GENIUS FORUMS

mikiel wrote:I am still wondering if anyone here besides my Nemesis of nearly 18 months, come here from Myspace to continue the obsessive harrassment cares to address the overview presented in my last post.
But in case anyone still doubts his malicious motives which distort what I've presented (or his ignore-ance of my replies and rebuttals) I will go one more round for "good measure', a point at a time.
Ram/Six Strings wrote:

LOL, you're funny mik. I for one, am just trying to get a logical scientific explanation. Did you not state science must have real world verification? When applying that very statement to your idea, you then start singing a different tune... You're playing a hypocritical game of political smoke screening.

I have, several times, distinguished between theoretical science, which can include brainstorming, mystical visions, imaginary dimensions & membrane/universes... and empirical validation, the follow-up branch of science which supplies actual information in support (or not) of all the above theory/vision. (His obsessuion has consistently been that all mystical vision as such "theoretical sources" *must be* attacked (visciously, as is his consistent style) and "debunked" by mainstream popular contemporary consensus.

Again, all the empirical info I have shared here is in support of "my cosmology" with no claim of prooving it.

Mik you are off your god damed rocker... I am not attacking theoretical science. You have nothing to even award your idea the terminology theoretical! You are speaking absolute nonsense. Big bang cosmology is theoretical. A theory supported by model, by math, and by observation. Of which you have none... Now you are gonna try sayin I have something against theoretical science? Nothing is below you is it mik? Never have I said, or implied such a thing. But,that hasn't seemed to stop ya from making shit up so far, lol...

You were the one attacking the string theory boyz, the mathematicians, and claiming they have no rights to claim this is science. But, under the same statement neither do you.. haha... Not even so as the math...

It has nothing to do with MY beliefs, these are YOUR statements and guidelines you presented.. That is until the eye of scrutiny is turned your way... heh.. Then its back track, back track...

Oh my gosh, you really are a wasted cause.

Empirical info?? Whoaaa.. You are completely outta touch with reality...

I see you went back and edited your post after my reply...(note the times)
You're making circular arguments now... We've been over the dark matter issue. We've visited your weak understanding of TD. But that is all mik.
You keep stating everything has been addressed, uhm, no. I'm not for sure, if you think this is somehow productive, that your answers warrant even the mention of science. Minus the dark matter fiasco, which you have significantly visited, over and over and over, perhaps cause it's the only real thing you can substantiate based on a wiki article, you haven't done shit, but your typical whining, complaining, and insulting... I think the act is pretty old mik.

You still have a list of unresolved problems with this idea of yours, that you refuse to even acknowledge. Can you imagine if scientists actually worked like this?
I have no self respect,
Sci-one says "Hey, you work out that cosmic horizon problem we talked about last week?"
Sci-two replies, "You dumbass pestering bigot, Don't fuckin talk to me, I sent over the data about dark matter last week, and it was glorious data I must say"
Sci-one "No no, the cosmic horizon problem I asked about. There was an attached list of other issues that need modeling and explanation. Did you work on any of it?"
Sci-two "Can't you hear? You idiot wrapped in a moron! I said, I sent over the dark matter data last week. Stop ass-ass-inating me!"
Sci-one "Huh? Can anyone tell me, when I say cosmic horizon do the words dark matter actually come out of my mouth? *shakes head* "

Anyhow, its a waste of time. As you can see by the long list of participants, no one cares. I'm only fueling your appetite for attention.

But, anytime you might need some more help understanding thermodynamics, OR EVEN, the difference between an atom and photon again...
Just give me a hola, buddy :)

Sci-two " I know wtf the difference between an atom and photon is, you, you mystic hater! I was just being a stupid head that day. How dare you correct me! Oh and btw, you are stupid for correcting me!"
*Wanders off into the distance muttering incoherently, "Grumble, grumble, Ah ha! Thermodynamics! grumble grumble"

Ramayana wrote:Anyone unbiased here have a fair understanding of cosmological physics that can grade our papers?

Unbiased in that I don't think Mooney is a complete fuckwit? Sadly not.

Objective in a scientific manner? Yes.

You get a B for content, an A for persistence and an E for not realising the futility of trying to engage scientifically with a snake oil salesman who doesn't know his arse from his elbow.

He gets an E for content, ungraded for composition and comprehension, and an A+ for his amusing mix of smug blind assertion, self-contradiction, political weasling and cluelessness.

Dave Toast wrote:

Ramayana wrote:Anyone unbiased here have a fair understanding of cosmological physics that can grade our papers?

Unbiased in that I don't think Mooney is a complete fuckwit? Sadly not.

Objective in a scientific manner? Yes.

You get a B for content, an A for persistence and an E for not realising the futility of trying to engage scientifically with a snake oil salesman who doesn't know his arse from his elbow.

He gets an E for content, ungraded for composition and comprehension, and an A+ for his amusing mix of smug blind assertion, self-contradiction, political weasling and cluelessness.

Haha, I'll take a B for content... Is better than a poke in the eye...
I'll work on that E though, I think I'm done with mik...
Thanks for the honesty!

Looks like our world-class shit slinger (SS) (aka six strings, aka Ramayana) has been taking dramatization lessons from Tomas. No substance... just more shit.
Just for fun... in total violation of my resolve to quit responding to this ss (again)... yet another reply.

1st: I was still editing my post when ss posted a reply, which I didn't read 'til I was done editing. (Oops, more false assumptions there ol' boy.)

You obviously lose on the dark matter issue, and you have yet to be specific about my "weak understanding of TD."

.... then more shit slinging... etc, etc....

What cosmic event horizon problem? It's defined by "as far as we can see" given lightspeed limit. No one has a clue what lies beyond, which leaves the possibility that a sphere of cosmic matter lies beyond and *contains* our visible cosmos within, as per my multiple bangs proposal. And since gravitation has no distance limit ("All matter attractts all matter... etc.) a cosmic sphere beyond the horizon can still be pulling on ours, and ours on it. Changes in gravitation travel at lightspeed, but it is constant throughout the cycle. Think about it. There is no 8 min delay in the constant attraction between Sun and Earth, tho it takes 8 min for the force to travel the distance. Duh! (Is this too complex for you?
(But they are your characters. They can have as stupid a conversation as you like.)

Hey, I found one accurate statement. "No one cares." We are just spinning our wheels here... Ah, but The Universe cares!! And I am speaking the Truth as I know it... for what it's worth... If anything!... and equanimity prevails.

My "appetite for attention is actually my lifelong calling to understand the true nature of cosmos as a body and Kosmos as The Universal Being. I call it like I see it and constantly stay open to empirical scientific confirmation/validation. Somewhat different than your constant "CA" spin, but it is, after all, my take on my motives as a scientist and mystic... and, no, they are not mutually exclusive.

Thermodynamics: Local systems (heat "loss" traveling toward lower temp areas) vs the cosmos as a whole ("Neither matter nor energy are created or destroyed but only change form"... and travel around a lot... eventually to *all* be brought back for another "bang" cycle.)
Still wondering what in the above ss does not understand... not that I really care at this point!
Oh... the difference between an atom and a photon!! NOW I get it.

I dunno... I'm not a dramatics coach. Both you and Tomas have your strengths and weaknesses in this area.... but since it ain't really a contest, I don't need to decide a winner.

m

Hi there Dave.
Are you a "conventional by the book" scientist or that rare combination of well informed yet free thinking. (Joke!)

So, given that you hate me even more than before after our round on entangled particeles and "piggyback info"... (which point I granted but failed to worship you as my superior in all matters, scientific and otherwise.)

So, being even higher than before on your shit list, how is it that you have the supreme arrogance to claim an unbiased scientific perspecive in judging this "snake oil salesman who doesn't know his arse from his elbow."
Cognitive dissonance alert! Quite amazing actually how you climbed right up on the pedestal as supreme judge in this debate...
without taking sides at all in the conventional vs alternative camps!!
mikiel

Still seeking a commentator on all of the above with the simple but elegant credentials that s/he is a well informed scientist on the subject of this thread but not "programed" by the academic "education" that gave him/her the credentials, i.e., what I call a free thinking scientist... not just quoting what helped him/her pass all the tests and write the dissertation... (giving "correct answers".)

Starting with cosmic origin... where did it all come from?
Then... Does "space" have shape?
Then... Did "time" begin with the "bang", and will it end with total entropy... (defined by what level of thermodynamic dispersion... at what moment... without any possibility of gravitational reversal?

So, then, when the above basics are answered.... (and hell freezes over), we can go on to "cosmic inflation" where "space" expands faster than lightspeed just after the big bang... or, that expansion *is* the "bang."

And then on to the three non-Euclidean "models" of cosmos..."flat spacetime" with neutral valence and no "curvature", "positive spacetime curvature" with spherical or "hyperspherical" curvature and "negative spacetime curvature" with a neat double hyperbolic spacetime curvature... kinda like two parabolic road-cones, base to base.

BTW, these can all be portrayed in very clear computer imagery models with all the descriptive math you can imagine, and more!... enough to thoroughly intimidate the average layman and give the imaginative creators immense credibility via the math/geometry esoterica factor alone with no need for empirical evedence from observation of the actual cosmos!
Cosmology has become a computer-image game "validated" by math geeks without an interest in observing the actual cosmos. (Too true!)
So, this will be the last call for anyone interested in conversation on this topic.
mikiel

Mikiel, feed the trolls and they'll shit all over your discussion. I doubt anyone wants to wade through this thread now. You might get some responses if you posted a distillation of your argument from this thread to your website.

Getting to this thread late, but:

Alex: This conversation, for me, is so vast and so alarming that I don't even know how to have it.

Iolaus: But I have longed to have it, and I think you are the first person I've met capable of having it.

And darn it, but I've longed to witness it, and it ended all too early for me! I say that Alex - since Anna was last to post substantively on the topic - start a new thread on it. I don't know what the title would be, perhaps "Why men create most stuff; an authentic new feminism". Please, if not for yourselves, then do it for me. I might throw in the odd comment here and there but mostly I just want to see you two continue the thoroughly intriguing discussion that you were having before the thread turned to scientific debate.

Iolaus wrote:We're into conspiracy theory here, but I have come to think more and more, that anyone who dismisses conspiracy theories is naive and lazy.

Likewise.

brokenhead: Will you marry me?

Iolaus: Yes, if you don't mind a little polyandry.

I know where you're coming from, brokenhead. I once spontaneously proposed marriage to a singer-songwriter who performed an intimate charity gig to raise funds for a forest protest. Her melodies, her voice and her lyrics exposed her soul, and it was too beautiful to ignore. She said "maybe". God only knows what I'd have done had she said "yes" - I've always said that I'll never marry.

For what it's worth, Anna, I'd also jump at the chance to fill out your polyandrous household. You're alive, authentic, intelligent, balanced and brave (to jump into this particular environment as a woman, and to speak your truth with little to no bile). I'd be cool to share you with brokenhead and others. Your husbands would be free to take on multiple wives, too, right?

-----

I only skimmed through the scientific debate, so I don't have an opinion on who won and who lost, but I trust enough in their characters to believe that Alex and Dave Toast summed it up fairly.

My condolences, mikiel.

Brad: trolls don't consistently present cogent arguments as the mainstay of their contributions. Think again.

Hi ernest_seeker, I took Ana's last post and pasted it on this thread: here, a few weeks back, but have not gotten back to it. June, July, August are very busy months for me. Also, the topic of 'what women should be' and their role in society is as contentious as contentious can be. We may have an opinion about it, but 'the world' is deciding it and doesn't care a great deal about what we think.

Wonderful, Alex! I'll take a look at that thread shortly, and I look forward to the resumption of that dialogue.

If Anna wasn't so busy managing her androharem, she too might participate...

;-)

Indeed. On that matter, you haven't yet indicated whether you will be making a play for inclusion. Perhaps you could bring along a few of your South American mistresses and we could make a real scene of it.

As a 'manly-man', I'll have to decline...

;-)

Aha, I understand that if there is to be any harem at all, it must be yours.

If Anna wasn't so busy managing her androharem, she too might participate...

So it looks like there are three of us interested. I am certainly willing, perhaps Alex and Earnest can help me articulate my henids...both of you have the right attitude, in which you are willing to consider the evidence but not have a predetermined agenda. Did you read the long article posted here recently Is There Anything Good About Men? That could be your homework.

It's not that I'm busy with my androharem, guys, I just found out that my mother, who lives 500 miles from me, is in a fairly advanced stage of cancer, and I am going to fetch her, figure out where to put her, and I am researching nonstop alternative/natural methods of healing.
Tomorrow I go, and whether I'll have internet there I don't know, but I think I'll be extremely busy. But I expect that over the course of some days or a week or so, the intensity of my learning curve will lessen.

I used to lurk from time to time but never saw anything of interest, whereas lately it is much more interesting.

Bumping it back to topic one more time.... another crack of the whip... repeating my last post:

Still seeking a commentator on all of the above with the simple but elegant credentials that s/he is a well informed scientist on the subject of this thread but not "programed" by the academic "education" that gave him/her the credentials, i.e., what I call a free thinking scientist... not just quoting what helped him/her pass all the tests and write the dissertation... (giving "correct answers".)

Starting with cosmic origin... where did it all come from?
Then... Does "space" have shape?
Then... Did "time" begin with the "bang", and will it end with total entropy... (defined by what level of thermodynamic dispersion... at what moment... without any possibility of gravitational reversal?

So, then, when the above basics are answered.... (and hell freezes over), we can go on to "cosmic inflation" where "space" expands faster than lightspeed just after the big bang... or, that expansion *is* the "bang."

And then on to the three non-Euclidean "models" of cosmos..."flat spacetime" with neutral valence and no "curvature", "positive spacetime curvature" with spherical or "hyperspherical" curvature and "negative spacetime curvature" with a neat double hyperbolic spacetime curvature... kinda like two parabolic road-cones, base to base.

BTW, these can all be portrayed in very clear computer imagery models with all the descriptive math you can imagine, and more!... enough to thoroughly intimidate the average layman and give the imaginative creators immense credibility via the math/geometry esoterica factor alone with no need for empirical evedence from observation of the actual cosmos!
Cosmology has become a computer-image game "validated" by math geeks without an interest in observing the actual cosmos. (Too true!)
So, this will be the last call for anyone interested in conversation on this topic. (Ed: Oops!)

And just to focus one last time on my proposed cosmolology:
A repeat from a previous post:

... (The) cosmic event horizon (is) defined by "as far as we can see" given lightspeed limit. No one has a clue what lies beyond, which leaves the possibility that a sphere of cosmic matter lies beyond and *contains* our visible cosmos within, as per my multiple bangs proposal. And since gravitation has no distance limit ("All matter attracts all matter... etc.) a cosmic sphere beyond the horizon can still be pulling on ours, and ours on it. Changes in gravitation travel at lightspeed, but it is constant throughout the cycle. Think about it. There is no 8 min delay in the constant attraction between Sun and Earth, tho it takes 8 min for the force to travel the distance....

Thermodynamics: Local systems (heat "loss" traveling toward lower temp areas) vs the cosmos as a whole ("Neither matter nor energy are created or destroyed but only change form"... and travel around a lot... eventually to *all* be brought back for another "bang" cycle.)
--------------------

Going... going... the "last word" (given that no one here is interested in actual conversation/debate on cosmology or Kosmos) should at least be on topic....

mikiel

mikiel, you are the most persistent topic-restorer ever to grace these cyber-halls. One more time, my eye. I'll wager you'll still be bumping this baby come Christmas.

Carl G wrote:mikiel, you are the most persistent topic-restorer ever to grace these cyber-halls. One more time, my eye. I'll wager you'll still be bumping this baby come Christmas.

Thank you. Maybe, if need be. I really "should have" rolled over and played dead when the thread was taken over yet again by off-topic chat. But I seldom do what I should, and feel totally free to change my mind, as often as I like. I state an intention quite honestly in the moment, and, whaddaya know... along comes another moment down the road a spell, the chatters take over again, and... another "bump."

Actually tho, if no one is interested in the topic, I will let it let it die a peaceful death, but, as thread author, I won't let it become a chat room for "an authentic new feminism."

mikiel

A transcendent being obsessed with the shapes and scientific grounding of consciousness's illusions. Most amusing.

-

You can only see him as amusing.

Of course he doesn't know what enlightened amusement is.

He knows the small, the petty. The transient pleasures of a laugh.

The enlightened are laughing at you mikiel, you and every other poor shithead who ever graced this earth, with your lack of insight. But it's a good natured laugh, one born of empathy.

.



-Carl-
Carl G - mikiel, you are the most persistent topic-restorer ever to grace these cyber-halls.

-tomas-
It's the ever-expanding kosmos (cosmos) breathing one last gasperation.




-Carl-
One more time, my eye.

-tomas-
Hey, pass me another bag of popcorn...




-Carl-
I'll wager you'll still be bumping this baby come Christmas.

-tomas-
Hmmm, get me a box of Juju's, this may take a while.




-Mikiel goes polite for a change-
Thank you. Maybe, if need be. I really "should have" rolled over and played dead when the thread was taken over yet again by off-topic chat.

-tomas-
Hey, what's a little bit of gossip and banter amongst us pixels on the screen?




-Mikiel cracks a couple Budweiser's for Carl and I-
But I seldom do what I should, and feel totally free to change my mind, as often as I like.

-tomas-
It's the American Way :-)




-Mikiel's truth serum we slipped him kicks in-
I state an intention quite honestly in the moment, and, whaddaya know... along comes another moment down the road a spell, the chatters take over again, and... another "bump."




-Mikiel knows where this is going-
Actually tho, if no one is interested in the topic, I will let it let it die a peaceful death,

-tomas-
And not a moment too soon.




-Mikiel
but, as thread author, I won't let it become a chat room for "an authentic new feminism."

-tomas-
Aw, come on Mikiel, we know you have some biker chicks stashed away for emergencies at your intentional retreat in those mountains of Oregon. (Hey, hand me another beer - how 'bout you, Carl?)


.

David Quinn wrote:A transcendent being obsessed with the shapes and scientific grounding of consciousness's illusions. Most amusing.

-

A cross-threaded transcription:
"Oh!... I get it... Nothing is real... It's *all* just in our minds! I keep forgetting the dogma of this site. Bad boy!"

Hey, David. Do you really believe that cosmos and the the scientific investigation of it is "consciousness's illusions?"

Most amusing.... and stupid, tho no longer suprising.

mikiel

mikiel wrote:

David Quinn wrote:A transcendent being obsessed with the shapes and scientific grounding of consciousness's illusions. Most amusing.

A cross-threaded transcription:
"Oh!... I get it... Nothing is real... It's *all* just in our minds! I keep forgetting the dogma of this site. Bad boy!"

As far as I know, no one here subscribes to that dogma.

Hey, David. Do you really believe that cosmos and the the scientific investigation of it is "consciousness's illusions?"

They are part of Nature's illusions. They are as real as anything else, but nevertheless, as with all things, they lack inherent existence.

-

Does your brain, from which the concept of "inherent existence" springs, have "inherent existence?"
m