JacobNewton

8 minutes ago, CharonY said:

No, as John pointed out earlier, they were designed to figure out learning deficits. It is more about the IQ 90 rather than the 180 folks.

And this is an awful way to decide a 

 

And this is an awful way to start an education. If there is no interest in the topic, the whatever the IQ is measuring is doing nothing. Universities are full of bright, bored and struggling students.

be that as it may, would you deter people from using IQ tests as a means of knowing where they stand intellectually? If so, why? Theres nothing wrong with using IQ tests like IQ detectors, to ascertain one's IQ range, with the benefits that act entails...

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Are all MENSA members scientists? Did Einstein need an IQ test to encourage him to be a scientist?

 

We were talking about IQ tests. Don’t move the goalposts.

I'm referring to school and college students; if Adam for example were assured that his IQ was 180, he might well be persuaded to take up Science for O levels, and consequently university. 

My point being those IQ tests were designed to show the way, pave the way, act as a guiding light. (In the IQ test category, are to be found other examples of same phenomenon, personality tests, etc, just putting that out there for what its worth.)

4 hours ago, Genady said:

There were no ledges.

attached is a photo of the WTC from inside, close up of the window ledges. As you can see, there were ridges of some sort, definitely some sort of thing for a potential window jumper to grab onto while passing. At least that act would have slowed him down to an acceptable speed, would have increased chances of survival. 

3 minutes ago, MigL said:

200 lbs, falling 12 ft, and you catch yourself with your fingertips.
85 times !

you have no concept of reality, or you watch too many movies.

you forgot the adrelanine, the fight or flight reflex, that lends wings to mortal endeavours.

Even in the absence of said adrenaline, it would have felt like the equivalent of 85 push ups, executed vertically.

The physical strain would have been none too unseemingly. 

September 11, 2001

The South Tower

Floor 85

"Come, Swansont!"

I hollered, and Swansont and I leapt towards the open window.

"Not so fast, young man," said Swansont quietly. Even over the screams, the din, his voice was as audible as though it were a lecture hall.

"When you jump, keep pressed to the walls of the Tower," he said. 

"The walls of the tower?" I didn't understand. 

"Leap from ledge to ledge!" he said, and showed me. 

I watched, bemused, as Swansont took the first window ledge in it's stride. He leapt from the WTC window, and came to a halt a few metres below. His fingers had gripped the top of the window ledge just below. 

"Try it!" roared Swansont, above the din of traffic hundreds of metres below. 

I took a deep breath, and jumped. Ledge by ledge, we cannonned, progressively, towards the ground floor. My fingers were aching by the time we alighted none too lightly at ground zero. 

"Run!" said swansont. 

We weren't a moment too soon. The WTC collapsed all around us, or so it seemed. Looking back, it had been a close shave. 

Characters in this story are purely fictitious, but techniques of survival, well, those. Would they have worked if they had been put into practice, all those years ago? We will never know.

On 1/21/2023 at 7:03 PM, swansont said:

Everything? No.

I think checking your IQ is an act of vanity in most cases. I've never been asked my IQ in a job interview or any professional setting. It never comes up in social settings. If you are checking your IQ to reassure yourself that you are smart, it's probably because you have an inferiority complex.

Knowing your IQ can be an indicator as to what professions you might excel at. e.g like Einstein, if your IQ were 160, you might feel encouraged to become a scientist. If you score high on linguistic tests, you might want to become a DJ. 

If you have a certain personality type, e.g ENTP, you might choose such and such a profession. 

IQ tests, peronality tests, are all indicators, guiding lights.

20 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Back in that same time, I knew one young man who had a measured IQ of 180+. He worked nights in a greasy spoon across the street from the railway station. Nights, because the customers then were mainly regulars who worked at the terminal. He couldn't stand too much contact with strangers. He didn't go out much in daylight for the same reason. He was incapable of ignoring any person, thing or idea that came within his ken. He had, by age 19, already been admitted to a psychiatric hospital three times and tried to commit suicide twice. It was just too exhausting to deal with everything in his head.

well many geniuses deomstrated such tendencies early in life. Mozart, Beethoven, Darwin, all these people deomstrated the ability or inability to correlate with society the way a normal person would. 

Such is no doubt part and parcel of being an outlier on the intellectual range. One sees deeper than other folk, and one reacts accordingly. 

"He was a gas station worker with an IQ of 180" is reminiscent of Buddha, a nother genius's philosophy, "What is life but a flash in the pan, we are here today and gone tomorrow"

or "Whatever we accomplish in this life is of no consequence"

That 180 IQ guy noted that and made it his philosophy no doubt.

17 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I took one a good few years back for fun as a competition against my younger sister. She scored 137 and I scored 134 (she always reminds of this at our monthly family quiz evenings). To be fair and I think the running score is 7 - 6 to her 😆.

I think the difficulty with these sorts of tests is that people have varying capabilities across a very wide range of applications, some of which may not be fairy captured within the test. 

For example, people who can retain a lot of information maybe considered extremely intelligent, quiz masters etc... and there may well be a correlation to some degree. But there are also people who have very poor memories, but who are extremely good at problem solving. So who is the most intelligent? To pitch one against the other maybe an unfair comparison, especially so if the measure of intelligence is in anyway biased. 

lets consider me and my partner. I'm a problem solver, engineer... this is what I do for a living and I'm fairly good at my job. My partner is an artist, a carer, she has an eye for creativity, artistic design. She considers herself far less intelligent than me because she is far less capable, academically, practically and so forth... Yet I consider her very intelligent because she can create beautiful art, she can design and fashion spaces to match colours that work or blend, she can see detail in such things that I just don't ever see.   

Well, 134 is borderline genius, in fact I score around the same range at IQ tests, I've peaked at 154 on one IQ test and 122 on a mensa test. 

But the point is that IQ, theres different forms of IQ. Spacial, verbal, linguistic, music, mathematic, logic etc

You no doubt score high on the mathematical aspect of IQ tests while spacial/artistic components of IQ tests are more down your partner's line of ability. 

On 1/20/2023 at 6:52 AM, TheVat said:

My observations growing up were that certain traits (task persistence, impulse control) seemed to correlate with functional intelligence.  For example, kids who took music lessons early in life and responded well to strong encouragement to buckle down and practice, tended to be smart and do well in school.  (similar with families that pushed reading time in evenings and limited tv)  Probably less because of inherent neurological advantage and more because they could transfer the learning skills acquired early in music training to other fields.  We might do well, so far as children are concerned, with focusing on what promotes elongated attention span, creative resourcefulness and task persistence.   And do so without stifling social interaction and blocking emotional intelligence.  (maybe why music kids seemed generally smart, because music has both task persistence challenges and built-in social interaction)

 

IMO, IQ is ingrained and while it can be fine tuned like a guitar, it cannot be added to in life. You cannot 'create out of a 120 IQ child a 150 IQ child because they go for music classes. 

On 1/20/2023 at 4:38 AM, John Cuthber said:

Yes.
So?
Here's an interesting observation.
The IQ test was designed to identify school kids who were struggling with education in order that they could get extra help.
But the people you see on the internet asking about IQ are neither schoolkids, nor do they have cognitive / learning issues.

They just sound like it.


 

Is there then an alternative way to measure IQ? I saw a IQ puzzle book that rated subjects on the basis of their reactions to real world situations, e.g, what would you do in such and such a situation, choose from option a, b or c. Do you think that's an accurate appraisal of IQ?

Famous IQs of note, since we on the subject:

Garry Kasparov: 180

Einstein: 160

Da Vinci: 200

Interestingly the highest recorded IQ of all time is attributed to a mathematics whiz, Marylin Vos Savant, who scores 220 on the IQ scale. 

On 1/20/2023 at 4:10 AM, swansont said:

…possibly because you have an inferiority complex.

Well by that definition, everything we do we do to assuage our inferiority complex, which is a fundemental push towards progress in any case. Why do we shop at TESCOS when the non branded items would work just as well, so we can feel better about our selves relative to others in society.

3 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Nah, I don't have enough of an inferiority complex.😄

You don't do IQ to tests to assuage your inferiority complex, if any, you do one to ascertain your IQ.

On another note, have any of you forum goers done an IQ test?

What are your IQs? I'd be curious to know.

Anybody with IQs in the 180 range, for instance? 

On 1/18/2023 at 9:25 PM, Phi for All said:

Both countries already talk about this long-standing alliance. How are you defining the term? 

Are you talking about more treaties between the 1st and 5th largest economies, or do you want England to be the 51st state?

not England as a 'state' of USA, but rather, a pact or treaty between two independent nations.

23 hours ago, Sensei said:

"We are all Scots." - To paraphrase Kennedy..

or

"We are all Ukrainians."..

 

And your point is?

21 hours ago, exchemist said:

I realised you were being sarky, but thought it was a rather profound point nonetheless. When I lived for a couple of years in Houston TX, it took me a while to find out why I felt I didn't fit in and what I thought was lacking. In the Netherlands, by contrast, I felt at home in about a month. It really all boiled down to history, or relative lack thereof. New World countries, like the Americas and Australasia have an admirable energy and sense of the possible that we in the Old World have long since given up on. But we do have all the riches of history instead, which give us a certain groundedness.

The backlash against globalisation is creating a new and ugly nationalist politics on both sides of the Atlantic. But recent polls show the British are now realising Brexit, at least in the absurdly extreme, ideological form in which it has been enacted, was a mistake. I think we are past the high water mark of naïve nationalism.

I'm not too worried by private firms in the NHS, really. GPs have always been private, and the continental healthcare model, which often involves profit-making hospitals being block-contracted to the national health system, does not fill me with terror. My analysis of the US Healthcare system, on the other hand, is it is a broken market because there are two parties on the buying side of the equation, one with no market power and the other with no incentive to drive a hard bargain. The insurers have little incentive to query the bills for drugs and treatment and shop around - they just pass the costs through to employers' healthcare plans. And employees have no choice but to pay the premiums. A national healthcare system that buys care centrally from providers, on the other hand, has huge purchasing power and can really drive a bargain (as drug companies know to their cost, when selling to the British NHS.)  

 

The idea that USA would 'recolonise' the UK, is chilling. 

19 hours ago, MigL said:

Don't count yur Brexit chickens before they hatch ...

The UK MoD through British Aerospace, is developing, along with Italy's Leonardo ( which has a strong presence in the UK with helicopters and electronic systems ) and Mitsubishi of Japan, the 6th generation fighter arcraft, Tempest.

BAE Systems Tempest - Wikipedia

Rolls Royce is collaborating with ( Fiat ) Avio and IHI to develop hi-electrical output engines to power this 'system of systems'.
There is a strong possibility that SAAB of Sweden may also join the 20-25 Billion development program.

Doesn't seem like the UK is very isolated to me.

Interesting point there; if BRUS were to occur, it would happen along the wheels of industrial collaborations, according to you?

16 hours ago, mistermack said:

No it hasn't.  The USA needed to be attacked by Japan, and declared war on by Hitler, before they joined WW2. Nothing to do with an 'alliance'. And in WW1 the USA sat it out for two and a half years, until they saw who was winning, and the German UBoats started sinking American shipping.  And of course, the Russians played a teeny weeny part in Hitler's downfall, to the tune of about 30 million of Russian lives lost, compared to a less than half a million Americans.

My point being, the USA and the UK have a proven track record of succesful collaborations in past times. Shouldn't be any reason to not work in the case of a treaty like BRUS.

BRUS: British-US alliance.

My logic runs as follows

There was Brexit, a breaking away of the EU, a giant on the world plane, and now Britain is alone. 

Britain's loss of the EU can be replenished in the form of the USA. The USA while not a global governing body of sorts like the EU, is still a force to reckon with, being the worlds most powerful nation. In any case it is better than nothing.

USA is also the country best fitted to form an alliance with the UK. That alliance has won wars time and again for the UK, in WW1 and WW2, no reason it shouldn't prove fruitful in the case of a political alliance like BRUS. 

Thoughts?

4 hours ago, Lorentz Jr said:

Yes, much too far. Time travel isn't just physically impossible, it's logically impossible. Either something happened or it didn't.

As much as I distrust the principle of relativity, I don't object to Einstein's geometric model of gravity nearly as much. The only thing about it that I have any really strong objection to is its allowance of time cycles.

I disagree, you forgot parallel dimensions. If you could go back in time in a parallel dimension, you might not be able to change the present timeline, but you could at least view it like a casual observer, as a passenger in a train views the speeding world withall. 

I kinda gather that the parallel dimensions are arranged in order of t=1 t=3 etc, where each dimension is one second ahead of the previous one?

4 hours ago, exchemist said:

Consequently?

We may understand how volcanic eruptions occur but we cannot manipulate them. Nor can we prevent the uncontrolled cell division that causes cancer, even though we understand the biochemistry.

There's no "consequently" about it.

 

so basically, you agree that whatever happens in future, there is no way science can better the human race with its discoveries?

3 hours ago, studiot said:

How would bronze age man know about iron to make this famous statement "lets build iron tools"  ?

 

Please provide proper supporting evidence for this astounding claim.

well, you did say that 'a knowledge of critical mass and knowledge of capability' was the milestone in allowing humankind to determine what it needed next, in your example, bronze age men went from bronze age to iron age after they 'realised' they needed iron tools, or 'attained a knowledge of critical mass and knowledge of capability' to the effect that iron tools was what they needed. 

Well then, if we can attain a 'critical mass and knowledge of capability' relative to THIS era, then we are a step ahead in determining our needs and wants for the next era. Maybe we will discover, like the genius bronze age fellow who realised he needed iron tools, that we need a 3D cyber world, like a 3D internet that we can physically enter.

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

Just re-read those last three sentences of yours. Slowly.

And then confirm, just so we all know,  whether you intended them seriously, or facetiously.

 

the point i was trying to make was, if we can overcome those obstacles in the pursuit of the Time Machine, we would be closer to building one. And in my opinion, those seem to be the obstacles we need to overcome. It's got to be something to do with photons, the only thing that can travel at the speed of light, and we absolutely must travel at the speed of light to surpass it, etc. 

3 hours ago, studiot said:

 

Since you seem to introduce time machines into most, if not all, of your threads.

Do you wish a rational discussion about time machines  ?

 

If so please answer the following questions

1.   What do you mean by a time machine?
   Something that moves a person from time A to time B ?
   But what do you mean by 'a person'  and how does this play out with continuity ?
    
2. There are three space dimensions so there is always room (empty space) somewhere to move around other objects in that space without trying to pass through them.
   But there is only one time dimension so there is no empty time to use to accomplish the same with time.
   Since everything is on the same track, it would be like trying to pass through the Edinburgh to London express coming the other way.
   How is this trick to be accomplished?

1. I dunno what continuity is, but by 'person' i guess i mean 'particle, or object. Anything, as long as it can surpass the time space barrier and go back in time; a first step towards acheiving time travel. If as I vaguely recollect, CERN already did that, then how can we expand the CERN time space tube thing to fit a entire human being into it? With a wide enough time space accelerator, we could send entire continents back in time, one step at a time. 

2.I didn't quite follow question 2; but I gather that one needs '3D time' to pass through it? Well, what is 3D time, and how does one achieve it?

But I was aware that if you passed the light barrier you would go back in time, does 3D time factor into that, and how if so?

5 hours ago, Genady said:

They are running out of material. The above is a verbatim copy of the below:

 

oh, I see I'd posted that one before. I can't delete it though can I?

6 hours ago, iNow said:

And you’re obviously ignorant of optical illusions 

an optical illusion is a trick of the eyes. That video is footage taken of a levitating person. 

Where are we headed? To answer this question, its important to consider the obvious facts: history revolves in circles. The cosmic equation, if there were one, is inclined to go round and round like a merrygoround.

In other words, what has happened before must happen again and again and again.

Does the bee not buzz repetitively? Do humans not reproduce, and die, then live, and die again in that order, eternally?

'Course they do. 

And that manifestation of cyclic rebirth and death, of a myriad forms of existence, is surely a big player in the question of 'where is the universe headed?'

I reckon we've been going round and round like that merry go round ever since the big bang happened.

WW2 for instance, was WW1 incarnate in a different time space continuum, as it were. 

WW3, well it's around the corner, very likely, going by what's happening in Russia. 

The crimea, the boer war, the medivial wars, all were fought again and again. Only the weaponry were more advanced with every successive war. The sticks and stones gave way to the biplanes and triplanes, which gave way to the dogfights with supersonic jets in the modern era.

The world, history, travels in circles. Round and round. To discern where we are headed, look to the past. Where were we once upon a time? 

As far as the generalities go, we were always where we were. Therefore the basic goals of humanity have always been the same, will always be the same. 

8 minutes ago, iNow said:

Recommend beginning with your currently flawed comprehension of it 

flawed understanding?

I was quoting from my good comrade georgie's definition of physics:

"Understanding how stuff works"

Now that naturally means understanding how the NATURAL world work. E.g the stuff on the planet that hasnt been invented, for why would a physician want to understand HUMAN INVENTIONS? Human inventions have already been invented, nothing to understand about them apart from in Physics class.

So, my point stands: everything about the natural world has already been understood. Any pending manipulations via that understanding, i.e any new inventions on the cards?

Newton's Gravity led to the moon landing.

Understanding how a fish's gills work led to scuba gear. 

Physics understood how Gravity worked, not how moon rockets worked. The science students learn how moon rockets work, the physicists discover how the fish's gills work. 

19 minutes ago, geordief said:

Science is composed of (groups of) scientific workers whose motives may differ.

As with all things ,those outside the group may benefit ,or otherwise from the product of their labour.

In the realm of physics it may be said that the product of their work is to peel away the layers that obstruct the view of the way things work.

Failing that it is to build more accurate models of that.

 

The alternative to those results becoming public knowledge is to prevent people from pursuing  careers  in scientific endeavour.

A bit of a catch 22 (?).Some discoveries seem beneficial  at first and later are regretted whilst the opposite probably applies in other cases.

 

We seem as a civilisation to be in a kind of treadmill  where the option of falling behind is as  unfortunate  a circumstance as having to continuously  keep up.

so overall, some, but not all regions of science, or pursuits of science, are beneficial to the human race?

Viz. Your physics definition; Its all about finding how stuff works, and naturally, how the natural world works, we can then use that information to manipulate the natural world to our benefit, like the guy who discovered gravity and used that information to build rockets. 

But my point is, the natural world has 99 percent bene perused to it's depths. We already know how everything in the world works, we've probed the depths of the oceans scaled the heights of everest. What is left to discover about the natural world? 

And consequently, what is left to manipulate about the natural world? 

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

Negative, little buddy. I’m not the one making the claim. The onus of proof is yours.

well, i posted that above video by way of said proof. if he's levitating shirtless, and no hidden equipment can be detected on his person, he is obviously levitating via sheer skill, or mind power. 

On that note, have you watched Derren Brown? Mind reading stuff? he's done some pretty amazing tricks in his time

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

Yawn 

prove me wrong. he's levitating with no additional hidden equipment hidden in his sleeve; for he is barebodied. prove that aint real levitation

Is antimatter the answer? I vaguely grope at terms like antimatter, the big bang theory the matrix and parallel dimensions, as I try to find a way to build a time machine.

Certainly factors like the light barrier, the theory of relativity, and quantum physics would play a role in the building of this hypothetical time machine

But like Einstein came up with a formula for the traversing of the Time barrier,

is it possible to come up with a technique, of hypothetical model for a time machine?

Surely we can envision how to build certain parts of that time machine. And yet a lot of it's makeup would still be murky

For example, "What you need to build the engine that would see the time machine breaking the light barrier:" 

1. A racetrack in outer space conducive to acceleration beyond the normal range

2.A time machine capable of withstanding immense speeds (so diamond plated armour?) 

3.A substance that can travel at the speed of light (so far only photons travel at the speed of light so for instance, is it possible to create 'Photon Fuel' like causing momentum by virtue of photons? 

Can photons be harnessed and used to power a time machine's speed? 

Isn't that the only way to create a time machine? 

Or can we affix cameras at the end of photon beams, so we can witness what life is like at the edge of the light barrier? Maybe there's angels of light living on that edge. Who knows?

8 hours ago, Phi for All said:

This is such a laughable statement that it makes me doubt you're here in good faith. You seem to like making super dumb assertions to get a rise out of folks. It's not interesting at all.

not at all; im just exploring various avenues of thought. for instance; we either did stagnate at scientific novelty or we didn't. if we didn't, what practical inventions could we come up with in the future? Have we not stagnated at human happiness; if we haven't; what possible inventions to further contribute to said happiness? etc

12 hours ago, Lorentz Jr said:

Well, we still don't have a warp drive. Physics has already stagnated for the last half century (because of relativity, IMO), but there's certainly plenty more out there to be discovered.

yes, i agree relativity was the ultimate milestone leap, and on that note, would it be too far to say on an invention of a time machine could be the next big scientific invention on the blocks?

7 hours ago, Phi for All said:

There may well be a certain amount of incredulity built into the process (it's hard to imagine what hasn't been dreamed up yet). I think there's also an intellectually lazy path that tells some folks it's easier to claim that science is stagnating so they don't have to bother studying it at great length. It's so much easier to claim it's not worth your while than to actually learn it.

never said it wasnt worth my time to study; it certainly would be if there was any practical use studying it beyond what it's already been traveresed. I am one of the unbelievers in that regard; i contend no matter how far we go, we will never extravagantly better the human race via scientific invention than we already have unless we come up with absurd inventions like

A Time machine (now THAT would be a good one, I'd go back in time and unvote Trump)

A elixir of life 

That sort of thing.

And as you yourself would say, "Jesus" stuff aint science. 

Oh well then

2 hours ago, geordief said:

Does the law of diminishing returns apply to scientific progress?

If humans' needs are more or less met  will what is unknown in the physical world seem less important ?

Might     human civilisation "degenerate" into party time ?(especially if all the scientific acquisition are kept in the trust of AI guardians**whom few are inclined to doubt)

 

**one of their roles might be the propagation  of scientific infotainment. 

depends on your definition of 'science'.

if science doesnt contribute to the furtherance of humanity, isn't it more of a sport, or an art form? Like the Mona lisa, the science of painting the mona lisa, doesnt benefit anybody that aint da vinci or van gogh. 

9 hours ago, TheVat said:

You may want to look into the area of quantum computing.

 

quantum computing, now we talkin'.

quatum physics, the purveyor of the time machine, the only viable invention of importance in that region of science.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

No I don't think so, have you any evidence for this ?

There is certainly much evidence to the contrary, since at all stages in history later stages could only accomplish or know certain things once a 'critical mass of knowledge and capability' was gained. So stone age Man could make metal tools, bronze age Man couldn't make iron tools, iron age Man couldn't make kevlar  etc

alright then the question becomes one of determining what 'the critical mass of knowledge and capability' for this era is. Can we determine such via an algorithm for instance? if bronze age man had an algorithm to determine that the 'critical mass of knowledge and capability' of his era was 'lets build iron tools' he'd have ended up building time machines in no time. 

3 hours ago, swansont said:

True. 
 

Science advancing doesn’t require that all areas advance at the same rate. Sometimes theory leads experiment, sometimes experiment shows the need for more/better theory. Sometimes we have to wait for technology to advance before theory can be tested (see e.g. Bose-Einstein condensation, gravitational waves)

There are more areas of inquiry than there were 50 years ago, and more then than 100 years ago. 

such is definitely the case with the impending invention of the time machine imo. 

better theory is called for before we can figure out conclusively how to build that part of the spaceship/ufo that can traverse the light barrier.

We know traversing the light barrier = back in time

We know vaguely what it takes to build such a invention (photons; that which reaches light-like speeds, etc)

But more research is called for.

7 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Yes there is.
The reason is science.

Sure

Did you really think it was magic?

Would you like to buy Tower Bridge?
 

oh wait...you're point is he had a levitation lever hidden in his sleeve?

Well, sure, there's fake levitators out there

But THIS video confirms the truth about levitation: it can also be real

3:44 has the levitation part. He is levitating bare chested. No tricks, no hidden levitating mechanisms. 

Warning: The dude is levitating in his underwear, so graphic content ahead.

16 hours ago, Intoscience said:

That's it then, if its been seen on America's Got Talent, it must be real!🙄

Are you really serious or just playing some kind of game? I'm curious.

Do you know any Shaolin monks? I could do with my top floor windows cleaning.    

'if' it's been on AGT, it must be fake..

people walk away with millions of pounds on the basis of the tricks they perform on AGT. Some tricks are just tricks or the mind, it's in the nature of the performance to be tricks of the mind, and like sleight of hand, entertainment purposes only, not to  be believed literarily...

BUT

The reason levitation tricks are considered worthy is inherently because of the ability to go beyond the normal boundaries of science. If that were not so, the judges would give the levitations a red buzzer. The whole point of levitation is: People can levitate, its official. Its not like 'trick of the mind' its just a trick for entertainment

Matter of fact nothing entertaining about a person floating a few feet above ground level!?

Shaolin monk window cleaners....apply to Tibet Window Cleaner Agencies they are accustomed to cleaning windows of houses 1000 feet above ground level on the summits of Everest 

I looked into the subject of Putin vs the Rest of the world and it seems to be a stalemate. Which is scary because it means putin could hold out against a US offensive. Putin shows no signs of slowing down. So the US must counter his Ukraine offensive with force, or with guile.

A horrible thought occured to me: what if the US tunnels into Russian homes and randomly take down the citizens of Russia that way, as a horrible but telling repartee to what Putin done wrong? 

An eye for an eye, as the Muslim world would say. 

One way or another this Ukraine crisis is very bad stuff. Either WW3 ensures of the US tunnel into Russian civilian homes or I dunno what. 

Do you?

Lemme know in the comments.

Moderator, I forgot to correctly allocate the topic section to the 'subcategory' thing, if you will be so kind. 

1 hour ago, iNow said:

More than most, but enough to know that an ethos is insufficient to overcome basic physics, with which I’m also somewhat familiar. 
 

I’ve got a bridge I want to sell you.
 

That was Star Wars, not Shaolin. 

Correct, the nonexistent one. 

"bad physics"...it was a sc fi story!! 

"I’ve got a bridge I want to sell you"...oooh i see you're still an unbeliever, you are one of those fellows in the new testament "ye verily even if they brought back a dead relative from hades they wouldnt beelive in the kingdom of god" ...no changing a closed mind.

"

That was Star Wars, not Shaolin. "

Why nitpick

Correct, the nonexistent one.  : there are proven cases...wait let me link you...how do u explain THIS