Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Orthas

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 48
Psionics / Re: How to sit while meditating?
« on: June 16, 2011, 10:17:58 AM »
Instead of sitting, you could stand for meditation which has the benefit of not divorcing your legs from your body.

On a different point meditation isn't completely comfortable, although there are good and bad pains, a position may take effort to maintain.

Psionics / Re: Random Question 1 - Pre-Emptive Construct Usage
« on: May 21, 2011, 06:16:24 PM »
I don't think I can answer this question for a metaphysical object but it does remind me of a question I have pondered for physical objects, for which I think I can give a theory with an answer.  However, I'm struggling to make my explanation coherent.

1) What If I I owned a wormhole that could travel 10 hours backwards in time?

Now firstly quantum theory says that at any moment any object could pop into existence, the probability is unlikely but possible.

So, if I'm sitting on the end of my wormhole and a diamond pops out of it, (akin to using your construct), then if I drop it into the wormhole 10 hours later, (make the construct) everything is fine.  We can actually use this description to describe the electron-positron pair creation we see everyday in particle accelerators, which can be thought of as an electron suddenly coming into existence hanging around for a bit then travelling back in time to when it first appeared.

What if I spend or break the diamond, (like not making the construct) well we could say the diamond was just an unlikely spontaneous quantum creation and not from the future.

The problem comes when I ask what if I never received a diamond but drop one in anyway?  (This is prevented by your prescription that affecting past events isn't possible)  Well in that case we could say that history is rewritten (we all vanish and a new past is written in which the diamond was received), this seems very aesthetically unsatisfying.  Or we could use an alternate universe theory in which we change an alternate timeline.

The simplest answer is of course that backwards time travel isn't possible.

So what does this mean for constructs, well basically if constructs are like physical matter then whether you make it or not is irrelevant, either you made it (the simplest) or it came into existence by itself (acceptable too).

The question of 'what if you try to use a construct and it doesn't work, and then you make the construct in the future?' is a bit more interesting, and would suggest either constructs don't pass backwards in time, or perhaps a branching timeline in which your construct travels backwards and then along an alternate line, or a different answer.

Main Hall / Re: Maths problems
« on: February 08, 2011, 04:57:12 PM »
My reply wasn't for Tsu, if you'd looked you'd see the post above mine.

Main Hall / Re: Maths problems
« on: February 06, 2011, 03:54:20 PM »
yes you're right on 2b, for 2d think about the working you used for 2b and the answer of 2c.  You have to select 5 numbers and each of your previous questions constrains these numbers.  The problem might not look like it but it is an exercise in constraints, you can't look at every possibility, so limit the number you have to look at.  

Now I don't want to just give you the answer so here are a few hints.

1) The definition of a moot number gives you some constraints

2) What does 2c tell you about some of your numbers?

3) What's the upper limit on the product of your remaining numbers?

4) How does 2b limit your numbers?

Finally you can look at the very limited possibilities, and there are only 6 I could see.  (there might be a last constraint which is more elegant but I couldn't see it).

Martial Arts / Re: To grapple or not to grapple?
« on: February 17, 2010, 05:17:12 PM »
I would agree with getting comfortable with groundwork through practice, and that some grappling is useful.  Still that wouldn't seem to justify practising an entire style like Brazilian Jujitsu since, I may be wrong, but I can't see a real fight lasting very long on the ground.  After all if you take a long time to dispatch someone on the ground then you would be in real trouble against multiple opponents.

So I'd agree basic knowledge is useful, which would come through practice, but learning a whole style would seem overkill.

Martial Arts / To grapple or not to grapple?
« on: February 17, 2010, 04:36:00 PM »
I have heard a lot of praise for styles like muai thai because of their extensive grappling techniques.  Now clearly for competitions that allow grappling and maybe for police who subdue without injury I can see this as incredible useful.

But if you learn a style for fun, and if you only application in a fight is a real one, is grappling really needed?  My first thought is that grappling isn't that effective against eye gauging, testicle ripping etc.  So why do you need to learn grappling and why is a style lacking for not including it?  In a non grappling style you can still practice groundwork, just rather than aiming to get them into a hold you practice getting to a point from which they would've been seriously injured.

So, to grapple or not to grapple?  :confused:

Main Hall / Re: Jesus Riffles
« on: January 24, 2010, 12:34:05 PM »
From the BBC's version of the story.

On 14 January, the MRFF received an e-mail, purportedly from a Muslim US Army infantryman, complaining about the markings.
"Many soldiers know of them and are very confused as to why they are there and what it is supposed to mean."
The email adds: "Everyone is worried that if they were captured in combat that the enemy would use the Bible quotes against them in captivity or some other form of propaganda."
MRFF president Mikey Weinstein says the inscriptions could give the Taliban and other enemy forces a propaganda tool.
"I don't have to wonder for a nanosecond how the American public would react if citations from the Koran were being inscribed onto these US armed forces gunsights instead of New Testament citations," he said.

Main Hall / Google to pull out of China?
« on: January 13, 2010, 04:22:23 AM »
The google blog

"have led us to conclude that we should review the feasibility of our business operations in China. We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on"

It appears China had been hacking major US companies and Google has caught them red handed.

So do you think Google will actually pull out of China? it would be incredibly expensive for them since they're estimated to have revenues in China of $600m this coming year.

Main Hall / Re: Asteroid Collission in 2029 - Russia takes Stand
« on: December 31, 2009, 04:37:28 PM »
I'm slightly worried that the Russians will accidentally deflect the asteroid towards the earth, scientific investment in Russia isn't exactly fantastic.

The Cafeteria / Re: Personality Disorder Test
« on: December 07, 2009, 10:45:08 AM »
Answering very inaccurate to everything gives

Paranoid   ||   10%   49%
Schizoid   ||||||   26%   53%
Schizotypal   ||   10%   53%
Antisocial   ||   10%   47%
Borderline   ||   10%   47%
Histrionic   ||   10%   43%
Narcissistic   ||   10%   41%
Avoidant   ||   10%   39%
Dependent   ||   10%   37%
Obsessive-Compulsive   ||   10%   40%

The Cafeteria / Re: Personality Disorder Test
« on: December 06, 2009, 04:51:23 PM »
You might need to post a link.

The Cafeteria / Re: Post what is in your icebox, Veritas!
« on: November 30, 2009, 04:40:18 PM »
2  Quarter pounders
6 sausages
pack of bacon
cheese (for macaroni cheese)
Some spaghetti bolognese
chilli paste, harrissa paste, Tabasco sauce
half a dozen eggs
various spices etc
jar of marmalade

PS: this is all for me for the next couple of days.

Main Hall / Re: Two WTF articles for all of you
« on: November 20, 2009, 03:44:46 PM »
Or the money could go to unmanned missions, without humans you have a lot more space in those rockets.

Hello and Goodbye / Re: Introduction to Dragohad.
« on: November 01, 2009, 08:44:36 AM »
Better than Losalt ( apparently "LoSalt you'll be pleased to hear, has 66% less sodium than regular table, sea and rock salt, but all of the flavour."

The Cafeteria / Re: Belief-o-Matic Post your results
« on: June 28, 2009, 05:11:42 AM »
1.    Unitarian Universalism (100%)
2.    Neo-Pagan (95%)
3.    Liberal Quakers (86%)
4.    Mahayana Buddhism (86%)
5.    New Age (82%)
6.    Hinduism (81%)
7.    Reform Judaism (77%)
8.    Sikhism (76%)
9.    Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (70%)
10.    Scientology (70%)
11.    Baha'i Faith (67%)
12.    New Thought (67%)
13.    Theravada Buddhism (62%)
14.    Jainism (61%)
15.    Secular Humanism (59%)
16.    Orthodox Judaism (57%)
17.    Taoism (55%)
18.    Islam (52%)
19.    Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (51%)
20.    Orthodox Quaker (45%)
21.    Nontheist (40%)
22.    Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (32%)
23.    Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (31%)
24.    Seventh Day Adventist (25%)
25.    Eastern Orthodox (19%)
26.    Roman Catholic (19%)
27.    Jehovah's Witness (15%)

As Solstice says the questions seem to have a slant to them, after all I'm pretty sure I'm not 70% compatible with Scientology.  Besides in most faiths the central tenants are more important than the ways those beliefs have been interpreted.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 48