New Grower Perpetual Auto Grow By The Trifid..

[astronomy420a]

yes i do know a little about the latest string theory witch could also be the cause of this phenomenom, string theory suggests that these strings connect alternate dimesions, and we are just beginning to understand how many parallel dimensions there are. one other thing and that is the macro/micro universe where are we on that scale? is our universe on the tip of a trichome on a cannabis plant in a much bigger universe? lets hope so.......lol

 

[Trifid]

I like your interpretation Astro.. If the universe is in a state of continuous expansion with accumulated matter eventually becoming incredibly diffuse from one another, then eventually after a great deal of time, the % mass of the universe in comparison to the expanded space vector-scale will become increasingly negligible - meaning to some observers mass will no longer be relatively apparent. Perhaps the e=mc^2 will explain this, since mass and energy are readily inter-converted with one another by this equation - which gives the assumption that the scalar component of the expanded universe will eventully exhaust itself of kinetic energy and the entropy in the system (it's measure of disorder - the driving force behind spontaneity) will begin to decline - since the second law of thermodynamics states that entropy must continue to increase for the universe to sustain itself, then perhaps the universe will subtract mass from the space-time continuum to draw upon it as an energy resource. This is plausible to some extent if one considers that the mass itself, as we know it, came into being from an excess in energy in the gravatational and electromagnetic fields - whereby excess energy in the system, at some point during the genesis or big-bang, fell out into the space time continuum as mass (it had nowhere else to go in the melting pot) - similar to spilling an overflow of tea from a cup when carrying it frantically from the kitchen. The universe can only accomodate a particular ammount of energy in specific forms and thus converts one form to the other to sustain it's entropically favored fabric; time. This is perhaps the reason that to an observer, the space time appears flexible - having some degrees of freedom relative to the acceleration of the observer.

 

[Noods]

Sorry Noods i think i might have confused you there - when i said static, i was referring to them being in a fixed position in space.

Thanks Trifid. That became clear to me after I started searching and then re-reading your post. lol

As much as I would really love to have confirmation that those are actual "ships", I really doubt it. If a hobby astronomer can film this in his back yard, why haven't NASA or ESA found them? Are they THAT secretive about it and THAT hell bent on keeping us in the dark?
At any rate and just in case:

Honorable Travelers, welcome to out home! As a gift of greeting, we would like to present you with this wonderful green Jem. It is from the Trifid stock and is said to be among the finest herbal medicines found on our world. Come in and have a sit down and we'll gladly teach you it's usage.

42

 

[astronomy420a]

oh god, after looking at that bud i have to go find some chocolate.......yum!

 

[Trifid]

I just read through my thread from the beginning hoping to find some self-induced criticism and i noticed that i have used a great deal of terminology and words. From my experience all there is in information is metaphor - i believe much of what we say is a repeat of what somebody else has heard from somebody else or an experience that we have been exposed to or one that we have exposed ourselves to. But i will admit that i do always tend to try and re-formulate verbally anything that seems insoluble or paradoxical or unbearable to me by examining it with the genral rules of my reality-tunnel that some might suggest to be unclear or excessively semantic.

When studying science at university in my twenties, i was exposed to quantum mechanics for a short period of time. As a result, my view of the world changed dramatically and ever since i have shown a tendency in my work both as an instructor and academic researcher to view most problems in the world as existing because of the flawed verbal formula that is used to put them into existence. For example, for almost a century physicist's have been arguing whether light travels as discrete particles or whether it travels in waves like sound does or like electromagnitism, and there were experiments during the 1930-50's that supported both theories - so there were arguments back and fourth between the scientific communities at the time - is light waves or is it particles? And then in the 1920's somebody coined the term 'wavacles' he said - "light travels as waves and particles at the same time" and this was a joke at the time to emphasize the bafflement of the scientific community since the evidence from both supporting experiments conflicted and just didn't add up. And then Neil's Bohr in Germany, came up with the Copehagen Interpretation, a model sub-atomic theory called Quantum Mechanics which gives the assertion that any model we make of the world or any reality tunnel we organize our perceptions into is not the worlds but a man-made conception.

It seems reasonable to assume that any progpaganda we are exposed to will shape our vision from the reality tunnel. So some experiments support the particle model and some support the wave model and we should be amazed by that since it shows that our brains are capable of constructing two different patterns of light depending on which instrument we choose to examine it with. And that is what light really is to me - a meaningless question that science can't answer - science can only answer questions like how does it register on this instrument and how does it register on that instrument.. And so i have a tendency to view everything in my world in terms of 'what does this model include and what does it exclude' - nobody can make a model that includes everything can they? Although according to Anto Wilson (a well known author and semantics advocate) all the dogmatists on the planet think they have - Wilson said 'if you included everything you'd end up with chaos'. In QM and theoretical physics, the scenario universe is non-simultaneously apprehended - in other words, we do not see the whole universe or whole space time continuum in any one instance - we perceive a minor part of the whole or a cross-section -

According to the literature i have been exposed to, Modeltheism is making a model then idolising the model and hating others for worshiping a different one - Modeltheism is the idea that your universe has been simitaniously aprehended but that's impossible according to general relativity - it is in fact non simaltanously aprehended according to this theory. So what you expereience tomorrow, if it entirely fits your belief's today, it's because you're not paying enough attention. The eight-circuit model is an interesting map that has led me to clarify with a majority but also to confuse a minority and i offer my apologies to them for my ignorance. I hope i can better tailor my communicative skills here to interact with everyone so we can help each other and have interesting conversation.

Thanks for listening to me justify myself and thanks for showing interest here, it's always welcome.

 

[astronomy420a]

you remind me of j. robert oppenheimer,when presented to a group of harvard professors as a child protoge, was grilled by the group in latin oppenheimer responded with the correct answer in greek he was nine years old. btw he hung out with bohrs

 

[Trifid]

Honorable Travelers, welcome to out home! As a gift of greeting, we would like to present you with this wonderful green Jem. It is from the Trifid stock and is said to be among the finest herbal medicines found on our world. Come in and have a sit down and we'll gladly teach you it's usage.

This is brilliant - thanks Noods

you remind me of j. robert oppenheimer,when presented to a group of harvard professors as a child protoge, was grilled by the group in latin oppenheimer responded with the correct answer in greek he was nine years old. btw he hung out with bohrs

Haha.. Oppenheimer who? this guy?

[video=youtube;2fmo1Sjn7dg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fmo1Sjn7dg&feature=related[/video]​

 

[HomieHogleg]

I just read through my thread from the beginning hoping to find some self-induced criticism and i noticed that i have used a great deal of terminology and words. From my experience all there is in information is metaphor - i believe much of what we say is a repeat of what somebody else has heard from somebody else or an experience that we have been exposed to or one that we have exposed ourselves to. But i will admit that i do always tend to try and re-formulate verbally anything that seems insoluble or paradoxical or unbearable to me by examining it with the genral rules of my reality-tunnel that some might suggest to be unclear or excessively semantic.

When studying science at university in my twenties, i was exposed to quantum mechanics for a short period of time. As a result, my view of the world changed dramatically and ever since i have shown a tendency in my work both as an instructor and academic researcher to view most problems in the world as existing because of the flawed verbal formula that is used to put them into existence. For example, for almost a century physicist's have been arguing whether light travels as discrete particles or whether it travels in waves like sound does or like electromagnitism, and there were experiments during the 1930-50's that supported both theories - so there were arguments back and fourth between the scientific communities at the time - is light waves or is it particles? And then in the 1920's somebody coined the term 'wavacles' he said - "light travels as waves and particles at the same time" and this was a joke at the time to emphasize the bafflement of the scientific community since the evidence from both supporting experiments conflicted and just didn't add up. And then Neil's Bohr in Germany, came up with the Copehagen Interpretation, a model sub-atomic theory called Quantum Mechanics which gives the assertion that any model we make of the world or any reality tunnel we organize our perceptions into is not the worlds but a man-made conception.

It seems reasonable to assume that any progpaganda we are exposed to will shape our vision from the reality tunnel. So some experiments support the particle model and some support the wave model and we should be amazed by that since it shows that our brains are capable of constructing two different patterns of light depending on which instrument we choose to examine it with. And that is what light really is to me - a meaningless question that science can't answer - science can only answer questions like how does it register on this instrument and how does it register on that instrument.. And so i have a tendency to view everything in my world in terms of 'what does this model include and what does it exclude' - nobody can make a model that includes everything can they? Although according to Anto Wilson (a well known author and semantics advocate) all the dogmatists on the planet think they have - Wilson said 'if you included everything you'd end up with chaos'. In QM and theoretical physics, the scenario universe is non-simultaneously apprehended - in other words, we do not see the whole universe or whole space time continuum in any one instance - we perceive a minor part of the whole or a cross-section -

According to the literature i have been exposed to, Modeltheism is making a model then idolising the model and hating others for worshiping a different one - Modeltheism is the idea that your universe has been simitaniously aprehended but that's impossible according to general relativity - it is in fact non simaltanously aprehended according to this theory. So what you expereience tomorrow, if it entirely fits your belief's today, it's because you're not paying enough attention. The eight-circuit model is an interesting map that has led me to clarify with a majority but also to confuse a minority and i offer my apologies to them for my ignorance. I hope i can better tailor my communicative skills here to interact with everyone so we can help each other and have interesting conversation.

Thanks for listening to me justify myself and thanks for showing interest here, it's always welcome.

Professor,
You may need to dumb it down for a poor hillbilly, like me, though I do understand most of what you say. I do have a BS, but it is in sociology. I am studying for my masters, doing a comparitive study, of the hillbilly culture here, in the Ozarks, vs the hillbilly culture in the Adirondacks.

HomieHogleg

 

[Trifid]

Professor, You may need to dumb it down for a poor hillbilly, like me, though I do understand most of what you say. I do have a BS, but it is in sociology. I am studying for my masters, doing a comparitive study, of the hillbilly culture here, in the Ozarks, vs the hillbilly culture in the Adirondacks.

Haha.. definatley not Homie, you guys are ones that see the most lights damn it. You most likely know more than anyone and everything that's every been proven by the 'model' is equally as unlikely to be false as it is true and probably less than that depending on which instrument you choose to view the observation (or though it would seem to me at this moment in time)

Forget the models, they cause us to see a monochromatic picture in an infinity of forsaken color. Can't remember where i heard that lol

 

[Noods]

Oh man. And I can't decide what I like the most- bubbles, branes or singularities.