Thinking past the 4th dimension. - Page 3

also funny thing is, those are all doctors and profesors on famous universitys

btw.. baal noone sayed he believe in that pseudoscience babble , i just said that it was interesting for me

On December 03 2008 07:49 morph1 wrote: also funny thing is, those are all doctors and profesors on famous universitys btw.. baal noone sayed he believe in that pseudoscience babble , i just said that it was interesting for me

well, most of those guys are real scientists, but what they do is pretty much this:

They mix tapes of Carl Sagan and friends talking about misterious quantum physics, everybody watches in awe pretending that they understood what they just heard (they didnt) and between those vids, they put random clips of total bullshit conclusions and hoaxes in, like if those were the conclusions of the scientists while they are not.

lol yea and in the end when credits fall they put a small paragraph where they say that not all the participants agree on everything that is presented in this film,they have their ass legally protected and noone will notice because who reads the boring credits anyway

On December 03 2008 07:54 Baal wrote: They mix tapes of Carl Sagan and friends talking about misterious quantum physics, everybody watches in awe pretending that they understood what they just heard (they didnt) and between those vids, they put random clips of total bullshit conclusions and hoaxes in, like if those were the conclusions of the scientists while they are not.

I could not for the love of life describe that movie better then u just did, this is just spot on.

also, fuck donnie darko the only thing worth anything in that movie is the kewl looking bunny .

Baal, in total seriousness, if you can see how ridiculous "What the bleep do we know" and the vid posted in the OP are, I don't really understand how you can believe a word of similar stuff like "Zeitgeist" or various 9/11 conspiracy theories.

On December 03 2008 10:36 rgfdxm wrote: Baal, in total seriousness, if you can see how ridiculous "What the bleep do we know" and the vid posted in the OP are, I don't really understand how you can believe a word of similar stuff like "Zeitgeist" or various 9/11 conspiracy theories.

also lolfail.


didn't know microsoftsam was into that kinda shit lol

One question about the flatlanders i've always had (i read some books in which they appeared too...):

They're 2d, so how can they see other 2d objects on the same paper? Surely, they can only view the side of it! A balloon or 3d human would def not look like a circle or a cross-section, but just a line with some bumps in it. A flatlander then having 2 eyes will be able to see the distances in the line. You can only perceive n-1 dimensions with a single eye in n dimensions...

lol aseq ur right

On December 03 2008 13:53 aseq wrote: One question about the flatlanders i've always had (i read some books in which they appeared too...): They're 2d, so how can they see other 2d objects on the same paper? Surely, they can only view the side of it! A balloon or 3d human would def not look like a circle or a cross-section, but just a line with some bumps in it. A flatlander then having 2 eyes will be able to see the distances in the line. You can only perceive n-1 dimensions with a single eye in n dimensions...

i think they see a line?

even though a flatlanders have no depth, because their image is a collection of points, they will see a line i think.

On December 03 2008 10:36 rgfdxm wrote: Baal, in total seriousness, if you can see how ridiculous "What the bleep do we know" and the vid posted in the OP are, I don't really understand how you can believe a word of similar stuff like "Zeitgeist" or various 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Because they are nothing alike in any way, i always do "independent research" after a movie.

For example after the "what de bleep do we know?" movie i googled the crystal experiment that sounded like bullshit and i got many hits claiming it was a hoax, etc.

After watching Zeitgeist, after independant research confirming all the facts they say about for example 9/11 demolition, it was impossible for me to keep believing it was a terrorist attack, (in the beggining i thought it was obv an attack and laughed about conspiracy theorists too, i remember reading Maddox's entry about it and i agreed with him, but previously to watching Zeitgeist i saw undeniable evidence that it was a demolition).

I did found bullshit in their religion part, but i dont give a fuck about that part anyway, i verified their quotes and claims and they were totally legit, do the same plz.

On December 03 2008 14:13 collegesucks wrote: Show nested quote + On December 03 2008 13:53 aseq wrote: One question about the flatlanders i've always had (i read some books in which they appeared too...): They're 2d, so how can they see other 2d objects on the same paper? Surely, they can only view the side of it! A balloon or 3d human would def not look like a circle or a cross-section, but just a line with some bumps in it. A flatlander then having 2 eyes will be able to see the distances in the line. You can only perceive n-1 dimensions with a single eye in n dimensions... i think they see a line? even though a flatlanders have no depth, because their image is a collection of points, they will see a line i think.

wouldn't everything just be one big line then?

On December 03 2008 15:12 Baal wrote:. After watching Zeitgeist, after independant research confirming all the facts they say about for example 9/11 demolition, it was impossible for me to keep believing it was a terrorist attack, (in the beggining i thought it was obv an attack and laughed about conspiracy theorists too, i remember reading Maddox's entry about it and i agreed with him, but previously to watching Zeitgeist i saw undeniable evidence that it was a demolition). I did found bullshit in their religion part, but i dont give a fuck about that part anyway, i verified their quotes and claims and they were totally legit, do the same plz.

I'd be interested to see what you turned up in your research, then. To be honest, with respect to Zeitgeist the fact that they were so spectacularly wrong (and clearly deliberately so) about the religion section casts any claims of credibility in a pretty bad light. The section on finance was pretty lolbad too, so I didn't put any stock in what they said about 9/11. Consider the source IMO.

But then again, just because Zeitgeist is garbage doesn't prove that whatever theory they chose to feature is wrong, it just means they aren't convincing. If you've found some evidence or arguments from actual credible sources I'd love to read them.

alright so everything is a point as you go higher ez game

On December 03 2008 17:06 brambolius wrote: Show nested quote + On December 03 2008 14:13 collegesucks wrote:   On December 03 2008 13:53 aseq wrote: One question about the flatlanders i've always had (i read some books in which they appeared too...): They're 2d, so how can they see other 2d objects on the same paper? Surely, they can only view the side of it! A balloon or 3d human would def not look like a circle or a cross-section, but just a line with some bumps in it. A flatlander then having 2 eyes will be able to see the distances in the line. You can only perceive n-1 dimensions with a single eye in n dimensions... i think they see a line? even though a flatlanders have no depth, because their image is a collection of points, they will see a line i think. wouldn't everything just be one big line then?

Yes, that's right, in a way. But the line could still have different colors, and by moving around with their 2 eyes they could make the colors change. Also, if there is 2D lighting or 2D fog those would make a difference.

2d worlds sound boring and confusing

On December 03 2008 17:06 brambolius wrote: Show nested quote + On December 03 2008 14:13 collegesucks wrote:   On December 03 2008 13:53 aseq wrote: One question about the flatlanders i've always had (i read some books in which they appeared too...): They're 2d, so how can they see other 2d objects on the same paper? Surely, they can only view the side of it! A balloon or 3d human would def not look like a circle or a cross-section, but just a line with some bumps in it. A flatlander then having 2 eyes will be able to see the distances in the line. You can only perceive n-1 dimensions with a single eye in n dimensions... i think they see a line? even though a flatlanders have no depth, because their image is a collection of points, they will see a line i think. wouldn't everything just be one big line then?

like everything is a big plane to us
but as we do, they would see depth using their brain

LOL ready for more?
...more what...?

i was reading "the celestine prophecy" and its all logic (albeit verbose) till about chapter 6 then SUDDENLY without warning he starts talking about how the energy he's describing (which i cud simplify as "karma" ) is actually "visible" . he briefly talks about multiple trustworthy sources , for example..

a) people who can "see" the auras of energy around people and objects, seeing energy as glowing colour
b) a controlled experiment where (bare with me, and i cant remember properly) , a man thinks about damaging a plant . the plant is presented with a "line up" of people . the plant is able to "detect" which person from the line-up is/was thinking about damaging it.

my friend kinda believes this stuff and i'd like to research it a lot more (ill start now). it's a concept involved in SO many psuedosciences and religions and beliefs and experiences. im sure u kno how many things go unexplored or ignored due to lack of funding-science

search for kirlian effect

On December 03 2008 15:12 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On December 03 2008 10:36 rgfdxm wrote: Baal, in total seriousness, if you can see how ridiculous "What the bleep do we know" and the vid posted in the OP are, I don't really understand how you can believe a word of similar stuff like "Zeitgeist" or various 9/11 conspiracy theories. Because they are nothing alike in any way, i always do "independent research" after a movie. For example after the "what de bleep do we know?" movie i googled the crystal experiment that sounded like bullshit and i got many hits claiming it was a hoax, etc. After watching Zeitgeist, after independant research confirming all the facts they say about for example 9/11 demolition, it was impossible for me to keep believing it was a terrorist attack, (in the beggining i thought it was obv an attack and laughed about conspiracy theorists too, i remember reading Maddox's entry about it and i agreed with him, but previously to watching Zeitgeist i saw undeniable evidence that it was a demolition). I did found bullshit in their religion part, but i dont give a fuck about that part anyway, i verified their quotes and claims and they were totally legit, do the same plz.

I dont want to get started on that. But like I said before EVERYTHING in Zeitgeist movie is false. All the facts and the numbers they throw out are all total bullshit. There is not even a single reliable source cited in the movie.
The problem with WTC is that people who know what happened and why can not argue with people who don't. Cause all conspiracy's lack the technical knowledge.

On December 02 2008 21:45 jase wrote:

I have this picture on my AIM, I've always wondered what it is from though. Do you know?