darktheorist

He's been prophecied about for eons. Since the birth of time, the worlds been casting an eager lookout in the direction of the coming of the antichrist. The maitreyta, as buddhist know him. Hazarat Al Mahdi to muslims. The Kalki to Hindus. Call him what you may... He's here.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/93134-newtons-apple-the-secret-untold-story/#entry901343 I typed that out, ten minutes later the horrible swasnot looms up to me with a message on a silver salver. Hes LOCKED, for Blessedssaykes, my topic. Now was he right to do what he did? Or should he have excercised the prior courtsey of TELLING ME TO JUST MOVE MY TOPIC TO A DIFFERENT THREAD SECTION? I have no idea what this guy has against me. I secretly suspect he dislikes my skin tone or something like that.

The idea of people reproducing seems to cause no end of shame within the human race. Ive seen Doggie woggies making love in the middle of the street; doesnt it follow scientifically that HUMANS doing the same, in public, would actually be the same act elevated to a higher, more intellectual plane? And therefore perfectly free from embarrasment? And yet on the rare occasion you chance to see two HUMANS having sex in public, its a No. 1 Act Of Public Disgrace. Myes. Its almost as if people suddenly stopped believing they were the superior race Come on, human rights my eye. You cant even have sex in public=your personal freedom can consider itself auto curtailed to a fraction of what the grand old school of Human Rights meant it to be.

ISAAC NEWTON HAD had a had a hard day. He was hardly unprepared for it when it hit him. Bouncing off the left side of his noggin at an angle that could hardly be called scientific, it took two bumps and fell silent. An apple. A great big fat bloody apple, seeming to LEER AT HIM from down there. Newton shuddered. Now, a normal person would have just let the bleedin apple go at that. Not netwon. His great scientific brain began to twitch. Turning his head he looked more closely at the wretched apple, the full force of his scientific glare nearly halving the apple in shock. You, it seemed to say. come here. WHY? That was the question. why..how dare the blessed apple fall off the tree? hard normal behaviour coming from an apple. WHY had it fallen down? but most important of all, perhaps, was the WHY had an apple been up that blessed tree in the first place? With two leaps, taking great strenous strides in the name of science, Newton was up the tree. Each step he took, heaving and hoeing was a massive scientific leap in the direction of discovery. finally, he was at the top. What he saw nearly caused him to fall off the tree in terror. there were more... Apples...more apples, stretching on like a grim convoy of nazis in every direction . The apples seem to GLARE at him, question his presence on their turf. One actually seemed to SNARL in its appline fury. And then for the first time in his life, Isaac F Newton did what a normal person would do. He jumped off the tree. The thud he made would be recorded years later as a mighty splash in the direction of science, and a major contributor in the theory of Gravity. If you found that funny,consider yourself 1.intelligent 2.classier than 90% of the population 3.Probably Rich.

Beauty, like almost every other random thingamajig around, is grounded to the teeth in science For instance theres the golden 3.14 that accounts for every twist and turn in the beauty of anything. The closer your measurements align with the Magic Pi, the sexier, generally speaking you are. Bearing this fact in mind, just how appealing, taking every such measurement into account, is the Following Human Face on a scale of 1-10?

What percentage of the population is actually involved in physical labour? less than 0.3%? OKi doki, let THOSE people live, then, AND live as multimillionaires themselves, pocketing a 6 figure package at the end of a hard day's work. Only the middle class-roughly 3-4 billion people- gets wiped out, their jobs being replaced by robots. Most white collar workers' jobs could easily be replaced by articifical intelligence in its varying forms. Still, same thing end of the day- less people, more wealth. ALSO: has it occured to you that should a scenario like the one I suggest play out, the very goals of corporate business would shift shape? Todays business Ends are geared towards the statistics of the present population: their needs and wants. Which themselves would alter in the case of a mass population decrease. For instance, computers, games, TV shows, etc - Giant Global money makers- wouldnt be required anymore if only a few people were left. In a new world where People-interractivity played a lower role, so would the means of making that happen. That way, the very nature of coprate functioning would also change to fit the demands of the new reduced population. That minimum figure of 32000 could be flung into the rafters of the millions,were the population reduced.

1% of the world wakes up every morning to rollicking wealth. The other 99%-5 billion people- die a bit more every day as they struggle on with life. Tow pretty straightforward solutions here: 1.carpet Bomb the poor and the unhappy off the face of the earth, send them all to la la land, with the objective of not only finally helping them out of the dreary cycles of their unfruitful lives, but also open up vast new space and resources for the Deserving Remnant one percent. 2.Share all around, even up the wealth gap a bit. A world full of ONLY RICH PEOPLE- PARADISE? When you think about it, casting aside all morals for a moment, does that not seem like the ideal answer to ever problem in mankind? After all, rid the planet of the poor, the hungry and the sick, and you get rid of 99% of humanity's woes altogether. You never found a rich dude who was sick, poor, or sad. So going on to envision a world where EVERYBODY was a multi millionaire, EVERYBODY was happy, etc...isnt that humanities ultimate dream? We seem indeed to have come to a Great Final Impasse. The Rich vs The poor. The contrast, the gap between the two classes has never been so clear cut, nor floating away from each other as rapidly as this point in history. Is this, then the time to cut the rich boat afloat for good? Sever the line between the two for good, completely closing out the one group from the other? Why not have a world where you are ONLY allowed to live if you are rich, beautiful, and happy? A world of that kind would be a world full of happiness. Your thoughts?

People dont seem to realise that they are actually OBJECTS, as opposed to real living organisms. Every person, at the most fundemental level, is a collection-mark me closely here- a collection of responses to a sequence of stimuli Even the tiniest action, voluntary or otherwise, of a human, being comes under that definition. (A Programmed Response to a particular stimulus x 1000000000000) = a human being Responsive Matter, you could call it. No person therefore is REAL; as to be REAL you'd have to be outside your programmed rules. To behave in a way other than what your innate programming dictates you do in response to a particular stimulus. Its kinda cute, innit when you think about it? People are just fluffy complex toys, robots, immensely complicated ones, but still bound by their dis-reallness. Aww. People. You feel like keeping a few as pets, when you think about em that way.

OK, looks like the tiny stream of resistance that met this my bombshell disprovation on the scientific ground has already dried up, and so far, apart from the repeated cries to 'double check' my facts-which i did and found them perfectly in order- and a bit of silly banter here and there in the absence of any real arguments of substance, nothing really worthy of mentions come my way. Ill take the final verdict to be, therefore, that I am CORRECT in my disprovation of einsteins pet theory. Yay me.

Right. We agree on what? THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS INVARIANT. What DONT einstein and I agree on? That in the car analogy, the total speed of the outgoing beam would be that of the car PLUS its own speed. which is where he is wrong. That never happens. Regardless of the forward momentum of the car, the speed of the emitted light beam NEVER goes above 300,000 ms. I genuinely do believe I oughta put this post up around a bit, garner it some attention from Higher Minds in the scientific world. Im pretty sure Ive struck the jackpot here with my disprovation. I dare anybody to disprove what Ive done.

You dont have to label everything that doesnt make sense to you 'trollish'. I was making a perfectly seriously dissection of the theory of relativity, far, far from trolling. But call it that if it helps pat your level of intelligence on the back and say 'its ok, old boy. hes just trolling'. LOL

But, my good sir, we DO happen to know that the speed of light IS in fact invariant. Wouldnt give a damn about the speed of its source, it would firmly stick to 300,000 ms. Wouldnt change for the queen. and THATS why einstein's theory loops over and touches itself in places that cause it to unravel of its own accord. the distance of ejection would be irelevant, because the ULTIMATE SPEED OF LIGHT is above that of the source! As long as the source's speed is BELOW that of the speed of light, the speed of ejection would, right from the get go, be a firm 300,000 m/s. So even though we talk about the speed of ejection here, we are actually talking about 'a NULL speed+ the speed of light" which is equal to the speed of light itself.

when puerile, careless banter is used as a substitude for ice cold factual argument, I begin to 'beam' with pride as I see it as a sign that there arent any that would hold up against my own argument. Thank you for indirectly proving my disprovation right.

Yes, because in the case of a BALL, the balls speed would DEPEND on the speed it was thrown! Where does it get its momentum from? Your THROWING POWER. Your ARM'S POWER has a direct say in how fast the ball goes. No so in the case of LIGHT. Regardless of the light SOURCE, it travels at exactly the same speed. Wether the car were travelling at half the speed of light, or 60 mph, the speed of the beam of light emanating from it would be the same. Totally independent of the light source' speed. Your analogy is wrong because it deals with an object whos forward speed IS DEPENDANT on the forward speed of its source.

Jesus Christ. Are you for real? He DID say that, only the wording was different: heres EXACTLY what he said "he'd be firing light at the other guy; light, which now travels at the velocity equal to the sum of C (speed of light) and B (the speed of the car)" which is what my statement meant exactly, in different words.