A4E

I probably need some animation to understand this fully. They are taking 2 sources of light and making them interact, so the title on that article is misleading. If it was truly a photograph from the same source of light, (which it appears it is not), then the title would be correct. Interesting and cool maybe yes. Breakthrough, no. The researchers themselves probably never stated that it was a photography of the same light source, but the article author decided that would be a sensational title.

A video (on facebook) by "politically incorrect europe" looks to be going viral, as it reached my email as well. It is edited quite well and is dramatic. Here is a youtube upload.

Just wanted to let you know that the channel that video is on has staged 'pranks'. ie his homeless giving money video has fake written all over it. This website explains why. This means that the video in op probably has actors, to act out the rushing 'heroic' people for example. There are many fakesters on youtube today unfortunately. Here is a real (great) prankster on youtube. You can clearly see the difference in reactions on people.

If true and correlative, it can be evidence, but can also be evidence for: From wiki: "A dirty bomb or radiological dispersal device (RDD) is a speculative radiological weapon that combines radioactive material with conventional explosives. The purpose of the weapon is to contaminate the area around the dispersal agent/conventional explosion with radioactive material, serving primarily as an area denial device against civilians. It is however not to be confused with a nuclear explosion, such as a fission bomb, which by releasing nuclear energy produces blast effects far in excess of what is achievable by the use of conventional explosives." It would be sort of saying santa claus exists because the presents are under the tree.

It is many many years ago that nano technology was hot and new. But I rarely if ever hear about it now. Is this a sign that it has already been put away from the public so that we can not use it to create excess or become independent? Reminded me of the cancer industry, with its cancer organizations who act as police and strong man for the cancer industry, to keep it as high profit and low effect as possible. (By attacking/ignoring/slandering all cheap treatments)

Not sure what all these words mean, but this has been a part of my thinking for years. I guess that is a consequence of absorbing certain movies, cosmology, and quantum physics. My take however, is not something I have absorbed. I use probability. Considering the vast amount of simulations we are already running here on earth, such as offline games, online games, scientific simulations. I even read that some scientists actually started a simulation of a universe similar to our own. Have not seen any updates on that, but I doubt they would be able to include any significant amount of information. Still it might be a very simplistic simulation of a universe. And if what we call life would develop in a more advanced simulation, (imo it will eventually), then we have proof right there that we should at least give this theory respect. The creator perspective is probably irrelevant. For example, maybe our universe is a persistent and dynamic playground created as a service for other beings to play around in. Or perhaps a simulation to study the formation of galaxies and stars. What we do or think regarding any creator will then be meaningless, just as it appears to have been for a long time. My thought is that if there is only one real universe, then the probability of us being part of a simulation is near 100%. Sure we could be really narcissistic and act like we are in the real mother universe, but we know where that kind of thinking had us trapped scientifically in the past.

There are interesting perspectives from both, or neutral camps in this thread. I am interested in what you mean. Could you elaborate? Is a chair and a bus one and the same? No. Do you think it would be ok with everyone if I compared people critical of governments with scientologists or jehovah's witnesses?

Continually express that those who get high grades should be forced to help out those with low grades, until everyone gets roughly the same grades. At school lunch, protest against the inequalities among the students, and proclaim that the only solution is if everyone pay their fair share according to what they have, and everyone is served the same food. Also if you have the balls, when in those large classrooms, with people sitting in the front and way back, sometimes say that it does not matter who came into this room at what time, and it is only fair that everyone should have the opportunity to sit in front during a lecture, so we should all change seats at intervals, so that we have equal amounts of front time with the professor. Promote socialism at the university whenever possible. You will have fun with peoples reactions, and you will make them think. Win win.

Just like with all other things, including technology, that have the possibility of creating excess, it will eventually be artificially constrained or limited. The title question is valid theoretically, but not your post imo. Nanotechnology will probably fall under yet another constrained technology. There are 2 reasons I can think of now why this happens. Business people/capitalists wanting to make money. And governments keeping power and independence away from people. Think about why the computer industry seems to be moving towards centralized storage in "clouds". This is not good for the consumer in the long run, it will severely hamper peoples power with computers, and is a blatant attempt to limit this technology for the people, (and save money on parts), especially considering that they are mostly offering this service for free. And then when localized storage is old school because most people blindly accept centralized storage, the charge will be introduced, like the monthly charge we have on internet now. Not only that, but our freedom with our files will be severely decreased. And privacy. Don't fall up into the cloud! -Proudly cloud free since born.

What was your intention when posting that video? It is a nice video with some nice music, but what do you suggest that we can get out of it? You usually have a lot of interesting and thought provoking posts, that this board would miss without, and this could very well be one of them, but to me it looks like a 'in your face' post that plays on the perceived credibility of NASA, and the mainstream theory that there is fusion going on inside the sun. When I see that someone posted in this thread, I am hoping that it is something that will push the needle towards one of the camps regarding whether nuclear bombs are real or not. I could have posted videos of dynamite exploding in light and loose soil, which will make a mushroom cloud, also with nice music, but that would not do anything else than provoke the other camp, because I respect others to already have this established. I could also have grabbed that video you linked to, and posted it under a new name like "Electric Sun Art", just because I know there are alternative theories about how the sun might work. (perhaps it is a combination) I admit I do not want nuclear bombs to be real, but if they are real then I am just fooling myself. That is why I wish this thread to be productive, not provocative, even if I am unable to follow that guideline myself. (really great contributions from other people)

I just had this thought: Helping friends is selfish because real friends will help each other with something each need help with. So by helping a real friend you are helping yourself in the future. Leeching off of another person should not be considered a real friendship for example. Reminds me of the long multi year friendship I had with a cat. One day a giant dog that no one had ever seen before appeared, and was starring down my cat. I put myself between the dog and the cat. I was not afraid because I knew dogs are bred to not hurt anyone. But I was unsure what to do in the moment, should have just walked up to him and grabbed his collar, but my cat friend sensed that my life could be in danger, so even if she was old and weak and cowardly towards threats to herself, she went full on crazy on the dog. Jumped on it just like those raptors in dinosaur movies. She would not stop even when she had caused the dog to flee a distance. I hastily caught up to the situation and grabbed his collar to tie him up and call a missing dog service. My cat seemed to have completely exhausted herself, but was ok after a while. If the giant dog had been something else threatening my life, then my cat friendship could have saved my life, seeing that she was willing to sacrifice herself for me.

Some years ago I found out that people with dementia or alzheimer could probably be 'helped' with coconut oil. And from there I learned that various fats are good for the brain in particular. Coconut oil is also good at fighting viral infections, among its several proclaimed effects. My mother knows a lady who has refused to eat butter for a long time because she is scared that she will put on weight. She is not known to remember much, not even important plans made the day before. In my local stores there is a real butter product that has been mixed with some fermentation, such as with cheese, and it is InsAnely delicious. (I see that it is called fermented butter, or cultured butter) Edit: Forgot to add that what you have been told about cholesterol is BS. Dr Joel Wallach can tell you more about that. He is just awesome. South Park had an episode that suggested the food pyramid was upside down, which obviously means there is something to this. For more details on the assertions regarding good fats, I found this now with a quick search: "While there are no approved treatments for dementia or Alzheimer’s disease, there is something you can do! Dr. Perlmutter knows this first hand. He has put many patients on a gluten-free, low-carb and low-sugar diets with remarkable results. When you were little you were probably told that fish was brain food. This healthy fat is definitely good for your brain. And so are some saturated fats! Yes, avocados, coconut oil, grass-fed beef, wild fish, butter, and cheese are good foods for the brain, too. Dr. Permutter reminds us that we need saturated fats and that we’ve been eating saturated fats for years. Even human breast milk is 50% saturated fat! And the brain is comprised of 60% fat. Doctors and scientists have now confirmed that you can rebuild your brain, simply by eating these healthy fats. Saturated fats found in butter, beef, and cheese have been made out to be the enemy for about 30 years. And back when people were told to consume 6-11 servings of carbs per day, they were also advised to ingest fat very sparingly." Source. (Note: An unwanted link was added to my clipboard when I pasted from that site)

In my teens I was told that in democracies, if there is something important for the country that needs to be decided, there will be a direct democracy, in that everyone in a country has the opportunity to vote. Such as if they want to join the European Union. Not seen anything like that yet for this situation. For control freaks who want to control the world, it makes sense to make Europe a hell hole, so that we are fighting against each other instead of them. The current prime minister of Norway (leader of the winning party), and also the finance minister (leader of the coalition party) has been at the bilderberg meeting (an annual private conference of 120 to 150 people of the European and North American political elite, experts from industry, finance, academia, and the media). Roughly the same bilderberg attendance would be the case for most other state heads in European countries. Such as Sweden. George Soros was mentioned in OP, which is a regular at bilderberg.

When Osama Bin Laden was blamed for 9/11, there was and still is no evidence to support this theory. Yet I imagine more than 99 percent of the world believed it when they were told, including me. Neither believe nor doubt, but verify, sure is like a hammer for a nail when it comes to truth. It's just that it is not used nearly at all in todays society, except for communities like this. If it is told by a perceived authority, then most people will believe. I tried to make people in my country embrace the verification method, using various techniques about half a decade. Some people who believe will feel the need to put down or attack the one who is calling their belief into question, which might be why so few are advocating this method, because they are afraid of being ostracized from their often strong believing environments. However, even though I was called many names, it seems that my country has embraced this method somewhat more now, so I like to think that I had some effect.

It is very easy to know what Obama and Kerry really mean when they are talking. Just take what they say, and turn it into the complete opposite. Perhaps you think I am joking, but I am dead serious. That is why when the turd bag Kerry says they are going to find a peaceful diplomatic solution, he really means escalate everything further towards conflict.

Burpees usually without pushups. And pushups on their own. 5-8 reps, several (5-8) times a day when I am waiting for something, or I just feel like it. Kinda lazy, but I don't believe in the 'get everything done in one workout' mentality. Much better to disperse it throughout the day, at least for me. I tried to stay with just pushups during years, but it always felt like I was stressing my body too much and missing something. Started very lightly with burpees around 18 months ago, more around 12 months ago and 6 months ago, and the effect is great. If I had not vitamized and mineralized myself many years ago, I would probably not even have started working out though. Vitamins and minerals, and good fats and oils are the first key to health, which people in white coats will not help you with. Sooooooo happy that I have always been open to new information.

Yes I figured it was a weak example, but then I remembered that Egypt is supposed to be very cold during the night, so I went with it. Not sure what you mean, but I am somewhat sure it is some kind of ad-hoc. I do not reside in the states, so if you would categorize me as a liberal, then please tell me how, and what consequences that can have for my judgement. (Because I am not too familiar with it.) The appendix has already been assigned a function, which would be to restore good bacteria in the guts after diarrhea. Have no idea if its true or not. Do you have any other examples than freckles and tail end spinal remnants to support your assumption that evolution just ignores anything that does not pose a significant foreseeable problem? I would say that the evolutionary process with mutations and whatnot is still largely not understood when it comes down to what is actually going on with the genes. Your statement makes logical sense from what we 'know', but maybe there are hierarchies or systems in genes that we have not identified yet. I don't really agree with this assertion. Do you have any examples of one change in an organism that completely 'crash'/kill it? Though, you could very well be right, since x amount of life does not survive beyond fertilization. Yes, because I don't regard evolution as a mistake conserving process. The fact that we have homosexuals means that the evolution process accepts it. There are several factors/benefits of being a homosexual that supports this. The most obvious one is that homosexuals can and do have children. After thinking about this now, I believe we should get out of the mentality that it is somehow a mistake by nature. I admit up until recently this was my view as well, but these threads here on freedomainradio has really caused me to alter my thinking on this. I wholeheartedly disagree with your statement that something/homosexuality is not taken into account by evolution. From what we have figured evolution to be, absolutely everything is taken into account / on its radar. I have several thoughts on culture/environment, but don't want to get into it here, or yet, as it will likely just clutter the conversation. I still stand on homosexuality being natural in accordance with the process of evolution.

I was going to drop the bomb that animals are gay too, but regevdl did already. Why did humans lose most of their body hair? The world can be a really cold place, so why would the evolution of humans result in everyone losing most of their hair? This happened naturally. And I would imagine that it is very hard to find really hairy people. This is important, because it means that in an evolutionary perspective, losing most hair was more important than making everyone heterosexual. This means that evolution still place some value in homosexuality in humans. No matter the cause, evolution would find a way to stop homosexuality if it really wanted to. Like it did when it removed gills and scales and whatnot for humans to become what they are today. The degree to which evolution holds on to homosexuality can perhaps be tested by comparing how many people are born sterile, and how many are born homosexual. If say 50 times more people are born homosexual than sterile, then I would say that evolution is clearly holding on to it, and is not going to remove the occurrence of homosexuals any time soon. (not saying this test is possible) My conclusion is that being born homosexual is as natural as being born without lots of body hair. If someone finds a clear environmental cause, then I stand corrected.

Are you ready to universalize this statement to the entire global free market?

It might have something to do with formaldehyde, mercury (in thimerosal), aluminum phosphate, aluminum hydroxide, other aluminum, ammonium sulfate, sodium chloride, and many other compounds, being injected into infants and children regularly, or in the case of USA, more often. Even adults are known to agree to and pay to get this injected into themselves.

Might explain why even my non US country was force fed a national television news piece called "What did Back to the future predict correctly?" ʇolᴉd uǝɯunƃ ǝuol

Russia ostracized the corrupt and controlled US a-hole government, which is aWeSoMe! Most people in the truth movement has known that Russia is generally on the good side. And this proves it! I love that Russia is finally taking on the biggest mafia in the world that US government is controlled by (and many other govs.). I cannot imagine what insane challenge that will be. We can really thank Russia for hopefully not going towards a world government without human freedom/rights. If someone still doubts that the controlled US government created and is using ISIS as their tool, you can listen to Obomba himself admitting it.

Reminds me of a relative who well into her adulthood falsely charged her very kind father, (who never harmed anyone or anything), on incest, for economic gain. She must have forgotten about the alleged incest after she had children, before the lawsuit, because she had repeatedly left her children in the care of this very same person. She won. And some years later, after other people in the family had shunned her, and she had moved far away by her own volition, she became a devout christian, and also managed to get her son on board.

I never had a conclusion regarding this incident. Sorry if I led you to believe I had.