Take a tuff one from awesome: " LES GRANDES EXPLOSIONS DE L'HISTOIRE(s)-avec awesome, le 15-eme message depuis cela du USA president, Monsieur Barack Obama: Mes Amis, c'est une situation flemboiyante avec NOTRE/VOTRE ARGENTS, falling into the UNDERGROUND ECONOMY, a VORTEX, a Black Hole...by awesome... but I'm in hurry; excusee moi! C'est vraiment que Phillipe le Beuax, trouve un Heresy, amppliffiee par National Geografic, par un documaintaire avec l'adorer du Baphometh, un craine mumifiee (aussi la collection de la Reige Margot), qui a permetre a l'amitieux Rois Phillipe le Beaux, de martirisee les Templieres, aux Place de la Greve peut etre et avec un grave menace addresez d'un Judee pour eliminee le ultime crediteur de la Royalitee Francaise, ces deux "lois" de la maine fortes, permaitre a ces Majestais du'n mouvant politique extraordinaire: La Pappalitee aux Avignon, en 1300 et une peu... : " NO COMENT:awesome, since 23.nov. 2008, 8-th message after USA president Barack Obama, ELITE BANKERS PLANS, BEFORE GAZA WAR , probable the black hole of D K Matai, IBM Dr., Phylantropist, maybe I made a mistake for his exit cleaning the tracks; perhaps those ATCA- he says, for GLOBALISM began to kill in 2001-2002, founded by him, but probably auto excluded, or reamains under threatness for image of ATCA, and COYOTIES ELITE BANKERS, original message since 23.nov. 2008-by awesome, the 9-th message after president-elect of USA, Mr. Barack Obama: " Mr. president, the importants bankers plan, was the results of almost man, receiving by inspiration, the important message thet you, Mr. OBAMA, will be the future president; this supposed from important bankers, a reaction, to form what D K Matai call an economic black-hole; Why? Because the underground economy using the "methods of Recession(s)" or"Crisis", when the political spheres no EQUALING IN EXPECTETIONS THIS UNDER-BANKING COYOTIES; Well, the war spend money, and for OTHERS make A LOT OF BIGGER MONEY; after my evening today expertise, was already the most CLEAR, IMPORTANT BANKERS, IN SECRETS MESSAGES, RE- DIRECT, and RE- TRASAIE LES CONTOURES DES NEW ECONOMIC POLICY, GLOBAL, THIS TIME. Thats the pure explanation for I was threated and provoked in the time if I write, yesterday on TAGGED somebody threats my kids; Anyway look up the document, from the point of my mouse, 10 min ago collected: " 1. Hank Kroll Vizualizaţi profil Ascundeţi opţiunile 23 Noi 2008, 20:03 De la: Hank Kroll Data: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 10:03:24 -0800 (PST) Local: Dum 23 Noi 2008 20:03 Subiect: Bankers Manifesto Răspundeţi | Răspundeţi autorului | Redirecţionare | Imprimare | Mesaj individual | Arată originalul | Raportaţi acest mesaj | Găsiţi mesajele după acest autor The BANKERS MANIFESTO was distributed to a private group of elite bankers. “We (the bankers) must proceed with caution and guard every move made, for the lower order of the people are already showing signs of restless commotion. Prudence will therefore show a policy of apparently yielding to the popular will until our plans are so far consummated that we can declare our designs without fear of any organized resistance. “The Farmers Alliance and Knights of Labor organizations in the United States should be carefully watched by our trusted men, and we must take immediate steps to control these organizations in our interest or disrupt them. “At the coming Omaha convention to be held July 4, our men must attend and direct its movements, or else there will be set on foot such antagonism to our designs as may require force to overcome. This at the present time would be premature. We are not yet ready for such a crisis. Capitol must protect itself in every possible manner through combination (conspiracy) and legislation. “The courts must be called to our aid, debts must be collected, bonds and mortgages foreclosed as rapidly as possible. “When through the process of law, the common people have lost their homes, they will be more tractable and easily governed through the influence of the strong arm of government applied to a central power of imperial wealth under the control of the leading financiers. People without homes will not quarrel with their leaders. “History repeats itself in regular cycles. This truth is well known among our principal men who are engaged in forming an imperialism of the world. While they are doing this, the people must be kept in a state of political antagonism. “The question of tariff reform must be urged through the organization known as the Democratic Party, and the question of protection with the reciprocity must be forced to view through the Republican Party. “By thus dividing voters, we can get them to expend their energies in fighting over questions of no importance to us, except as teachers to the common herd. Thus by discrete action, we can secure all that has been so generously planned and successfully accomplished.” Dated this third day of March, 1892. The above was reprinted from the book, “Economic Pinch” written by the late Charles A. Lindberg, Sr. which was first published in 1923. The Bankers Manifesto of June 1892 was not intended for public reading, but was propaganda to hold the big bankers together. Permission was not needed to reprint the above as it predates copy write law. How can we learn from history when young people are graduating from government-mandated school systems that cannot read? Our very survival depends on self-education. My book, The Frog is Cooked, filled with historic writings like the above and the Report From Iron Mountain is available at all major book suppliers and my web sites: www. GuardDogBooks. com and www. AlaskaPublishing. com Răspundeţi Răspundeţi autorului Redirecţionare Evaluaţi această postare: Creaţi un grup - Grupuri Google - Pagina de pornire Google - Termenii serviciului - Politica de confidenţialitate ©2009 Google" - iontudormath awesome"""

ALIEN MATH at SCI MATH on OBAMA FAN CLUB's ORDERthere are no phenomena requiring FLT/travel-in-time, than Hard SF novels; see Heinlein's very last book! these "other people" or creatures will just have to communicate, using physics that are known to us. unfortunately, these folks like Ed Mithcell, a 33rd degree Freemason supposedly, as told by one of the Face and Genitals on Mars gorupoid, have a difficult deal of simply recalling, what occured during their landings. obviously, this is because it was such an all-out weird/high experience, although certainly akin to swimming in a drysuit, without the hydraulics ... but these Moon Architecture folks, think it was because they were debriefed/hypnotized /whatever. now, they also partake of a simple theory, that we, oiurselves have been "out there" in the far past, and possibly in the recent past, with a side-trip to Roswell, which is really just an airf0rce base "with some cache from WW2" -- *that* is the real "cover-up," more in the way of simple denial. however, there really apparently was quite a bit of occult goings-on around Apollo, which seemed to have to do with the accident on Apollo One; they have this written-up. I do no deny that there really could be a glass dome on Moon -- if you can really see that in their photos, which I cannot -- but I argue that they could very easily be natural bubbles of magma. and so forth. like the 911truth folks, they do find interesting anomalies, that invite explanatioj; they just never really try to, unless it involves Trickier Dick Cheeny! thus: Keizer weems to have reputable publications in the literature, but I see viturally nothing on your webblog. it is certainly news to me, that Dirac was a reductionist, or that he "solved the periodical table with his mechanics," wrongly or not; how do *you* account for the allegedly missing antimatter? there is nothing wrong with the theory of strings, in spite of the recent booklength diatribes from PI dans Quebec equalment trois, that is not already a connundrum in Kaluza-Klein theory in 5D -- and, that was due solely to Klein's interpretation of "the math." as for any "time paradox," it only exists in "hard SF" and the nonsequiter of "travel in time;" travel *requires* time, or it's just dreamtime. make-up your own sort of five-dimensional (or "4+1 D.") spaces, and *then* bitch about canonicals. The new approach is free of the so-called «time paradox», modeling Nature --http: / / www. canonicalscience. org/ thus: Darfur, which is about 100 per cent Muslim, and is on the encroahing end of the Sahara, called Sahel -- see my sigfile! in places where nationalism isnt popular thus: yeah, or a "hyperpoint," or a hypoplane? is a line segment the closed convex hull of a finite set in R? thus: you should study the brachistochrone of Liebniz, Bornoulli, Huygens, Fermat et al, because it is all downhill from "Forsooth, I have got a formula." just because I reply, does not mean that I believe that you are in any way serious or sincere. if you insist, the Copenhagenschool parody of Schroedinger's Headgasket is not the sine qua non plus ultra of "existential predeterminacy," mod Heisenberg's, may be I'll just laugh & quit this thread. I am not the least practiced in Liebniz' calculus, but I can still not pretend that you are, either, based upon your limpwristed premonition of fuzzy logic. now, if the "space deforms according the existential function, f, or the integral, F," you would still have to do some math and establish this mysterious operator. all mathematical objects are ideals; one reifies the math at one's own peril -- or the general laughter of the Peanut Gallery. It would be very easy to calculate relativistic corrections using existential indeterminacy. It is an almost elementary exercise, as is the precession of planetary perihelions. These things become very easy to calculate. --only 24 hours to impeach Trickier Dick from the N.Admin, metaphorically typing, or Cheeny & Zbiggy, fo'mo' years; Good Morning, Afghanistan! ... Good Afternoon, Sudan! http: / / tarpley. net/ bush12. htm http: / / wlym. com/ campaigner/ 8011. pdf -- Brits hate Shakes, Why? http: / / www. wlym. com/ ~seattle/ dynamis/ http: / / www. 21stcenturysciencete ch. com/ current. html http: / / www. rwgrayprojects. com/ synergetics/ plates/ plates. html http: / / mathdl. maa. org/ mathDL/ 46/ ? pa=content& sa=viewDocument& nodeId=3163 http: / / wlym. com/ campaigner/ 8011. pdf Răspundeţi Răspundeţi autorului Redirecţionare 26. LudovicoVan Vizualizaţi profil Mai multe opţiuni 24 Dec, 09:36 On 24 Dec, 05:33, spudnik wrote: these "other people" or creatures will just have to communicate, using physics that are known to us. Sure, unless they happen to meet you first. Alien: "Peace. My name equals Alienz." Spudnik: "Good Morning, Afghanistan!" -LV Răspundeţi Răspundeţi autorului Redirecţionare 27. David Bernier spudnik wrote: there are no phenomena requiring FLT/travel-in-time, than Hard SF novels; see Heinlein's very last book! these "other people" or creatures will just have to communicate, using physics that are known to us. unfortunately, these folks like Ed Mithcell, a 33rd degree Freemason supposedly, as told by one of the Face and Genitals on Mars gorupoid, have a difficult deal of simply recalling, what occured during their landings. obviously, this is because it was such an all-out weird/high experience, although certainly akin to swimming in a drysuit, without the hydraulics ... but these Moon Architecture folks, think it was because they were debriefed/hypnotized /whatever. About physics, around 1890-1905, there was a real dispute between physicists/astronome rs and geologists about the age of the earth. At the end of the 1800's, some physicists or mathematical physicists calculated that the sun could not shine for 100 million, 200 M, ... 500 million years [roughly]. As a result, they thought the geologists were wrong about the minimum age of the earth. This is discussed in a chapter of a book on science by Henri Poincaré. Later, with atomic and H-bombs, there was proof that there was more to physics than gravity and electromagnetism: e.g. nuclear physics and fusion reactions; that's now the accepted explanation for the sun shining for billions of years. The video below could be a fake event, lunatics, a hoax "disclosure" from the CIA by real CIA agents, a CGI film made with a cluster of supercomputers, etc. etc. http: / / www. youtube. com/ watch? v=7vyVe-6YdUk but it's good entertainment... David Bernier 24 Dec, 12:56 28. Jon Slaughter Vizualizaţi profil Mai multe opţiuni 24 Dec, 11:06 "LudovicoVan" wrote in message news:ef53a 3ab-8dcd-4ec6-8b4e-7 46681e999f6@x16g2000 prn.googlegroups.com ... - Afişare text în citat - That is different. We are talking about the ability to communicate and not the need. We do not know if a super intelligent species will have the need to communicate with us or not. If we use our own experiences we would say yes because we try to communicate with lower life forms... we do this to learn for our own survival. In some sense if the species is super intelligent we would expect them to have some desire to learn and hence understand that even lower life forms offer something in some way. No matter how long a lion and a squid try to communicate it is doubtful that they ever will. A lion and a squid would not even try to communicate, unless you consider the basic life and death game of nature a form of communication in itself. Indeed all living beings do have a language, more or less sophisticated that it is (and despite the level of awareness we might have about it). but history says otherwise. If what you are saying is true we would expect there to be more species communicating with each other on our own planet. After all, nothing about humans should be special... except we are by far the most intelligent and infact our technology is what distinguishes us. This woulod seem to say that what makes humans special also would distinguish other intelligent species. This is not sufficient or necessary but seems probable. (my point here is that whatever processes by which we exist are not necessarily special and similar processes would be played out in other species. Of course there are many confounding factors involved but the underlying principles, just like the physical laws, still exist... because after all it is all physical.) Intelligence and knowledge is a key factor here. As I am trying to say, the key factor to mutual understanding is rather motivational or intentional: you just cannot embed meaning into a syntax. But we are not talking about motivations but possibilities. Motiviation depend on many factures and would not be a general property of an intelligent race. We might expect super intelligent beings not to want to have anything to do with less intelligent beings but again, we know this is not the case from our own experiences and I doubt that we would be special in this regard. We know from history that two "disjoint" civilizations can establish communications because it has been done many times. What we know from history and then anthropology and sociology is that, when two civilisations get in contact, there is a mutual process of absorption that is *socio-culturally driven*: that is, all motivations are socio-cultural, surely nothing "unmotivated" or neutral here. Again, motivation is something entirely different and depends on each individual case. We were talking about the ability to communicate and not the need. It involves language and language can be taught. What I am saying is that you can surely teach a calculus, but you cannot really teach a *meaning* unless, there *already* is a common "motivational" base, or "common world". An enabler is not a driver. The meaning is common. This is what I mean by the common physical laws that govern all beings(I take this as an axiom) and that these laws are inherent in every being. Since these laws are common and fundamental they setup a common bases for communication. e.g., Suppose you meet some alien and you are trying to communicate with him. He is an intelligent being. He is not terribly different from you(because he lives in the same physical world and must abide by the same physical laws). You try to communicate. For communicate to be feesible you must have analogous understandings to work with. But simply because you abide by the same physical laws you have an infinite amount of common understanding. (remember, both are intelligent) It is not to say it is easy or will always work but that it is possible. That is all. Maybe most alien races, if they exist, would only kill other civilizations or not both to communicate. But this is different. The point here is that any advanced race must be similar to ours in many respects. It might be possible that some creatures would have developed in such a completely different manner that we could not communicate with them at all but then one has to wonder how they could become intelligent in the first place. (if, say they had no senses for the physical world, then how could they become intelligent?) So, basically you have 1. Alien race is intelligent enough to communicate with us. 2. We are intelligent enough to communicate with them. 3. Neither race is intelligent enough. and here what ties it all together is logic which, as already stated, is tied into the physical laws. (i.e., intelligence is a measure of logical complexity and knowledge) So, basically, you are just ignoring the distinction I have tried to make, that sharing a math does not entail sharing a knowledge or meaning, as the latter are rather related to the non-mathematical aspects of our intelligence. ? I think we are talking about two different things. I am talking about the likelyhood that an intelligent alien race could communicate with us while you seem to be talking about why they would. My argument is that the physical laws restrict the possibilities on the evolution of an intelligent race and that they must evolve within certian logical constraints. These contraints will naturally allow them to communicate with us. The OP asked if it "but math is vast and surely not all of them are "natural", "inevitable", or "unavoidable"" I kinda gotta off into communications since he mentioned signals so I could be wrong in the "communications" thing but I do believe this is what he was implying. His question, IMO, was "Can we communicate with aliens or would they be so drastically different that we couldn't understand them". Say the aliens were just humans too, just like us. Would there be any problems? Doubful. They could easily communicate with us... specially if they spoke english. Now I am trying to say that because of the confinements of logic, which are derived from the physical world, they could not have evolved to drastically from us to make it impossible to communicate with. (they might physically have evolved that "looks" different. Or have a different culture... but in many regards there would be a lot of similarities) For example. Think of a race of one being that was super intelligent but had no ability to sense the world. Some how it just exists. It has no ability to communicate with us and we cannot understand it. It is useless and as far as we are concerned it is not intelligent even though it might be able to solve all the unsolved math problems in a second for us. Communication is and will always be the most important intellectual aspect of humanity. If something cannot communicate it is not intelligent. Hence by deduction, an intelligent alien race must be able to communicate. If it can communicate then it has the ability to communicate with us. Not that it can or will but that it has the capacity to communicate. There to many factors involved to say that any arbitrary case will work. My argument goes as: Intelligent race = communications = capacity to communicate with us. It's almost a tautology. I'm implicity using the argument that if a race has the ability to communicate with itself intelligently that it must have evolved along a similar path as us which makes easier to communicate with us. (in some sense the american indians were "alien" to the europeans at the time but because they were "similar" they had the ability to communicate and did communicate. (in fact there are no humans, AFAIK that do not have some form of intra-species ability to ... citiţi mai multe » Răspundeţi Răspundeţi autorului Redirecţionare 29. LudovicoVan Vizualizaţi profil Mai multe opţiuni 24 Dec, 12:07 On 24 Dec, 09:06, "Jon Slaughter" wrote: "LudovicoVan" wrote in message news:ef53a 3ab-8dcd-4ec6-8b4e-7 46681e999f6@x16g2000 prn.googlegroups.com ... On 24 Dec, 03:21, "Jon Slaughter" wrote: "LudovicoVan" wrote in message news:3030e cbe-a5a5-4770-9895-0 c0360e697d9@p2g2000p rn.googlegroups.com< /a>... Sure, it is implicitly assumed that one has enough time and knowledge to establish mutual understanding. That is true provided that both parties are willing to establish mutual understanding. But there is no need for any being to be *willing* so in order to be "intelligent". That is different. We are talking about the ability to communicate and not the need. Who said "need"? I was referring to intentionality, and the fact that a message by itself means anything and nothing: it is you, the recipient, who make sense of it. If I nod, it means "yes"; but if I nod on the other emisphere, it very likely means "no". The meaning we attach to symbols is a socio-cultural fact. To translate the hieroglyphs they needed an intermediate language (the Rosetta stone). A system of signs surely follows the one universal physics, still it is never enough by itself to determine a meaning. We do not know if a super intelligent species will have the need to communicate with us or not. ... This is psychology, not logic, and also a very low level one... we are by far the most intelligent and infact our technology is what distinguishes us. Ah, the yankee myth. after all it is all physical Maybe so, maybe there are basic things like life and death that we must have in common with any species in our universe, so that ultimately a common ground for understanding there must exist. My point is only that the potential differences are by far more huge than just conjuring a communication system, because meaning is simply not reducible to a mechanical process. There is no automatic translator. Intelligence and knowledge is a key factor here. As I am trying to say, the key factor to mutual understanding is rather motivational or intentional: you just cannot embed meaning into a syntax. But we are not talking about motivations but possibilities. Then we are maybe talking about the same thing, as I am surely not trying any phsicology. We know from history that two "disjoint" civilizations can establish communications because it has been done many times. What we know from history and then anthropology and sociology is that, when two civilisations get in contact, there is a mutual process of absorption that is *socio-culturally driven*: that is, all motivations are socio-cultural, surely nothing "unmotivated" or neutral here. Again, motivation is something entirely different and depends on each individual case. We were talking about the ability to communicate and not the need. I didn't mention needs either: I hope my usage of the term "motivation" is now a bit clearer. Again, what I am saying is that our "ability to communicate" does not reduce to finding a proper channel, the material language. It depends on more subjective (although mostly socio-cultural) "faculties", that simply do not reduce to any math: they are "uncomputable", if you like, at least to our knowledge so far. It involves language and language can be taught. What I am saying is that you can surely teach a calculus, but you cannot really teach a *meaning* unless, there *already* is a common "motivational" base, or "common world". An enabler is not a driver. The meaning is common. That's indeed what is *not* common, unless we happen to be very familiar one another, and even in that case, you can never really tell you know anybody else; not even yourself sometimes. This is what I mean by the common physical laws that govern all beings(I take this as an axiom) and that these laws are inherent in every being. Since these laws are common and fundamental they setup a common bases for communication. You are making confusion between two distinct levels: the channel and the meaning, the physical and the intellectual. Intelligence is not a machine, for all we know. simply because you abide by the same physical laws you have an infinite amount of common understanding. (remember, both are intelligent) Non sequitur. The point here is that any advanced race must be similar to ours in many respects. You can't even claim to know your nearest brother. ? I think we are talking about two different things. I am talking about the likelyhood that an intelligent alien race could communicate with us while you seem to be talking about why they would. There is the feasibility of a communication happening, on a side, the plausibility of an understanding happening, on another. My argument is that the physical laws restrict the possibilities on the evolution of an intelligent race and that they must evolve within certian logical constraints. These contraints will naturally allow them to communicate with us. The constraints that are relevant to a mutual understanding have very little to nothing to do with physical laws. Again: a common physical base (i.e. belonging to the same "world") assures the possibility of a communication (a contact), not of a mutual understanding. Understanding (and intelligence, knowledge, etc.) belong to the socio- cultural sphere, they cannot be reduced neither to math nor to technology, etc. His question, IMO, was "Can we communicate with aliens or would they be so drastically different that we couldn't understand them". I too am interpreting it that way, and to that I am answering. It is quite plausible that the aliens would result at least as "strange" as we use to find any "stranger", and actually many times so. Say the aliens were just humans too, just like us. Would there be any problems? Doubful. Again: try to get what's passing in the mind of your neighbour... Now I am trying to say that because of the confinements of logic, which are derived from the physical world, You are using "logic" here in a very restricted sense. Understanding, knowledge, etc. are just another matter. My argument goes as... Your argument is not even wrong. -LV Răspundeţi Răspundeţi autorului Redirecţionare Creaţi un grup - Grupuri Google - Pagina de pornire Google - Termenii serviciului - Politica de confidenţialitate ©2008 Google

HI! I have added you in my contact list and joined your community. I have just visited your site it’s very useful, I will appreciate if you visit my site. I will refer your site further to my friends. Thanks

Feature Alert! Find others you may know who are already kickin' it on MyBlogLog. Friender searches your friend lists across the web to suggest new contacts. http: / / mybloglog. com/ user/ friender - The MyBlogLog crew

Seams like I'm the first one to write on your wall - what an honour then. Hello from Norway - nice to meet you!

amazing! url of my blog appeared automatically in the widget on your site. i was visiting for the first time. how is this possible? of course, i am flattered. thanks!