In 1666, Sir Isaac Newton discovered the laws of physics and motion. In 1831, Michael Faraday discovered the law of induction. In 1873, James Maxwell discovered a set of equations which explained the electromagnetic forces. In 1922, Neils Bohr won the Nobel Prize for foundational contributions to quantum physics.
Three of the four went to Trinity College in London, and all resided in London at one point. Faraday, the only one who did not attend Trinity had his laboratory at Trinity Buoy Wharf.
The statistical significance of the three most pivotal discoveries in physics leading up to this point occurring at nearly the same location is less than 1%. The fact that all three locations included Trinity is not a coincidence, it is a signature.
Between 1920 and 1930 Heisenberg and Einstein would make great strides in quantum and particle physics. Soon after, Theodore Kaluza would unite Einstein and Maxwell's equations with a theory by introducing a fifth dimension. All three were German.
All of the discoveries above were required, and fundamental in the development of quantum mind control.
Quantum charge neural stimulation, can remotely read and write neural firing patterns, through electromagnetic shielding. It does not require you to be stationary, and works all the time. The technology is very similar to TEMPEST 2, but for your brain.
In 1932, Aldous Huxley wrote Brave New World. In 1948, George Orwell wrote write 1984.
These two authors met in one place, at one time, in London; at Eton College in 1917. Their works are both descriptions of a tyrannical government oppressing its people using fear, the media, and mind control.
1984 is a reality today, with the only difference being that you do not know it is going on. World governments are using this mind control to suppress pubic knowledge of technological advances in quantum physics, including the artificial intelligence singularity as well as mind control itself.
There is no explanation for this truth other than a message from the future. It is a warning.
In 1980, 1982, and 1984 Pope John Paul II met with the President of the United States. Orwell retitled his novel three times.
George H.W. Bush was practically running the show by '84, as Reagan had been the victim of an attempted assassination, and then unfortunately stricken with Alzheimers. Bush has been implicated in the JFK conspiracy, and was a Director of Central Intelligence. He was also involved in the Iran Contra cover up, linking him to "The Octopus", a group related to the CIA, the Justice Department, and Organized Crime; and a mind control conspiracy involving the death of Danny Casolaro and investigator Cheri Seymour. His eldest son was a member of Skull and Bones, and the sitting President on 9/11.
The Reagan/Bush administration were partially responsible for inflating the prices of cocaine and oil via foreign and domestic policy. American Intelligence proceeds from these actions most likely contributed significantly to the building of the Echelon infrastructure, outside the purview of the United States Congress and the OMB.
Echelon is controlled by the singularity. It would be impossible for anything other than an artificial intelligence to sift through the volume of information travelling back and forth on the internet alone. It acts as a censorWall, like in China, except its transparent and everyone thinks its just for surveillance (are you stupid?). It is also controlling your mind.
On September 11, 2001, the United States government committed a false flag attack that would be used in order to explain the existence of a psycho-surveillance infrastructure, utilizing quantum mind control which had been globally in place for at least a decade prior. It is the reason you are allowing your Constitutional Freedoms to be destroyed. This reason is stupid, really stupid. Your brain doesn't understand that because of mind control.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Then what happened?
You can't leave your story on such a cliffhanger, man.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
If that were true...why would they -let- you post about it?
Between mind control and an AI in the net you should not have a doughnut's chance in a police station of getting the out the truth...which means your pot is thoroughly cracked or you are one of them spreading misinformation to throw us off the -really real- conspiracy...the Illuminati/Masons secret dark side of the moon base, used to slowly make the people more and more dumb with the use of genetically engineered food and radio waves.
Posted by GinetteB (Member # 12390) on :
A simple analysis of what happens to people in a stressed society (unjust social systems, big gap between rich and poor, violence, undemocratic not only in politics but also in religious systems, at jobs etc.). A common symptom of stress is black-and-white thinking and narrowmindedness. It obstructs the working of the conscience, leading to actions and behaviour, harmful to ourselves and often also to others. This spreads the stress over more people, and as most people have big difficulties making a distinction between actor and action, it leads to distrust, suspicion and hate. To protect themselves, people illuminate themselves and see the other as 'difficult' or 'toxic' or 'evil'. Groups without a goal to come up with constructive action, but mainly as an outlet for frustrations and the need for a feeling of solidarity, are being formed based on 'us' against 'they'. Yet this doesn't help to cure the stress, so even within those groups, connections between people are superficial and reserved. Now the mental state enters the next phase of being exposed to prolonged stress, a lack of warmheartedness and the resulting inadequate level of social relationships: People are turning inwards becoming more and more self-occupied, and upwards, looking for salvation from the heavens.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
As a side note: Reagan also met with John Paul II twice in 1987. And Bush met with him in '89 and '91. And Clinton met with him four times over eight years. And the other Bush met with him three times before he died.
I suppose it's interesting that Orwell only retitled his book three times. *laugh*
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote:World governments are using this mind control to suppress pubic knowledge of technological advances in quantum physics
Pubic knowledge of quantum physics, eh? *wink, wink, nudge, nudge, know what I mean, that's what she said*
Posted by Adam Dobrin (Member # 12908) on :
Public knowledge meaning the obvious truth that entanglement conveys information. Theres practically "fanatical" army of literature putting forward the false truth that classical information cannot be conveyed via entanglement.
Also, there has been very little "groundbreaking" work done since around WW2 in publicly disclosed physics.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
You have proof that information can be sent via entanglement?
Let as know as soon as possible.
Hobbes Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Where did I put my blue pills? I need them something fierce right now.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:On September 11, 2001, the United States government committed a false flag attack that would be used in order to explain the existence of a psycho-surveillance infrastructure, utilizing quantum mind control which had been globally in place for at least a decade prior. It is the reason you are allowing your Constitutional Freedoms to be destroyed. This reason is stupid, really stupid. Your brain doesn't understand that because of mind control.
Cool story bro.
Are you someone having a laugh by pretending to be crazy? Because if so, you're boring, and it's played out, go away.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
How did he know that all of the government mind control agents frequent Hatrack. Has surveillance been started yet? He obviously knows too much.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Derp Aros, Ender's Game is obviously a how-to manual for brain washing students. Didn't you notice that we all got scouted for the secret version of the C.I.A. only after buying the book?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Let's all have our fun having a laugh at the person obviously suffering from psychosis (or trolling) but may I make a sincere recommendation: can there be some sort of organized method of moderator intervention when someone is obviously crazypostin' and given their state of mind are not going to have any productive and healthy interactions with the environment of the forum
It is regretfully the nature of such things that people like adam dobrin are going to behave in ways that result in them being goaded and mocked because they are having an obvious break from reality and this is amusing and fun to poke at from afar. This poster not being part of ~the community~ or whatever shouldn't change an obligation to head off 'let's mock the crazy person!' as an environment.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Is it against the TOS to be crazy? Furthermore, is it the responsibility of the community to get said crazy people help? Is it possible?
<shrug> I'll put together a logic table if you want. But I think that the only real value to be gained is in derision.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: Is it against the TOS to be crazy?
I really hope not... can we talk about cookies now?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Ok, so, what ought we to be doing? Vote Romney? Vote Obama? Vote third party? Blow up the polling station? Tear down the cell towers that are broadcasting the mind-control radiation? Don't leave us hanging, man! You can't give us all this information and no plan of action!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: But I think that the only real value to be gained is in derision.
And you are saying this in regards to someone who does not need derision, nor do they need any sort of access to an environment of mockery.
Assuming all that has been written here is true, you are interacting with a very unwell person. This place shouldn't be allowed to be an environment that can contribute to that unwellness for the sake of gratifying our desire to laugh at a mentally ill human being.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Aros: But I think that the only real value to be gained is in derision.
And you are saying this in regards to someone who does not need derision, nor do they need any sort of access to an environment of mockery.
Assuming all that has been written here is true, you are interacting with a very unwell person. This place shouldn't be allowed to be an environment that can contribute to that unwellness for the sake of gratifying our desire to laugh at a mentally ill human being.
I can't second this strongly enough.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Assuming all that has been written here is true, you are interacting with a very unwell person. This place shouldn't be allowed to be an environment that can contribute to that unwellness for the sake of gratifying our desire to laugh at a mentally ill human being.
You are assuming that this can be an environment where he'll accept and receive help? He obviously has built a wall where his ego is not listening. You try to help; he becomes defensive. You ignore him; he goes away (maybe). You mock him? He still becomes defensive, right?
What do you think is more likely to get him to reflect on his situation? You telling him to get help? Or getting mocked on a message board? If his walls are up so high, shouldn't the point be to bring them down enough so that he questions his assumptions?
I'm thinking that the mockery will be more effective. If not, at least it will be more entertaining.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The mockery may drive him to lash out at the site and its members in meaningful ways, and in a worst-case scenario it may aggravate the crash he'll experience when he stops riding his current mania. Don't attempt to justify it by arguing that it's therapeutic; if you want to mock the sick person for being sick, just own up to it and don't try to pretend otherwise.
I've contacted a guy who's probably his father, but let's just say that I don't think Adam will be getting much support from his family. It's an unfortunate situation, and I hope he finds his way out of it.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
And you don't feel that a helpful tact (rather than a mocking one) might prove just as dangerous? If he thinks you're serious (I've read your book, seek help, yada yada), might he not be even more likely to try convince you? To prove him that he's right? At least he's more likely to brush off casual mockery. I think the danger would come if he thinks he has a chance to get through to you.
The best answer is probably just to ignore him.
Posted by GinetteB (Member # 12390) on :
A basic definition of mentally ill is 'not restraining from harming oneself and others'. So then I am not so sure if your diagnosis is right Samprimary. Everybody has the right to have their own beliefs. Adam's beliefs are no more 'mentally ill' than the belief, a person in trouble deserves the trouble, because he has collected bad karma in previous lifes. Or because God or Allah is punishing them. Or to think Jesus will take everyone who says 'Thank you, I love you' to heaven - and all the others not etc. etc. etc. These beliefs are all caused by a lack of warmheartedness - or love - in society, and a lack of honest, authentic social relationships, so that would be what is called loneliness.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
This is true, the person posting this may need help that we are neither qualified or capable of giving. Pity will only enrage someone at this point.
But we can not let the bad reasoning, ill-logic, and conspiracy fear go unanswered. That is how psychopaths gain power, when their weird conspiracy theories sound reasonable enough to be accepted by the uniformed, and too foolish for the well informed to protest.
Posted by GinetteB (Member # 12390) on :
Darth_Mauve, Who are you to decide Adam needs help? Is he a danger to the life of himself or others? No. Did he ask for help? No.
'We cannot let...blahblahblah...unanswered' Sounds a little paranoia, to be honest. And 'that is how psychopaths gain power' sounds hysterical. Mind, I am judging your language, not you. Just asking you to investigate your own beliefs instead of his. And read my posts too, if you want to engage in the thread.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
How psychopaths gain power!?!?! How did I not put it together? This is a viral marketing campaign for the new Hannibal series on NBC!
quote:Originally posted by GinetteB: Is he a danger to the life of himself or others? No.
How can you possibly know this?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I don't know, guys, I think this "assume he is mentally ill" shtick is presumptuous and dehumanizing.
Where I live people with these kinds of views are fairly common. Many such people live fine lives and have jobs and families and so on and so forth while believing in the secret shadow government that caused 9/11 and controls us through the media. Belief in absurd conspiracy theories is just one of many irrational stupid beliefs people can have.
People can have beliefs that sound crazy to you, without being crazy. They can simply be wrong.
Hell, Sam, you made fun of Alex Jones of infowars just the other day, and the stuff Adam's said is no weirder than the crap that guy says.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by GinetteB: A basic definition of mentally ill is 'not restraining from harming oneself and others'. So then I am not so sure if your diagnosis is right Samprimary.
That's actually not a definition of mental illness at all.
Basic, or otherwise.
That's a distortion of a short copy of one of the more common (but not universal) basic criteria for when a person has warranted immediate forced medical intervention by authorities under involuntary commitment laws - is an 'immediate threat to themselves or others' or is 'gravely disabled.'
quote:These beliefs are all caused by a lack of warmheartedness - or love - in society, and a lack of honest, authentic social relationships, so that would be what is called loneliness.
In your view, does something like schizophrenia exist because of 'a lack of warmheartedness in society?' Would you claim that type II Bipolar would not exist if society didn't cause loneliness?
How much do you honestly know about mental illness?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Hell, Sam, you made fun of Alex Jones of infowars just the other day, and the stuff Adam's said is no weirder than the crap that guy says.
Alex Jones is not personally interacting with or reading this forum, dan.
Posted by GinetteB (Member # 12390) on :
It is in Europe. As it is THE criterium that decides whether a person can be forced to undergo treatment: a serious danger to the life of themselves or others. (And it is only a matter of logic, to see that this starts with 'not restraining from harming oneself or others')
Posted by GinetteB (Member # 12390) on :
And I said a BASIC definition. Meaning the fundament. On that fundament, you can build many diseases, mental illnesses.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Hell, Sam, you made fun of Alex Jones of infowars just the other day, and the stuff Adam's said is no weirder than the crap that guy says.
Alex Jones is not personally interacting with or reading this forum, dan.
Ah, so you think he's mentally ill too, and if you personally interacted with him you'd try to help him and/or not make fun of him?
I genuinely didn't realize that, not asking sarcastically. Good to know.
Posted by GinetteB (Member # 12390) on :
Jeesh I didn't read the whole post.
'What do you HONESTLY know about mental illness?'
As if I need to be an encyclopedia on mental illnesses to come up with the BASIC European definition.
Can't you just think before you post?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by GinetteB: It is in Europe. As it is THE criterium that decides whether a person can be forced to undergo treatment: a serious danger to the life of themselves or others. (And it is only a matter of logic, to see that this starts with 'not restraining from harming oneself or others')
Right, look at what you are saying. It is the criterium that decides whether a person can be forced to undergo treatment. That's not the criterium for mental illness, of which one could name scores of specific forms that do not involve danger that warrants involuntary confinement or treatment. You can have, for instance, persistent OCD which could be considered a moderate disability, but not dangerous. Or schizotypal behaviors. Or BPD. Or <continue list forever>.
quote:As if I need to be an encyclopedia on mental illnesses to come up with the BASIC European definition.
I repeat, that's not the basic definition of mental illness. It is also not the basic european definition of mental illness. Whether we are using the WHO, or the European Psychiatric Association, or any other body which is making some unseen claim to the Official European Definition of mental disorder.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
(Psst, Sam, it's criterion, not criterium. Unless the determining factor in whether or not someone is forced into psychiatric care is a bike race)
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
(If they can pedal faster than you they're probably fine)
Posted by GinetteB (Member # 12390) on :
Ok. Not 'definition'. Criterium for forcing treatment upon someone. That was what the discussion was about.
Posted by GinetteB (Member # 12390) on :
Oh.... criteriON.... Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Ah, so you think he's mentally ill too, and if you personally interacted with him you'd try to help him and/or not make fun of him?
I genuinely didn't realize that, not asking sarcastically. Good to know.
Dude's crazy as a fruit bat but aside from some unhinged tumult he is obviously functional in life and will likely have a sufficient support network there for him if he does hit the ever so common went-over-the-bend spree or period of disabling mania. He can just carry right on with telling us all about the government weather and earthquake control machines and secret zionist illuminati bildenberg conspiracies or whatever.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by GinetteB: Ok. Not 'definition'. Criterium for forcing treatment upon someone. That was what the discussion was about.
You claimed that, quote,
quote:A basic definition of mentally ill is 'not restraining from harming oneself and others'
.. and that relative to that my 'diagnosis' (at present, there is none, other than that 'right now this guy seems mentally ill and should reach out to someone who can help him') is incorrect.
That is what I am responding to.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I am not comfortable with letting disturbed people vent their fantasies here. But I have not determined yet if the correct course of action is to just immediately lock or delete any threads as they form.
Posted by Adam Dobrin (Member # 12908) on :
Just to clarify things, while I seem to see a rather large percentage of people saying the ideas are "crazy", what exactly in them is crazy?
Is the belief that our government had foreknowledge of 9/11 crazy? Have you seen Farenheight 9/11?
Do you believe our government has real time satellite imagery? Is it strange that they did not stop subsequent planes after the first? Do you think the DOD didn't think to contact the pilots of other inbound international aircraft?
Are the Executive Branch's movements that morning odd?
I'm curious as to what details you find require "derision".
Thanks.
Posted by Adam Dobrin (Member # 12908) on :
What exactly about mind control is crazy? Do you not believe we have the science?
Do you believe that the CIA stopped researching and developing mind control technology after William Colby lied to the U.S. Congress in 1971 -- there has been no public disclosure from them since.
Do you think the holy grail of intelligence gathering would simply be "left behind" because someone jumped out of a window on LSD?
Or is it that you believe our government is not "evil enough" to perpetrate such a thing on their own citizenry? Please see above post.
Posted by Adam Dobrin (Member # 12908) on :
I hate to dumb down the original post, but let me be a little more verbose about what you should be reading between the lines.
While the first four statements, and then the following mentioning statistical significance may seem like it is not relevant to the following post, it is my intention to say that those acts are not only required for, but are specifically due to "mind control".
Once you accept that this technology exists, and that it has been used on humans, prior to its technological development the rest should fall in to place.
The fact that it at least "could" have been used on authors such as: Huxley, Orwell, Dick, and Card should at least be entertained... or is that too big of a leap?
Posted by Adam Dobrin (Member # 12908) on :
btw, thanks for the back up, Dan and Ginette. I'm pretty sure I'm more sane than most. Frankly, I think 90% of the post is a listing of material facts, with very little wiggle room. The point of them of course, is to attempt to prove something most people "do not believe" -- which in my opinion is a public service, protected by First Amendment rights.
To answer your question, there is much, much more after. But as Stone_wolf said, "they" probably wouldn't be happy about it being posted. My story links to the Casolaro Octopus, however, and I'm certain that my book and "The Last Circle" would be very interesting if you like the content.
Stone_wolf: while the technology may be there, its proliferation outside of international intelligence, or the federal government may not be -- your local police, and your local court house do not necessarily have access to them.
As a side note, if the CIA did have the ability to tell whether or not you were telling the truth _for certain_, do you think your local Judge should?
[ November 03, 2012, 02:12 AM: Message edited by: Adam Dobrin ]
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
The fact that you think it's 90% fact is the surest proof there is that you're not qualified to judge your own sanity.
Posted by Adam Dobrin (Member # 12908) on :
El JT, thanks for letting everyone know the type of post I was trying to avoid. To be more clear, can we list exactly which points qualify on this forum as lacking sanity?
Also, I went through the statement, and I'd like to amend my comment. I believe it is 70% fact. If you take out the comments about 9/11 and Echelon, which I believe are ancillary to the actual conversation, I am upwards of 85% fact.
Perhaps your lack of an actual analysis proves something about you?
[ November 03, 2012, 08:20 AM: Message edited by: Adam Dobrin ]
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Stone_wolf: while the technology may be there, its proliferation outside of international intelligence, or the federal government may not be -- your local police, and your local court house do not necessarily have access to them.
Doughnuts?
Posted by GinetteB (Member # 12390) on :
Adam, could there be another explanation for what you call 'mind control'? See the social explanation for example (as I posted here).
I like your last question. My answer would be yes, under certain conditions.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Just to be clear, Adam, I think you're completely wrong, just like anyone who buys into idiotic conspiracy theories. I think you have especially bad ideas, and you have especially bad thinking skills, so you have a hard time critically analyzing your bad ideas and recognizing their flaws.
I just object to dehumanizing you by saying the reason is because you're crazy. It's simultaneously insulting to you and also shifts responsibility for your stupid ideas off of you, where it belongs.
If you see that as "backing you up," well, cool. You're welcome, I guess.
Posted by GinetteB (Member # 12390) on :
Adam, could there be another explanation for what you call 'mind control'? For example the social explanation I posted.
I like your question about detecting lies. My answer would be yes, under certain conditions.
As to the sanity of beliefs: A belief, or theory, can be presented in a way that looks completely insane to others. When the one presenting a theory uses jargon, they can be sure they will not be understood by those not familiar with the jargon. If the theory goes against what are commonly considered solid existing facts, the least that has to be provided, is proof there could be doubt about those facts. Then, merely stating new supposed facts without proof it could be likely they are facts, doesn't make a theory acceptable. And, to sum up the rest of the requirements for a sane theory: it has to be clear, reason, experience, knowledge, compassion, imagination, inspiration and intuition have been used with common sense, instead of influenced by strong emotions (ignorance, arrogance, pride, hate) coming from primary instincts like fear, anger, and powerlessness. This influence often betrays itself in the use of the language the theory is presented with (agitated, using adjectives and adverbs expressing extremes, capitals, exclamation marks etc.)
So, I don't find your theory interesting enough to investigate it further. Though it contains some interesting elements, I think it's a pretty bad theory. But I don't call it a more insane belief than other widespread bad theories. You presented it more calmly than most of the responders responded, showing more control over your emotions than others. That is imo pretty healthy behaviour.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
In all seriousness Adam, I believed the 911 conspiracies for years. (The (mostly) nice folk here at Hatrack helped me shed those lies a couple years back. Thanks (almost) everyone!)
Here is the trick: don't just believe stuff that -sounds- reasonable and logical because it feels right. Investigate. Of all the vids and discussion boards and books you have read about conspiracies, how many were debunkings? Have you given a fair chance to both sides, or just been feeding your noodle from one side of the issue?
For instance, when you hear facts like it takes 2750ºF to melt structural steel and jet fuel's maximum burning temperature is 1796°F. So it -must- have been explosives and not jet fuel that took down the towers, right? Makes perfect sense.
We all want to feel smart, and special. The easiest way is to think one see clearly what everyone else is too dumb to see. But the thing is, everyone isn't dumb. Nor does that fact make you any less special. Find what -really- makes you special. Maybe it has nothing to do with your brain, maybe you are a really nice guy, or care for animals, or bake great cookies. But whatever it is, when you can own the truth instead of blindly swallowing stories designed to feed your outrage and sense of superior belonging, it will be better.
A small true thing has more power then a large false thing.
Posted by Adam Dobrin (Member # 12908) on :
As for another explanation of "mind control"
1) The obvious rebuttal to my initial statements is that Trinity College is an exceptional educational institution. So good, in fact, that no other school on Earth could have produced a pivotal discovery in particle physics in 400 years. I contend that this is "unlikely". If I did not believe in a higher power, aliens, or magic; this would be the only explanation I would even consider, at which point we should all move to London and have our children educated there, so we do not risk being plunged into another Dark Age by the United States Public Education System.
2) There could have been an immortal hamster, which possessed the knowledge of an ancient civilization (perhaps visiting Atlantis and the Fountain of Youth), and would either whisper or actually write these discoveries into the notes of pupils as they fell asleep at their desks.
3) Trinity College has been associated with secret societies for a long, long time -- similar to Yale's "Skull and Bones." It is possible that these secret societies had contact with extra-terrestrial aliens who divulged these secrets upon them (perhaps for the same purpose, of reverse engineering the fulfillment of George Orwell's 1948 prophesy), and they kept these repeated transactions hidden from humanity for the same period, around 400 years. Or perhaps, the founding member found a physics text from the future.
4) God himself (or the Hive Queen) may be responsible, and if there was no physical contact, the method by which he "beamed" the information into their heads would probably be similar to 'divine telepathy' or.. mind control.
5) MI-6 could have stolen these ideas from unsuspecting researchers around Europe, secretly murdered the original inventors, and secretly given them to affiliates of Trinity in order to cause a large portion of the population to move to London for a better education, also framing the Alpha and the Omega for the murders and the 'illumination.'
6) The apple which fell on Newton's head could have come from the Tree of Knowledge (tricked by Satan himself), at which point we have now collectively discovered the Biblical Eden, fig leaf anyone?
7) Aliens could have been secretly mind controlling humanity forever, in an attempt to keep us from leaving Earth and infesting the galaxy with McDonald's boxes. In an attempt to thwart them, a band of rebels from the future steal a time machine, travel back, and secretly (and slowly) give their technology to humanity so we can figure out exactly why we are so dirty.
So, while for the majority of my life I would have certainly opted for choice number one.. the odds of this happening are akin to Humanity winning the Galactic Power Ball of Cosmic Information, and, only having one winning ticket: Trinity College would receive the proceeds from 1666 to 1923.
[ November 03, 2012, 08:22 AM: Message edited by: Adam Dobrin ]
Posted by Adam Dobrin (Member # 12908) on :
As for my stupidity and lack of insight, I am very open to hearing alternative explanations from the above, as I do sometimes buy into conspiracies including aliens, time machines, and religion.
The overriding theme, and the point I am trying to make, is that these events are nearly impossible to have occurred without either advanced knowledge or technology which we did not posses.
[ November 03, 2012, 08:00 AM: Message edited by: Adam Dobrin ]
Posted by GinetteB (Member # 12390) on :
How about simply evolution (of the mind)?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Adam, the obvious rebuttal is this:
Trinity College was, for a decent chunk of the timespan discussed, one of only a handful of places in the world where people understood enough calculus to do theoretical physics and were paid to sit around and think about it. Once you enter the modern era, it becomes obvious that you're cherrypicking your definition of a "groundbreaking discovery" and simply limiting them to Trinity; your groundbreaking discoveries don't involve the calculation of planetary orbits, the speed of light in vacuum, radiation, the relationship between magnetism and electricity, etc. Trinity was an exceptional college at a time when the very concept of the scientific method was being developed and codified, and the Royal Society produced one of the first convenient ways for scientists to collaborate on experiments and celebrate each other for making them. Frankly, I think you do the brilliant men who did genuinely labor for years to discover these thngs a terrible disservice.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I get emails from this type of guy all the time. Some recent examples:
quote:Hi, this is Robert Green, I have no affiliation with the University of Michigan, but I feel I may have reached a huge mile stone in the quarry of quantum physics. I have been researching on my own about the interconnection between quantum physics/mechanics, metaphysics, religions, spirituality, and ancient cultures. I have also touched on sacred geometry and the 5 platonic solids ass ociated with the sacred geometry.
The reason for this spontaneous email, is I feel I have discovered how to explain Time. It is both a linear and a nonlinear flow. This explanation of course is a VERY broad explanation of what I have discovered. Please contact me about this, you can call me 989-[xxxxxxx] or return this email.
Sincerely, Robert Green
quote: Dear professor
Excuse me if I molest you a bit. You don’t know me. I say, since 22 years ago, in spite of my good intentions, things that already nobody likes to hear.
Whatever the CERN and its LHC had found (if they found something) is no Higgs’s boson. Why am I so sure despite the millionaire fanfare that we have seen and the thousand of physicists involved in it? I am, because this finding is opposite to relativity principle. Relativity principle only is valid if the space is vacuum, a real vacuum, real nothingness. If this finding were true, these bosons would be elements of a universal system, they would be the molecules of a cosmic ocean in which "subatomic particles acquire their masses while losing their speed." The problem with this hypothesis is that relativity principle does not allow such God's Ocean, but requires a vacuum, requires the nothingness behind particles and their immanent and infinite fields.
“Paradoxically”, Einstein relativity is not a relativistic one. This a reason of its paradoxes. Einstein’s paradoxes appear because the space-time is not the vacuum. It is a supposed real entity that expands quickly, deforms under the masses and has holes. Michelson-Morley experiment result demonstrated that is not needed a universal medium for transmit light waves. Einstein said the same but established his space time. Why? I think that a subjacent hypothesis is infecting the human been, saving any mutant one.
Newton and Einstein contradicted themselves with their Absolute Space and Space Time. Both hypotheses fill the universal vacuum as the aether and the space like reference of motion —defended (due to be also infected by such hypothesis subjacent) by Zeno of Elea, Plato, Aristotle and the Scholastic— also do. I have a page: http://www.trestipos.com.ar/ledesma/index.php
Yours sincerely
José Miguel Ledesma
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I'll have to ask my old prof who's at Trinity now if he's seen any aliens about.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Another good one:
quote:My Dear
An article is attached which will prove that Albert Einstein with the help of a trickery has been responsible for misleading the world to the materialism and atheism. Aristotle and Newton could not be blamed for adopting the philosophy where the existence of God is not justified because the secret of existence of God being in the nature of light/radiation; which secrets were unfolded in the nineteenth century. Then Lorentz and Einstein misinterpreted these secrets to mislead the humanity. The article is written in a very simple manner so that even the undergraduate students of physics could understand.
Let this article reach every professor, researcher, teacher and student of physics of the world. Kindly read the article and do your responsibility as a human being.
Firstly, to the OP, you cannot calculate the statistical likelihood of non-random events in this way. Great discoveries in science actually have a higher than random likelihood of occurring in the same locations. To wit: Oxford and Cambridge, and specifically Trinity, were home to many of the most successful physicists and mathematicians in England from the 17th century to this day. During most of that time, England led the world in hard sciences. The most able and promising students were sent to these universities, and the ones who were successful stayed- meaning that yes, their discoveries were made there. This is where money was being spent on sciences. This is where the resources were. This is hardly surprising.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Adam Dobrin: Echelon is controlled by the singularity. It would be impossible for anything other than an artificial intelligence to sift through the volume of information travelling back and forth on the internet alone. It acts as a censorWall, like in China, except its transparent and everyone thinks its just for surveillance (are you stupid?). It is also controlling your mind.
Heh. And yet somehow you managed to get your message out on the internet that doesn't let you get your message out because it controls our minds.
SO actually the singularity is the one saying all this conspiracy stuff about mind control to keep our minds off the real conspiracy, which is that it is controlling our minds.... and on and on we go.
Posted by Adam Dobrin (Member # 12908) on :
Why don't you calculate the statistical probability of every law of physics relating to quanta being discovered in the same location. I'd love to hear what you come up with. Newton, Maxwell, and Faraday's laws are the corner stone of particle physics.
While you can tell me that "Oxford and Cambridge, and specifically Trinity" were home to the most successful physicists of the time, and I do not contend that point, the question I am trying to answer is "Why?" The answer I present is there was "something" limited by space, which was influencing them.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Goodness, yes. That makes much more sense than the idea that when a given activity was still very young, it was concentrated among a few people in a few places, with that concentration feeding on itself for awhile as those interested in pursuing it heading to where the experts were. 'Something' is a much more sensible suggestion.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Why don't you calculate the statistical probability of every law of physics relating to quanta being discovered in the same location.
We could start with calculating the statistical probability that every law of physics was discovered by someone researching physics. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Depending on how you define "law of physics" and "researching physics", that can easily be proven to be zero, as a single counter-example would do the trick.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
While I was of course joking, I'm not sure why a single counter-example proves a statistical probability of zero...?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Because you specified "every".
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Adam Dobrin: Why don't you calculate the statistical probability of every law of physics relating to quanta being discovered in the same location. I'd love to hear what you come up with. Newton, Maxwell, and Faraday's laws are the corner stone of particle physics.
While you can tell me that "Oxford and Cambridge, and specifically Trinity" were home to the most successful physicists of the time, and I do not contend that point, the question I am trying to answer is "Why?" The answer I present is there was "something" limited by space, which was influencing them.
YES! I'm sorry, don't you know anything about history? Don't you know that these were the most prestigious universities in the most technologically advanced and powerful nation on the planet at the time?
I mean really. I'm flabbergasted. In a sense, I guess you're suggesting that history and money itself is a vast conspiracy.. designed to, I don't know, happen. I don't see why that's mysterious to you, but it isn't too me.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:The obvious rebuttal to my initial statements is that Trinity College is an exceptional educational institution. So good, in fact, that no other school on Earth could have produced a pivotal discovery in particle physics in 400 years.
Actually the obvious rebuttal is that there are plenty of other pivotal discoveries in particle physics, and they didn't take place at Trinity. Just for starters, you're leaving out the whole of Einstein. Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Dirac, anyone?
quote:Why don't you calculate the statistical probability of every law of physics relating to quanta being discovered in the same location. I'd love to hear what you come up with. Newton, Maxwell, and Faraday's laws are the corner stone of particle physics.
Ok that's just not true. Particle physics does not use Newton, nor Maxwell; as for Faraday, his discoveries were part of what Maxwell synthesized and explained as part of a more general theory. And none of the three discovered anything "relating to quanta". In fact the modern theory is called "quantum mechanics" precisely because it is a non-continuous version of these old continuous theories. You have the naming exactly backwards.
Hamilton, Einstein, and Feynmann are the corner stones of particle physics. It's true that Hamilton worked at "Trinity College", but the one in Dublin, not London; then again, perhaps the mere name gives it some of the same mystic powers? The other two never worked in England.
You discourse very volubly about theories "relating to quanta" and "pivotal discoveries". I wonder: Can you solve the Schrodinger equation for the hydrogen atom?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: [QUOTE]
Hamilton, Einstein, and Feynmann are the corner stones of particle physics.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)