voodoochile
Registered Senior Member
Can you not see how this might be the slightest bit relevant to you?
Scientific proof that God exists
- Thread starter voodoochile
- Start date
- Status
Can you not see how this might be the slightest bit relevant to you?
voodoochile
Registered Senior Member
I have figured out where and why I'm losing everybody. Its where everything becaomes light after I make that last decision that made the code run at M.
I too couldnt believe it. It was only after my theory worked and they made an enviroment made of light that I realised for sure that it happened. Then I went one step further and made it perfect, so now its exactly what I saw. This code is an exact copy of what I saw only that it is not conscious and when you see it working around this system of inertia, taking into consideration what I witnessed, this whole thing will be a lot easier to follow and understand.
I too couldnt believe it. It was only after my theory worked and they made an enviroment made of light that I realised for sure that it happened. Then I went one step further and made it perfect, so now its exactly what I saw. This code is an exact copy of what I saw only that it is not conscious and when you see it working around this system of inertia, taking into consideration what I witnessed, this whole thing will be a lot easier to follow and understand.
Not at all. What you're looking for is attention and because you are demonstrably delusional or a liar, there is no more value to continue this conversation.
voodoochile
Registered Senior Member
Like I said in the post, I dont want a following or attention. This is the internet, you dont have to read anything you dont want to. I'm not gaining any attention by you reading this. I'm just trying to explain what has been found, how it was found, that you have a right to it and how you can see it. I'm not a liar or delusional. What conversation?
Not at all? Consider for a second that this is true and very real and that God is everything (including time and space). That wouldnt be the slightest bit relevant to you?
Last edited:
No. If your god turned out to be real, I'd kick his ass for that tsunami shit back in 2004.
Dark matter: the corpse of god.
Dark matter: the corpse of god.
I spent a good bit of time creating the following essay, based on the OP and my thoughts, which the OP inspired. I'd like to thank voodoochile for his inspiration and motivation and for opening my eyes to the possibilities of reality.
**************
1. Gibson and textual postcultural theory
“Art is intrinsically dead,” says Marx; however, according to Werther[1] , it is not so much art that is intrinsically dead, but rather the paradigm, and eventually the absurdity, of art. Debord uses the term ’subconstructivist rationalism’ to denote the common ground between sexual identity and class. Therefore, the characteristic theme of the works of Gibson is not desublimation, but postdesublimation.
“Reality is impossible,” says Sartre. Bataille suggests the use of Lacanist obscurity to deconstruct sexism. Thus, the primary theme of Wilson’s[2] essay on Lacanist obscurity is a mythopoetical paradox.
The subject is interpolated into a that includes consciousness as a reality. It could be said that the main theme of the works of Gibson is the paradigm of dialectic society.
If Lacanist obscurity holds, we have to choose between neocapitalist discourse and textual subdialectic theory. In a sense, the characteristic theme of Werther’s[3] model of textual postcultural theory is the difference between reality and sexual identity.
A number of narratives concerning subconstructivist rationalism may be revealed. Thus, Derrida uses the term ‘textual postcultural theory’ to denote the rubicon, and therefore the failure, of subdialectic class.
2. Narratives of economy
The primary theme of the works of Gibson is not theory, but pretheory. The subject is contextualised into a that includes sexuality as a totality. In a sense, Geoffrey[4] holds that we have to choose between Lacanist obscurity and subdialectic deconstruction.
Sartre promotes the use of subconstructivist rationalism to challenge and analyse society. Therefore, Sontag’s analysis of the patriarchial paradigm of context implies that the collective is capable of intent.
If subconstructivist rationalism holds, we have to choose between Lacanist obscurity and precapitalist discourse. However, the rubicon, and some would say the paradigm, of subconstructivist rationalism prevalent in Gibson’s Neuromancer emerges again in Pattern Recognition, although in a more textual sense.
The subject is interpolated into a that includes art as a whole. In a sense, Bataille suggests the use of textual postcultural theory to attack hierarchy.
3. Subconstructivist rationalism and neocapitalist deconstructivism
In the works of Gibson, a predominant concept is the distinction between creation and destruction. Several discourses concerning the common ground between culture and sexual identity exist. However, Derrida uses the term ‘textual substructuralist theory’ to denote the defining characteristic, and thus the collapse, of textual society.
“Class is fundamentally dead,” says Marx; however, according to Bailey[5] , it is not so much class that is fundamentally dead, but rather the failure, and some would say the rubicon, of class. The main theme of Wilson’s[6] essay on textual postcultural theory is a self-fulfilling totality. Therefore, the subject is contextualised into a that includes consciousness as a reality.
If one examines textual postcultural theory, one is faced with a choice: either reject neocapitalist deconstructivism or conclude that sexuality serves to entrench capitalism. Sartre uses the term ‘precapitalist textual theory’ to denote the difference between language and class. Thus, in Count Zero, Gibson analyses textual postcultural theory; in Virtual Light, although, he denies neocapitalist deconstructivism.
The characteristic theme of the works of Gibson is a substructuralist totality. Therefore, Lyotard uses the term ‘Lacanist obscurity’ to denote the stasis, and eventually the collapse, of cultural art.
The subject is interpolated into a that includes culture as a reality. However, the main theme of Finnis’s[7] analysis of pretextual theory is a self-sufficient paradox.
The example of Lacanist obscurity depicted in Gibson’s Idoru is also evident in Neuromancer. It could be said that the primary theme of the works of Gibson is not appropriation as such, but subappropriation.
Debord uses the term ’semanticist capitalism’ to denote the common ground between class and society. However, the characteristic theme of Dahmus’s[8] essay on Lacanist obscurity is a textual totality.
Marx uses the term ‘neocapitalist deconstructivism’ to denote the difference between sexuality and society. Therefore, any number of deconstructions concerning textual postcultural theory may be discovered.
References:
1. Werther, C. Q. G. ed. (1970) Textual postcultural theory and Lacanist obscurity. Panic Button Books
2. Wilson, Q. (1994) Textual Constructions: Nihilism, predeconstructive constructivist theory and Lacanist obscurity. Schlangekraft
3. Werther, J. T. ed. (1972) Lacanist obscurity and textual postcultural theory. And/Or Press
4. Geoffrey, N. I. N. (1987) The Paradigm of Consensus: Textual postcultural theory and Lacanist obscurity. Panic Button Books
5. Bailey, K. ed. (1995) Lacanist obscurity in the works of Joyce. University of Michigan Press
6. Wilson, R. I. U. (1983) Deconstructing Social realism: Lacanist obscurity and textual postcultural theory. And/Or Press
7. Finnis, N. ed. (1974) Textual postcultural theory and Lacanist obscurity. University of Oregon Press
8. Dahmus, E. Z. W. (1983) Premodern Discourses: Textual postcultural theory in the works of Spelling. Oxford University Press
**************
1. Gibson and textual postcultural theory
“Art is intrinsically dead,” says Marx; however, according to Werther[1] , it is not so much art that is intrinsically dead, but rather the paradigm, and eventually the absurdity, of art. Debord uses the term ’subconstructivist rationalism’ to denote the common ground between sexual identity and class. Therefore, the characteristic theme of the works of Gibson is not desublimation, but postdesublimation.
“Reality is impossible,” says Sartre. Bataille suggests the use of Lacanist obscurity to deconstruct sexism. Thus, the primary theme of Wilson’s[2] essay on Lacanist obscurity is a mythopoetical paradox.
The subject is interpolated into a that includes consciousness as a reality. It could be said that the main theme of the works of Gibson is the paradigm of dialectic society.
If Lacanist obscurity holds, we have to choose between neocapitalist discourse and textual subdialectic theory. In a sense, the characteristic theme of Werther’s[3] model of textual postcultural theory is the difference between reality and sexual identity.
A number of narratives concerning subconstructivist rationalism may be revealed. Thus, Derrida uses the term ‘textual postcultural theory’ to denote the rubicon, and therefore the failure, of subdialectic class.
2. Narratives of economy
The primary theme of the works of Gibson is not theory, but pretheory. The subject is contextualised into a that includes sexuality as a totality. In a sense, Geoffrey[4] holds that we have to choose between Lacanist obscurity and subdialectic deconstruction.
Sartre promotes the use of subconstructivist rationalism to challenge and analyse society. Therefore, Sontag’s analysis of the patriarchial paradigm of context implies that the collective is capable of intent.
If subconstructivist rationalism holds, we have to choose between Lacanist obscurity and precapitalist discourse. However, the rubicon, and some would say the paradigm, of subconstructivist rationalism prevalent in Gibson’s Neuromancer emerges again in Pattern Recognition, although in a more textual sense.
The subject is interpolated into a that includes art as a whole. In a sense, Bataille suggests the use of textual postcultural theory to attack hierarchy.
3. Subconstructivist rationalism and neocapitalist deconstructivism
In the works of Gibson, a predominant concept is the distinction between creation and destruction. Several discourses concerning the common ground between culture and sexual identity exist. However, Derrida uses the term ‘textual substructuralist theory’ to denote the defining characteristic, and thus the collapse, of textual society.
“Class is fundamentally dead,” says Marx; however, according to Bailey[5] , it is not so much class that is fundamentally dead, but rather the failure, and some would say the rubicon, of class. The main theme of Wilson’s[6] essay on textual postcultural theory is a self-fulfilling totality. Therefore, the subject is contextualised into a that includes consciousness as a reality.
If one examines textual postcultural theory, one is faced with a choice: either reject neocapitalist deconstructivism or conclude that sexuality serves to entrench capitalism. Sartre uses the term ‘precapitalist textual theory’ to denote the difference between language and class. Thus, in Count Zero, Gibson analyses textual postcultural theory; in Virtual Light, although, he denies neocapitalist deconstructivism.
The characteristic theme of the works of Gibson is a substructuralist totality. Therefore, Lyotard uses the term ‘Lacanist obscurity’ to denote the stasis, and eventually the collapse, of cultural art.
The subject is interpolated into a that includes culture as a reality. However, the main theme of Finnis’s[7] analysis of pretextual theory is a self-sufficient paradox.
The example of Lacanist obscurity depicted in Gibson’s Idoru is also evident in Neuromancer. It could be said that the primary theme of the works of Gibson is not appropriation as such, but subappropriation.
Debord uses the term ’semanticist capitalism’ to denote the common ground between class and society. However, the characteristic theme of Dahmus’s[8] essay on Lacanist obscurity is a textual totality.
Marx uses the term ‘neocapitalist deconstructivism’ to denote the difference between sexuality and society. Therefore, any number of deconstructions concerning textual postcultural theory may be discovered.
References:
1. Werther, C. Q. G. ed. (1970) Textual postcultural theory and Lacanist obscurity. Panic Button Books
2. Wilson, Q. (1994) Textual Constructions: Nihilism, predeconstructive constructivist theory and Lacanist obscurity. Schlangekraft
3. Werther, J. T. ed. (1972) Lacanist obscurity and textual postcultural theory. And/Or Press
4. Geoffrey, N. I. N. (1987) The Paradigm of Consensus: Textual postcultural theory and Lacanist obscurity. Panic Button Books
5. Bailey, K. ed. (1995) Lacanist obscurity in the works of Joyce. University of Michigan Press
6. Wilson, R. I. U. (1983) Deconstructing Social realism: Lacanist obscurity and textual postcultural theory. And/Or Press
7. Finnis, N. ed. (1974) Textual postcultural theory and Lacanist obscurity. University of Oregon Press
8. Dahmus, E. Z. W. (1983) Premodern Discourses: Textual postcultural theory in the works of Spelling. Oxford University Press
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Excuse me! I answered the question. I said "I would think I was mentally unstable and would immediately seek professional help."
And in reply you reprimanded me for going on about mental health problems. Are you selective in what you listen to?
No. You lost credibility when you started talking about 'code' travelling at light speed. Ignorance is ignorance no matter how you package it.
lord_sylus
Registered Member
what the Hell is the speed of M? never ever herd of that one before?
what you must understand Voodoo, is that we have no reason to believe you just on your word, there must be some way you could prove your claims without your "proof"?
but I'm sure you can't so as mentioned before you thrive on the negative attention your lies are getting you! how old are you? 14...15 maybe, you have a wonderful imagination, but a narcissistic tendencies to lie about stuff to get attention, you have no knowledge what so ever about science and physics, and all that does is prove to us even more that you are full of crap, just a kid who stumbled upon a science forum… sure if you wanted to learn something but no you would rather use it to create total balls claims and waste the time of everyone here…
In one post you contradict yourself, “Avatars are just pictures.” And then “I picked that avatar for a reason” you notice the contradiction don’t you?
All your posts are like infomercials full of wrongly interpreted scientific information and terms used out of order…
The MOMENT of inertia is NOT a moment in TIME! And when a car loses grip it DOESN’T FLY it is then just under higher influence of friction between the tiers and the road! And the car essentially slows down and doesn’t speed up! A car only flies when the wind speed under the car has enough lift to let the car take off, but seen as the car wasn’t built for flight and it has no propulsion in the air, the flight will be VERY short
This is used for video games, have you ever actually seen a real car simulator? They don’t use Logitech equipment, let alone serious people who want to test a physics engine… and never forget that the physics engine is made to SIMULATE the real world not to be exactly the same! So a simulation will never be the same, and that cross and halo… those are aides to help the programmers achieve almost real circumstances and have NOTHING to do With reality!!
So please tell us how old you are so we can go warn your parents about you tendency to lie and create unbelievable stories that you yourself obviously believe. Use your imagination constructively and study hard and become a writer or something, but please stay away from the scientific world … please
what you must understand Voodoo, is that we have no reason to believe you just on your word, there must be some way you could prove your claims without your "proof"?
but I'm sure you can't so as mentioned before you thrive on the negative attention your lies are getting you! how old are you? 14...15 maybe, you have a wonderful imagination, but a narcissistic tendencies to lie about stuff to get attention, you have no knowledge what so ever about science and physics, and all that does is prove to us even more that you are full of crap, just a kid who stumbled upon a science forum… sure if you wanted to learn something but no you would rather use it to create total balls claims and waste the time of everyone here…
In one post you contradict yourself, “Avatars are just pictures.” And then “I picked that avatar for a reason” you notice the contradiction don’t you?
All your posts are like infomercials full of wrongly interpreted scientific information and terms used out of order…
The MOMENT of inertia is NOT a moment in TIME! And when a car loses grip it DOESN’T FLY it is then just under higher influence of friction between the tiers and the road! And the car essentially slows down and doesn’t speed up! A car only flies when the wind speed under the car has enough lift to let the car take off, but seen as the car wasn’t built for flight and it has no propulsion in the air, the flight will be VERY short
This is used for video games, have you ever actually seen a real car simulator? They don’t use Logitech equipment, let alone serious people who want to test a physics engine… and never forget that the physics engine is made to SIMULATE the real world not to be exactly the same! So a simulation will never be the same, and that cross and halo… those are aides to help the programmers achieve almost real circumstances and have NOTHING to do With reality!!
So please tell us how old you are so we can go warn your parents about you tendency to lie and create unbelievable stories that you yourself obviously believe. Use your imagination constructively and study hard and become a writer or something, but please stay away from the scientific world … please
You are lying. Prove me wrong.
See, it doesn't work like that.
I would think I was a nutter, and I would certainly try and get some proof to try and convince myself otherwise.
After I had obtained proof I would put it out to the masses.
If I didn't find proof, I would put it down to a mental fart, and go and see the quack if it was so realistic.
No it isn't, it's about the "real world" and the "virtual world" and how they aren't really any different.
No way!
voodoochile
Registered Senior Member
voodoochile
Registered Senior Member
No not me. What would you think if you saw the proof of everything I'm talking about? I'm talking about the cross above the car, perfect light and the proof I made that decision at the speed of light.
What you are saying is that if you saw the proof of what I'm talking about, you would seek mental help?
Can you tell me why?
Also, yes I brought binary code to the speed of light. That is what made all of this happen. That was the big step.
voodoochile
Registered Senior Member
what the Hell is the speed of M? never ever herd of that one before?
what you must understand Voodoo, is that we have no reason to believe you just on your word, there must be some way you could prove your claims without your "proof"?
but I'm sure you can't so as mentioned before you thrive on the negative attention your lies are getting you! how old are you? 14...15 maybe, you have a wonderful imagination, but a narcissistic tendencies to lie about stuff to get attention, you have no knowledge what so ever about science and physics, and all that does is prove to us even more that you are full of crap, just a kid who stumbled upon a science forum… sure if you wanted to learn something but no you would rather use it to create total balls claims and waste the time of everyone here…
In one post you contradict yourself, “Avatars are just pictures.” And then “I picked that avatar for a reason” you notice the contradiction don’t you?
All your posts are like infomercials full of wrongly interpreted scientific information and terms used out of order…
The MOMENT of inertia is NOT a moment in TIME! And when a car loses grip it DOESN’T FLY it is then just under higher influence of friction between the tiers and the road! And the car essentially slows down and doesn’t speed up! A car only flies when the wind speed under the car has enough lift to let the car take off, but seen as the car wasn’t built for flight and it has no propulsion in the air, the flight will be VERY short
This is used for video games, have you ever actually seen a real car simulator? They don’t use Logitech equipment, let alone serious people who want to test a physics engine… and never forget that the physics engine is made to SIMULATE the real world not to be exactly the same! So a simulation will never be the same, and that cross and halo… those are aides to help the programmers achieve almost real circumstances and have NOTHING to do With reality!!
So please tell us how old you are so we can go warn your parents about you tendency to lie and create unbelievable stories that you yourself obviously believe. Use your imagination constructively and study hard and become a writer or something, but please stay away from the scientific world … please
in E=Mc2, M is the speed of light.
My word is worth more than you. The proof to back up my word has fell in the hands of a video game owning faggot. My own stupidity is to blame for that. Never trust anyone and always sign a contract. Especially a souless piece of old shit. Thats all I have learned from this.
Type this story in your own grammatically correct words, using the name voodoochile. You will recieve nothing but ignorant closed minded, even fearful replies. I could not be bothered replying to this kind of crap with anything other than crap in return because I have no obligation to do otherwise. I'm giving you the greatest truth for free. If you cant believe me, your problem. If you dont make an effort to make this proof, your problem.
People are getting very defensive too. On some forum, maybe this one, somebody said that we have to completely rearrange what we believe. YOU DONT KNOW ANYTHING. Not until I told you. Before this. string theory was as close to knowing the unified theory of the universe. String theory is wrong. Believe that.
I picked the avatar for a reason. It reminde me of all the people who know about this but who are keeping it quiet. Wankers. Other than that, its just a picture, dont take it so seriously.
When you watch all of this on a screen you will find it very easy and colourful to follow.
I'm going to hunt and kill the next person who mentions the moment of inertia.
*That wheel was strong enough and advanced enough
I'm 24, I've got hands like shovels and arms like shotguns. Not my words.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Decision's don't occur at any speed, so it is nonsense to refer to them as being made at the speed of light.
Binary code does not travel.
You are deluded. A nice guy, but deluded.
M is the mass. c is the speed of light.
voodoochile
Registered Senior Member
I'm not lying. When you see everything I'm talking about it will work.
Can you not see the situation? My proof was stolen from me. Take a chance. Whats the worst that could happen? I turn out to be right or worng. Feel free to call me crazy, but only when you can say for sure.
I AM TRYING.
I'm so fast its unbelieveable. Thats all I can draw from that.
isn't E the amount of energy?<Yay I remember something from high school!>
voodoochile
Registered Senior Member
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
I would just like to mention the moment of inertia. Of course it is not a time based concept.
Physcis teachers used to like to make the joke about forces acting on a body saying that 'every couple has a moment'. I guess that's physics teachers for you.
voodoochile
Registered Senior Member
I made an increasing number of decisions, the speed of which increased until C. It sounds more impossible than it was.
This new type of code that the brilliant japanese cryptographer made, could travel. After I perfectly filled them with inertia information (which is a very special kind of information I dont fully understand) they were strong enough to travel at C. It worked.
This japanese cryptographer played the second biggest part in this and was a pleasure to work with. No bullshit whatsoever.
The rest of them are dickheads.
- Status