even when you're not looking and it remains as it was unless a force acts on it to change it.

When you go down the rabbit hole of breaking the marble down to compounds and then atoms and then subatomic particles and then quantum constituents, the only thing you lose is understanding and an accounting of variables and structure . The nobel scientist call this 'randomness'/uncertainty ..  No, you just dont have an understanding and accounting of the variables at lower and lower granularities. Godel's incompleteness theorem posits that we never will. That is a limit of our capability residing in the system not the system as a whole or anything outside of it.

Many times these guys get off into la-la land IMO with improper philosophies and thought experiments and fool even themselves w/ complexity, probability, and math which has no basis...

Bell's theorem did 'open up the mind' and spark new thoughts but way too much is attributed to it given how little we actually know about quantum theory. Special relativity actually still holds as does most of Einstein's actual physics. What Einstein was wrestling with was 'seeing' that there is indeed an absolution to the universe and Bell provided a convenient theory which 'brought this into question'.  Win/win

The questions are : What are all the system variables? Can we ever account for them inside the system? How about outside? If one does account for all of the system variables is there indeed no randomness?

The most important aspect of answering these questions is the proper perception frame. We quite clearly don't have that yet thus why Bell's theorem appeals : It allows us to believe, in the meantime, that things are not predestined and random.




I'm a little confused by your comment's about Bell's theorem.  The Bell inequality has been shown to be violated in several experiments with very exact precision.  We know Bell's theorem is true.

The question is whether hidden variables can exist.  The assumption is no, but technically the door is still open.  Von Neumann's formulation, despite popular understanding, did not rule them out totally.  I don't know whether this is where you were going or not.

Entanglement and nonlocality are real.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments
http://quantumtantra.com/bell2.html
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/bells_inequality.html
http://www.wired.com/2014/01/bells-theorem/
http://www.mtnmath.com/whatrh/node81.html


P.S.  The Bohr-Einstein debate was not about Bell's theorem, which did not yet exist, but about the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox which was the first quantitative hint at nonlocality.  If EPR were true, then quantum mechanics could not be a complete theory.  Bell's theorem proved that the fault was not with quantum mechanics, whose predictions were assumed, and are now proven, to be correct.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleiiilil
Stranger


Registered: 01/08/16
Posts: 369
Re: If you can't see it [Re: DividedQuantum] * 1
    #23584658 - 08/27/16 06:17 PM (7 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
I'm a little confused by your comment's about Bell's theorem.  The Bell inequality has been shown to be violated in several experiments with very exact precision.  We know Bell's theorem is true.





It isn't true that we have an definitive account for all of the variables at the local or system level. Thus, any experiment or theorem which relies on the assumption that we do or that all of them are being tested is fundamental flawed and baseless. Cutting through all of the hand-waving, Bell's theorem highlights that we don't know all of the local/system variables yet. Local hidden variable theory asserts the same thing albeit a different interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
The question is whether hidden variables can exist.

  The assumption is no, but technically the door is still open. 





Exactly why i'm pointing out that Bell's theorem is not really saying much
:chugbeer:

Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
Von Neumann's formulation, despite popular understanding, did not rule them out totally.  I don't know whether this is where you were going or not.
Entanglement and nonlocality are real.




Yes, entanglement is a phenomenon as is non-locality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_nonlocality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
'Phenomenon' is an academic way of saying that one doesn't have the slightest clue or frame for understanding something. So, yes.. that is a reality. It still is with having spent hundreds of billions of dollars chasing subatomic ghosts.

And yes, I'm basically saying that Bell's theorem/experiment on this topic is an overly complex, fundamentally flawed, and convoluted expression of : We don't know enough about the universe so say anything definitive. It is a theorem that tries to straddle both classic and quantum physics without the proper frame for either. It arose from Einsten and others wanting someone to create a formal theorem that brought into question the absolution of the universe because no one likes that idea. So, there are a body of overly complex works to help  the academic sleep at night.

I'm saying : yeah .. duh, we don't have enough understanding yet. Godel posits that we never will from 'within the system'. People struggle with this to this day...  If you start with a flawed framing of the problem, you're going to waste a lot of time on useless formulations,math, and experiments and likely end up right back where you started.


Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments
http://quantumtantra.com/bell2.html
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/bells_inequality.html
http://www.wired.com/2014/01/bells-theorem/
http://www.mtnmath.com/whatrh/node81.html




Yep, I am quite familiar.


Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
P.S.  The Bohr-Einstein debate was not about Bell's theorem, which did not yet exist, but about the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox which was the first quantitative hint at nonlocality.  If EPR were true, then quantum mechanics could not be a complete theory.  Bell's theorem proved that the fault was not with quantum mechanics, whose predictions were assumed, and are now proven, to be correct.




Essentially : We don't even know how perceive the problem yet...

As much as we've observed some cool new things and developed some cool new toys, there still is no solid Interpretation of quantum mechanics. Special relativity still holds throughout all of this hand waving. It's solid frames like 'Special relativity' that push you forward. Einstein feared what these frames were amounting to as did many in the space, so you get things like Bell's theorem.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: If you can't see it [Re: iiilil]
    #23584703 - 08/27/16 06:40 PM (7 years, 5 months ago)

Nice post.

Quote:

iiilil said:
Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
The question is whether hidden variables can exist.

  The assumption is no, but technically the door is still open. 





Exactly why i'm pointing out that Bell's theorem is not really saying much
:chugbeer:





I can sympathize with that.



Quote:

I'm saying : yeah .. duh, we don't have enough understanding yet. Godel posits that we never will from 'within the system'. People struggle with this to this day...  If you start with a flawed framing of the problem, you're going to waste a lot of time on useless formulations,math, and experiments and likely end up right back where you started.




Gödel's work is fabulously important.  Nice use of it.  I agree that we're still really in the dark essentially.  We are still much closer to the beginning of physics than we are to its future completion -- if it can even be completed, which I doubt.



Quote:

As much as we've observed some cool new things and developed some cool new toys, there still is no solid Interpretation of quantum mechanics. Special relativity still holds throughout all of this hand waving. It's solid frames like 'Special relativity' that push you forward. Einstein feared what these frames were amounting to as did many in the space, so you get things like Bell's theorem.




Relativity is true, but I feel quantum reality, such as it is, is more fundamental.  We do know that nonlocality exists, and I feel this level is more fundamental than mass-energy.  In terms of levels we can abstract as relatively autonomous, I would put relativity a step below the quantum circuit.  But that's just my feeling.

The problem with relativity theory is that it is a local, deterministic theory, and despite your comments about Bell's theorem, which are not invalid, I think we can say that it's very likely that locality is false, which is a major problem for relativity in the long run.

As far as interpretations go, my favorites are 1. Bohmian mechanics and 2.  Many-worlds.  Philosophy, but fun.


But who knows. :shrug:


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleiiilil
Stranger


Registered: 01/08/16
Posts: 369
Re: If you can't see it [Re: DividedQuantum] * 1
    #23584821 - 08/27/16 07:32 PM (7 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
Nice post.





You too :smile2:.


Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
Gödel's work is fabulously important.  Nice use of it.  I agree that we're still really in the dark essentially.  We are still much closer to the beginning of physics than we are to its future completion -- if it can even be completed, which I doubt.





Yeah, i never mean to bash in my commentary. Bell's work was very important. I just feel, one can 'see it' in a more simpler form which is good if you can as it allows you to move on more quickly to construct further along things.


Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
Relativity is true, but I feel quantum reality, such as it is, is more fundamental.  We do know that nonlocality exists, and I feel this level is more fundamental than mass-energy.  In terms of levels we can abstract as relatively autonomous, I would put relativity a step below the quantum circuit.  But that's just my feeling.





You have to be careful here as time and time again, the frame you perceive things in can get you off onto the wrong footing. The quantum realm is a big place holder IMO for lots of unknowns past a certain granularity. It is a domain/realm that we haven't the slightest clue as to the bounds and interfaces of and we are largely still in the dark on a quantum interpretation.

Relativity theory speaks of space-time. The thing to note about this is that this seemingly pervades all scales. In such a way that the quantum realm is occupies a portion of it. In such a way, I see quantum mechanics/physics as one of many layers of a cake.

If you simply look at it like this and understand that we still have no solid understanding of space-time. You start to see where concepts like 'locality' are not so clear. What does locality mean when you still have not defined 'space' or its relationships to other dimensions.

x,y,z? you know there's more to it than that. Failing to understand the extents of space as a {set} causes one to falsely identify two entangled particles being non-local based on {x,y,z} coordinates. The set could also simply have a {g} term which has relationships such that even when {x,y,z} vary substantially between particles 1 and 2 {g} maintains that they are still (local) for all intents and purposes corresponding to locality in the quantum realm... So, you can quickly see how one can get down a completely incorrect path depending on how they frame the problem using classical definitions in a non-classical domain.
:nicesmile:


Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
The problem with relativity theory is that it is a local, deterministic theory, and despite your comments about Bell's theorem, which are not invalid, I think we can say that it's very likely that locality is false, which is a major problem for relativity in the long run.





Wording matters here. Locality in classic terms is (x,y,z). In quantum terms, it is possible that one must consider a hidden-component (g) or many others. (g), when understood, can be represented as the connecting line between these two particles :


such that there is no sufficient (x,y,z) that makes it non-local in quantum terms. A communication of sorts could happen along this component in the quantum domain that violates the classic domain's light speed communication principle.

The interpretation matters and the proper frames matter. Fail to look at something in the 'proper' frame or interpretation and you could find yourself quite clearly off in a la-la land of fundamentally flawed experiments and math which is why I brought strong critique to Bell's theorem. Given the above frame, which is a much more reasonable view of the problem, Bell's theorem is incorrect due to an incomplete definition of locality (didn't account for a hidden variable : (g). Neither particle is non-local in the quantum sense... There was instead a misapplication of  a classical idea of locality (x,y,z) to a quantum phenomenon which abides by a different construct.

Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
As far as interpretations go, my favorites are 1. Bohmian mechanics and 2.  Many-worlds.  Philosophy, but fun.
But who knows. :shrug:



I subscribe to modications of :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave
and a yet to be defined/discovered :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Unified_Theory


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: If you can't see it [Re: iiilil] * 2
    #23585030 - 08/27/16 08:40 PM (7 years, 5 months ago)

Very interesting and original take. :thumbup:

I've been saying for years that the Cartesian framework breaks down at the quantum level.  As you say, {x,y,z,t} isn't going to cut it.  And institutional science is utterly wedded to it. :thumbdown:

Some radical thinking is going to have to come in to break us out of the morass and quagmire we're in vis a vis contemporary physics.  It would be convenient to have another Einstein or Bohr come along.  Would that we were so lucky.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleiiilil
Stranger


Registered: 01/08/16
Posts: 369
Re: If you can't see it [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #23585283 - 08/27/16 10:01 PM (7 years, 5 months ago)



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLunarEclipse
Enlil's Official Story
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/31/04
Posts: 21,407
Loc: Building 7
Re: If you can't see it [Re: iiilil]
    #23585741 - 08/28/16 02:10 AM (7 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

iiilil said:
Quote:

LunarEclipse said:
Quote:

nuentoter said:
http://www.wired.com/2014/01/bells-theorem/

Nothing to add, but this is a relevant articles I remembered that is interesting the subject.




Well there really is no subject.  Most of you will be sucking in radiation, nano sized particulates, and a lot of dust mites.  Nothing to see here folks.






Pretty much ^.
Different forms of matter and energy -> different effects and time horizons of perceivable effects.

But, have no doubt, you're getting irradiated 50 ways to Sunday
:likeaboss:

This should only make you appreciate the capability of biological life to stay in cohesion. But yeah... Don't push your luck ! :tongue:




We are in the sixth great extinction event, with wifi being a part of that.  A study showed wifi kills trees, so why not humans ffs?  I know when I sleep up the river I sleep better, tonight I'm not there and can't sleep.  It's the fucking wifi it's an excitotoxin same as the shit in food.  Anything that says "natural flavor" is probably loaded up with MSG as that is an excitotoxin as well.  Or you could say flavor enhancer as your brain dissolves and you want more later to fill in the holes.  That's why you want more Chinese food, it's to replace what you just lost.  Makes people angry too, only the fortune cookie will calm them down.


--------------------
Anxiety is what you make it.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinenuentoter
conduit
Male User Gallery


Registered: 09/17/08
Posts: 2,721
Last seen: 7 years, 21 days
Re: If you can't see it [Re: LunarEclipse]
    #23585958 - 08/28/16 06:58 AM (7 years, 5 months ago)

I doubt you can singularly blame wifi. The general amount of energetic disturbance caused by society is pretty sizable if you think about it. The electromagnetic emissions coming out fridges, microwaves, cell phone, electric heaters, and so much more. We leak radiation. Line frequency electromagnetic fields.

That's not counting uv levels and solar radiation which is steadily increasing due to our thinning atmosphere. I live in northern Maine in the woods pretty much and even our water has trace amounts of carcinogens and chemicals, it comes from the sky. The pH of our water.

All things we cannot see.


--------------------

The geometry of us is no chance. We are antennae, we are tuning forks, we are receiver and transmitters of all energy. We are more than we know.  - @entheolove

"I found I could say things with color and shapes that I couldn't say any other way - things I had no words for"  - Georgia O'Keefe

I think the word is vagina


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLunarEclipse
Enlil's Official Story
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/31/04
Posts: 21,407
Loc: Building 7
Re: If you can't see it [Re: nuentoter]
    #23586208 - 08/28/16 09:02 AM (7 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

nuentoter said:
I doubt you can singularly blame wifi. The general amount of energetic disturbance caused by society is pretty sizable if you think about it. The electromagnetic emissions coming out fridges, microwaves, cell phone, electric heaters, and so much more. We leak radiation. Line frequency electromagnetic fields.

That's not counting uv levels and solar radiation which is steadily increasing due to our thinning atmosphere. I live in northern Maine in the woods pretty much and even our water has trace amounts of carcinogens and chemicals, it comes from the sky. The pH of our water.

All things we cannot see.




As for coming from the sky, sure, you can see it being sprayed and watch the fake clouds billowing out.  Nano sized particulates of fly dust and God knows what else.

I wasn't singling wifi out, you are correct it's a noisy mess period.  I have a transformer from the power company in my back yard that makes so much noise and hums so much it's probably going to blow up soon.  Do they care?  No, not until it blows up.  Noise pollution doesn't count and unfortunately it's 10 feet from my front door not sure who's idea was that one but it was a bad idea to begin with.

Water pH here was 9.  9.  9.  Can you imagine?  After I confronted the power company (same one, hmm...) it magically dropped to a still high 7.8 but at least within the realm of what it should be.


--------------------
Anxiety is what you make it.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTameMe
Stranger
Male User Gallery


Registered: 10/24/05
Posts: 2,734
Last seen: 5 years, 3 months
Re: If you can't see it [Re: LunarEclipse]
    #23589950 - 08/29/16 12:50 PM (7 years, 4 months ago)

We still live longer than average before the technologies existed....

so in the long run the negative affects are worth it right?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLunarEclipse
Enlil's Official Story
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/31/04
Posts: 21,407
Loc: Building 7
Re: If you can't see it [Re: TameMe]
    #23590182 - 08/29/16 02:09 PM (7 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

TameMe said:
We still live longer than average before the technologies existed....

so in the long run the negative affects are worth it right?




fucking wrong.  look at the 90 year olds just dying now, and in their "day" child death was worse my point being it dropped the average for that generation, vs. the cancers of the 60 year olds all dropping dead now with child death less from birth problems or other factors, I do think it's less now on average vs. 70 years ago when it was up.

anyway, the negative affects aren't worth jack fucking shit.  present a real argument if you can...


--------------------
Anxiety is what you make it.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTameMe
Stranger
Male User Gallery


Registered: 10/24/05
Posts: 2,734
Last seen: 5 years, 3 months
Re: If you can't see it [Re: LunarEclipse]
    #23590221 - 08/29/16 02:19 PM (7 years, 4 months ago)

that is a real argument....

the technologies you are shitting on (radio signals) are linked to our internet technologies that have aided in progressing other technologies...

one day..we'll beat cancer....cutting off the wifi now....will cutoff access to millions of young people trying to learn....to advance the technology...


you are shitting on our wifi...

but hey...what about lead paint back then? asbestos? cigarettes...you act like this is something new. it's not.


Edited by TameMe (08/29/16 02:20 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLunarEclipse
Enlil's Official Story
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/31/04
Posts: 21,407
Loc: Building 7
Re: If you can't see it [Re: TameMe]
    #23590232 - 08/29/16 02:22 PM (7 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

TameMe said:
that is a real argument....

the technologies you are shitting on (radio signals) are linked to our internet technologies that have aided in progressing other technologies...

one day..we'll beat cancer....cutting off the wifi now....will cutoff access to millions of young people trying to learn....to advance the technology...


you are shitting on our wifi...

but hey...what about lead paint back then? asbestos? cigarettes...you act like this is something new. it's not.




I'm not acting like anything, you are projecting and delusional. "We" aren't "beating" cancer.  Get a clue.

As to shitting on "your" wifi, that's not an argument, it's herd mentality.


--------------------
Anxiety is what you make it.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTameMe
Stranger
Male User Gallery


Registered: 10/24/05
Posts: 2,734
Last seen: 5 years, 3 months
Re: If you can't see it [Re: LunarEclipse]
    #23590546 - 08/29/16 04:06 PM (7 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

LunarEclipse said:
Quote:

TameMe said:
that is a real argument....

the technologies you are shitting on (radio signals) are linked to our internet technologies that have aided in progressing other technologies...

one day..we'll beat cancer....cutting off the wifi now....will cutoff access to millions of young people trying to learn....to advance the technology...


you are shitting on our wifi...

but hey...what about lead paint back then? asbestos? cigarettes...you act like this is something new. it's not.




I'm not acting like anything, you are projecting and delusional. "We" aren't "beating" cancer.  Get a clue.

As to shitting on "your" wifi, that's not an argument, it's herd mentality.




no sir i politely disagree...

not one post i made lacked a response to a point...

you however...just went all personal...and missed the point...and responded to none.

as far as i'm concerned...your OP made little points...with no evidence...and is more delusional than my rebuttals.


Edited by TameMe (08/29/16 04:06 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2  [ show all ]

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* particle and field felix4life 576 2 06/07/06 06:03 PM
by fireworks_god
* bummer....a McKenna prediction's already wrong
( 1 2 3 all )
question_for_joo 6,928 51 03/20/05 03:19 PM
by Gomp
* one problem with einsten's definition of insanity Deviate 1,157 14 09/07/06 09:31 AM
by trendal
* Albert Einstein quoted sleepy 2,089 6 11/02/07 10:30 PM
by Grok
* Albert Einstein
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
Swami 7,763 95 12/11/04 06:53 AM
by Annom
* Einsteins thoery of relativity
( 1 2 3 all )
sirreal 3,601 56 12/30/03 09:50 PM
by chodamunky
* Einstein's Internal Conflict
( 1 2 all )
Sclorch 4,462 32 06/06/03 01:51 PM
by Zero7a1
* Godels Theorem
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Noteworthy 1,981 71 09/02/11 08:36 AM
by Icelander

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
566 topic views. 1 members, 6 guests and 3 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.03 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 14 queries.