History of the Orgonite/Cloudbuster Movement

Moderators: DrVolin, 82_28, Elvis, Jeff

Postby marykmusic » Tue Jan 23, 2007 2:14 pm

No, Too Stoned, you keep on being The Authority On Everything and people will soon stop reading you at all.

Besides, nobody really likes folks who are too stoned, because they're not reliable.

My opinion, of course. --MaryK
http://www.zforcegroup.com

"You cannot wifstand my supewiew intewect." --Tweety Bird
marykmusic
 
Posts: 1502
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 12:23 am
Location: Central Arizona
Blog: View Blog (0)

Hahahahahahah

Postby TooStoned » Tue Jan 23, 2007 2:49 pm

MaryKcosmetic:

:lol:

and:
:P

but I promise all dissemblers (and this includes you at times, sometimes not as you do post things I find worthwhile and honest):

:twisted:

Because the truth is I don't know much, but I know bullshit from information and I'm not about to let anyone step into it without fair warning. :wink:

edit 1: toned down mocking of mary's penname as I was probably uneccesarily cruel :oops:
"Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery, no one but ourselves can free our minds" - RNM
"I'm not Coyote.You're Coyote. I'm Another One." - Wile E. Coyote (AKA Sin'klipt)
TooStoned
 
Posts: 260
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 5:19 pm
Location: twixt now and zen
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Donovan » Tue Jan 23, 2007 3:28 pm

Perhaps Mr. Too Stoned went to old site.
Site is www.midcoast.com/~michael1
And the email I use is genesa@midcoast.com

Helping out Too Stoned:
Too Stoned wishes to counter my claim that I am the first to derive the Great Pyramid slope by the simple compass and rule method. First he should parse my claim into its two parts, 1- if or not I have arrived at the slope and 2- if or not I am the first in modern times (assuming the constructors of the Great Pyramid were about) to do so. The second part he can cover by searching around and trying to find another who has done so.
If Mr. Too Stoned is to attack my claim this is the process he should take.
1- Ascertain if or not I have arrived at a method of finding that angle. I have.
2- There might then be an argument, given the degrees in a circle, that I have just randomly hit on some constructs of lines, circles and points that seem to get the same angle. I can counter that with ease, but it is at least an argument.
3- Mr. Too Stoned next step would be to see if it can be proved another way. It was. With radians. I have that work, it was done by another.

What Mr. Too Stoned has done so far is to simple take a sample of another proof, not even plane geometry, an algebraic proof, and say something to the effect: “Gee this proof has little symbols. Mr. Donovan’s proof has lines and points. Complete switch of systems. With that stupidity Mr. Too Stoned follows by simple name calling.
Donovan
Donovan
Donovan
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 11:27 pm
Location: Camden, ME
Blog: View Blog (0)

Peeeyeew; Smells like more bullshit

Postby TooStoned » Tue Jan 23, 2007 5:01 pm

Donny, the Dung spreader:
1) a hyperlink from your "here's the proof" comment upthread was not working, your latest hyperlink works.

2) Donny your "proof" is not a mathematical proof, I did provide a algebraic proof, a famous one infact, but here's a bunch for pythogoras famous mathematical statement on right angled triangles:

http://www.cut-the-knot.org/pythagoras/index.shtml

(there's actually 65 "mathematical geometry proofs" in that link, just scroll down)

Here's a link so you can learn how to write a geometry proof:

http://www.sparknotes.com/math/geometry3/geometricproofs/section1.html

3)
If Mr. Too Stoned is to attack my claim this is the process he should take:
1- Ascertain if or not I have arrived at a method of finding that angle. I have.
2- There might then be an argument, given the degrees in a circle, that I have just randomly hit on some constructs of lines, circles and points that seem to get the same angle. I can counter that with ease, but it is at least an argument.
3- Mr. Too Stoned next step would be to see if it can be proved another way. It was. With radians. I have that work, it was done by another.


Funny, when I claim that you should follow protocols that are universally accepted you claim that the only way I could disprove you is to follow your protocols. This is indistinguishable from the illusionist yelling at the unconvinced audience "Don't look behind the curtain"

But like all illusionists you are huckster, a sham, and that is prima facie and to the deepest roots.

BTW I am presently only claiming that you use of the term "mathmatical proof" wrongly. And I have proven over and over again that you misuse scientific jargon (e.g. DNA, Inorganic chem (crystal formation), math proofs, etc. see the last ten pages of this crappy thread).

4) Whether or not you were the first to derive the Great Pyramid slope by the simple compass and rule method. I (nor anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of math and science) can tell because you bury the method in a diagramless jumble that is surrounded and filled with metaphysical mumble. I have yet to see a geometry proof that doesn't have at least one diagram. But I will admit, I am not a mathematician by vocation)

As I have asked muliple times in this thread, Why do you obfusticate rather than illuminate?

That's a rhetorical question, because I (and many on this message board) already know your game.

5)
Gee this proof has little symbols. Mr. Donovan’s proof has lines and points. Complete switch of systems. With that stupidity Mr. Too Stoned follows by simple name calling
.

Unlike your voluminous pages of snake oil selling screed, those "little symbols" have significance and can be parsed out by anyone with a basic knowledge of algebra.

Every "name" I've called is accurate, and IMnotsoHO, witty.

But I really enjoy exposing bullshit artists, so please try again :twisted:
"Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery, no one but ourselves can free our minds" - RNM
"I'm not Coyote.You're Coyote. I'm Another One." - Wile E. Coyote (AKA Sin'klipt)
TooStoned
 
Posts: 260
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 5:19 pm
Location: twixt now and zen
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Donovan » Tue Jan 23, 2007 5:17 pm

The proof was a geometric proof, line points, circles, arcs as in any work in plane geometry. It does not use algebraic symbols. The check however, was done in radians which does. You mixed apples and oranges.
What do you mean ‘diagramless jumble’ the diagram is there, just click on it. And go argue it if you so wish.

Go to the diagram, use the steps, see what angle you come up with.
Then go back and see if you can argue.
Donovan
Donovan
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 11:27 pm
Location: Camden, ME
Blog: View Blog (0)

Okay donny boy

Postby TooStoned » Tue Jan 23, 2007 6:11 pm

Here's the page in Donny Dung boy's cannonical new age fantasy website which, I assume, he claims contains his mathematical proof.

http://www.midcoast.com/~michael1/great-pyramid.htm

(complete with link to an unlabled diagram! :lol: those are so useful and easily understood http://www.midcoast.com/~michael1/main-diagram.htm)

Here we go:

Set the ruler to pixels. Make a hairline 6000 pixels high. This measurement and one sixth of it, 1000 pixels, are the critical measurements. I am assuming you are zooming and getting exact. Place this 6000 pixel line on a zero guideline. (be exact). Construct two angled guidelines, one of 60 and one of 120 degrees. Have them intersect with the top of the 6000 pixel line. Be exact. If the line is set at 'hairline' as it should be the width should still be almost a pixel. So have the lines cross in the middle. There is some zooming in and out quite a bit at the start. The 60 and 120 degree lines should now make an equilateral triangle. Use bezier tool and 'snap to guidelines' to make that shape. REMEMBER the lines are in the center of these guidelines. We will be measuring angles from the top of this triangle. You might make a crosshair very small at top. Something to show you that the very top of the shape is not the top, see where the centers of the lines meet. Now you need make a circle close to what the triangle would fit into if tip and center and two sides touching the circle. This does not need to be as exact. Get it close as you can. You can spend extra time getting it very exact but it will not buy you much. However, when placing over so that the top of triangle is in center and two bottom corners touch the circle, make sure the left side of the parts that touch the circle, (bottom left), is exact. Remembering again that the real center of the line is inside the approx. 3/4 of a pixel thick line understand that the sharp corner of the triangle will stick out a bit from the circle.

'Group' the work above or set in a layer so it does not come apart.

Now one more exact measure. This is 1/ 6th of the original 6000 pixel line. But we make it with a circle, showing various angles with this, so make a circle with an exact 2000 pixel diameter, and you may even want to put small crossshairs in the center. 'Group' this. Move this smaller circle, green in the diagram so that it sits direct on the center of where triangle crosses the greater circle. And when exact, group the entire thing. All the exact work is now done. So you have ballpark understanding, set, one at a time, four lines through the top of the pyramid. First do the 51.84444~ which I did in red. In yellow I did the parameters for understanding, I set one at 52 exact degrees and another at 52 exact degrees and did this in yellow. Also a darker yellow 52.73 degrees. Notice how the circle (smaller circle) cuts twice through the red, but about 51.73 at the greater circle.


Now for explanation:
1- As the six pyramids begin to move into, "eat up" the eight tetrahedrons, how for does each face of the pyramid move. It does not move to the center because there are five other moving as well. Each face need only move at 1/6th, the measurement of the radius of the lessor circle. The big triangle is the shape of the face of the six pyramids. It is also the shape of the base of the tetra exactly. So every face of each of the six pyramids moves from on side toward a tip. So the distance it moves is across, not one of the sides.

2- Notice that if it is considered that the base is the first move here, it is about 51.73.

3- However, we have the distance the face will move, 1000 pixels, but not the exact direction. As the pyramids are 'filling' up the tetras are decreasing. Therefore the angle that the bottom of the face moves is to be considered. The greater arc is the obvious limit. As they are all moving the other limit is half the 6000., 3000. Place lines of 3000 and 6000 so that they go from the corner of the pyramid to the arc. (I don't think the bottom blue line of 3000 comes through. However this angle is bisected which is the angle of second blue line. And you can see where that intersects the 51.84444~ given. Understand that the 51.844444, given by Taylor first is a formula based and theoretical. A visual of this concept has not yet been given except here.

Anyone who does this with a construction of 13 ping pong balls in hand will feel it as well as understand it.

This visual came up as I was working on my book Message Of The Crop Circles. A great portion of the crop circles point to this new geometry. The book is about 70 percent complete with many illustrations. I do not as yet have a publisher.


(I think the bold faced quote is very telling of what Donny's true motives are)

HOOOOWEEEEE, thats a lotta of typing; the most elegant proofs can be done with just a few mathematical statements and a clearly labeled diagram that doesn't require CAD to draw it. Additionally most easily digested proofs are in two table proof form, which can be written as a paragraph, but those are typically avoided because that form promotes errors.

Donovan may believe what he's done is "proof," and it may be, but it is not a "mathematical proof" as he has claimed repeatedly.

For comparison here's a trivial (in the math sense of the word) geometry paragraph proof:
(sans the all import labelled diagram as cut and paste doesn't work, but you get the point)
Given:
Figure ABCDEF as drawn below



Prove:
Figure ABCDEF is not a polygon.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are given figure ABCDEF which is a union of segments in a plane. connects only to at point B, and point A is left unintersected. also connects to at C. also connects to at D. connects to at E. connects to no other segment and in fact, point F is left completely unintersected. Now since figure ABCDEF has two segments, and , which only connect with one other segment, it cannot be a polygon. For in a polygon, by definition, all segments intersect two others, one at each endpoint.


http://www.themathlab.com/geometry/mathcourt/writeproofs.htm

Go to the diagram, use the steps, see what angle you come up with.
Then go back and see if you can argue


Translation: Using my rules, disprove me.

Sorry, I don't have CAD. But even if I did I know carny come on when I hear one, and if I use your balls and your bottles it won't matter how hard I hit them they won't fall 'cause they're all glued together with a major layer of crap.

I challenge you to use the well known and widely accepted rules and protocols of mathematical notation and write a "geometry proof" to back up your assertions. Preferably in 2-column form but a "paragraph proof" will work just fine.

So far nothing you have presented fits into the math definition of "proof, so if you can't write it as a "proof" don't claim it is a "mathematical proof"

http://www.themathlab.com/geometry/mathcourt/writeproofs.htm

The two most important things a proof must possess are clarity and backup.

Over the years, we've read some awful proofs and some wonderful proofs. Without a doubt the wonderful ones were wonderful because WE COULD UNDERSTAND THEM!!!!!

There is absolutely no reason to write a proof unless your reader can understand what you're saying. Keep this in mind as you write. We always try to pretend we are speaking to someone who has very limited mathematical knowledge and who doesn't know what facts we have been "given".

{...}

So don't worry about trying to match a "perfect wording". Just be sure that your statements are clear, and that they are each backed up with a legal reason.

A good measure of the quality of your proof is found by reading it to a person who has not taken a geometry course or who hasn't been in one for a long time. If they can understand your proof by just reading it, and they don't need any verbal explanation from you, then you have a good proof.



Hey Donovan why not post the proof in radians? Let see if anyone else can back up your shyte spreading with something readily comprehended by all.
"Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery, no one but ourselves can free our minds" - RNM
"I'm not Coyote.You're Coyote. I'm Another One." - Wile E. Coyote (AKA Sin'klipt)
TooStoned
 
Posts: 260
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 5:19 pm
Location: twixt now and zen
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Wombaticus Rex » Tue Jan 23, 2007 9:40 pm

Donovan, TooStoned might be very insulting and all, but his fundamental point is pretty solid: if you're right, you should be able to explain it. Please don't kid or flatter yourself into thinking we're too thick to get it. There's a lot of intelligent people on this board -- most of them are having a hard time taking you seriously.

That doesn't nescessarily mean you're wrong -- but it is honest feedback you might want to take into account.
User avatar
Wombaticus Rex
 
Posts: 10313
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Vermontistan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Donovan » Tue Jan 23, 2007 10:34 pm

Should be able to explain it? Of course I can explain it. Dipshit keeps denying there are diagrams. Then he states he does not have a drawing program to verify. He can use a very large sheet of paper and a very good protractor for the angle but he might quibble, “Oh it is just somewhere between 51 and 52 degrees or such.” Crap. He should put up or shut up.
Start with the biggest circle you can construct. On, for example, Corel draw with goes to thousandths of an inch you can go up to about (forget but sixty feet or something). You need also mark the exact center of the circle The circle does not need to be any specific size. Big only because the end result will be an angle you measure, and you want it precise. There are not a whole lot of steps. Most is the tedious time taking zooming in and out.
You need also mark the exact center of the circle. That is the first tedious step. After you construct the circle, and so it does not move, outside the circle construct some ‘dot’ or cross hair that can be made smaller and smaller as you move down to center. Clicking the circle the center will appear (but disappear when not clicked – reason for marking).
Click the circle, get a general idea of center, and move your marker inside as close to center as you see. Zoom down one. Move and keep making marker smaller until you have the exact center marked. About ten steps or so and now and then you need back up as lost the marker. When the center marked as precise as you possible...Now take the entire thing and put into a layer that cannot be disturbed.
This “I don’t have a CAD program” shit is just that. Craphead made the challenge. He should put up or shut up. They are widely available. Or can have a friend do it and follow etc. No excuse.
Time for asshole to put up or shut up. Putting up is starting with step one.
So I now challenge this no-balls dumbass to follow through.
At the end the result will be obtained by guide-lining the result, double clicking the guideline which will give angle to so many places, forget, seven or eight. You may even know an engineer could do this in something very high end such as SolidEdge (about a 10 grand program I have been told). That would be neat.
(Radian check of course check on the proof – out of order). Construction first.
Donovan.
Donovan
Donovan
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 11:27 pm
Location: Camden, ME
Blog: View Blog (0)

tsk tsk

Postby TooStoned » Tue Jan 23, 2007 10:53 pm

Donovan:

So I'm a dipshit because I call you on your bullshit?

I guess your vocab is as limited as your knowledge of math and science.

Either your "proof" is a mathematical proof as you claimed upthread or it isn't.

I think I've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that its not.

Just like I've proven that you don't know squat about Quantum Physics, DNA, Crystal Formation, Mathematics etc.

All with independent and unimpeachable links.

What have you done?

Repeatedly posted counter factual nonsense and links from your website (not to mention some very intellectual dishonest argumentation)

You may have some interesting ideas, but the way you present them and then respond to challenges demonstrates that you are at least intellecutally dishonest and perhaps worse.

I promise you if you misuse scientific terms or post garbage like " your mapmaker came up with the twisted ribbon idea of DNA" I will be there to point out your errors and make sure no one is taken in by your hucksterism.

Do yourself and everyone else on this message board a favor; try to explain it so that even dipshits like myself bereft of CAD can understand it.

Otherwise I'll assume you're just looking for recognition and accolades denied you by the publishers who won't print your books.

BTW just because you have drawing doesn't make it a diagram, it needs to be labeled to be considered a diagram otherwise its just a drawing and worthless wrt (With Regards To, just in case you don't understand the abbreviation) mathematical proofs.
"Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery, no one but ourselves can free our minds" - RNM
"I'm not Coyote.You're Coyote. I'm Another One." - Wile E. Coyote (AKA Sin'klipt)
TooStoned
 
Posts: 260
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 5:19 pm
Location: twixt now and zen
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Donovan » Tue Jan 23, 2007 10:59 pm

More excuses.
Take the challange. In this a circle is a circle a line a line and does not matter if you call it a diagram or drawing. Just that it is precise.
I will walk you through every step. You can then see the angle.
Step one is above.
Put up or shut up.
Donovan
Donovan
Donovan
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 11:27 pm
Location: Camden, ME
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Donovan » Tue Jan 23, 2007 11:10 pm

More excuses.
Take the challange. In this a circle is a circle a line a line and does not matter if you call it a diagram or drawing. Just that it is precise.
I will walk you through every step. You can then see the angle.
Step one is above.
Put up or shut up.
Donovan
Donovan
Donovan
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 11:27 pm
Location: Camden, ME
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby philipacentaur » Tue Jan 23, 2007 11:12 pm

I'm still reeling from the "Pass & Stow" thing.

(edit: spelling)
Last edited by philipacentaur on Tue Jan 23, 2007 11:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
philipacentaur
 
Posts: 1234
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 6:45 pm
Location: Gone to Maser
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Donovan » Tue Jan 23, 2007 11:25 pm

Yes, there is a corporation, very old, that cares for the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia and it is called 'Pass & Stow'.
And I only learned that many years after Pass & Stow explained to me.

Was just related to me by one of the saltiest guys here...: How far in advance WW II was being prepared for in the US. He related it to the difficulty in producing 'reduction gears'. We knew the German capabilities with subs and decided to out logistic them. Therefore we would need a giant amount of freighters built very quickly and this was prepared for in the mid thirties !!!!!!!!!!!!!! These were the Liberty ships and the amount suddenly built staggering. Three thousand !!!!! Three thousand. Think of it. How to do this so fast. One thing that could not be produced that fast were reduction gears. Therefore they nixed diesel and went back to steam !!!! Of course the steam was oil, not coal, fired but still.
Donovan
Donovan
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 11:27 pm
Location: Camden, ME
Blog: View Blog (0)

The manure is getting thick

Postby TooStoned » Tue Jan 23, 2007 11:27 pm

Donovan:
:lol: and :P

Its not up to me to prove what you're saying is true or not. Its up to you to prove its true.
You haven't and probably can't do that.

The only thing I have set out to prove is that your "proof" is not a mathematical proof.

I'm certain I've achieved that, and did it with relevant links.

I can tell I've gotten under your skin, and I swear that's just the beginning, so I hope you don't have high blood pressure.

So now you "put up or shut up"

How about that proof in radians that you said existed.

I promise if I see something that does qualify as a mathematical proof, I'll admit it.

But I don't think you can...
"Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery, no one but ourselves can free our minds" - RNM
"I'm not Coyote.You're Coyote. I'm Another One." - Wile E. Coyote (AKA Sin'klipt)
TooStoned
 
Posts: 260
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 5:19 pm
Location: twixt now and zen
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby philipacentaur » Tue Jan 23, 2007 11:31 pm

John Pass and John Stow were the men who cast the replacement Liberty Bell after the first one cracked. If this is some sort of sailor slang, it has no connection to the actual Liberty Bell.
philipacentaur
 
Posts: 1234
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 6:45 pm
Location: Gone to Maser
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to Activism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests