# Drywall Talk will you please allow cussing?



## Nick Harmon

I'm having a hard time adequately conveying information. I don't know about the rest of you but the drywallers I've worked with have worse language than truckers. Has this topic already been addressed?


----------



## Kiwiman

:laughing:

We type it this way..... [email protected], sh!t, [email protected], G/C :whistling2: etc


----------



## moore

I was taught the trade by my Dad..I'm still not sure what my real name Is?:blink:


----------



## SlimPickins

I agree, it's ****ing bull**** that we can't say whatever the **** we want. ****ing cocksuckers.


----------



## SlimPickins

Big :lol: outta me that cocksucker doesn't get edited out :laughing:


----------



## Nick Harmon

SlimPickins said:


> Big :lol: outta me that cocksucker doesn't get edited out :laughing:


I'm going to be using the word cocksucker a lot.


----------



## JustMe

SlimPickins said:


> I agree, it's ****ing bull**** that we can't say whatever the **** we want. ****ing cocksuckers.


So Slim, what thoughts did you come up with on Nasseim and his fractal based theories regarding infinity? b***s*** or ...... :whistling2:


----------



## SlimPickins

JustMe said:


> So Slim, what thoughts did you come up with on Nasseim and his fractal based theories regarding infinity? b***s*** or ...... :whistling2:


If you're talking about that video that wound up in our mailboxes I didn't watch more than 2 minutes of it. Once the pseudoscience started rolling I got very busy all of a sudden:whistling2:

By the way....where IS 2Buck? Seems like he hasn't been around much lately


----------



## JustMe

SlimPickins said:


> If you're talking about that video that wound up in our mailboxes I didn't watch more than 2 minutes of it. Once the pseudoscience started rolling I got very busy all of a sudden:whistling2:
> 
> By the way....where IS 2Buck? Seems like he hasn't been around much lately


2 minutes? You had to watch to 1:04 into it to get to Nasseim's Grand Unified Field Theory. (I found the fractal pictures in the 1st hour hypnotizing.)

I sent 2Buck over to another discussion site, where he could discuss Nasseim with people smarter than me. Haven't heard from him since.


----------



## SlimPickins

JustMe said:


> 2 minutes? You had to watch to 1:04 into it to get to Nasseim's Grand Unified Field Theory. (I found the fractal pictures in the 1st hour hypnotizing.)
> 
> I sent 2Buck over to another discussion site, where he could discuss Nasseim with people smarter than me. Haven't heard from him since.


Are you suggesting that perhaps I was abrupt in choosing not to finish watching it?


----------



## JustMe

SlimPickins said:


> Are you suggesting that perhaps I was abrupt in choosing not to finish watching it?


No, I'll leave that deciding up to you.

It's just that 2 minutes doesn't sound like you got all of what you maybe needed to come to a fully enough informed conclusion(?)
But as I told 2buck, you probably know more about such as the physics that Nasseim's theory is based on (and more about the physics theories with regards to infinity that Nasseim is questioning).

Not saying they're right, but for what it's maybe worth, what a couple people who I consider more intelligent than me on such matters had to say on Nasseim:

"I don't think he is a crank or a crazy boy and find his thinking very provocative and lucid."

"I am also impressed with Nasseim"


----------



## SlimPickins

JustMe said:


> No, I'll leave that deciding up to you.
> 
> It's just that 2 minutes doesn't sound like you got all of what you maybe needed to come to a fully enough informed conclusion(?)
> But as I told 2buck, you probably know more about such as the physics that Nasseim's theory is based on (and more about the physics theories with regards to infinity that Nasseim is questioning).
> 
> Not saying they're right, but for what it's maybe worth, what a couple people who I consider more intelligent than me on such matters had to say on Nasseim:
> 
> "I don't think he is a crank or a crazy boy and find his thinking very provocative and lucid."
> 
> "I am also impressed with Nasseim"


Okay then, perhaps I was hasty in my judgment. It happens on occasion.....I am human after all There must have been something that triggered my gag reflex, next time I'll try and take the whole thing.


----------



## JustMe

SlimPickins said:


> Okay then, perhaps I was hasty in my judgment. It happens on occasion.....I am human after all There must have been something that triggered my gag reflex, next time I'll try and take the whole thing.


That's alright. In the end, it probably doesn't matter to Infinity a whole lot as to whether you really understand her (him?) or not.


----------



## SlimPickins

JustMe said:


> That's alright. In the end, it probably doesn't matter to Infinity a whole lot as to whether you really understand her (him?) or not.


That's assuming that it is indeed even possible to understand infinity at all. After all, as 3-dimensional creatures we have trouble even understanding 4 dimensions.......let alone comprehending the boundless-ness of infinity (and beyond!)


----------



## JustMe

SlimPickins said:


> That's assuming that it is indeed even possibly to understand infinity at all. After all, as 3-dimensional creatures we have trouble even understanding 4 dimensions.......let alone comprehending the boundless-ness of infinity (and beyond!)


Not that I've gotten into looking hard at it, but the little I've come across (through looking some at this Nasseim thing), it seems traditional physics recognizes 2 infinities (kind of, sort of), as does Nasseim as well. But his doesn't line up with traditional.
His use of expansion/contraction - each feeding the other's infinity, does make it seem okay enough to understand.

So maybe there could be a few infinities out there, and possibly some that we understand, and maybe understand better than we think we do. Or not.


----------



## SlimPickins

JustMe said:


> Not that I've gotten into looking hard at it, but the little I've come across (through looking some at this Nasseim thing), it seems traditional physics recognizes 2 infinities (kind of, sort of), as does Nasseim as well. But his doesn't line up with traditional.
> His use of expansion/contraction - each feeding the other's infinity, does make it seem okay enough to understand.
> 
> So maybe there could be a few infinities out there, and possibly some that we understand, and maybe understand better than we think we do. Or not.


Gawddammit, now I'm going to have to watch it just so I have some idea what the hell you're talking about.

It seems to me that there can only be one infinity.....no matter how many parallel universes and dimensions there are......because, you know, infinity is all of everything in it's everythignness. I'm probably wrong though. Besides, we should save this for CosmologyTalk.com:laughing:


----------



## Mr.Brightstar

SlimPickins said:


> Gawddammit, now I'm going to have to watch it just so I have some idea what the hell you're talking about.
> 
> It seems to me that there can only be one infinity.....no matter how many parallel universes and dimensions there are......because, you know, infinity is all of everything in it's everythignness. I'm probably wrong though. Besides, we should save this for CosmologyTalk.com:laughing:


M theory Explains this well. Infinity is the only way it works. Space has always been there and always will be. Objects and time come and go So the physics of string theory are still work In the dark abyss of infinity. 

Where am I at and what am I doing here ?


----------



## JustMe

SlimPickins said:


> It seems to me that there can only be one infinity.....no matter how many parallel universes and dimensions there are......because, you know, infinity is all of everything in it's everythignness.


I know what you mean. It's a bit hard for me to separate myself from the thought of there being only one infinity. It's what I grew up believing (maybe because much of the world around me also has the same belief as well. Flat world, anyone?)

This is reminding of something from my studies in concepts (concepts being defined as the 'DNA' of ideas) - that new concepts are established in a period of ignorance (which they must be), but those concepts can take on a 'truth belief' about them (even if they're wrong some), that can become so ingrained in our thinking that we're unaware that they're controlling our thinking.


----------



## Mr.Brightstar

JustMe said:


> I know what you mean. It's a bit hard for me to separate myself from the thought of there being only one infinity. It's what I grew up believing (maybe because much of the world around me also has the same belief as well. Flat world, anyone?)
> 
> This is reminding of something from my studies in concepts (concepts being defined as the 'DNA' of ideas) - that new concepts are established in a period of ignorance (which they must be), but those concepts can take on a 'truth belief' about them (even if they're wrong some), that can become so ingrained in our thinking that we're unaware that they're controlling our thinking.


If you're aware of that you are awake. control your thinking and you will control your life. 

Best wishes.


----------



## cazna

WTF??? Guys? Listen!!!

Sleep, eat, work, and sh!t, Thats all you need to know :yes:


----------



## JustMe

cazna said:


> WTF??? Guys? Listen!!!
> 
> Sleep, eat, work, and sh!t, Thats all you need to know :yes:


Maybe that's all you need to know, caz. 

Cazna's philosophy for life: 'Sews' (Sleep. eat. work. s***.)

You should put that as your tagline. :yes:

The life philosophy I'm looking to aspire to (borrowed from the great philosopher Tony the Pipefitter): 'It's all about me.'


----------



## JustMe

cazna said:


> WTF??? Guys? Listen!!!
> 
> Sleep, eat, work, and sh!t, Thats all you need to know :yes:


There you go, caz. I changed my sig line, just for you.


----------



## SlimPickins

JustMe said:


> I know what you mean. It's a bit hard for me to separate myself from the thought of there being only one infinity. It's what I grew up believing (maybe because much of the world around me also has the same belief as well. Flat world, anyone?)
> 
> This is reminding of something from my studies in concepts (concepts being defined as the 'DNA' of ideas) - that new concepts are established in a period of ignorance (which they must be), but those concepts can take on a 'truth belief' about them (even if they're wrong some), that can become so ingrained in our thinking that we're unaware that they're controlling our thinking.


I don't think I'm being geocentric in my thinking , it really seems that there can be only one "everything", it's our perception of what's included in it that can be/may be/is flawed.


----------



## br549

cazna said:


> WTF??? Guys? Listen!!!
> 
> Sleep, eat, work, sh!t, *and buy tools* Thats all you need to know :yes:


fixed :lol:


----------



## Kiwiman

Like I've always said, Justme & Slim are too educated to be drywallers......imagine smoking a silly stick and trying to follow their conversation


----------



## JustMe

SlimPickins said:


> I don't think I'm being geocentric in my thinking , it really seems that there can be only one "everything", it's our perception of what's included in it that can be/may be/is flawed.


Could be. With his Grand Unified Field Theory - that everything is 'one' - Nasseim seems to agree.


----------



## moore

Kiwiman said:


> Like I've always said, Justme & Slim are too educated to be drywallers......imagine smoking a silly stick and trying to follow their conversation


 And there they go again!


----------



## JustMe

Kiwiman said:


> Like I've always said, Justme & Slim are too educated to be drywallers......imagine smoking a silly stick and trying to follow their conversation


 
K-man, without a word of a lie, some of the stupidest people I've met are teaching university classes (and came out of universities, with degrees).

I've met some smart drywallers (the reason why I'm still here).


----------



## JustMe

moore said:


> And there they go again!


Apologies, moore, for not living according to your value system. :whistling2:


----------



## Kiwiman

I don't mean to change the subject but I'll throw in a cuss just to keep it on topic....
WTF!!! I here you guy's in the states saw an episode of "The amazing race" last week that was filmed in my back yard (Mid Canterbury), apparently it won't be screened here for another 12 months :furious: 
Did anyone else see it? were there any sheep harmed?


----------



## moore

JustMe said:


> Apologies, moore, for not living according to your value system. :whistling2:


 If your not livin right JM There's not much I can Do for ya!  But i do wish you all the best with your new endeavors..It would be nice to see an ole drywaller make good without having too kill himself over it!

Take care of that shoulder!


----------



## Kiwiman

JustMe said:


> K-man, without a word of a lie, some of the stupidest people I've met are teaching university classes (and came out of universities, with degrees).
> 
> I've met some smart drywallers (the reason why I'm still here).










Maybe they only "seem" stupid to you because you are smarter than them.
Me? ..... I don't mind admitting I'm about as intelligent as a brick, buuut I seem to get by on my good looks


----------



## SlimPickins

Kiwiman said:


> Like I've always said, Justme & Slim are too educated to be drywallers......imagine smoking a silly stick and trying to follow their conversation


You don't have to do much imagining about smoking those silly sticks, am I right? :jester:

I'm not very educated, and I just pretend to be smart on here so you guys will keep me around.... because I'm not a very good drywaller.


----------



## cazna

JustMe said:


> Maybe that's all you need to know, caz.
> 
> Cazna's philosophy for life: 'Sews' (Sleep. eat. work. s***.)
> 
> You should put that as your tagline. :yes:
> 
> The life philosophy I'm looking to aspire to (borrowed from the great philosopher Tony the Pipefitter): 'It's all about me.'


Im actually a terrible over thinker justme, Heres my take on it all.

We know F all, And we will always know f all, Man is just not that smart, I got a email a while back showing the size of earth, then the sun then some other planet, then another and so on, Holy hell earth wasnt even one pixel on the screen next to this huge plant wtf?? Understand that clever man, I realise man will always strive to know more and discover more but we arnt on the right track are we, My parents use to get milk in recycled glass bottles, Meat from a butcher in paper, Nappies you washed your self etc, Now its plastic bottles, Meat in styrofoam trays and nappies you throw out, We are slowly choking our little mega pixel world, Look how much we have bent it over and done it like a sheep in the last hundred years, I sure hope the next few hundred arnt like that but they prob will be, Enjoy the moment, Dont think so much, Someday that moment you didnt enjoy is gone.......forever.


----------



## Kiwiman

2Buck!!!! ....where are you?
Everyones getting really smart and philo...phylo...phillosofi....really really smart, and we need to dumb things down a bit


----------



## JustMe

moore said:


> If your not livin right JM There's not much I can Do for ya!  But i do wish you all the best with your new endeavors..It would be nice to see an ole drywaller make good without having too kill himself over it!
> 
> Take care of that shoulder!


Thanks, moore. You're good people, one I'm more than pleased to know.

As for not killing myself.........there's some things I have in the works that should well take care of that, inside and outside of drywall. I think most all here will find them very interesting, very useful, and you'll be among the 1st people I'll introduce it all to when I'm ready enough to bring it out.


----------



## JustMe

Kiwiman said:


> Maybe they only "seem" stupid to you because you are smarter than them.


No, they're stupid.

Reminds me of a saying (that even holds up from a logical argument standpoint), that goes something like:

Intellectualism isn't intelligence, and intelligence isn't wisdom.

Their intellectualism doesn't necessarily make them wise, or even intelligent.



Kiwiman said:


> Me? ..... I don't mind admitting I'm about as intelligent as a brick


Doesn't sound so bad. Some intellectuals I know couldn't really hold up a wall if they tried (much less build one).


----------



## JustMe

cazna said:


> I got a email a while back showing the size of earth, then the sun then some other planet, then another and so on, Holy hell earth wasnt even one pixel on the screen next to this huge plant wtf??


Just because we are (or seem) 'small', seem 'small', doesn't necessarily mean we can't understand (or affect at some point) 'the large', 'the huge', 'the whole'.

Nasseim's take on things regarding such as infinity ties us to everything - that 'macro infinity growth' like you're talking about is driven by 'micro infinity growth', and 'micro infinity growth' is driven by 'macro infinity growth'. Each tied to the other, and part of the other. Each 'one' with the other. (I could explain it better, in more depth.) 

If he's right (or at least more right than where physics is now at about such things), a 'clearing away' of certain 'wrong thoughts', 'wrong concepts' like that could well open things up to us in ways we now can't see. 



cazna said:


> I realise man will always strive to know more and discover more but we arnt on the right track are we, My parents use to get milk in recycled glass bottles, Meat from a butcher in paper, Nappies you washed your self etc, Now its plastic bottles, Meat in styrofoam trays and nappies you throw out, We are slowly choking our little mega pixel world, Look how much we have bent it over and done it like a sheep in the last hundred years, I sure hope the next few hundred arnt like that but they prob will be, Enjoy the moment, Dont think so much, Someday that moment you didnt enjoy is gone.......forever.


I have a # of automatic emails sent to me from innovation sites - things that are happening and will be happening regarding innovative products. You might be (pleasantly) surprised as to what looks like is coming (driven by such as the net. The 'big boys' won't have as much control as they have had.) 



cazna said:


> Enjoy the moment, Dont think so much, Someday that moment you didnt enjoy is gone.......forever.


Things like Nasseim's theories are 'play, playtime' some to me. So I enjoy the moment that way.

I don't involve myself totally in just such things - 'Think and Do, Do and Think' is my current approach to life. From the aspect of 'Do', I like to follow some the threads of thought as such as Nasseim, with an eye to not just understanding (that's usually secondary in importance to me), but an eye also towards 'doing'. Eg. "What could I maybe 'do' with this new concept, this new line of thought".

Just an fyi.


----------



## cazna

Dam you :jester: Now im going to have to goggle this Nasseim fella??


----------



## cazna

Is this what your on about??

http://cierratuatha.wordpress.com/2011/07/24/nasseim-haramein-and-marko-rodin-tao-universe/

Interesting yes, Bollocks, Probably???

Ive had sleep, And breakfast, And a , Now its work time :thumbsup:

Have a nice day everyone :yes:


----------



## Mr.Brightstar

cazna said:


> Dam you :jester: Now im going to have to goggle this Nasseim fella??


I like what the great philosopher led zeppelin said. " If you listen very hard, You will find out that all you are, When all is one and one is all, To be a rock and not roll." And she's buying her stairway to heaven.


----------



## JustMe

cazna said:


> Is this what your on about??
> 
> http://cierratuatha.wordpress.com/2011/07/24/nasseim-haramein-and-marko-rodin-tao-universe/
> 
> Interesting yes, Bollocks, Probably???


From what I gather, Nasseim has gotten off onto tangents about some things that may or may not prove valid (or have already been disproven). But I won't rule out one possibly important theory because others of his are wrong or questionable.
Btw: Not saying what's on that video is wrong or questionable, as I didn't watch it, yet.


The video Slim and I were discussing:





 

Nasseim starts at 1:04 into the video. The previous hour would help explain something about the fractals that Nasseim mentions.


As for the 'doing' with it that I previously said I'm most interested in, if it holds true or true enough, I already threw one possibility out to someone this morning over coffee - something we were discussing the other day regarding brick laying.


----------



## 2buckcanuck

Kiwiman said:


> 2Buck!!!! ....where are you?
> Everyones getting really smart and philo...phylo...phillosofi....really really smart, and we need to dumb things down a bit


Holy mother fu*ker, a thread about cussing, and everyone has gone all serious. I'm trying to stop to GDI forces from invading the out back of Australia with Kanes NOD forces. ( the young bucks will know which video game I talk of:whistling2 must protect the sheep

Heres a good Doc for some of you that are always on a quest for knowledge, or the unknown.

Rob bell mixes science with God (not religion), at the ten minute mark, he gets into talking physics, planets, atoms, string theory etc..... has a good little message for us that always work 7 days a week. (I being guilty of that). So sorry for some, there is some god/creator talk, mixed with science. But smoke a big fatty, and you will find yourself thinking about this video for a few days.......





Then in Justme's post above, is the one vid I sent to Him and Slinpickins. I wanted to know if it made their brains hurt, like mine.... but I went on to watch this vid of Nassiem , it's like 8 hours long.........






I can get why some of the actual physics elite consider him a nut job, and he's dead wrong on somethings (like a comet almost hitting the sun in 2002 ). But he does have a paper out on his theory,and just like Einstein (who did not go to physics school), it took others to prove his theory right..... So..... if he stuck to his theory, and not gone off tangent, talking of Ufo's using the sun to time warp, crop circles and so on, people may of taken him more serious. Instead, he becomes canon folder for the elite, they focus more on his nutty side, and not his actual work. Einstein was considered a buffoon and a idiot, who could not tie his own shoes at first, but once his theory was proven right,,,or got us thinking about a new demension..... time. He's considered the biggest genius of all time now, after newton.

But then again, even some of his nutty stuff got me going WTF, that's cool. Been watching a lot of pyramid stuff over the years (like the pyramid codes for one). When he spoke of the ark being a power conductor, and it's dimensions were the exact same size for the hole at the top of the pyramids (kings chamber), it got me thinking, what if....????????,,,,, besides, Nassiem is a Canuck, he's got to be right:thumbup:

As for swearing, I taught my kids there is a time to swear, and not to swear, not to never swear. But I also don't think it should be part of your everyday vocabulary to replace adjectives. Speak to everyone like they were your grand mother. And if you can't explain something to your Grand mother so she can understand something, then odds are you don't understand it yourself (Einstein).

I honestly got my mouth washed out with soap as a kid if I swore


----------



## JustMe

2buckcanuck said:


> Then in Justme's post above, is the one vid I sent to Him and Slinpickins. I wanted to know if it made their brains hurt, like mine


I went back over the video today. It came easier.

One place where I'm still jamming up a bit is seeing clearly how space works as the contraction side (about 1:20 into it). But that should come, if it has to be by watching some other videos of his.


----------



## moore

I felt offended! :blink:


----------



## Mountain Man

Offended? I am absolutely astonished its not in Spanish!!! You gotta keep us informed how those beauties work out!!


----------



## Capt-sheetrock

theory's are fine,, but when it comes right down to it,,,,

It's important to evaluate the situation, look for any possible distractions, plan for any alternatives that may come up, asses any changes that might be imposed,,,,

however,,,,

When your up to your arse in alligators, it's hard to remember your main objective was to drain the swamp,,,,,:thumbsup:

BTW,,, Moore,,, the one that says "right leg" goes on the right side,,,,,,,,,,,, just saying,,yA KNOW!!!


----------



## RenoRob

2buckcanuck said:


> Holy mother fu*ker, a thread about cussing, and everyone has gone all serious. I'm trying to stop to GDI forces from invading the out back of Australia with Kanes NOD forces. ( the young bucks will know which video game I talk of:whistling2 must protect the sheep
> 
> Heres a good Doc for some of you that are always on a quest for knowledge, or the unknown.
> 
> Rob bell mixes science with God (not religion), at the ten minute mark, he gets into talking physics, planets, atoms, string theory etc..... has a good little message for us that always work 7 days a week. (I being guilty of that). So sorry for some, there is some god/creator talk, mixed with science. But smoke a big fatty, and you will find yourself thinking about this video for a few days.......
> Rob Bell - Everything is Spiritual Tour - YouTube
> 
> Then in Justme's post above, is the one vid I sent to Him and Slinpickins. I wanted to know if it made their brains hurt, like mine.... but I went on to watch this vid of Nassiem , it's like 8 hours long.........
> 
> (PART 1) Nassim Haramein at the Rogue Valley Metaphysical Library. 2003. (4 HRS) - YouTube
> 
> I can get why some of the actual physics elite consider him a nut job, and he's dead wrong on somethings (like a comet almost hitting the sun in 2002 ). But he does have a paper out on his theory,and just like Einstein (who did not go to physics school), it took others to prove his theory right..... So..... if he stuck to his theory, and not gone off tangent, talking of Ufo's using the sun to time warp, crop circles and so on, people may of taken him more serious. Instead, he becomes canon folder for the elite, they focus more on his nutty side, and not his actual work. Einstein was considered a buffoon and a idiot, who could not tie his own shoes at first, but once his theory was proven right,,,or got us thinking about a new demension..... time. He's considered the biggest genius of all time now, after newton.
> 
> But then again, even some of his nutty stuff got me going WTF, that's cool. Been watching a lot of pyramid stuff over the years (like the pyramid codes for one). When he spoke of the ark being a power conductor, and it's dimensions were the exact same size for the hole at the top of the pyramids (kings chamber), it got me thinking, what if....????????,,,,, besides, Nassiem is a Canuck, he's got to be right:thumbup:
> 
> As for swearing, I taught my kids there is a time to swear, and not to swear, not to never swear. But I also don't think it should be part of your everyday vocabulary to replace adjectives. Speak to everyone like they were your grand mother. And if you can't explain something to your Grand mother so she can understand something, then odds are you don't understand it yourself (Einstein).
> 
> I honestly got my mouth washed out with soap as a kid if I swore


Not that it matters, but I would consider Einstein, hands down, the most brilliant physicist of all time. He was the first to publish a paper on Quantum Mechanics (photoelectric effect), The Special Theory of Relativity and the absolutely remarkable discovery of The General Theory of Relativity. Some say that it could have taken another 50 years before anyone figured it out. 

As for Nassiem, the skepticism toward renormalization is not new and many physicists have approached the problem. I believe Richard Feynman was the first to develop it to solve problems of infinities in his theory of Quantum Electrodynamics (QED). 

I think great discoveries often come from eccentric personalities like Nassiem and I would never rule out off the wall ideas. My own personal thought on infinities is that they don't exist. Our universe seems to be governed by some very strict constants (c,h,G etc.). We can't even travel faster than c so it doesn't make sense to me that things could be divided infinitely. Even if they could, once you got passed Planck's length the Uncertainty Principle would make it theoretically impossible to define it. 

Oh ya, almost forgot mother f***ing cocksucker.


----------



## 2buckcanuck

RenoRob said:


> Not that it matters, but I would consider Einstein, hands down, the most brilliant physicist of all time. He was the first to publish a paper on Quantum Mechanics (photoelectric effect), The Special Theory of Relativity and the absolutely remarkable discovery of The General Theory of Relativity. Some say that it could have taken another 50 years before anyone figured it out.
> 
> As for Nassiem, the skepticism toward renormalization is not new and many physicists have approached the problem. I believe Richard Feynman was the first to develop it to solve problems of infinities in his theory of Quantum Electrodynamics (QED).
> 
> I think great discoveries often come from eccentric personalities like Nassiem and I would never rule out off the wall ideas. My own personal thought on infinities is that they don't exist. Our universe seems to be governed by some very strict constants (c,h,G etc.). We can't even travel faster than c so it doesn't make sense to me that things could be divided infinitely. Even if they could, once you got passed Planck's length the Uncertainty Principle would make it theoretically impossible to define it.
> 
> Oh ya, almost forgot mother f***ing cocksucker.


This might be very sad to say, but since this is a site full of drywallers, the only thing they would of understood in your post, is your very last sentence:whistling2:


----------



## JustMe

RenoRob said:


> Not that it matters, but I would consider Einstein, hands down, the most brilliant physicist of all time. He was the first to publish a paper on Quantum Mechanics (photoelectric effect), The Special Theory of Relativity and the absolutely remarkable discovery of The General Theory of Relativity. Some say that it could have taken another 50 years before anyone figured it out.
> 
> As for Nassiem, the skepticism toward renormalization is not new and many physicists have approached the problem. I believe Richard Feynman was the first to develop it to solve problems of infinities in his theory of Quantum Electrodynamics (QED).
> 
> I think great discoveries often come from eccentric personalities like Nassiem and I would never rule out off the wall ideas. My own personal thought on infinities is that they don't exist. Our universe seems to be governed by some very strict constants (c,h,G etc.). We can't even travel faster than c so it doesn't make sense to me that things could be divided infinitely. Even if they could, once you got passed Planck's length the Uncertainty Principle would make it theoretically impossible to define it.


My update:

I did a bit more looking at Nassim over the weekend (I was spelling his name wrong before), and am still having some problems with such as his 'space is the infinity contraction side'.

But I don't know if that's in part because of long held views of mine, or not. (If I knew more about physics, maybe I'd have even more problems(?) But that problem could also come from being so indoctrinated into a view that you can't step back enough from it. Mankind's history has over and over shown that can happen, even for more recent new science theories that were more provable.)

There are nay sayers out there - last one I looked at, that is maybe about the best one right now? (as it seems like the one maybe most quoted in the discussion threads I was reading): http://azureworld.blogspot.ca/2010/02/nassim-haramein-fraud-or-sage-part-2.html

But then there's some I read who questioned if that guy has got it right enough (that's if they also know what they're really talking about).

I wait to see what might come out further on this (as I think it could potentially be huge, if anywhere near right) - if there's total accuracy in it, or part of it, or none.


----------



## 2buckcanuck

JustMe said:


> My update:
> 
> I did a bit more looking at Nassim over the weekend (I was spelling his name wrong before), and am still having some problems with such as his 'space is the infinity contraction side'.
> 
> But I don't know if that's in part because of long held views of mine, or not. (If I knew more about physics, maybe I'd have even more problems(?) But that problem could also come from being so indoctrinated into a view that you can't step back enough from it. Mankind's history has over and over shown that can happen, even for more recent new science theories that were more provable.)
> 
> There are nay sayers out there - last one I looked at, that is maybe about the best one right now? (as it seems like the one maybe most quoted in the discussion threads I was reading): http://azureworld.blogspot.ca/2010/02/nassim-haramein-fraud-or-sage-part-2.html
> 
> But then there's some I read who questioned if that guy has got it right enough (that's if they also know what they're really talking about).
> 
> I wait to see what might come out further on this (as I think it could potentially be huge, if anywhere near right) - if there's total accuracy in it, or part of it, or none.


See:thumbup:, I told you it would make your brian,,, I mean brain hurt:thumbup:

Slimpickins is too scared to watch it:yes::whistling2:


----------



## moore




----------



## SlimPickins

2buckcanuck said:


> See:thumbup:, I told you it would make your brian,,, I mean brain hurt:thumbup:
> 
> Slimpickins is too scared to watch it:yes::whistling2:


Not true, I just never find myself with that much time on my hands at once. I DID start watching it the other night, and got about 35 minutes into it. It made me remember taking acid back in '94 and looking at fractals all night long while listening to Zero. The fractal geometry is like a refresher course, it's been a while since I thought much about Mandelbrot and Julia sets.........I'll get around to finishing it when I have some time. I've been working a lot.

I also started the Rob Bell video, but he put me off a little bit. I feel as if he's making unsubstantiated claims as far as his science is concerned, although I didn't do any research to prove it so.


----------



## moore

SlimPickins said:


> Not true, I just never find myself with that much time on my hands at once. I DID start watching it the other night, and got about 35 minutes into it. It made me remember taking acid back in '94 and looking at fractals all night long while listening to Zero. The fractal geometry is like a refresher course, it's been a while since I thought much about Mandelbrot and Julia sets.........I'll get around to finishing it when I have some time. I've been working a lot.
> 
> I also started the Rob Bell video, but he put me off a little bit. I feel as if he's making unsubstantiated claims as far as his science is concerned, although I didn't do any research to prove it so.


 Ahh!!! Slim ..You and me back in 94 would have been one hell of a pair!....but now were just boring old Dads!!!


----------



## Nick Harmon

Wow... When you guys get going. Throwing out a cocksucker to all you drywallers out there.


----------



## JustMe

SlimPickins said:


> The fractal geometry is like a refresher course, it's been a while since I thought much about Mandelbrot and Julia sets.........


Something I'm wondering about, is if our math truth systems are accurate enough to prove this thing out, and to prove it out fully.

For those who don't know (and maybe care, at least a bit): Math is a 'special universe absolute truth'. It's one we've created, and it only holds true under certain conditions, that have already been established.

Example that's given in a sort of 'truth text' of mine: the angles of a triangle always add up to 2 right angles on a plane surface, but not the surface of a sphere.

Not saying it is the case here, but just maybe our maths have to sort of 'catch up' in some ways to Nassim's view? (If the view is true.)

It's one reason why I'm suspending judgement on this right now (besides not knowing enough about other things regarding it).


----------



## Mr.Brightstar

JustMe said:


> Something I'm wondering about, is if our math truth systems are accurate enough to prove this thing out, and to prove it out fully.
> 
> For those who don't know (and maybe care, at least a bit): Math is a 'special universe absolute truth'. It's one we've created, and it only holds true under certain conditions, that have already been established.
> 
> Example that's given in a sort of 'truth text' of mine: the angles of a triangle always add up to 2 right angles on a plane surface, but not the surface of a sphere.
> 
> Not saying it is the case here, but just maybe our maths have to sort of 'catch up' in some ways to Nassim's view? (If the view is true.)
> 
> It's one reason why I'm suspending judgement on this right now (besides not knowing enough about other things regarding it).


Math does show us there are other dimensions And I think there probably are. Math also shows us it's impossible to hit a 100 mile an hour fastball Which we all know that is untrue.


----------



## SlimPickins

moore said:


> Ahh!!! Slim ..You and me back in 94 would have been one hell of a pair!....but now were just boring old Dads!!!


I was going to argue and say "Speak for yourself! I'm not old and boring!". But I can't. I'm totally old and boring.  Maybe that's a good thing though.....it was hard living:yes: I like what I've become, and I'm grateful that I'm no longer what I was. Plus, I get all the _joys_ of parenting two young boys.:whistling2:


----------



## SlimPickins

JustMe said:


> Something I'm wondering about, is if our math truth systems are accurate enough to prove this thing out, and to prove it out fully.
> 
> For those who don't know (and maybe care, at least a bit): Math is a 'special universe absolute truth'. It's one we've created, and it only holds true under certain conditions, that have already been established.
> 
> Example that's given in a sort of 'truth text' of mine: the angles of a triangle always add up to 2 right angles on a plane surface, but not the surface of a sphere.
> 
> Not saying it is the case here, but just maybe our maths have to sort of 'catch up' in some ways to Nassim's view? (If the view is true.)
> 
> It's one reason why I'm suspending judgement on this right now (besides not knowing enough about other things regarding it).


If science has shown us anything, it's that there are always going to be new developments in human perception and understanding of our existence. I'm not a grand enough thinker to pioneer the way to a new paradigm.


----------



## JustMe

Mr.Brightstar said:


> Math does show us there are other dimensions And I think there probably are. Math also shows us it's impossible to hit a 100 mile an hour fastball Which we all know that is untrue.


I didn't know that.  But then I don't pay attention to baseball, so it never bothered me if balls did or didn't do 100 (although my understanding is the term 'game changer' came from baseball, which is a concept I'm interested in. Babe Ruth and his home run approach to winning games being called a 'game changer'.) 



SlimPickins said:


> If science has shown us anything, it's that there are always going to be new developments in human perception and understanding of our existence. I'm not a grand enough thinker to pioneer the way to a new paradigm.


That's assuming I think that paradigm pioneering happens only in science, as Kuhn seemed to think, and not in other areas. I question that.

I don't know if one has to maybe be a grand thinker. Maybe being an 'optional' thinker - being able to generate options - could be of more value at times(?)

For myself, I'll stick more to coming up with things that better 'do', rather than things that better 'explain'. (Application concepts vs. description concepts.)


----------



## 2buckcanuck

Mr.Brightstar said:


> Math does show us there are other dimensions And I think there probably are. Math also shows us it's impossible to hit a 100 mile an hour fastball Which we all know that is untrue.


Can math explain what the Kiwi's do to their sheep:whistling2:

Ewe Fu%king sheep shagging ,muttin sucking cruel kiwi's:furious:


----------



## RenoRob

JustMe said:


> Something I'm wondering about, is if our math truth systems are accurate enough to prove this thing out, and to prove it out fully.
> 
> For those who don't know (and maybe care, at least a bit): Math is a 'special universe absolute truth'. It's one we've created, and it only holds true under certain conditions, that have already been established.
> 
> Example that's given in a sort of 'truth text' of mine: the angles of a triangle always add up to 2 right angles on a plane surface, but not the surface of a sphere.
> 
> Not saying it is the case here, but just maybe our maths have to sort of 'catch up' in some ways to Nassim's view? (If the view is true.)
> 
> It's one reason why I'm suspending judgement on this right now (besides not knowing enough about other things regarding it).


It seemed strange that he brought up one of Newtons Laws in the video, considering they are useless when discussing GR or Quantum Mechanics, the two theories he's trying to unite. It's kinda like trying to tape a house with a shovel. 
Also, he uses that classical law to explain the force opposing the expansion of the universe. I would question just how much this guy knows about physics. However, WTF do I know, I sanded drywall all day.:blink:


----------



## SlimPickins

JustMe said:


> That's assuming I think that paradigm pioneering happens only in science, as Kuhn seemed to think, and not in other areas. I question that.
> 
> I don't know if one has to maybe be a grand thinker. Maybe being an 'optional' thinker - being able to generate options - could be of more value at times(?)
> 
> For myself, I'll stick more to coming up with things that better 'do', rather than things that better 'explain'. (Application concepts vs. description concepts.)


I gave up being an intellectual a few years back, now I exist. That doesn't mean I don't think about what I'm doing, it just means that I spend far less time thinking about thinking (and other theoretical pursuits).


----------



## Mr.Brightstar

RenoRob said:


> It seemed strange that he brought up one of Newtons Laws in the video, considering they are useless when discussing GR or Quantum Mechanics, the two theories he's trying to unite. It's kinda like trying to tape a house with a shovel.
> Also, he uses that classical law to explain the force opposing the expansion of the universe. I would question just how much this guy knows about physics. However, WTF do I know, I sanded drywall all day.:blink:


Here it is. My Theory of gravity. 

In between all objects in space there is zero gravity

Gravity is found on large objects floating in space. The larger the object the more gravity. Stars have planets And planets have moons. 

I believe all these objects came from the big bang. And with that massive explosion all matter shot out Creating G force Or gravity. Before the Big Bang there was no gravity. 

I assume you are familiar with Einstein theory of relativity. In his thought experiment the sun sits on the fabric of space. Now picture a bullet flying through the air You can see the air being cut by the bullet. Now picture the sun Like a bullet flying through space. Not just sitting on the fabric of space but traveling around the Milky Way at very high speed. The planets move around the sun because of gravity. The moons move around the planets because of gravity. The sun travels around the Milky Way because of gravity. The Milky Way was created with a big bang. One of 1 billion Galaxies. 

So therefore I believe gravities root cause is coming from the GeForce of the big bang.


----------



## 2buckcanuck

Mr.Brightstar said:


> Here it is. My Theory of gravity.
> 
> In between all objects in space there is zero gravity
> 
> Gravity is found on large objects floating in space. The larger the object the more gravity. Stars have planets And planets have moons.
> 
> I believe all these objects came from the big bang. And with that massive explosion all matter shot out Creating G force Or gravity. Before the Big Bang there was no gravity.
> 
> I assume you are familiar with Einstein theory of relativity. In his thought experiment the sun sits on the fabric of space. Now picture a bullet flying through the air You can see the air being cut by the bullet. Now picture the sun Like a bullet flying through space. Not just sitting on the fabric of space but traveling around the Milky Way at very high speed. The planets move around the sun because of gravity. The moons move around the planets because of gravity. The sun travels around the Milky Way because of gravity. The Milky Way was created with a big bang. One of 1 billion Galaxies.
> 
> So therefore I believe gravities root cause is coming from the GeForce of the big bang.


This is how nassim says the planets spin

http://youtu.be/zBlAGGzup48


----------



## Mr.Brightstar

2buckcanuck said:


> This is how nassim says the planets spin
> 
> http://youtu.be/zBlAGGzup48


That's how I picture it too. The sun is not sitting on dark matter it is Piercing it Such a large object at a high-speed Would bend light Which was how Einstein proved relativity During the eclipse in Australia I think was. He saw it as the sun sitting on the fabric of space with planets rolling around it. I see it as the sun Flying through space pulling everything behind it.


----------



## gazman

I must have the wrong site. I was looking for Drywall Talk, where everything makes sense :whistling2:.


----------



## Nick Harmon

gazman said:


> I must have the wrong site. I was looking for Drywall Talk, where everything makes sense :whistling2:.


In the context of the drywall talk forum, I'd say drywall talk and making sense should not be used in he same sentence. 
In other news...
Apprentice: "Hey look guys it's pretty colors in mud and you can do art!"
Forman: "Pack your things and go home. You're done for the day Harmon."


----------



## RenoRob

Mr.Brightstar said:


> Here it is. My Theory of gravity.
> 
> In between all objects in space there is zero gravity
> 
> Gravity is found on large objects floating in space. The larger the object the more gravity. Stars have planets And planets have moons.
> 
> I believe all these objects came from the big bang. And with that massive explosion all matter shot out Creating G force Or gravity. Before the Big Bang there was no gravity.
> 
> I assume you are familiar with Einstein theory of relativity. In his thought experiment the sun sits on the fabric of space. Now picture a bullet flying through the air You can see the air being cut by the bullet. Now picture the sun Like a bullet flying through space. Not just sitting on the fabric of space but traveling around the Milky Way at very high speed. The planets move around the sun because of gravity. The moons move around the planets because of gravity. The sun travels around the Milky Way because of gravity. The Milky Way was created with a big bang. One of 1 billion Galaxies.
> 
> So therefore I believe gravities root cause is coming from the GeForce of the big bang.


The rate of expansion of the universe has not always been the same. If the GeForce, or rate of expansion, changed then you would expect to see differences in the properties of gravity at different times in our universe. We can observe objects millions of light years away and our theory of gravity still holds true (except for at the moment of the Big Bang). 

The Theory of Relativity deals with spacetime, which we can't visualize, not just space. The mass of objects cause spacetime to bend and those objects follow the straightest path possible (geodesics) in the given spacetime. That's why light can bend even though it has no mass. So, in order to talk about gravity you really must talk about the curvature of spacetime. 

Also, there is no definite location of the centre of the universe, everything is just moving away from everything else. So, my question would be which way is this spiral moving? From someone at the centre of the Milky Way we would be spiralling around it. From another point in space it would look different.


----------



## JustMe

RenoRob said:


> It seemed strange that he brought up one of Newtons Laws in the video, considering they are useless when discussing GR or Quantum Mechanics, the two theories he's trying to unite. It's kinda like trying to tape a house with a shovel.
> Also, he uses that classical law to explain the force opposing the expansion of the universe. I would question just how much this guy knows about physics. However, WTF do I know, I sanded drywall all day.:blink:


One thing I'm looking at, beyond the physics, is the underlying concepts, underlying themes to some of this Nassim thing - even if it doesn't hold up as a total package, is there something fundamental in it that could have merit. Is there something in it that 'orders' things in a way that has use.

Another guy I've been discussing this with a bit has problems with Nassim's take on things, at least somewhat. But he says he's been a fan of a Bohm for some years - not so much his quantum work, but his work about such things as 'implicate order'. I didn't get into looking at it much yet, but one link sent me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicate_and_explicate_order_according_to_David_Bohm


----------



## SlimPickins

Mr.Brightstar said:


> Here it is. My Theory of gravity.
> 
> In between all objects in space there is zero gravity
> 
> Gravity is found on large objects floating in space. The larger the object the more gravity. Stars have planets And planets have moons.
> 
> I believe all these objects came from the big bang. And with that massive explosion all matter shot out Creating G force Or gravity. Before the Big Bang there was no gravity.
> 
> I assume you are familiar with Einstein theory of relativity. In his thought experiment the sun sits on the fabric of space. Now picture a bullet flying through the air You can see the air being cut by the bullet. Now picture the sun Like a bullet flying through space. Not just sitting on the fabric of space but traveling around the Milky Way at very high speed. The planets move around the sun because of gravity. The moons move around the planets because of gravity. The sun travels around the Milky Way because of gravity. The Milky Way was created with a big bang. One of 1 billion Galaxies.
> 
> So therefore I believe gravities root cause is coming from the GeForce of the big bang.


Gravity is found "on" all objects.

It almost sounds as if you're implying that gravity is a product of momentum, and that to have gravity an object must be moving?

I like to think of Einstein's gravity well. It's all fine and dandy when you see a 3-dimensional image of it (take a large thin sheet of rubber and put a bowling ball on it, or something similar), or you look at a 2-dimensional representation....but then you have to think to yourself:

"But wait, this isn't happening in only one direction, like a bowling ball being affected by gravity on a rubber sheet........it's happening in all directions at once." Try to visualize what a gravity well really "looks" like........that bends MY brain.


----------



## JustMe

SlimPickins said:


> I gave up being an intellectual a few years back, now I exist. That doesn't mean I don't think about what I'm doing, it just means that I spend far less time thinking about thinking (and other theoretical pursuits).


Like 'intellectualism' isn't necessarily intelligence or wisdom, 'existing' isn't necessarily living - at least not in its fullest sense. I'm pretty sure that thought has crossed your mind. 

'Thinking about thinking' has led to some interesting thoughts in the last while about thinking. But there's a 'real doing' feedback used at such times as well, to move things ahead.

A couple sentences from a book's page, that someone sent me an email of the other day:

"Another danger is that we let others do the theorizing, while we do the work. None of us can afford to take on trust statements by people who think they can tell what we are doing, or should be doing: people who do not actually do the practical work themselves, but who feel they are in a position to theorize about it. This is a dangerous state of affairs."

Although that passage is about the (somewhat blind) acceptance by medical staff in accepting psychiatric models, I think it could be applied to most things, where the thinkers about certain work aren't doers also of the work.

It's why I use my current approach of 'Think and Do, Do and Think' for most things, including things like new equipment development (or even about things like thinking), rather than Think and Think, or Do and Do.


----------



## RenoRob

SlimPickins said:


> Gravity is found "on" all objects.
> 
> It almost sounds as if you're implying that gravity is a product of momentum, and that to have gravity an object must be moving?
> 
> I like to think of Einstein's gravity well. It's all fine and dandy when you see a 3-dimensional image of it (take a large thin sheet of rubber and put a bowling ball on it, or something similar), or you look at a 2-dimensional representation....but then you have to think to yourself:
> 
> "But wait, this isn't happening in only one direction, like a bowling ball being affected by gravity on a rubber sheet........it's happening in all directions at once." Try to visualize what a gravity well really "looks" like........that bends MY brain.


Remember though Slim, the gravitational field in GR comes from the energy-momentum tensor T. So, gravity is a product of the density and flow of momentum and energy. 

That David Bohm fella is pretty interesting. I get what he's saying but I don't know understand how he has applied it. I may do a bit more reading. It looks like he has had this point of view for around 30+ years.


----------



## Mr.Brightstar

SlimPickins said:


> Gravity is found "on" all objects.
> 
> It almost sounds as if you're implying that gravity is a product of momentum, and that to have gravity an object must be moving?
> 
> I like to think of Einstein's gravity well. It's all fine and dandy when you see a 3-dimensional image of it (take a large thin sheet of rubber and put a bowling ball on it, or something similar), or you look at a 2-dimensional representation....but then you have to think to yourself:
> 
> "But wait, this isn't happening in only one direction, like a bowling ball being affected by gravity on a rubber sheet........it's happening in all directions at once." Try to visualize what a gravity well really "looks" like........that bends MY brain.


All objects are moving The momentum was created from the big bang. The Big Bang happened in zero gravity As all matter was thrown out across the universe and still expanding Smaller objects followed the larger objects Because of gravity. The discoveries made in just the last 10 to 15 years Has led to M theory an extension of string theory We now have a map of the universe. And it is mind blowing to see.


----------



## JustMe

RenoRob said:


> It looks like he has had this point of view for around 30+ years.


From the looks of it, it's 'had' - past tense. Died 1992.

Wikipedia summary on him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm


----------



## 2buckcanuck

RenoRob said:


> That David Bohm fella is pretty interesting. I get what he's saying but I don't know understand how he has applied it. I may do a bit more reading. It looks like he has had this point of view for around 30+ years.


Instead of reading RenoRob, there's a majour physics question that needs answering in the drywall world, maybe you can work on that. I think it has baffled tapers through out the ages:yes:

Why do flat tapes dry faster than angle tapes


----------



## JustMe

2buckcanuck said:


> Instead of reading RenoRob, there's a majour physics question that needs answering in the drywall world, maybe you can work on that. I think it has baffled tapers through out the ages:yes:
> 
> Why do flat tapes dry faster than angle tapes


This one is especially for caz, gaz and moore: 

The book Mechanism of Mind has the answer to this.

Whatever new thing you bring to your mind, you'll link it to whatever pattern in your mind you already have there that's closest to it.

So......an angle is more of an 'inny' than a flat. And like the difference between men and women, innies stay moister, longer.


----------



## cazna

Mmm, An innie, Just wondering what the infinity and gravational pull is on that justme, Why am i so drawn to it :blink:


----------



## JustMe

cazna said:


> Mmm, An innie, Just wondering what the infinity and gravational pull is on that justme, Why am i so drawn to it :blink:


Oops. Sorry, cazna. I was going to make that one especially for you as well.

Fixed.


----------



## 2buckcanuck

JustMe said:


> This one is especially for caz, gaz and moore:
> 
> The book Mechanism of Mind has the answer to this.
> 
> Whatever new thing you bring to your mind, you'll link it to whatever pattern in your mind you already have there that's closest to it.
> 
> So......an angle is more of an 'inny' than a flat. And like the difference between men and women, innies stay moister, longer.


So flats are male and internal angles are female









Angles can be a b1tch to do, and they can have the most defects in them:yes:,,,, but your theory goes off track when it comes to 3 ways:thumbup:,,,, none of my ex's would go for that, unless it involved another flat tape to come into the equation:furious:


----------



## JustMe

2buckcanuck said:


> but your theory goes off track when it comes to 3 ways:thumbup:,,,, none of my ex's would go for that


Just like women can be......uncooperative, disagreeable.

My theory stands.


----------



## SlimPickins

JustMe said:


> Like 'intellectualism' isn't necessarily intelligence or wisdom, 'existing' isn't necessarily living - at least not in its fullest sense. I'm pretty sure that thought has crossed your mind.


I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I don't believe that I'm merely existing, there is an amount of self-reflection and general analyzation that takes place. When I speak of existing, it's more along the lines of Lao-Tzu and Taoism..letting things happen. Over-thinking and the urge to control all outcomes is a source of frustration and lack of happiness. Yes, we want to make choices that benefit us, but the wisdom comes in realizing which choices can and cannot be made.



Mr.Brightstar said:


> All objects are moving The momentum was created from the big bang. The Big Bang happened in zero gravity As all matter was thrown out across the universe and still expanding Smaller objects followed the larger objects Because of gravity. The discoveries made in just the last 10 to 15 years Has led to M theory an extension of string theory We now have a map of the universe. And it is mind blowing to see.


I understand that all objects are moving, and that this is why we even begin to discuss relativity. I suppose my understanding of gravity is limited. 

When I read what you've written, it seems to imply that gravity is a result of movement. Yes, smaller objects are drawn to larger objects, but those smaller objects themselves exert gravitational forces. I'm having trouble understanding this idea of zero gravity at the time of the big bang, when what would be expected is infinite gravity at a point (like a black hole). Can you direct me to a source for this idea? I knew I should have worked on that 4" thick Gravitation book by Kip Thorne instead of letting it sit in my storage room all these years.




RenoRob said:


> Remember though Slim, the gravitational field in GR comes from the energy-momentum tensor T. So, gravity is a product of the density and flow of momentum and energy.
> 
> That David Bohm fella is pretty interesting. I get what he's saying but I don't know understand how he has applied it. I may do a bit more reading. It looks like he has had this point of view for around 30+ years.


I just spent a few minutes looking up the overview on gravitation presented by Wikipedia to bring myself somewhat up to speed with what you guys are talking about.

I suppose I've held a classical view of gravitation, but with some quantum mechanics thrown in for good measure. I understand (well, sort of) the gravity well approach, but my education (which doesn't amount to much) was cemented in the idea that indeed gravity is a force and not a product of the object's movement. Gravity being one of the four fundamental forces (EM, strong, weak, gravity), and the direct cause of gravitationl force being as yet undetermined. Gravitrons anyone? I also seem to remember at some point reading that gravitation was instantaneous, seemingly breaking the rules of information being limited by the speed of light (however, I do not fully understand this idea.......much like many other ideas presented in QM). It's probably time I dove back into physics for a while....I feel very very rusty.


----------



## 2buckcanuck

SlimPickins said:


> It's probably time I dove back into physics for a while....I feel very very rusty.


I think you should too:yes:

Justme beat you to the punch, as to why flat tapes dry before angle tapes:yes::whistling2:


----------



## JustMe

SlimPickins said:


> Over-thinking and the urge to control all outcomes is a source of frustration and lack of happiness.


What we think of as being 'over-thinking', is often really 'under-thinking' - which can be the real source for frustration and lack of happiness. I could list a few things as to why it seems to be 'under-thinking' that most often takes place (even though we think we've fully enough thought through something).


----------



## RenoRob

SlimPickins said:


> When I read what you've written, it seems to imply that gravity is a result of movement. Yes, smaller objects are drawn to larger objects, but those smaller objects themselves exert gravitational forces. I'm having trouble understanding this idea of zero gravity at the time of the big bang, when what would be expected is infinite gravity at a point (like a black hole). Can you direct me to a source for this idea? I knew I should have worked on that 4" thick Gravitation book by Kip Thorne instead of letting it sit in my storage room all these years.


Back to the problem of infinity, haha. One of the issues with GR is that it produces an infinite curvature at the singularity of a black hole. This is a problem that may be solve by a unified theory of QM and GR. All we really know about black holes is from the event horizon and beyond. You could look up Shwartzchild Radius if you were interested.



> I suppose I've held a classical view of gravitation, but with some quantum mechanics thrown in for good measure. I understand (well, sort of) the gravity well approach, but my education (which doesn't amount to much) was cemented in the idea that indeed gravity is a force and not a product of the object's movement. Gravity being one of the four fundamental forces (EM, strong, weak, gravity), and the direct cause of gravitationl force being as yet undetermined. Gravitrons anyone? I also seem to remember at some point reading that gravitation was instantaneous, seemingly breaking the rules of information being limited by the speed of light (however, I do not fully understand this idea.......much like many other ideas presented in QM). It's probably time I dove back into physics for a while....I feel very very rusty.


I remember a friend of mine in high school asking what would happen if the Sun disappeared. Would we feel the gravity change before we saw it gone? We thought, aha! the effect of gravity is faster than the speed of light. However, we were wrong and GR tells up that the gravitaional field propagates at the speed of light. Which kinda makes sense since it's a product of the flow of energy and momentum.


----------



## RenoRob

or better yet, Lenard Susskind has some excellent lectures online about all different subjects in physics.


----------



## Irishpride84

Nick Harmon said:


> I'm having a hard time adequately conveying information. I don't know about the rest of you but the drywallers I've worked with have worse language than truckers. Has this topic already been addressed?


How can some one bad mouth my brotherinlaws spackeling skills and then hire him to help him spackel????? This just makes no sense


----------



## 2buckcanuck

Irishpride84 said:


> How can some one bad mouth my brotherinlaws spackeling skills and then hire him to help him spackel????? This just makes no sense


Maybe it's because your brother inlaw uses both sides of his trowel:whistling2::whistling2::whistling2:
http://www.drywalltalk.com/f8/side-trowel-do-you-use-4018/


----------



## JustMe

2buckcanuck said:


> Maybe it's because your brother inlaw uses both sides of his trowel:whistling2::whistling2::whistling2:
> http://www.drywalltalk.com/f8/side-trowel-do-you-use-4018/


Or it could be that his brother-in-law isn't a great choice, but is the least worst choice available.


----------



## chris

Irishpride84 said:


> How can some one bad mouth my brotherinlaws spackeling skills and then hire him to help him spackel????? This just makes no sense


 Thats a big walleye:thumbsup: 10 pounds or more??


----------



## Mr.Brightstar

chris said:


> Thats a big walleye:thumbsup: 10 pounds or more??



DWT on a pc is so different:jester: than the app. The APP needs a serious update.:whistling2:


----------



## sdrdrywall

JustMe said:


> Or it could be that his brother-in-law isn't a great choice, but is the least worst choice available.


Sometimes a man with a little less skill. But a lot better attitude makes for a desired person.there's no crying in drywall :thumbsup:


----------



## Mr.Brightstar

SlimPickins said:


> I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I don't believe that I'm merely existing, there is an amount of self-reflection and general analyzation that takes place. When I speak of existing, it's more along the lines of Lao-Tzu and Taoism..letting things happen. Over-thinking and the urge to control all outcomes is a source of frustration and lack of happiness. Yes, we want to make choices that benefit us, but the wisdom comes in realizing which choices can and cannot be made.
> 
> I understand that all objects are moving, and that this is why we even begin to discuss relativity. I suppose my understanding of gravity is limited.
> 
> When I read what you've written, it seems to imply that gravity is a result of movement. Yes, smaller objects are drawn to larger objects, but those smaller objects themselves exert gravitational forces. I'm having trouble understanding this idea of zero gravity at the time of the big bang, when what would be expected is infinite gravity at a point (like a black hole). Can you direct me to a source for this idea? I knew I should have worked on that 4" thick Gravitation book by Kip  Thorne instead of letting it sit in my storage room all these years.
> 
> 
> I just spent a few minutes looking up the overview on gravitation presented by Wikipedia to bring myself somewhat up to speed with what you guys are talking about.
> 
> I suppose I've held a classical view of gravitation, but with some quantum mechanics thrown in for good measure. I understand (well, sort of) the gravity well approach, but my education (which doesn't amount to much) was cemented in the idea that indeed gravity is a force and not a product of the object's movement. Gravity being one of the four fundamental forces (EM, strong, weak, gravity), and the direct cause of gravitationl force being as yet undetermined. Gravitrons anyone? I also seem to remember at some point reading that gravitation was instantaneous, seemingly breaking the rules of information being limited by the speed of light (however, I do not fully understand this idea.......much like many other ideas presented in QM). It's probably time I dove back into physics for a while....I feel very very rusty.



Is light a particle or a wave? 

When you look at my walls it's a particale. Look at seinor loupies walll and it;s a wave. :jester:fftopic::whistling2:


----------



## JustMe

sdrdrywall said:


> Sometimes a man with a little less skill. But a lot better attitude makes for a desired person.there's no crying in drywall :thumbsup:


I'm thinking you're just repeating what I said - that he was the least worst choice(?)

I worked a decent amount with a guy like that - didn't really have skill in spades, although he'd been at it many years. But he had a great attitude.

When I cared about the jobs more, he wasn't someone I really cared if I worked with or not. Later, I always looked forward to working with him. Preferred him over some with more skill, more speed. 

The company especially liked him because he always showed up.


----------



## Mr.Brightstar

SlimPickins said:


> You don't have to do much imagining about smoking those silly sticks, am I right? :jester:
> 
> I'm not very educated, and I just pretend to be smart on here so you guys will keep me around.... because I'm not a very good drywaller.


intelligence and smart are two totally different things. There are intelligent people who cant read, and then tere are smart people that have no common sence. everybody is born with your I.Q. Smarts is learned.

To be a good plasterer/drywaller contractor you need both and alot of artistic ability and vision.:2guns:sama:


----------



## SlimPickins

cazna said:


> Mmm, An innie, Just wondering what the infinity and gravational pull is on that justme, Why am i so drawn to it :blink:


I think we can safely call an innie a black hole. It has maximum attraction. In this regard, all innies are also worm-holes.


----------



## 2buckcanuck

sdrdrywall said:


> Sometimes a man with a little less skill. But a lot better attitude makes for a desired person.there's no crying in drywall :thumbsup:


I need you to talk to 2buckjr for me







:whistling2:


----------



## sdrdrywall

2buckcanuck said:


> I need you to talk to 2buckjr for me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :whistling2:


No problem send him down to me for a week.


----------



## Irishpride84

I guess when you wana work some one like a ******. You go hire I ******. Now I get it


----------



## Irishpride84

There's no crying in drywall. How come your still in dry wall


----------



## Irishpride84

Every job you cried. IM NOT MAKING MONEY. IM NOT MAKING MONEY. NO ONE WILL PAY ME. BOO HOO HOO.


----------



## SlimPickins

So, back to the topic of this thread........infinity and gravity. :laughing:

Inspired by this conversation, I went down into the basement and dug up my "Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein's Outrageous Legacy"

I'm only half way through the prologue and have already had my head bent. (Discussion of the chaotic nature of space and time inside the event horizon and approaching the singularity.....as well as the notion that the radius of the horizon limit can be millions of times greater than the circumference)

I also dug up my Gravitation text book....but seeing as how it's at the graduate school level it might take me a while to refresh the math skills needed to keep up. As if anyone cares! :lol:


----------



## JustMe

SlimPickins said:


> So, back to the topic of this thread........infinity and gravity. :laughing:
> 
> Inspired by this conversation, I went down into the basement and dug up my "Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein's Outrageous Legacy"
> 
> I'm only half way through the prologue and have already had my head bent. (Discussion of the chaotic nature of space and time inside the event horizon and approaching the singularity.....as well as the notion that the radius of the horizon limit can be millions of times greater than the circumference)


The Unified answer to it all is what we call space, Slim - the space between things we can see, and the space between things that are too small for us to see.

You can't conclusively prove I'm wrong, therefore I must be right.


----------



## 2buckcanuck

SlimPickins said:


> So, back to the topic of this thread........infinity and gravity. :laughing:
> 
> Inspired by this conversation, I went down into the basement and dug up my "Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein's Outrageous Legacy"
> 
> I'm only half way through the prologue and have already had my head bent. (Discussion of the chaotic nature of space and time inside the event horizon and approaching the singularity.....as well as the notion that the radius of the horizon limit can be millions of times greater than the circumference)
> 
> I also dug up my Gravitation text book....but seeing as how it's at the graduate school level it might take me a while to refresh the math skills needed to keep up. As if anyone cares! :lol:


ill save you some reading, I found a 5 minute movie on the subject:thumbup:


----------



## Mr.Brightstar

SlimPickins said:


> So, back to the topic of this thread........infinity and gravity. :laughing:
> 
> Inspired by this conversation, I went down into the basement and dug up my "Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein's Outrageous Legacy"
> 
> I'm only half way through the prologue and have already had my head bent. (Discussion of the chaotic nature of space and time inside the event horizon and approaching the singularity.....as well as the notion that the radius of the horizon limit can be millions of times greater than the circumference)
> 
> I also dug up my Gravitation text book....but seeing as how it's at the graduate school level it might take me a while to refresh the math skills needed to keep up. As if anyone cares! :lol:


Thought experiments work best for seeing the unseen. My theory Gravity came from the Big Bang came to me one day while I was driving down the road. Over a year after I tried tackling this Mysterious force. But what are the chances a Plasterer would be the one to figure out Where gravity is coming from. 

I have had my own thought experiments on infamy. But who cares about that.


----------



## gazman

So then does that mean that this could be real ?

http://stargate.mgm.com/


----------



## 2buckcanuck

gazman said:


> So then does that mean that this could be real ?
> 
> http://stargate.mgm.com/


You know, I watched every episode of that stupid show (twice:whistling2, and I still can't explain why:blink:

Then one old grumpy mean foreman on a jobsite found out I had all the episodes, and asked if I could burn them for him.......I was the only worker who could smoke in his unit

Don't forget Stargate Atlantis too:whistling2:


----------



## SlimPickins

JustMe said:


> The Unified answer to it all is what we call space, Slim - the space between things we can see, and the space between things that are too small for us to see.
> 
> You can't conclusively prove I'm wrong, therefore I must be right.


See, that's the trouble....space happened along with the Big Bang. What did space expand _into?_ I mean, we generally think of space as nothing, right? Empty space? But this idea of a nothing that has no space? No wonder things can fit into infinitesimally small "spaces".

One of the things that tweaked my noggin was a singularity being 10^-33 meters...a bunch of times smaller than the radius of an atomic nucleus. With the mass of 10 solar units. Yeah, yeah....I've been thinking about black holes for damn near 20 years, but I must be in a different...........space right now. :laughing:


----------



## gazman

2buckcanuck said:


> You know, I watched every episode of that stupid show (twice:whistling2, and I still can't explain why:blink:
> 
> Then one old grumpy mean foreman on a jobsite found out I had all the episodes, and asked if I could burn them for him.......I was the only worker who could smoke in his unit
> 
> Don't forget Stargate Atlantis too:whistling2:


Correct me if I am wrong but I think it was made in Canada.
And I know why you and I watched every single episode.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0850102/


----------



## gazman

Gravity, shooting stars, and poop.


----------



## RenoRob

SlimPickins said:


> So, back to the topic of this thread........infinity and gravity. :laughing:
> 
> Inspired by this conversation, I went down into the basement and dug up my "Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein's Outrageous Legacy"
> 
> I'm only half way through the prologue and have already had my head bent. (Discussion of the chaotic nature of space and time inside the event horizon and approaching the singularity.....as well as the notion that the radius of the horizon limit can be millions of times greater than the circumference)
> 
> I also dug up my Gravitation text book....but seeing as how it's at the graduate school level it might take me a while to refresh the math skills needed to keep up. As if anyone cares! :lol:


Nice Slim! I've been trying to learn a bit about phase space. The only time I've ever come across fractals was in a thermodynamics class I once took. Very interesting, wish I had more time.

You may need to add some additional math skills to your arsenal for gravity, I know I did. Imagine trying to apply calculus in a coordinate system that, itself, is changing (fun times).


----------



## RenoRob

JustMe said:


> Something I'm wondering about, is if our math truth systems are accurate enough to prove this thing out, and to prove it out fully.
> 
> For those who don't know (and maybe care, at least a bit): Math is a 'special universe absolute truth'. It's one we've created, and it only holds true under certain conditions, that have already been established.
> 
> Example that's given in a sort of 'truth text' of mine: the angles of a triangle always add up to 2 right angles on a plane surface, but not the surface of a sphere.
> 
> Not saying it is the case here, but just maybe our maths have to sort of 'catch up' in some ways to Nassim's view? (If the view is true.)
> 
> It's one reason why I'm suspending judgement on this right now (besides not knowing enough about other things regarding it).


Just wondering what you mean about the "truth text" of math? Is it that we assume anything outside our current knowledge of mathematics is false? I don't really think that's what your implying since we always name our discoveries as theorems and not laws. 

Your example of a triangles angles adding to 180 degrees is a very special case for Euclidean geometry. Each branch has it's own axioms and can only be applied within that context.


----------



## SlimPickins

RenoRob said:


> Nice Slim! I've been trying to learn a bit about phase space. The only time I've ever come across fractals was in a thermodynamics class I once took. Very interesting, wish I had more time.
> 
> You may need to add some additional math skills to your arsenal for gravity, I know I did. Imagine trying to apply calculus in a coordinate system that, itself, is changing (fun times).


The textbook says that "Track 1" in the book (it's a whopper), can be "understood" with Vector Analysis and simple Ordinary Differential Equations. My problem is that during Calculus III, I had a fill-in professor because the original professor was on sabbatical. The fill in guy wasn't very helpful......he taught directly out of the book, copying each problem precisely on the board during lectures (uh.....that's why we have the book, dude) and once, when asked "how and why" his response was "I'm sorry, I cannot explain that to you". I felt like I had a big gap in my mathematical education because of that fine fella.........and it showed itself in Differential Equations. Wow.....I'm babbling again.

I'll read some more during smoke breaks today :laughing:


----------



## JustMe

RenoRob said:


> Just wondering what you mean about the "truth text" of math? Is it that we assume anything outside our current knowledge of mathematics is false? I don't really think that's what your implying since we always name our discoveries as theorems and not laws.
> 
> Your example of a triangles angles adding to 180 degrees is a very special case for Euclidean geometry. Each branch has it's own axioms and can only be applied within that context.


The problem might be that we tend to extend those branches too far, into areas we maybe shouldn't. So we can get things like mathematical truth getting us into space. But it also at one time proved that things like rockets to the moon and man powered flight weren't possible.

The 'truth text' I'm referring to is a somewhat general one, going into brief discussions about things like mathematical truth, logical truth, scientific truth, revealed truth, ...... - truths ('truths') that should be taken as being conditional ones. They seem to hold true, within certain conditions (but often aren't treated that way, but treated more as 'absolute truths').

On 'axioms', Gödel's Theorem shows we can't prove the axioms on which a belief system/'truth system' is based - those have to be introduced into the system from outside of it (which right away makes their 'absolute truth' value a bit suspect to me). It sets up a 'special universe' condition - they work, within that special universe (which is what you already seemed to state. Just putting my own spin on it.) But as I said, we can tend to extend truth systems into areas where we maybe shouldn't. (It's one reason why I've focused a decent amount on the seeming nature of our thinking - where things can go wrong. If that gets done wrong or wrong enough, what comes from it is likely of questionable or limiting value.)


----------



## JustMe

SlimPickins said:


> See, that's the trouble....space happened along with the Big Bang.


Did it? Or did space maybe come along and create or help create the Big Bang? (Just throwing out another line of thought, that I in no way claim to be true. But maybe could introduce some thought provocation(?))


----------



## 2buckcanuck

As I read through these post, I just want to thank you guys for making me feel really stupid:furious:

So thanks a lot renorob, slim, justme and even you Brightstar:whistling2:

Off to study the universe, by slapping some mud on the walls that are made of dirt from the ground:furious:


----------



## JustMe

2buckcanuck said:


> As I read through these post, I just want to thank you guys for making me feel really stupid:furious:
> 
> So thanks a lot renorob, slim, justme and even you Brightstar:whistling2:
> 
> Off to study the universe, by slapping some mud on the walls that are made of dirt from the ground:furious:


'Feeling really stupid' isn't necessarily the same as 'being really stupid'. I don't see you as 'being'.

And at least you're a master of your special universe - mud.


----------



## RenoRob

JustMe said:


> 'Feeling really stupid' isn't necessarily the same as 'being really stupid'. I don't see you as 'being'.
> 
> And at least you're a master of your special universe - mud.


Ya, wish I could finish like you. Effing awesome!


----------



## moore

2buckcanuck said:


> As I read through these post, I just want to thank you guys for making me feel really stupid
> 
> So thanks a lot renorob, slim, justme and even you Brightstar:whistling2:
> 
> Off to study the universe, by slapping some mud on the walls that are made of dirt from the ground:furious:


And all 4 of em are drywallers:blink: Go figure!
It just don't add up!!!:blink:


----------



## Mr.Brightstar

JustMe said:


> Did it? Or did space maybe come along and create or help create the Big Bang? (Just throwing out another line of thought, that I in no way claim to be true. But maybe could introduce some thought provocation(?))


Then the question would be where did space come from. That's why infinite is the only answer that works. Always has been there and always will be And runs forever One dimension after another.


----------



## Mr.Brightstar

moore said:


> And all 4 of em are drywallers:blink: Go figure!http://smileyshack.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/sconfused_100-137.gif
> It just don't add up!!!:blink:


I only counted 3 ?


----------



## RenoRob

JustMe said:


> The problem might be that we tend to extend those branches too far, into areas we maybe shouldn't. So we can get things like mathematical truth getting us into space. But it also at one time proved that things like rockets to the moon and man powered flight weren't possible.
> 
> The 'truth text' I'm referring to is a somewhat general one, going into brief discussions about things like mathematical truth, logical truth, scientific truth, revealed truth, ...... - truths ('truths') that should be taken as being conditional ones. They seem to hold true, within certain conditions (but often aren't treated that way, but treated more as 'absolute truths').
> 
> On 'axioms', Gödel's Theorem shows we can't prove the axioms on which a belief system/'truth system' is based - those have to be introduced into the system from outside of it (which right away makes their 'absolute truth' value a bit suspect to me). It sets up a 'special universe' condition - they work, within that special universe (which is what you already seemed to state. Just putting my own spin on it.) But as I said, we can tend to extend truth systems into areas where we maybe shouldn't. (It's one reason why I've focused a decent amount on the seeming nature of our thinking - where things can go wrong. If that gets done wrong or wrong enough, what comes from it is likely of questionable or limiting value.)


Okay, just looked at Godel's Theorem. It "applies to all but the most trivial axiomatic systems capable of doing arithmatic". So, you know Peano axioms must be true because we don't have anything if we don't have those. Which, coming back to infinity, means infinity is not a number (infinity + 1 = ?), and that's a truth. If infinties are real then mathematics will never be able to catch up.


----------



## moore

Mr.Brightstar said:


> I only counted 3 ?


 Include yourself Mr. ''Bright'' star ..That makes 4.


----------



## Mr.Brightstar

moore said:


> Include yourself Mr. ''Bright'' star ..That makes 4.


3 drywallets + 1 plasterer = Infinite number of possibilities. 

Now it adds up.


----------



## RenoRob

SlimPickins said:


> The textbook says that "Track 1" in the book (it's a whopper), can be "understood" with Vector Analysis and simple Ordinary Differential Equations. My problem is that during Calculus III, I had a fill-in professor because the original professor was on sabbatical. The fill in guy wasn't very helpful......he taught directly out of the book, copying each problem precisely on the board during lectures (uh.....that's why we have the book, dude) and once, when asked "how and why" his response was "I'm sorry, I cannot explain that to you". I felt like I had a big gap in my mathematical education because of that fine fella.........and it showed itself in Differential Equations. Wow.....I'm babbling again.
> 
> I'll read some more during smoke breaks today :laughing:


Sounds like almost every teacher I had, with the added bonus of poor english. Differential equations are all about your exponential functions (real and complex). Once you get a good explaination you'll think of them differently. Make sure you really understand Euler's formula if you don't already, helps for everything.


----------



## JustMe

Mr.Brightstar said:


> Then the question would be where did space come from. That's why infinite is the only answer that works. Always has been there and always will be And runs forever One dimension after another.


Regarding your question, some of the more religious minded might say 'God'. 

Adding to your question, there was a question posed by the narrator at the end of the video 2buck originally sent a link to Slim and I. It was in regards to what was it that was causing these infinities. It went "The question is, What is replicating itself, and why?"


----------



## SlimPickins

JustMe said:


> Did it? Or did space maybe come along and create or help create the Big Bang? (Just throwing out another line of thought, that I in no way claim to be true. But maybe could introduce some thought provocation(?))


I see where you're coming from, in that altogether too often we take the suppositions of others and accept them as truth. In part, this line of thinking is what pushed me to drop out of college when I did (among many other reasons). We, as students, are encouraged (quite heavily-handed at times) to blindly accept everything that we are taught. I think also, professors tend to project their own weaknesses and shortcomings onto their students. 

Example: 

Me: "I think I'd like to study gravitation.."

Professor: "Oh...only the most brilliant minds take that route."

Sure, I'm not the most brilliant mind, but a bit of encouragement is not unfounded in this scenario. I found that sort of thing happening a lot.....professors pushing people to strive for less, because it's what _they _did.




2buckcanuck said:


> As I read through these post, I just want to thank you guys for making me feel really stupid
> 
> So thanks a lot renorob, slim, justme and even you Brightstar:whistling2:
> 
> Off to study the universe, by slapping some mud on the walls that are made of dirt from the ground


Heh heh heh.........our master plan for Drywall Talk Domination is working perfectly!:devil::devil2::chef::nerd:


----------



## JustMe

RenoRob said:


> Okay, just looked at Godel's Theorem. It "applies to all but the most trivial axiomatic systems capable of doing arithmatic". So, you know Peano axioms must be true because we don't have anything if we don't have those. Which, coming back to infinity, means infinity is not a number (infinity + 1 = ?), and that's a truth. If infinties are real then mathematics will never be able to catch up.


Just as an fyi: You other 3 are more ahead of me when it comes to math systems - now I work on a more need to know basis when it comes to such (although I was familiar some with Gödel's already - but by no means an Einstein on it).

My interests have been more towards trying to have some understanding of 'truth systems' - what seems to work and not work, and when, and maybe why, especially when it comes to our thinking processes.


----------



## SlimPickins

Mr.Brightstar said:


> 3 *drywallets* + 1 plasterer = Infinite number of possibilities.
> 
> Now it adds up.


You said it buddy! I have a dry wallet, that's for sure!:lol:


----------



## SlimPickins

JustMe said:


> Just as an fyi: You other 3 are more ahead of me when it comes to math systems - now I work on a more need to know basis when it comes to such (although I was familiar some with Gödel's already - but by no means an Einstein on it).
> 
> My interests have been more towards trying to have some understanding of 'truth systems' - what seems to work and not work, and when, and maybe why, especially when it comes to our thinking processes.


You strike me as more of a logician.


----------



## JustMe

SlimPickins said:


> You strike me as more of a logician.


Maybe that's because I've by and large dealt with things here in that way(?) Creative, innovative type thinking hasn't been much in demand here.

Logic isn't a generative type of thinking, but more an assessment type, a 'making things more clear what's already known' type. 'What if....' type thinking is where I see more value, especially if it's dealing with real world situations. So that's more my focus, when I'm away from such as this forum (although some new drywall finishing tools, equipment, will be coming from that focus).


----------



## SlimPickins

JustMe said:


> Maybe that's because I've by and large dealt with things here in that way(?) Creative, innovative type thinking hasn't been much in demand here.
> 
> Logic isn't a generative type of thinking, but more an assessment type, a 'making things more clear what's already known' type. 'What if....' type thinking is where I see more value, especially if it's dealing with real world situations. So that's more my focus, when I'm away from such as this forum (although some new drywall finishing tools, equipment, will be coming from that focus).


I see.....although I'd have to disagree a bit with the lack of creative and innovative thinking. Sure, it doesn't happen all the time, but I'm always surprised at the creativity and innovation when it comes to problem solving out there in drywall land. We're surrounded by a pretty good group of problem solvers in here. Sure, it's not a high level brainstorming session at Mensa, but then again it doesn't need to be. I learn a lot here, and most of the time by people who have created solutions where before none existed.

I understand that you're taking things from a different perspective, and your "what if" scenario, but I still think you have a logistical approach, but instead of "if a then b" you're saying "if not a and not b, then what about c?" You're filling holes of a different nature......


----------



## JustMe

SlimPickins said:


> I see where you're coming from, in that altogether too often we take the suppositions of others and accept them as truth. In part, this line of thinking is what pushed me to drop out of college when I did (among many other reasons). We, as students, are encouraged (quite heavily-handed at times) to blindly accept everything that we are taught. I think also, professors tend to project their own weaknesses and shortcomings onto their students.
> 
> Example:
> 
> Me: "I think I'd like to study gravitation.."
> 
> Professor: "Oh...only the most brilliant minds take that route."
> 
> Sure, I'm not the most brilliant mind, but a bit of encouragement is not unfounded in this scenario. I found that sort of thing happening a lot.....professors pushing people to strive for less, because it's what _they _did.


The stories I could tell of my own when it comes to this......

It's been said by at least one person whose thinking I respect as much as anyone else's, that the more advanced Chinese civilization of the past came to a grinding halt because they didn't have a word for something like 'hypothesis'. (I do have a question about that though: How did they get to the point they did, then? Aliens? .....?)

But I have that in mind when I look at claims that just don't seem to have enough proof to back them up, or when things aren't 'fitting', throwing some hypothesizing in where others might not think to (or want to, because 'You just don't question such', can go an intellectual's thinking). It might open things up again, where they seem blocked some.


----------



## JustMe

SlimPickins said:


> I see.....although I'd have to disagree a bit with the lack of creative and innovative thinking. Sure, it doesn't happen all the time, but I'm always surprised at the creativity and innovation when it comes to problem solving out there in drywall land. We're surrounded by a pretty good group of problem solvers in here. Sure, it's not a high level brainstorming session at Mensa, but then again it doesn't need to be. I learn a lot here, and most of the time by people who have created solutions where before none existed.
> 
> I understand that you're taking things from a different perspective, and your "what if" scenario, but I still think you have a logistical approach, but instead of "if a then b" you're saying "if not a and not b, then what about c?" You're filling holes of a different nature......


'Brainstorming', and 'Mensa', aren't all that synonymous with 'creative' and 'innovative' (at least from what I've read and heard about Mensa, from some members and ex-members).

'Brainstorming' was created for, has its roots in advertising (so I've read). It's not a particularly strong problem solving method.

As for the disagreeing on innovation and creativity here, fair enough. Maybe that depends on the definition one is putting to the terms. (When I talk 'innovation and creativity', I'm more meaning 'Serious innovation' and 'Serious creativity'.)

As for my 'filling holes' approach, I use a few, one which you described. Some are conscious ones like that (although they don't all fit within our 'rock logic' system). Another is just taking things in and letting things percolate in the background. Things can start to spit themselves out later.


----------



## SlimPickins

....


----------



## JustMe

SlimPickins said:


> Have you ever noticed that you're rather argumentative?
> 
> I've tried to agree with you on numerous occasions, and instead of developing a camaraderie, you instead choose to tell me in which ways I'm "wrong" in my assessment of what you said. The great thing about that line of "reasoning" is that you can always be "right".


I didn't consider a developing of camaraderie between us was still necessary. I'd considered it to be there, and things had moved on beyond that.

What you're calling 'argumentative' is my considering you worth spending time with in tweaking some things in what you're saying, based on things I've come across, so maybe it could be of use in your understanding of some things and you could maybe move ahead some on them (if what I'm saying is more accurate, or seems so).

I also consider you worth the respect of a reply - although it might not be one that agrees with some things that are said.

But points taken. I'll see about refraining from it in the future.


----------



## SlimPickins

JustMe said:


> I didn't consider a developing of camaraderie between us was still necessary. I'd considered it to be there, and things had moved on beyond that.
> 
> What you're calling 'argumentative' is my considering you worth spending time with in tweaking some things in what you're saying, based on things I've come across, so maybe it could be of use in your understanding of some things and you could maybe move ahead some on them (if what I'm saying is more accurate, or seems so).
> 
> I also consider you worth the respect of a reply - although it might not be one that agrees with some things that are said.
> 
> But points taken. I'll see about refraining from it in the future.


Dammit! I was hoping I had edited the post before you'd seen it:laughing:

I was being overly sensitive. In general you're correcting my understanding (or lack of it) on what you've said.

Don't refrain from anything, I'm not trying to change anyone. Thank you for saying that I'm worthy of the respect for a reply (and all that implies). In reality, I should have kept my mouth (fingers?) shut (still?). 

From what I can see and interpret from my limited window into your existence, we are on relatively different wavelengths.......and that's okay (convincing myself, not reassuring you)

I realized shortly after typing my response that I should not have done so.

I can learn from you, and that's as it should be. All is good.


----------



## RenoRob

SlimPickins said:


> I see where you're coming from, in that altogether too often we take the suppositions of others and accept them as truth. In part, this line of thinking is what pushed me to drop out of college when I did (among many other reasons). We, as students, are encouraged (quite heavily-handed at times) to blindly accept everything that we are taught. I think also, professors tend to project their own weaknesses and shortcomings onto their students.
> 
> Example:
> 
> Me: "I think I'd like to study gravitation.."
> 
> Professor: "Oh...only the most brilliant minds take that route."
> 
> Sure, I'm not the most brilliant mind, but a bit of encouragement is not unfounded in this scenario. I found that sort of thing happening a lot.....professors pushing people to strive for less, because it's what _they _did.
> 
> 
> Heh heh heh.........our master plan for Drywall Talk Domination is working perfectly!:devil::devil2::chef::nerd:


Ya, I found a lot of professors had egos and were quick to determine students capabilities. The great thing now is, if you have the interest you can learn anything you want. I find that it really doesn't take long to learn the equivalent of a university level course on your own and probably have a better understanding of it. Even MIT has extensive online courses for free.

2Buck, if you're interested in this stuff don't hesitate to try to learn it. You would probably pick it up very fast, then you could explain it to me :thumbup:.


----------



## JustMe

SlimPickins said:


> Dammit! I was hoping I had edited the post before you'd seen it:laughing:
> 
> I was being overly sensitive. In general you're correcting my understanding (or lack of it) on what you've said.
> 
> Don't refrain from anything, I'm not trying to change anyone. Thank you for saying that I'm worthy of the respect for a reply (and all that implies). In reality, I should have kept my mouth (fingers?) shut (still?).
> 
> From what I can see and interpret from my limited window into your existence, we are on relatively different wavelengths.......and that's okay (convincing myself, not reassuring you)
> 
> I realized shortly after typing my response that I should not have done so.
> 
> I can learn from you, and that's as it should be. All is good.


Not meaning to be argumentative, but...... 

It's maybe good that I did see it, if only so you understand that it is respect for you that motivates more in depth explanations from me, beyond just replying something to be respectful. (There's a passage in the personality type preference I lean towards that even makes mention of such, so it seems a common enough trait I guess): They usually don't see the value of a direct transaction, and will also have difficulty expressing their ideas, which are non-linear. However, their extreme respect of knowledge and intelligence will motivate them to explain themselves to another person who they feel is deserving of the effort.

Anyways, I did spend a good amount time trying to sort wheat from chaff in what seems to work as opposed to all the weak and heifer dust approaches out there regarding topics like thinking more effectively. (My email still constantly gets 'new' versions sent to it - people trying to make a rep for themselves by putting a new spin on things. You might be a bit surprised as to the # of versions of such as brainstorming that are now out there.) 

As a bit of an fyi: I did make Logic something of a minor in university for a bit - till the class materials started getting to be too much just word games, of no real use that I could see in the real world. And I did switch my major to (cognitive) psych for a time (till I got too sick for too long to continue - which was a nice excuse in a way to not go back to classes that were starting to make me gag already).

Since then it's been independent study some (including at one time an external diploma program through an Oxford college that was on effective thinking - thinking for applications to various real life situations. That one was a good one - when I make use of it).

Current project - How to game change the processes that are labelled as being 'game changing' ones. (I'm assuming it's possible, rather than asking the question as to whether it's possible.) I think I'm making a bit of headway. (But proving it out, through 'Think and Do, Do and Think', is still needed.)


----------



## moore

Not much talk of 'GOD' In this off topic from Hell.

I'm proud of you guys!!!!!!!!:thumbsup:.......:thumbup:


----------



## Kiwiman

God are they still at it...... who's winning?


----------



## lovelopez

I was taught the trade by my Dad..I'm still not sure what my real name Is?


----------



## JustMe

moore said:


> Not much talk of 'GOD' In this off topic from Hell.
> 
> I'm proud of you guys!!!!!!!!:thumbsup:.......:thumbup:


You mean like how GOD was Creating and Dividing all kinds of things in the Bible's Genesis chapter 1, and Space Could have been what was used to do that?

So Maybe Space Did come from GOD to make things happen, and Maybe was something from Outside the Big Bang, and was introduced into that equation by GOD after all? That kind of GOD talk?


----------



## JustMe

Nick Harmon said:


> I'm having a hard time adequately conveying information. I don't know about the rest of you but the drywallers I've worked with have worse language than truckers. Has this topic already been addressed?


Getting to your OP, Nick: 

One thought as to why you might want to consider the swearing language issue closely (not doing it) is that you and your company are on here under your real names. If someone was to google either one or both together, they might find such things as your swearing, which might not reflect well (like the 'Don't buy from Drywallzone' thread started here shows up as the 3rd entry when you type 'Drywallzone' or Drywall Zone' into Google. Not good for DWZ, I don't think.)

An article related to it:


*Building your backlist (and living with it forever)* 


Authors and musicians have one, certainly. This is the book you wrote seven years ago or the album from early in your career. The book keeps selling, spreading the ideas and making a difference. The album gets played on the radio, earning you new fans.


"Backlist" is what publishers call the stuff that got published a while ago, but that's still out there, selling.


The Wizard of Oz, Bob Dylan's Greatest Hits and Starsky and Hutch all live on the backlist


Without a backlist, all book publishers would go out of business in no time. The backlist pays dividends long after the work is over.


Advertisers didn’t used to have a backlist. You paid for that magazine or newspaper or TV ad, and within just one cycle, it was gone, forever.

Today, of course, the work you put on the internet has a good chance of staying there for a very long time. The internet doesn’t easily forget.


That TED talk, then is going to be around for your grandchildren to see. The review of your new restaurant, or the generous connection you made on a social network--they’re going to last.


I almost hired someone a few years ago--until I googled her and discovered that the first two matches were pictures of her drinking beer from a funnel, and her listed hobby was, "binge drinking." Backlist!


Two things are going to change as you develop a backlist:
--You’re going to become a lot more aware of the posterity of the work you do. It’s all on tape, all left behind. Just as you’re less likely to litter in your own backyard, the person aware of his backlist becomes more careful and civic minded.
--You’re going to want people to pay attention to your backlist... in my case, the free videos, various ebooks and printed things I've done over the years. In your case, maybe it's your blog, or the projects you've built or the reputation you've earned. 
Your history of work is as important as the work you'll do tomorrow.


----------



## 2buckcanuck

moore said:


> Not much talk of 'GOD' In this off topic from Hell.
> 
> I'm proud of you guys!!!!!!!!:thumbsup:.......


You called for me Moore:whistling2:

The taping gods are watching you moore:yes:

Hail to the taping Gods
















May your work be blemish free, so you can be blessed with 42 virgin sheep in heaven.


----------



## 2buckcanuck

lovelopez said:


> I was taught the trade by my Dad..I'm still not sure what my real name Is?


I thought my name was "You stupid fu(king kock sucking fu(king idiot whose fu(king whore of a mother should of held her fu(king water at your fu(king birth"

Was your name fairly long too:thumbup:


----------



## Mudshark

First time I went into this thread. Never saw by the threads title that it was something I wanted to explore. Now that I have seen it, I have little to comment on other than:


----------



## Kiwiman

lovelopez said:


> I was taught the trade by my Dad..I'm still not sure what my real name Is?


Hey Moore, I think you've got a fan :yes:


----------



## mudslingr

2buckcanuck said:


> I thought my name was "You stupid fu(king kock sucking fu(king idiot whose fu(king whore of a mother should of held her fu(king water at your fu(king birth"
> 
> Was your name fairly long too:thumbup:



We're brothers ! ? :blink:


----------



## moore

JustMe said:


> You mean like how GOD was Creating and Dividing all kinds of things in the Bible's Genesis chapter 1, and Space Could have been what was used to do that?
> 
> So Maybe Space Did come from GOD to make things happen, and Maybe was something from Outside the Big Bang, and was introduced into that equation by GOD after all? That kind of GOD talk?


 Yeah..I'm sure he also created space in his own image:whistling2:

I don't take much stock in the ''Good book'' Tho I will admitt It Is a good book.


----------



## moore

Kiwiman said:


> Hey Moore, I think you've got a fan :yes:


 **** that Bitch!!! oops!!:blink: ... Just trying to stay on topic!!!


----------



## 2buckcanuck

Read a news paper article that could get you guys debating again:thumbup:
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2...erse_older_expanding_slower_than_thought.html

But reading the article got me wondering. They say something smaller than a Atom (which is really really tiny) explodes (what makes it explode) Sends debris traveling outward faster than speed of light (thought nothing was faster than speed of light) This finite smaller than a atom explosion creates a infinite universe that we live in and see:blink:

And were just suppose to say, oh yeah, sounds about right to me:blink:

Oh yeah, they also say in article the universe is flat, does that sound familiar:whistling2:


----------



## Kiwiman

I like to think of the universe as depicted on third rock from the sun.....it's just a tiny marble in some alien world :yes:


----------



## JustMe

moore said:


> Yeah..I'm sure he also created space in his own image:whistling2:


You Might be closer to 'the truth' than you realize. :whistling2:  

Going off of what Nassim said about space - that an atom is thought to be made up of 99.999999999999999999........% space - a couple thoughts he had based on that, which I made note of:

= instead of matter defining space, maybe it’s space that defines matter.
= instead of you defining your ‘space’, maybe it’s the space that defines you.

And just as another fyi: If by "in his own image" you're referring to things like the Genesis passage where it says "he created man in his own image".......a lot of people follow the (man made) guideline of 'If the literal sense makes good sense, then seek no other sense, lest you end up with nonsense'.
But the Bible guideline says "Come, let us reason together" - by that I take it to mean 'Let's reason according to what's said in the Bible - which includes understanding certain definitions given there'. If you follow more a guideline of 'Let the Bible interpret the Bible', it'll give you definitions for things like 'in his own image' that differ from what the 'literalists' always seem to think.



moore said:


> I don't take much stock in the ''Good book'' Tho I will admitt It Is a good book.


At the very least, it seems an intriguing one.


----------



## JustMe

2buckcanuck said:


> But reading the article got me wondering. They say something smaller than a Atom (which is really really tiny) explodes (what makes it explode) Sends debris traveling outward faster than speed of light (thought nothing was faster than speed of light) This finite smaller than a atom explosion creates a infinite universe that we live in and see:blink:


I think some things from such as Quantum Physics end up suggesting things could travel 1,000 times faster than light (sure I saw that somewhere in something I was once reading).


----------



## RenoRob

JustMe said:


> I think some things from such as Quantum Physics end up suggesting things could travel 1,000 times faster than light (sure I saw that somewhere in something I was once reading).


Quantum entanglement is thought to happen at 10000 times the speed of light.


----------



## JustMe

RenoRob said:


> Quantum entanglement is thought to happen at 10000 times the speed of light.


Right. That's what it was. Thanks.


----------



## JustMe

2buckcanuck said:


> Read a news paper article that could get you guys debating again:thumbup:
> http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2...erse_older_expanding_slower_than_thought.html
> 
> But reading the article got me wondering. They say something smaller than a Atom (which is really really tiny) explodes (what makes it explode) Sends debris traveling outward faster than speed of light (thought nothing was faster than speed of light) This finite smaller than a atom explosion creates a infinite universe that we live in and see:blink:
> 
> And were just suppose to say, oh yeah, sounds about right to me:blink:
> 
> Oh yeah, they also say in article the universe is flat, does that sound familiar:whistling2:


They could have answers that do hold up well enough - at least within the 'special universe condition' that their theories were being applied to, were trying to describe. But as the one person said near the bottom of the article, “By making more and more accurate measurements, that’s actually when you start putting cracks into your model. And when you get a crack, that’s when you get a big step”. So there's things still needing explanations for, it seems.

A couple things about how we seem to think, and the problems it can create:

- We see what we're prepared to see, have been 'conditioned' to see, and can miss what we're not prepared to see.
So what might we be missing?

- We can make 'sense' of anything, even in non-sensible ways. ("She's acting like she's possessed, so she must be a witch" - when maybe it was the tainted rye she ate.)

Something someone I at times post to recently said, about a book I think I've already mentioned (and whose theories have since proven themselves out, it's said):

"The Mechanism of Mind" (1969) is all about this. Anything presented to the mind will be made sense of somehow. Absolutely anything. It does this by finding the nearest existing equivalent pattern _already in_ the mind and associating the new input with that older pattern. Any distinguishing, salient features that demarcate the new input as something different or unique in its own right are usually passed over or not even noticed; this is the flawed part of our perception: the mind cannot notice everything there is to notice, but anything that can call up a prior pattern will be noticed. This is not linear organisation, this is the special logic of a self-organising information system which will maximise meaning on the basis of "fit".
This is why, when you produce a brand new, original idea, everyone who encounters it goes "That reminds me of..." 

On the universe being flat, to quote Nassim, 'How flat is flat'? And if it is flat, how did the Big Bang actually manifest itself? Flat?
And which would lead me to wonder, Why flat?


----------



## RenoRob

JustMe said:


> On the universe being flat, to quote Nassim, 'How flat is flat'? And if it is flat, how did the Big Bang actually manifest itself? Flat?
> And which would lead me to wonder, Why flat?


I think they have a pretty accurate measurement of the flatness of the universe. It certainly doesn't have to be flat, it could be spherical or hyperbolic. The flatness means that the universe is open and infinite which, I assume, is what Nassim is trying to resolve.


----------



## SlimPickins

JustMe said:


> You Might be closer to 'the truth' than you realize. :whistling2:
> 
> Going off of what Nassim said about space - that an atom is thought to be made up of 99.999999999999999999........% space - a couple thoughts he had based on that, which I made note of:
> 
> = instead of matter defining space, maybe it’s space that defines matter.
> = instead of you defining your ‘space’, maybe it’s the space that defines you.
> 
> And just as another fyi: If by "in his own image" you're referring to things like the Genesis passage where it says "he created man in his own image".......a lot of people follow the (man made) guideline of 'If the literal sense makes good sense, then seek no other sense, lest you end up with nonsense'.
> But the Bible guideline says "Come, let us reason together" - by that I take it to mean 'Let's reason according to what's said in the Bible - which includes understanding certain definitions given there'. If you follow more a guideline of 'Let the Bible interpret the Bible', it'll give you definitions for things like 'in his own image' that differ from what the 'literalists' always seem to think.


"Come, let us reason together"

I took a course in college where we were treated to an analysis of the Old Testament. There are a host of contradictory statements, which we were told (according to biblical scholars) are designed to foster discussion about morality (primarily). The Old Testament was basically a documentation of the Jewish oral tradition, in which people would gather and discuss situations to determine how they should behave. What jumps to mind is Lot giving his servant girl to an angry drunken mob to be raped so he could entertain his important dignitary visitors without interruption....

Truth be told, it's just as likely that man has created his own image of God.....whether or not there is a God I can't say (although at times I will admit I feel/felt something that made me believe in the presence of a higher consciousness). If there is a God, I feel certain that we are part of it.

Sheesh....who would have thought that this was a drywall forum?

You guys are awesome.


----------



## RenoRob

SlimPickins said:


> "Come, let us reason together"
> 
> I took a course in college where we were treated to an analysis of the Old Testament. There are a host of contradictory statements, which we were told (according to biblical scholars) are designed to foster discussion about morality (primarily). The Old Testament was basically a documentation of the Jewish oral tradition, in which people would gather and discuss situations to determine how they should behave. What jumps to mind is Lot giving his servant girl to an angry drunken mob to be raped so he could entertain his important dignitary visitors without interruption....
> 
> Truth be told, it's just as likely that man has created his own image of God.....whether or not there is a God I can't say (although at times I will admit I feel/felt something that made me believe in the presence of a higher consciousness). If there is a God, I feel certain that we are part of it.
> 
> Sheesh....who would have thought that this was a drywall forum?
> 
> You guys are awesome.


That passage of Lot is one I will always use if I'm debating about religion with someone. Especially when they say that it's a good moral compass, BS. 

All you need to read is Genesis to realize ignorant dudes wrote that book. Eve came from the rib of Adam? WTF? No wait, we believe in the New Testament not the old. Well, I'm pretty sure Jesus died for mans original sin (a.k.a Adam = Old Testament). 

Organized religion is such a load of BS. I think we need to overcome it to really evolve as a race.


----------



## SlimPickins

RenoRob said:


> That passage of Lot is one I will always use if I'm debating about religion with someone. Especially when they say that it's a good moral compass, BS.
> 
> All you need to read is Genesis to realize ignorant dudes wrote that book. Eve came from the rib of Adam? WTF? No wait, we believe in the New Testament not the old. Well, I'm pretty sure Jesus died for mans original sin (a.k.a Adam = Old Testament).
> 
> Organized religion is such a load of BS. I think we need to overcome it to really evolve as a race.


I think the passage about Lot IS a good moral compass, if you read between the lines. The same with creation from the rib........it's a little fantastical, don't you think? While it's strange the things people will believe, I don't think our Jewish forbears were _that _ignorant. There's craziness there for a reason, and that reason is to make you question what you're reading, and to provoke discussion. 

Organized religion is ****ed up, it's true....but there is value in all of the religions, and in general there seems to be a common thread.......treat people right and be aware of yourself. **** dogma.


----------



## Mr.Brightstar

SlimPickins said:


> I think the passage about Lot IS a good moral compass, if you read between the lines. The same with creation from the rib........it's a little fantastical, don't you think? While it's strange the things people will believe, I don't think our Jewish forbears were that ignorant. There's craziness there for a reason, and that reason is to make question what you're reading, and to provoke discussion.
> 
> Organized religion is ****ed up, it's true....but there is value in all of the religions, and in general there seems to be a common thread.......treat people right and be aware of yourself. **** dogma.


All major religions teach karma. Do unto others as you want done to you, Eye for an eye. Act stupid in public go sit in a whales belly (jail). The stories are told in metaphors Not to be taken literally. 1000 years ago humans were intelligent but not smart. I believe the ancient old wisdom of karma still works today. I am master of my own universe.


----------



## RenoRob

SlimPickins said:


> I think the passage about Lot IS a good moral compass, if you read between the lines. The same with creation from the rib........it's a little fantastical, don't you think? While it's strange the things people will believe, I don't think our Jewish forbears were _that _ignorant. There's craziness there for a reason, and that reason is to make question what you're reading, and to provoke discussion.
> 
> Organized religion is ****ed up, it's true....but there is value in all of the religions, and in general there seems to be a common thread.......treat people right and be aware of yourself. **** dogma.


I could sit here all day typing out the atrocities of the Old Testament. Instead just read the link http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/darkbible3.htm

If you still think that the common thread is to treat people right then we have very different views on morality.


----------



## RenoRob

Mr.Brightstar said:


> All major religions teach karma. Do unto others as you want done to you, Eye for an eye. Act stupid in public go sit in a whales belly (jail). The stories are told in metaphors Not to be taken literally. 1000 years ago humans were intelligent but not smart. I believe the ancient old wisdom of karma still works today. I am master of my own universe.



What would be the non-literal translation to raping women and killing children?


----------



## Mr.Brightstar

RenoRob said:


> What would be the non-literal translation to raping women and killing children?


Killing in the name of God.


----------



## RenoRob

Mr.Brightstar said:


> Killing in the name of God.


haha, good moral. I hope that's a joke.


----------



## Mr.Brightstar

RenoRob said:


> haha, good moral. I hope that's a joke.


It's a joke to me. But unfortunately many empires and governments sell the idea. Ever hear of the Crusades. Or dark ages. A religious-based government. Convince people they got somewhere better to be when they die and they won't be as afraid to die for you. 

My mind is not for rent to any god or government.


----------



## JustMe

Reading through these religion posts brings to mind a thought I once read in a book titled I Am Right, You Are Wrong:

'Everyone is right, based on what they know and think they know. But at the same time they could also be wrong, based on what they know and think they know, as well as don't know.'
Something to that effect.

For myself, because I was having the same problems as most in reconciling seemingly contradictory things said in the Bible, I sort of stepped back some from the more dominant man made guidelines when it came to interpreting the Bible - instead, going to what I thought could maybe be the best source to use (the Bible), after giving more emphasis to what it seemed to say in there about such things.

I didn't sort through everything using that approach - still a lot I could look into (including the Lot story) - but it seemed to help make better sense, better reason, of some of what didn't make a whole lot of sense up till then.


----------



## RenoRob

Mr.Brightstar said:


> It's a joke to me. But unfortunately many empires and governments sell the idea. Ever hear of the Crusades. Or dark ages. A religious-based government. Convince people they got somewhere better to be when they die and they won't be as afraid to die for you.
> 
> My mind is not for rent to any god or government.


Couldn't agree more.:thumbsup:


----------



## SlimPickins

RenoRob said:


> I could sit here all day typing out the atrocities of the Old Testament. Instead just read the link http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/darkbible3.htm
> 
> If you still think that the common thread is to treat people right then we have very different views on morality.


Yes, there are many atrocities in the Old Testament, and I hope that I haven't given you the impression that I am some sort of Bible-thumper. I don't subscribe to any religion, and modern Christianity is abhorrent in most cases......it's a shield of fundamentalism that allows people to cower in fear and hatred. 

I believe in love and compassion. Consideration and conservation (of resources, of energy, whatever). And, I believe that there are lessons to be learned _everywhere_.


----------



## JustMe

SlimPickins said:


> Yes, there are many atrocities in the Old Testament, and I hope that I haven't given you the impression that I am some sort of Bible-thumper. I don't subscribe to any religion, and modern Christianity is abhorrent in most cases......it's a shield of fundamentalism that allows people to cower in fear and hatred.
> 
> I believe in love and compassion. Consideration and conservation (of resources, of energy, whatever). And, I believe that there are lessons to be learned _everywhere_.


When it comes "modern Christianity", there seems pretty much 2 camps (I think) - true Christianity, and false (or luke warm) Christianity. The 2nd one seems a whole lot larger than the 1st.

Speaking of "conservation of energy", one of my favourite authors once wrote something along the lines of "If you're looking for a labour saving device, don't ask the industrious man, but ask the lazy one. He might be the better choice for coming up with such". (That one twigs to me. When it comes to conserving labour energy, I can be as lazy as they come.) 

On "conservation of resources", if you haven't seen it already, one I came across yesterday that you might find particularly interesting (at least I did): http://grist.org/business-technolog...n-coal-one-company-says-its-cracked-the-code/


----------



## SlimPickins

JustMe said:


> When it comes "modern Christianity", there seems pretty much 2 camps (I think) - true Christianity, and false (or luke warm) Christianity. The 2nd one seems a whole lot larger than the 1st.
> 
> Speaking of "conservation of energy", one of my favourite authors once wrote something along the lines of "If you're looking for a labour saving device, don't ask the industrious man, but ask the lazy one. He might be the better choice for coming up with such". (That one twigs to me. When it comes to conserving labour energy, I can be as lazy as they come.)
> 
> On "conservation of resources", if you haven't seen it already, one I came across yesterday that you might find particularly interesting (at least I did): http://grist.org/business-technolog...n-coal-one-company-says-its-cracked-the-code/


I agree with you regarding true Christianity, there are some good folks out there following the purported teachings of Christ. And then there are the others.......the myriad, the legion. Let's not waste our time or energy discussing _them._

I'm also much like you, that I'm generally motivated by laziness when pursuing innovation. "How can I do this and skip a bunch of steps? And, perhaps, make the same amount of money for less time and possibly create a better product?" I've come up with one recently that's seemingly revolutionizing the way a few people in my network are viewing their business (including myself). It seems like there are other people out there doing the same sort of thing (with some quick web searches), but they aren't giving the information up. So, we're going to start running some materials tests. If it works out, we'll be creating custom product at tremendous labor and materials savings. 

The great thing about working with this bunch of guys, is that we all have our niche, and when we're exposed to working with each other we can come at it from entirely different perspectives. We build each other up, and the meantime differentiate ourselves from the rest of the pack (which around here is a very big pack..it's a town of builders, at least it seems that way sometimes)


----------



## Mr.Brightstar

JustMe said:


> When it comes "modern Christianity", there seems pretty much 2 camps (I think) - true Christianity, and false (or luke warm) Christianity. The 2nd one seems a whole lot larger than the 1st.
> 
> Speaking of "conservation of energy", one of my favourite authors once wrote something along the lines of "If you're looking for a labour saving device, don't ask the industrious man, but ask the lazy one. He might be the better choice for coming up with such". (That one twigs to me. When it comes to conserving labour energy, I can be as lazy as they come.)
> 
> On "conservation of resources", if you haven't seen it already, one I came across yesterday that you might find particularly interesting (at least I did): http://grist.org/business-technology/solar-power-cheaper-than-coal-one-company-says-its-cracked-the-code/


Most of the American Christians Can't even tell you who King James was, Or who he was King of. But the place where that happened there still fighting today. Ask vanman he live close by


----------



## JustMe

SlimPickins said:


> I'm also much like you, that I'm generally motivated by laziness when pursuing innovation. "How can I do this and skip a bunch of steps? And, perhaps, make the same amount of money for less time and possibly create a better product?" I've come up with one recently that's seemingly revolutionizing the way a few people in my network are viewing their business (including myself). It seems like there are other people out there doing the same sort of thing (with some quick web searches), but they aren't giving the information up. So, we're going to start running some materials tests. If it works out, we'll be creating custom product at tremendous labor and materials savings.
> 
> The great thing about working with this bunch of guys, is that we all have our niche, and when we're exposed to working with each other we can come at it from entirely different perspectives. We build each other up, and the meantime differentiate ourselves from the rest of the pack (which around here is a very big pack..it's a town of builders, at least it seems that way sometimes)


Good to hear. We're following similar paths in some ways, it seems. If/when you're ready to say what exactly you're working on, I for one would be interested in hearing about it.

On the lazy thing, just to make sure I got myself across well enough (I often don't, so lots of editing to clarify, once I read again what I posted): I was meaning that I'll put in a good amount of 'think' beyond where most people will stop - I want something that delivers significantly better, rather than just somewhat of an improvement. Working smarter, (as well as working harder - that part isn't something that bothers me), instead of working without some decent thought given to the work.


----------



## JustMe

Mr.Brightstar said:


> Most of the American Christians Can't even tell you who King James was, Or who he was King of. But the place where that happened there still fighting today. Ask vanman he live close by


I'm thinking you're talking about this guy(?): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version

The KJV - a favourite of mine, especially when using a 'Let the Bible Interpret the Bible' approach. A Bible where the 'sense of what is meant' isn't written into the writings by someone(s) (based on their understanding of Bible writings), like some of the newer Bible versions have followed.

Adding in a KJV Strong's Concordance as well, where I entered the last letter from 'Who, What, When, Why, Where, How' when I came across Biblical based passage definitions and explanations for some things, so I could reference to them later.......that's pretty much how I did my 'Let the Bible Interpret the Bible' thing.


----------



## Mr.Brightstar

JustMe said:


> I'm thinking you're talking about this guy(?): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version
> 
> The KJV - a favourite of mine, especially when using a 'Let the Bible Interpret the Bible' approach. A Bible where the 'sense of what is meant' isn't written into the writings by someone(s) (based on their understanding of Bible writings), like some of the newer Bible versions have followed.
> 
> Adding in a KJV Strong's Concordance as well, where I entered the last letter from 'Who, What, When, Why, Where, How' when I came across Biblical based passage definitions and explanations for some things, so I could reference to them later.......that's pretty much how I did my 'Let the Bible Interpret the Bible' thing.


Yes, that's the guy. I think that's when they took out the earth is the center of everything Theroy. Galileo popped that bubble.


----------



## moore

Without oganized religion The entire world would fall apart [were still just monkeys ya know] The 10 commandments are 10 rules[laws].. IMO..The bible was just a way to keep the monkeys at bay...keep the peace ..If ya know what I mean...Kinda backfired tho didn't It.?:blink:


----------



## JustMe

moore said:


> Without oganized religion The entire world would fall apart [were still just monkeys ya know] The 10 commandments are 10 rules[laws].. IMO..The bible was just a way to keep the monkeys at bay...keep the peace ..If ya know what I mean...Kinda backfired tho didn't It.?:blink:


Just as an fyi: From my understanding, according to some groups, The Old Testament's 10 Commandments are to be kept separate in ways from the New Testament, The New Covenant, which we're supposed to be covered by. Example, from the church my dad was raised up in:

Article V of the Formula of Concord (1577) of the Lutheran Church declares:[22]

“We believe, teach, and confess that the distinction between the Law and the Gospel is to be maintained in the Church with great diligence as an especially brilliant light, by which, according to the admonition of St. Paul, the Word of God is rightly divided.”

The distinction between Law and Gospel is that Law demands obedience to God's will, while Gospel refers to the promise of forgiveness of sins in the light of the person and work of Jesus Christ. Between 1580 and 1713 (considered the age of Lutheran Orthodoxy) this principle was considered of fundamental importance by Lutheran theologians.


----------



## Workaholic

Fvck em.


----------



## Mr.Brightstar

Workaholic said:


> Fvck em.


Holy fuc***g sh!t. It's the weekend and no ******g Work. Watch the ****!*g cocksuckerers on dwt and work on gravity. Holy sh! T now


----------



## betterdrywall

dayum I can do better than that


----------



## betterdrywall

what a bunch of homy fing pp idoits lmao Your fing drywallers stop crying ha


----------



## betterdrywall

how do you spell homy,,, think it is some street lingo


----------



## betterdrywall

so anyway your pants are dragging on the ground and you call all your friends homy ,,, which I cant spell ,,, and you think your a badass???????


----------



## betterdrywall

oh my god ,,, you guys should not take my **** so seriously it really smells bad .


----------

