Big Chiller
Registered Senior Member
There's no point in debating this women just like to show off their body and men tend to enjoy it. Also if one woman has the right to expose herself one woman should also have the right to cover herself.
the last days of fear
- Thread starter Lori_7
- Start date
There's no point in debating this women just like to show off their body and men tend to enjoy it. Also if one woman has the right to expose herself one woman should also have the right to cover herself.
Well, I don't want to drag the discussion off-topic, but the whole point of a free society is that the society is flexible enough to accomodate everyone's wishes and desires. If Yosef doesn't want to see scantily-clad women, there are places he can go where he won't see any, and lots of ways of getting inbetween these places without seeing any or being forced to look. On the other hand, if some lady wants to strut their stuff and flash their assets, there are places where they can do that too and only be surrounded with like-minded individuals.
im not sure how this topic got to scantily clad women..
but my two cents..
if they want to dress scantily, that is fine with me..but don't berate me because i am looking..
but my two cents..
if they want to dress scantily, that is fine with me..but don't berate me because i am looking..
it's my fault; i'm sorry. i shouldn't single out yosef like that either because we all do it to some degree in different ways. i just thought the video was relevant. all of the personas showing up with their posses and material adornment that they identify themselves with, and end up naked and making out. i think people should try to identify more with each other, than with all of the other things that seem to get in the way. there are so many things, that imo at this point in the game, are nothing more than excuses. it's fear-based behavior. it's not empowering. it's not loving. imo, yosef saying "i don't like what you're wearing, so i will disassociate from you" is unacceptable. i think what he's afraid of is unacceptable too...lust.
the quantum stuff i'm trying to let sink in, but it's been a loooong time since i've studied any physics. it's just so exciting to hear scientists talk about a realm they know so little about in the first place. especially one so permeating and unobvious. and then, i know the power of thought. i've seen it and experienced it, to the point where it seems "supernatural". and i've gotten a lot of meaning from that experience which is what's important. part of the meaning though is that something is going on that is not obvious. and i want to know more about it.
the quantum stuff i'm trying to let sink in, but it's been a loooong time since i've studied any physics. it's just so exciting to hear scientists talk about a realm they know so little about in the first place. especially one so permeating and unobvious. and then, i know the power of thought. i've seen it and experienced it, to the point where it seems "supernatural". and i've gotten a lot of meaning from that experience which is what's important. part of the meaning though is that something is going on that is not obvious. and i want to know more about it.
Want-- is irrelevant.
No one can tell you to not Believe. Not one person can tell you not to believe in God.
But people CAN tell you not to make inaccurate statements.
Let go of "Want" and let the physics sink in.
In the end, even if it turns out that you were in error and even if that example doesn't support the idea of Gods existence...
To you and for you- God is still going to be there regardless. You don't need to justify him with inaccurate statements and you don't need to Prove him to anyone.
But as you would ask a person to not make a gay bar mockery of Jesus out of respect for you - - I, too, would ask that the science be left accurate, regardless of your wants or beliefs.
want is NOT irrelevant. that's the whole point of this thread. what we want not only drives our behavior but it much more systemically becomes who we are over time. now, we see the results of that every day...it's very clear. what isn't clear is the process behind that. i get the impression that many don't want to look at the process because it makes them accountable. i don't think that realization's going to save the world directly. people would continue to be evil, and consciously use the power of their thoughts for evil, but i believe that good will triumph over evil, because what i want matters, and when it happens, we have to know how to live.
i respect your analogy, though i don't know what a gay bar mockery is, but being educated in other things, when i hear physicists and biologists taking about these things, i kind of have to take their word for it. when i hear religious people taking god's name in vain, and bearing false witness it does piss me off, so i understand.
i don't think the opinions of scientists i've heard regarding this topic are entirely true or entirely false. it's obvious that we're just scratching the surface, but what that means is that a big door is about to open up. there's always power resulting from that. i think humanity is about to take a quantum leap forward, and i think it's more important than ever, for all of us to be on the same page going forward.
Do you not entirely agree that What the Bleep fails to include the light needed to shine on the particle in order for the "eye" to "see" it? If so, does that not make What the Bleep's depiction of quantum mechanics incomplete, at best?
i assumed that if light was necessary for observation that it was a given. i don't know what it takes to observe an electron in this way, but i assumed it wasn't a giant plastic eyeball on a stand.
Very well. Let me rephrase it then.
Learn more productive wants and re-prioritize.
Want Accuracy more than Inaccuracy.
:shrug:
How odd.
Because to me, I find much of the teachings of Christianity, for example, a strong method of reducing ones accountability.
1.) All Gods Plan. It's his will.
2.) Jesus paid for your sins for you.
Well... This is not The Transformers or G.I. Joe.
In reality, Cobra is not Necessarily Evil and Optimus Prime is not necessarily Good. Although, he IS badass.
Such things are solely a matter of perspective.
So although what you WANT may be relevant to You, what you want may not line up with reality. One needs to check themselves to ensure that their wants line up with reality.
When I was in the Ministry, I would describe it this way:
You have Your Will. And you have Gods will.
When you are a child, you have your will and your mothers will.
Your will is "Cookie before dinner." Your mothers will is "Dinner first."
Her will is because she understands healthy eating habits and you don't. So she exerts her will until you are old enough to understand and learn healthy eating habits. When that time comes, your will and her will is aligned. It's not a Will vs. Will anymore. It's the same will.
Living is very much like that. You must learn- always. Never stop learning. Learn so that you can align your will and your wants with reality. This helps a person to live well.
Agreed.
And one must LEARN so that they can differentiate the probabilities.
So, we can say some things in science that are pretty solid facts. Like the Hardness of a diamond, for example.
We can say something else is strongly supported by the evidence, but is not as solid as the measurement of diamonds- Like Evolution.
We can say something is supported by the evidence so far and it looks right enough but we still have more study to go. There's quite a bit we don't yet know - Big Bang and cosmology.
We can say something is seemingly accurate and the math is right, but we don't really know much, yet-- M Theory.
Within each, there is a lot of foundation that IS solid, though. Like the Math. Or in Quantum Mechanics, we can say a great deal for certain even when other aspects are puzzling.
? explain...
ok..now that you brought this up..
i have learned M-theory as Membrane theory..from string theory..which posits that parallel universes exist and that the big bang was caused when two of these membranes bumped together..
now i just read in scientific america..(I think the author is wrong on this..but wanted to see if anyone else has heard this)
and i quote..from the article the elusive theory of everything..(oct 2010)
am i correct in assume the author does not know what he is talking about?
which is funny cause it was written by stephen hawking and leonard mlodinow..
i did find this (after i posted this..)
Originally the letter M in M-theory was taken from membrane, a construct designed to generalize the strings of string theory. However, as Witten was more skeptical about membranes than his colleagues, he opted for "M-theory" rather than "Membrane theory". Witten has since stated that the interpretation of the M can be a matter of taste for the user of the word "M-theory".[1]
I used to be in the ministry.
Weird huh?
I was not always an atheist, you know.
Can you reproduce the article or is there a link so we can all see it?
I cannot deny, it might be fun to see Hawking get a Buuuurnn...
In practice, you'd normally have some sort of physical block on one or both slits. You could set it so only light of one polarization direction goes through the one slit, and only light with a perpendicular polarization will go through the second. That's one of the most common ways of destroying the interference pattern (when using photon particles instead of electron particles), and it has nothing to do with some guy standing there watching things. There's no way to do an experiment and see the results without somehow looking at them, so the argument that waves only collapse when we look at them is meaningless. It's like the tree falling in the woods without someone to hear it issue- you'll come to the forest and see fallen trees, that doesn't prove those trees once stood and then fell (even though that's the simplest explanation to go with).
Maybe you think we scientists are arrogant on this matter. We scientists feel people like you are arrogant on this matter, because you're not prepared to accept nature for whatever it might truly be- you demand that the laws of the universe, whatever they are, must work out in such a way as to give everyone's life a purpose.
thats not an explanation..thats a repeat of what you already said..
Can you reproduce the article or is there a link so we can all see it?
I cannot deny, it might be fun to see Hawking get a Buuuurnn...
i cited the name of the mag and the name of the article..goto www.scientificamerican to find it..
(have searched for specific articles from the mag at the website..tends to be a hunt for the specific article..)
Well that's likely to be all the explanation you're going to get for now.
I will, on occasion, post tidbits about my personal life. But over-all, I prefer not to tell a life story in one post.
If a person has time and patience, they can really get to know a lot about me from a forum...
Yeah, that's a hunt.
I might try to find it. In the meantime, is it possible that mistook who was being quoted there?
I wrote it verbatim..not the whole article..just a little before and after the bit i thought was screwy..
i find it hard to believe hawking would say that, so i would have to conclude the other guy said it..
And I have a correction of my own.
I'm not quite sure about it since no one seems to want to answer in that other thread. I would have preferred a more definitive response...
But it is possible that I am mistaken about the double slit experiment.
I've been looking into it and reading up on it but I'm just not finding my error. This could be because I lack the education and strong physics background.
It may also be that I did not say something inaccurate, but I'd rather cover my butt first. If it turns out I wasn't too far off later, it changes little as I wouldn't have had much merit for being accurate anyway.
I'm not quite sure about it since no one seems to want to answer in that other thread. I would have preferred a more definitive response...
But it is possible that I am mistaken about the double slit experiment.
I've been looking into it and reading up on it but I'm just not finding my error. This could be because I lack the education and strong physics background.
It may also be that I did not say something inaccurate, but I'd rather cover my butt first. If it turns out I wasn't too far off later, it changes little as I wouldn't have had much merit for being accurate anyway.
without looking it up..from memory..
the double slit experiment is when they shine a laser through a partition with two slits..in the experiment it is anticipated that there will only be two lines that show up on the screen after the slits..but there are more than two lines showing up, an indication that the laser light is acting like waves as opposed to particles as particles would show only two lines..the fact that there are more than two lines indicate a wave because on the cancellation effect of waves,when two wave are equal and opposite they cancel each other out resulting in no line..
now..like i said..this is from memory..so there are probably many errors with this explanation..but its a start..
i did look it up after i posted this..here it is in wiki..looked for double slit experiment..
the double slit experiment is when they shine a laser through a partition with two slits..in the experiment it is anticipated that there will only be two lines that show up on the screen after the slits..but there are more than two lines showing up, an indication that the laser light is acting like waves as opposed to particles as particles would show only two lines..the fact that there are more than two lines indicate a wave because on the cancellation effect of waves,when two wave are equal and opposite they cancel each other out resulting in no line..
now..like i said..this is from memory..so there are probably many errors with this explanation..but its a start..
i did look it up after i posted this..here it is in wiki..looked for double slit experiment..
Last edited:
I'll bet many of those without formal scientific training, when they watch a cult propaganda movie like What the Bleep (see: Ramtha's School of Enlightenment), will get the impression the double slit experiment is something revolutionary and new.
Thomas Young first performed the double slit experiment 200 years ago using pinhole light sources (lasers obviously weren't around at the time), reliably establishing the wave-like nature of light and giving a means of measuring the wavelength for each color. The only modern twist on it is that now we can fire photons of light through it one by one, instead of huge streams of them as was done in the old days, and we can also fire other subatomic particles through (such as electrons or even molecules) and get similar results. Never had anything to do with conscious observers 200 years ago, and there's no reason to think it's any different now.
For those with a genuine interest in learning something real and accurate about quantum physics, I suggest they take a look at one of the pioneering experiments, the "Stern-Gerlach Experiment". I'd like to see anyone come along and, using the powers of their minds, take a beam of electrons starting with their spins measured along the x-axis, and make them come out as anything but a 50/50 coin toss spread when measuring their up/down spins on the z-axis. In other words, there has been clear evidence quantum behaviour has nothing to do with consciousness for over 70 years.
Thomas Young first performed the double slit experiment 200 years ago using pinhole light sources (lasers obviously weren't around at the time), reliably establishing the wave-like nature of light and giving a means of measuring the wavelength for each color. The only modern twist on it is that now we can fire photons of light through it one by one, instead of huge streams of them as was done in the old days, and we can also fire other subatomic particles through (such as electrons or even molecules) and get similar results. Never had anything to do with conscious observers 200 years ago, and there's no reason to think it's any different now.
For those with a genuine interest in learning something real and accurate about quantum physics, I suggest they take a look at one of the pioneering experiments, the "Stern-Gerlach Experiment". I'd like to see anyone come along and, using the powers of their minds, take a beam of electrons starting with their spins measured along the x-axis, and make them come out as anything but a 50/50 coin toss spread when measuring their up/down spins on the z-axis. In other words, there has been clear evidence quantum behaviour has nothing to do with consciousness for over 70 years.
I'm sorry you get that impression.
I believe everyone wants peace, but the weakness of mankind doesn't go away. People make their wars to find peace because the other way requires sacrifice. We need leadership that is saturated with pious, ethical, and altruistic people who are willing to sacrifice. It's just so hard for everyone to do hard things to get things done. Evil runs a muck and there are few brave and selfless enough to fight it. Religion is not the answer and god is on its own time schedule and leaves us alone to fester in evil. I wonder how many "DENIED" rubber stamps he goes through per day. I wish I had as many excuses as god does to not go to work. Imagine if all the doctors in the world just said, "No, I am going to work tomorrow not today. Today is not the day, don't worry about it, I got your back trust me." How many people would die? And we're supposed to thank them for what they have done and will do tomorrow? How lovely.
Last edited: