posted
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.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 135 | Registered: Sep 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ]
Posts: 21 | Registered: Oct 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ]
Posts: 21 | Registered: Oct 2012
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21 | Registered: Oct 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I was of course joking, I'm not sure why a single counter-example proves a statistical probability of zero...?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh well. With my starting credit that brings me up to 0 points. I suspect the starting credit was put in exactly for that reason. Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
