Discussion:
The realisation that your country has been brainwashed
Add Reply
Keema's Nan
2020-03-20 11:19:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I have been trying to tell myself that with only 144 deaths out of a
population of 70 million, the UK is not yet suffering from a runaway
epidemic.

However, if I mention this to any friends they look at me as if I have
committed treason and are about to call the cops. It would seem that the only
information they are going to trust is that pumped out by the BBC on a minute
by minute basis. As I do not watch BBC News I can’t tell what over-hyped
nonsense they have been saying.

What saddens me is realising now, that the years and years of fear instilled
into the population (over climate change, floods, droughts, suicide bombers,
and any other catastrophes) have worked for the establishment, and now the
majority are just shrivelling wrecks waiting for imminent Armageddon with as
many weeks groceries supplies as they can muster.

Well done security services. You have won - now total control by fear has
been achieved.
Svenne
2020-03-20 12:41:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
I have been trying to tell myself that with only 144 deaths out of a
population of 70 million, the UK is not yet suffering from a runaway
epidemic.
However, if I mention this to any friends they look at me as if I have
committed treason and are about to call the cops. It would seem that the
only information they are going to trust is that pumped out by the BBC
on a minute by minute basis. As I do not watch BBC News I can’t tell
what over-hyped nonsense they have been saying.
What saddens me is realising now, that the years and years of fear
instilled into the population (over climate change, floods, droughts,
suicide bombers, and any other catastrophes) have worked for the
establishment, and now the majority are just shrivelling wrecks waiting
for imminent Armageddon with as many weeks groceries supplies as they
can muster.
Like global warming deniers and other conspiracy theory idiots who
understand nothing about science or mathematics you completely fail to
grasp the basics. The science behind epidemics is the same as that behind
chain reactions that cause atomic bombs to explode and faulty nuclear
power stations to melt down. 1 infects 2, 2 infect 4, 4 infect 8, 8
infect 16, 16 infect 32, 32 infect 64, 64 infect 128 and so on. In 7
iterations the number has gone from 1 to 128. The next iteration will go
from 128 to 256 and so on, accelerating towards infinity. The idea behind
the measures being taken against Coronavirus is to dampen this
exponential growth rather as carbon rods lowered into reactors dampen the
chain reaction and prevent meltdown. You really should stop getting your
information from crazy.joes.conspiracy.theory.blog.com.
Keema's Nan
2020-03-20 12:56:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Svenne
Post by Keema's Nan
I have been trying to tell myself that with only 144 deaths out of a
population of 70 million, the UK is not yet suffering from a runaway
epidemic.
However, if I mention this to any friends they look at me as if I have
committed treason and are about to call the cops. It would seem that the
only information they are going to trust is that pumped out by the BBC
on a minute by minute basis. As I do not watch BBC News I can’t tell
what over-hyped nonsense they have been saying.
What saddens me is realising now, that the years and years of fear
instilled into the population (over climate change, floods, droughts,
suicide bombers, and any other catastrophes) have worked for the
establishment, and now the majority are just shrivelling wrecks waiting
for imminent Armageddon with as many weeks groceries supplies as they
can muster.
Like global warming deniers and other conspiracy theory idiots who
understand nothing about science or mathematics you completely fail to
grasp the basics.
Ok. That seems a bit harsh, but no doubt you are desperate to give me a
patronising lecture - so join the usenet queue
Post by Svenne
The science behind epidemics is the same as that behind
chain reactions that cause atomic bombs to explode and faulty nuclear
power stations to melt down. 1 infects 2, 2 infect 4, 4 infect 8, 8
infect 16, 16 infect 32, 32 infect 64, 64 infect 128 and so on. In 7
iterations the number has gone from 1 to 128. The next iteration will go
from 128 to 256 and so on, accelerating towards infinity. The idea behind
the measures being taken against Coronavirus is to dampen this
exponential growth rather as carbon rods lowered into reactors dampen the
chain reaction and prevent meltdown. You really should stop getting your
information from crazy.joes.conspiracy.theory.blog.com.
Is that it?

If you hadn’t managed to squeeze in the vital word from the debunk rule
book - i.e. ‘conspiracy’ I might have believed some of your post, which
has now been consigned to the junk pile.
Svenne
2020-03-20 16:42:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Svenne
Post by Keema's Nan
I have been trying to tell myself that with only 144 deaths out of a
population of 70 million, the UK is not yet suffering from a runaway
epidemic.
However, if I mention this to any friends they look at me as if I
have committed treason and are about to call the cops. It would seem
that the only information they are going to trust is that pumped out
by the BBC on a minute by minute basis. As I do not watch BBC News I
can’t tell what over-hyped nonsense they have been saying.
What saddens me is realising now, that the years and years of fear
instilled into the population (over climate change, floods, droughts,
suicide bombers, and any other catastrophes) have worked for the
establishment, and now the majority are just shrivelling wrecks
waiting for imminent Armageddon with as many weeks groceries supplies
as they can muster.
Like global warming deniers and other conspiracy theory idiots who
understand nothing about science or mathematics you completely fail to
grasp the basics.
Ok. That seems a bit harsh, but no doubt you are desperate to give me a
patronising lecture - so join the usenet queue
Are you so eccentric people queuing up to correct you?
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Svenne
The science behind epidemics is the same as that behind chain reactions
that cause atomic bombs to explode and faulty nuclear power stations to
melt down. 1 infects 2, 2 infect 4, 4 infect 8, 8 infect 16, 16 infect
32, 32 infect 64, 64 infect 128 and so on. In 7 iterations the number
has gone from 1 to 128. The next iteration will go from 128 to 256 and
so on, accelerating towards infinity. The idea behind the measures
being taken against Coronavirus is to dampen this exponential growth
rather as carbon rods lowered into reactors dampen the chain reaction
and prevent meltdown. You really should stop getting your information
from crazy.joes.conspiracy.theory.blog.com.
Is that it?
More or less.
Post by Keema's Nan
If you hadn’t managed to squeeze in the vital word from the debunk rule
book - i.e. ‘conspiracy’ I might have believed some of your post, which
has now been consigned to the junk pile.
If by "consigned to the junk pile" you mean you've filed it inside your
head then there's at least something in there that makes sense.

And try not to believe anything, it's a bad habit that can lead you
astray.
Keema's Nan
2020-03-20 17:26:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Svenne
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Svenne
Post by Keema's Nan
I have been trying to tell myself that with only 144 deaths out of a
population of 70 million, the UK is not yet suffering from a runaway
epidemic.
However, if I mention this to any friends they look at me as if I
have committed treason and are about to call the cops. It would seem
that the only information they are going to trust is that pumped out
by the BBC on a minute by minute basis. As I do not watch BBC News I
can’t tell what over-hyped nonsense they have been saying.
What saddens me is realising now, that the years and years of fear
instilled into the population (over climate change, floods, droughts,
suicide bombers, and any other catastrophes) have worked for the
establishment, and now the majority are just shrivelling wrecks
waiting for imminent Armageddon with as many weeks groceries supplies
as they can muster.
Like global warming deniers and other conspiracy theory idiots who
understand nothing about science or mathematics you completely fail to
grasp the basics.
Ok. That seems a bit harsh, but no doubt you are desperate to give me a
patronising lecture - so join the usenet queue
Are you so eccentric people queuing up to correct you?
I’m afraid so. They like to show me their superior knowledge.
Post by Svenne
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Svenne
The science behind epidemics is the same as that behind chain reactions
that cause atomic bombs to explode and faulty nuclear power stations to
melt down. 1 infects 2, 2 infect 4, 4 infect 8, 8 infect 16, 16 infect
32, 32 infect 64, 64 infect 128 and so on. In 7 iterations the number
has gone from 1 to 128. The next iteration will go from 128 to 256 and
so on, accelerating towards infinity. The idea behind the measures
being taken against Coronavirus is to dampen this exponential growth
rather as carbon rods lowered into reactors dampen the chain reaction
and prevent meltdown. You really should stop getting your information
from crazy.joes.conspiracy.theory.blog.com.
Is that it?
More or less.
Post by Keema's Nan
If you hadn’t managed to squeeze in the vital word from the debunk rule
book - i.e. ‘conspiracy’ I might have believed some of your post, which
has now been consigned to the junk pile.
If by "consigned to the junk pile" you mean you've filed it inside your
head
No. It means what it implies - I have ignored it.
Post by Svenne
then there's at least something in there that makes sense.
And try not to believe anything, it's a bad habit that can lead you
astray.
I’m waiting for the exponential rise in new virus cases, which is the sign
of an epidemic.

I will ignore the media induced hysteria until that begins to happen.
Svenne
2020-03-20 18:19:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Svenne
On 20 Mar 2020, Svenne wrote (in
Post by Svenne
Post by Keema's Nan
I have been trying to tell myself that with only 144 deaths out
of a population of 70 million, the UK is not yet suffering from a
runaway epidemic.
However, if I mention this to any friends they look at me as if I
have committed treason and are about to call the cops. It would
seem that the only information they are going to trust is that
pumped out by the BBC on a minute by minute basis. As I do not
watch BBC News I can’t tell what over-hyped nonsense they have
been saying.
What saddens me is realising now, that the years and years of
fear instilled into the population (over climate change, floods,
droughts,
suicide bombers, and any other catastrophes) have worked for the
establishment, and now the majority are just shrivelling wrecks
waiting for imminent Armageddon with as many weeks groceries
supplies as they can muster.
Like global warming deniers and other conspiracy theory idiots who
understand nothing about science or mathematics you completely fail
to grasp the basics.
Ok. That seems a bit harsh, but no doubt you are desperate to give me
a patronising lecture - so join the usenet queue
Are you so eccentric people queuing up to correct you?
I’m afraid so. They like to show me their superior knowledge.
Bloody hell, if everyone who is your intellectual superior tried to show
their superiority online the entire internet would buckle under the sheer
weight of numbers.
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Svenne
Post by Svenne
The science behind epidemics is the same as that behind chain
reactions that cause atomic bombs to explode and faulty nuclear
power stations to melt down. 1 infects 2, 2 infect 4, 4 infect 8, 8
infect 16, 16 infect 32, 32 infect 64, 64 infect 128 and so on. In
7 iterations the number has gone from 1 to 128. The next iteration
will go from 128 to 256 and so on, accelerating towards infinity.
The idea behind the measures being taken against Coronavirus is to
dampen this exponential growth rather as carbon rods lowered into
reactors dampen the chain reaction and prevent meltdown. You really
should stop getting your information from
crazy.joes.conspiracy.theory.blog.com.
Is that it?
More or less.
If you hadn’t managed to squeeze in the vital word from the debunk
rule book - i.e. ‘conspiracy’ I might have believed some of your
post, which has now been consigned to the junk pile.
If by "consigned to the junk pile" you mean you've filed it inside your
head
No. It means what it implies - I have ignored it.
That is why you are, and will remain, stupid.
Post by Keema's Nan
I’m waiting for the exponential rise in new virus cases, which is the
sign of an epidemic.
I will ignore the media induced hysteria until that begins to happen.
If the measures work the exponential rise in cases will be drastically
reduced or may not even happen and then you, in your ignorance, will be
able to say the fact that the measures worked proved they didn't work.
KKKernal Corn
2020-03-20 18:28:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Svenne
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Svenne
Post by Keema's Nan
I have been trying to tell myself that with only 144 deaths out of a
population of 70 million, the UK is not yet suffering from a runaway
epidemic.
However, if I mention this to any friends they look at me as if I
have committed treason and are about to call the cops. It would seem
that the only information they are going to trust is that pumped out
by the BBC on a minute by minute basis. As I do not watch BBC News I
can’t tell what over-hyped nonsense they have been saying.
What saddens me is realising now, that the years and years of fear
instilled into the population (over climate change, floods, droughts,
suicide bombers, and any other catastrophes) have worked for the
establishment, and now the majority are just shrivelling wrecks
waiting for imminent Armageddon with as many weeks groceries supplies
as they can muster.
Like global warming deniers and other conspiracy theory idiots who
understand nothing about science or mathematics you completely fail to
grasp the basics.
Ok. That seems a bit harsh, but no doubt you are desperate to give me a
patronising lecture - so join the usenet queue
Are you so eccentric people queuing up to correct you?
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Svenne
The science behind epidemics is the same as that behind chain reactions
that cause atomic bombs to explode and faulty nuclear power stations to
melt down. 1 infects 2, 2 infect 4, 4 infect 8, 8 infect 16, 16 infect
32, 32 infect 64, 64 infect 128 and so on. In 7 iterations the number
has gone from 1 to 128. The next iteration will go from 128 to 256 and
so on, accelerating towards infinity. The idea behind the measures
being taken against Coronavirus is to dampen this exponential growth
rather as carbon rods lowered into reactors dampen the chain reaction
and prevent meltdown. You really should stop getting your information
from crazy.joes.conspiracy.theory.blog.com.
Is that it?
More or less.
Post by Keema's Nan
If you hadn’t managed to squeeze in the vital word from the debunk rule
book - i.e. ‘conspiracy’ I might have believed some of your post, which
has now been consigned to the junk pile.
If by "consigned to the junk pile" you mean you've filed it inside your
head then there's at least something in there that makes sense.
And try not to believe anything, it's a bad habit that can lead you
astray.
Have another voddkkaa!
abelard
2020-03-20 13:24:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Svenne
Post by Keema's Nan
I have been trying to tell myself that with only 144 deaths out of a
population of 70 million, the UK is not yet suffering from a runaway
epidemic.
However, if I mention this to any friends they look at me as if I have
committed treason and are about to call the cops. It would seem that the
only information they are going to trust is that pumped out by the BBC
on a minute by minute basis. As I do not watch BBC News I can’t tell
what over-hyped nonsense they have been saying.
What saddens me is realising now, that the years and years of fear
instilled into the population (over climate change, floods, droughts,
suicide bombers, and any other catastrophes) have worked for the
establishment, and now the majority are just shrivelling wrecks waiting
for imminent Armageddon with as many weeks groceries supplies as they
can muster.
Like global warming deniers and other conspiracy theory idiots who
understand nothing about science or mathematics you completely fail to
grasp the basics. The science behind epidemics is the same as that behind
chain reactions that cause atomic bombs to explode and faulty nuclear
power stations to melt down. 1 infects 2, 2 infect 4, 4 infect 8, 8
infect 16, 16 infect 32, 32 infect 64, 64 infect 128 and so on. In 7
iterations the number has gone from 1 to 128. The next iteration will go
from 128 to 256 and so on, accelerating towards infinity. The idea behind
the measures being taken against Coronavirus is to dampen this
exponential growth rather as carbon rods lowered into reactors dampen the
chain reaction and prevent meltdown. You really should stop getting your
information from crazy.joes.conspiracy.theory.blog.com.
there is also a reverse process as the infected units run
out of people to infect(or atoms to split)

there is no such thing as 'infinity'
--
www.abelard.org
Farmer Giles
2020-03-20 13:55:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by Svenne
Post by Keema's Nan
I have been trying to tell myself that with only 144 deaths out of a
population of 70 million, the UK is not yet suffering from a runaway
epidemic.
However, if I mention this to any friends they look at me as if I have
committed treason and are about to call the cops. It would seem that the
only information they are going to trust is that pumped out by the BBC
on a minute by minute basis. As I do not watch BBC News I can’t tell
what over-hyped nonsense they have been saying.
What saddens me is realising now, that the years and years of fear
instilled into the population (over climate change, floods, droughts,
suicide bombers, and any other catastrophes) have worked for the
establishment, and now the majority are just shrivelling wrecks waiting
for imminent Armageddon with as many weeks groceries supplies as they
can muster.
Like global warming deniers and other conspiracy theory idiots who
understand nothing about science or mathematics you completely fail to
grasp the basics. The science behind epidemics is the same as that behind
chain reactions that cause atomic bombs to explode and faulty nuclear
power stations to melt down. 1 infects 2, 2 infect 4, 4 infect 8, 8
infect 16, 16 infect 32, 32 infect 64, 64 infect 128 and so on. In 7
iterations the number has gone from 1 to 128. The next iteration will go
from 128 to 256 and so on, accelerating towards infinity. The idea behind
the measures being taken against Coronavirus is to dampen this
exponential growth rather as carbon rods lowered into reactors dampen the
chain reaction and prevent meltdown. You really should stop getting your
information from crazy.joes.conspiracy.theory.blog.com.
there is also a reverse process as the infected units run
out of people to infect(or atoms to split)
there is no such thing as 'infinity'
And that, ladies and gentleman, was a 'science' pronouncement brought to
you by the Babbelardian Bullshit Corporation. Next week our glorious
leader will lecture on solving quadratic equations and verb conjugation
- if he's allowed out.
Keema's Nan
2020-03-20 14:01:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by abelard
Post by Svenne
Post by Keema's Nan
I have been trying to tell myself that with only 144 deaths out of a
population of 70 million, the UK is not yet suffering from a runaway
epidemic.
However, if I mention this to any friends they look at me as if I have
committed treason and are about to call the cops. It would seem that the
only information they are going to trust is that pumped out by the BBC
on a minute by minute basis. As I do not watch BBC News I can’t tell
what over-hyped nonsense they have been saying.
What saddens me is realising now, that the years and years of fear
instilled into the population (over climate change, floods, droughts,
suicide bombers, and any other catastrophes) have worked for the
establishment, and now the majority are just shrivelling wrecks waiting
for imminent Armageddon with as many weeks groceries supplies as they
can muster.
Like global warming deniers and other conspiracy theory idiots who
understand nothing about science or mathematics you completely fail to
grasp the basics. The science behind epidemics is the same as that behind
chain reactions that cause atomic bombs to explode and faulty nuclear
power stations to melt down. 1 infects 2, 2 infect 4, 4 infect 8, 8
infect 16, 16 infect 32, 32 infect 64, 64 infect 128 and so on. In 7
iterations the number has gone from 1 to 128. The next iteration will go
from 128 to 256 and so on, accelerating towards infinity. The idea behind
the measures being taken against Coronavirus is to dampen this
exponential growth rather as carbon rods lowered into reactors dampen the
chain reaction and prevent meltdown. You really should stop getting your
information from crazy.joes.conspiracy.theory.blog.com.
there is also a reverse process as the infected units run
out of people to infect(or atoms to split)
there is no such thing as 'infinity'
And that, ladies and gentleman, was a 'science' pronouncement brought to
you by the Babbelardian Bullshit Corporation. Next week our glorious
leader will lecture on solving quadratic equations
Oh no. Not that again.
Post by Farmer Giles
and verb conjugation
- if he's allowed out.
Maybe just the three times table to start with.

Do they have tables in Golders Green?

Un trois et trois, Deux trois et six.......
abelard
2020-03-20 14:06:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 14:01:16 +0000, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by abelard
Post by Svenne
Post by Keema's Nan
I have been trying to tell myself that with only 144 deaths out of a
population of 70 million, the UK is not yet suffering from a runaway
epidemic.
However, if I mention this to any friends they look at me as if I have
committed treason and are about to call the cops. It would seem that the
only information they are going to trust is that pumped out by the BBC
on a minute by minute basis. As I do not watch BBC News I can’t tell
what over-hyped nonsense they have been saying.
What saddens me is realising now, that the years and years of fear
instilled into the population (over climate change, floods, droughts,
suicide bombers, and any other catastrophes) have worked for the
establishment, and now the majority are just shrivelling wrecks waiting
for imminent Armageddon with as many weeks groceries supplies as they
can muster.
Like global warming deniers and other conspiracy theory idiots who
understand nothing about science or mathematics you completely fail to
grasp the basics. The science behind epidemics is the same as that behind
chain reactions that cause atomic bombs to explode and faulty nuclear
power stations to melt down. 1 infects 2, 2 infect 4, 4 infect 8, 8
infect 16, 16 infect 32, 32 infect 64, 64 infect 128 and so on. In 7
iterations the number has gone from 1 to 128. The next iteration will go
from 128 to 256 and so on, accelerating towards infinity. The idea behind
the measures being taken against Coronavirus is to dampen this
exponential growth rather as carbon rods lowered into reactors dampen the
chain reaction and prevent meltdown. You really should stop getting your
information from crazy.joes.conspiracy.theory.blog.com.
there is also a reverse process as the infected units run
out of people to infect(or atoms to split)
there is no such thing as 'infinity'
And that, ladies and gentleman, was a 'science' pronouncement brought to
you by the Babbelardian Bullshit Corporation. Next week our glorious
leader will lecture on solving quadratic equations
Oh no. Not that again.
Post by Farmer Giles
and verb conjugation
- if he's allowed out.
Maybe just the three times table to start with.
Do they have tables in Golders Green?
they tried swedehead to clean them, but he couldn't hack it
Post by Keema's Nan
Un trois et trois, Deux trois et six.......
--
www.abelard.org
Farmer Giles
2020-03-20 14:09:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by abelard
Post by Svenne
Post by Keema's Nan
I have been trying to tell myself that with only 144 deaths out of a
population of 70 million, the UK is not yet suffering from a runaway
epidemic.
However, if I mention this to any friends they look at me as if I have
committed treason and are about to call the cops. It would seem that the
only information they are going to trust is that pumped out by the BBC
on a minute by minute basis. As I do not watch BBC News I can’t tell
what over-hyped nonsense they have been saying.
What saddens me is realising now, that the years and years of fear
instilled into the population (over climate change, floods, droughts,
suicide bombers, and any other catastrophes) have worked for the
establishment, and now the majority are just shrivelling wrecks waiting
for imminent Armageddon with as many weeks groceries supplies as they
can muster.
Like global warming deniers and other conspiracy theory idiots who
understand nothing about science or mathematics you completely fail to
grasp the basics. The science behind epidemics is the same as that behind
chain reactions that cause atomic bombs to explode and faulty nuclear
power stations to melt down. 1 infects 2, 2 infect 4, 4 infect 8, 8
infect 16, 16 infect 32, 32 infect 64, 64 infect 128 and so on. In 7
iterations the number has gone from 1 to 128. The next iteration will go
from 128 to 256 and so on, accelerating towards infinity. The idea behind
the measures being taken against Coronavirus is to dampen this
exponential growth rather as carbon rods lowered into reactors dampen the
chain reaction and prevent meltdown. You really should stop getting your
information from crazy.joes.conspiracy.theory.blog.com.
there is also a reverse process as the infected units run
out of people to infect(or atoms to split)
there is no such thing as 'infinity'
And that, ladies and gentleman, was a 'science' pronouncement brought to
you by the Babbelardian Bullshit Corporation. Next week our glorious
leader will lecture on solving quadratic equations
Oh no. Not that again.
Post by Farmer Giles
and verb conjugation
- if he's allowed out.
Maybe just the three times table to start with.
'Three'? Do you think he's that advanced?
Post by Keema's Nan
Do they have tables in Golders Green?
Only kosher ones.
Andy Walker
2020-03-20 14:48:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
there is no such thing as 'infinity'
Why would anyone expect an abstract concept to be a "thing"?
There's "no such thing" as 3, but it's still very useful, and helpful
to understanding. The only problem with "infinity" is that innumerate
people insist on abusing it.
--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
abelard
2020-03-20 14:52:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Walker
Post by abelard
there is no such thing as 'infinity'
Why would anyone expect an abstract concept to be a "thing"?
There's "no such thing" as 3, but it's still very useful, and helpful
to understanding. The only problem with "infinity" is that innumerate
people insist on abusing it.
i am not responsible for some people!!

i have 3 hands....an infinity of hands don't exist in the
real world...my three hands most certainly exist...
allegedly!

abstractions are things...they exist in heads, muddled
or otherwise...
--
www.abelard.org
Andy Walker
2020-03-20 18:45:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by Andy Walker
Post by abelard
there is no such thing as 'infinity'
Why would anyone expect an abstract concept to be a "thing"?
[...]
Post by abelard
i have 3 hands....an infinity of hands don't exist in the
real world...my three hands most certainly exist...
allegedly!
That's not interestingly different from green ideas, or even
blue spotted unicorns, not existing in the real world. That doesn't
stop green or blue spots existing. There are many realisations of
infinity; it's just that hands aren't one of them.
Post by abelard
abstractions are things...they exist in heads, muddled
or otherwise...
In that sense, infinity most certainly exists, both in my
head [and I expect in many others] and in writing. That, in and of
itself, says nothing about the existence of any realisation of the
abstraction.
--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
abelard
2020-03-20 19:13:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Walker
Post by abelard
Post by Andy Walker
Post by abelard
there is no such thing as 'infinity'
Why would anyone expect an abstract concept to be a "thing"?
[...]
Post by abelard
i have 3 hands....an infinity of hands don't exist in the
real world...my three hands most certainly exist...
allegedly!
That's not interestingly different from green ideas, or even
blue spotted unicorns, not existing in the real world. That doesn't
stop green or blue spots existing. There are many realisations of
infinity; it's just that hands aren't one of them.
there used to be unicorns before the flood...unfortunately
unicorns were too proud to go into the arc so they
became extinct
Post by Andy Walker
Post by abelard
abstractions are things...they exist in heads, muddled
or otherwise...
In that sense, infinity most certainly exists, both in my
head [and I expect in many others] and in writing.
and different in each one
Post by Andy Walker
That, in and of
itself, says nothing about the existence of any realisation of the
abstraction.
an opinion that looks confused to me

probably because it is about nothing!
--
www.abelard.org
Andy Walker
2020-03-20 23:10:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by Andy Walker
In that sense, infinity most certainly exists, both in my
head [and I expect in many others] and in writing.
and different in each one
Doesn't matter, as long as relevant people agree on what
can be done with it and what the observable effects are.
Post by abelard
Post by Andy Walker
That, in and of
itself, says nothing about the existence of any realisation of the
abstraction.
an opinion that looks confused to me
probably because it is about nothing!
Saying nothing is observably different from saying something
else, and even from saying "nothing".
--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
abelard
2020-03-21 00:10:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Walker
Post by abelard
Post by Andy Walker
In that sense, infinity most certainly exists, both in my
head [and I expect in many others] and in writing.
and different in each one
Doesn't matter, as long as relevant people agree on what
can be done with it and what the observable effects are.
so, post defined
Post by Andy Walker
Post by abelard
Post by Andy Walker
That, in and of
itself, says nothing about the existence of any realisation of the
abstraction.
an opinion that looks confused to me
probably because it is about nothing!
Saying nothing is observably different from saying something
else, and even from saying "nothing".
the idea of 'equality is empirically unsound....still

as all acts are different

your comment therefore appears to me to be a tautology...
and thus contain no useful(to me) information
--
www.abelard.org
Keema's Nan
2020-03-21 08:46:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Walker
Post by abelard
Post by Andy Walker
In that sense, infinity most certainly exists, both in my
head [and I expect in many others] and in writing.
and different in each one
Doesn't matter, as long as relevant people agree on what
can be done with it and what the observable effects are.
Post by abelard
Post by Andy Walker
That, in and of
itself, says nothing about the existence of any realisation of the
abstraction.
an opinion that looks confused to me
probably because it is about nothing!
Saying nothing is observably different from saying something
else, and even from saying "nothing".
Is nothing more easily definable than infinity?

After all, it would appear that even in a vacuum there are neutrinos passing
through, and maybe even dark matter.
Svenne
2020-03-21 09:29:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Is nothing more easily definable than infinity?
After all, it would appear that even in a vacuum there are neutrinos
passing through, and maybe even dark matter.
An interesting observation and quite correct. Vacuum has a lot going on
inside it, not only are neutrinos continually passing through it but also
photons and other sub-atomic particles. Even if vacuum could be shielded
from all the stuff traveling through it vacuum is also very active in
it's own right with virtual particles popping in and out of existence all
the time. Vacuum is a boiling soup of activity. Absolute nothing does not
exist in our universe and is as mythical a creature as infinity.
Joe
2020-03-21 09:49:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 08:46:32 +0000
Post by Keema's Nan
Is nothing more easily definable than infinity?
It's an easier concept to grasp. 'Nothing' exists in various forms in
the real world, aliased to 'zero'. But as we know, it still took a while
for nothing/zero to be considered a 'proper' number. Even now it is
exempt from some mathematical operations, notably use as a divisor.

Probably the simplest concept of 'infinity' is that 'there is always
at least one more bug/integer', but that is something that must be taken
on faith at some point. A child will often believe, without thinking,
that there is a 'biggest number'.
--
Joe
Keema's Nan
2020-03-21 10:59:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 08:46:32 +0000
Post by Keema's Nan
Is nothing more easily definable than infinity?
It's an easier concept to grasp. 'Nothing' exists in various forms in
the real world, aliased to 'zero'. But as we know, it still took a while
for nothing/zero to be considered a 'proper' number. Even now it is
exempt from some mathematical operations, notably use as a divisor.
You mean like dividing infinity by zero?
Post by Joe
Probably the simplest concept of 'infinity' is that 'there is always
at least one more bug/integer', but that is something that must be taken
on faith at some point. A child will often believe, without thinking,
that there is a 'biggest number'.
Joe
2020-03-21 13:32:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 10:59:42 +0000
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Joe
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 08:46:32 +0000
Post by Keema's Nan
Is nothing more easily definable than infinity?
It's an easier concept to grasp. 'Nothing' exists in various forms
in the real world, aliased to 'zero'. But as we know, it still took
a while for nothing/zero to be considered a 'proper' number. Even
now it is exempt from some mathematical operations, notably use as
a divisor.
You mean like dividing infinity by zero?
Dividing anything by zero is not defined. Zero and infinity are
related, in that 1/x as x tends toward zero, tends to increase without
limit i.e. head towards infinity. But there's no actual equality,
the concept of division switches off at x=0.
--
Joe
abelard
2020-03-21 11:12:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 08:46:32 +0000
Post by Keema's Nan
Is nothing more easily definable than infinity?
It's an easier concept to grasp. 'Nothing' exists in various forms in
the real world, aliased to 'zero'.
if there were no space, there'd be nowhere to put yourself...
no-thing and space are not 'the same'

nothing does not 'exist' unless you have somewhere to put it
Post by Joe
But as we know, it still took a while
for nothing/zero to be considered a 'proper' number. Even now it is
exempt from some mathematical operations, notably use as a divisor.
Probably the simplest concept of 'infinity' is that 'there is always
at least one more bug/integer', but that is something that must be taken
on faith at some point. A child will often believe, without thinking,
that there is a 'biggest number'.
--
www.abelard.org
Andy Walker
2020-03-21 12:29:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Is nothing more easily definable than infinity?
At least nothing is better than sex.

"Nothing" is slightly easier than "infinity"; both are quite
easy. As I commented to Abelard, what matters is what operations apply
to each of them and with what results, in both cases with an eye to
relevant people [such as mathematicians, physicists, artists, ...]
agreeing what these are, as an aid to communication. Problems arise
primarily when they are used in an un- or ill-defined way. It takes
time for the problems, and the applications, to become apparent.

It's no use saying, as Abelard does, that "infinity" [eg]
"doesn't exist". That applies to all abstractions, many of which
[inc "three" and "green"] are nevertheless useful. Abelard wants
to put "nothing" in a box [but then it's not "nothing", it's "a
box containing nothing", spot the difference]. It's also no use
saying that you can't have an infinity of money, or hands. That
just means that money and hands are not things that infinity
applies to, unlike numbers [though not finite integers] and lines
[such as the horizon] in a drawing.
Post by Keema's Nan
After all, it would appear that even in a vacuum there are neutrinos
passing through, and maybe even dark matter.
It gets even worse when you apply quantum mechanics to a
vacuum. But that just shows that "nothing" is no longer, if ever
it was, an appropriate description of a vacuum. It remains as a
potential answer to "What do you have in your pocket?" and many
other questions. "Zero" is, of course, even more useful for
maths, tho' it took thousands of years for it [and -1 and i] to
become widely accepted as a "bona fide" number [distinct from
the small subset of numbers used for counting and sharing].
--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
abelard
2020-03-21 12:46:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Walker
Post by Keema's Nan
Is nothing more easily definable than infinity?
At least nothing is better than sex.
"Nothing" is slightly easier than "infinity"; both are quite
easy. As I commented to Abelard, what matters is what operations apply
to each of them and with what results, in both cases with an eye to
relevant people [such as mathematicians, physicists, artists, ...]
agreeing what these are, as an aid to communication. Problems arise
primarily when they are used in an un- or ill-defined way. It takes
time for the problems, and the applications, to become apparent.
It's no use saying, as Abelard does, that "infinity" [eg]
"doesn't exist". That applies to all abstractions, many of which
[inc "three" and "green"] are nevertheless useful.
not accurate at all...but never mind

all 'abstractions' do exist...in the minds of individuals....
often they have no meaning outside the individual minds

humans attribute meanings to them..often meaningless meanings!
Post by Andy Walker
Abelard wants
to put "nothing" in a box
no... i say there is no such thing as nothing to put in a box.....
and that if you wish to refer to nothing it must be relativised
to a box
Post by Andy Walker
[but then it's not "nothing", it's "a
box containing nothing", spot the difference]. It's also no use
saying that you can't have an infinity of money, or hands. That
just means that money and hands are not things that infinity
applies to, unlike numbers [though not finite integers] and lines
[such as the horizon] in a drawing.
again inaccurate
i am saying there is no such thing an infinity...including (no such
thing) as an infinity of numbers
Post by Andy Walker
Post by Keema's Nan
After all, it would appear that even in a vacuum there are neutrinos
passing through, and maybe even dark matter.
It gets even worse when you apply quantum mechanics to a
vacuum. But that just shows that "nothing" is no longer, if ever
it was, an appropriate description of a vacuum.
nothing is not a definition of anything...there is no thing to
be not defined
Post by Andy Walker
It remains as a
potential answer to "What do you have in your pocket?" and many
other questions.
a pocket is a box
Post by Andy Walker
"Zero" is, of course, even more useful for
maths, tho' it took thousands of years for it [and -1 and i] to
become widely accepted as a "bona fide" number [distinct from
the small subset of numbers used for counting and sharing].
zero is used a place holder

or as standing 'still' on a flight of stairs rather than going
up or down
--
www.abelard.org
Andy Walker
2020-03-23 00:20:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
all 'abstractions' do exist...in the minds of individuals....
often they have no meaning outside the individual minds
humans attribute meanings to them..often meaningless meanings!
Yes, but you seem to single out "nothing" and "infinity"
rather than "three" and "green". From the PoV of this discussion,
I see no interesting difference. All of these abstractions have
practical uses.
Post by abelard
Post by Andy Walker
Abelard wants
to put "nothing" in a box
no... i say there is no such thing as nothing to put in a box.....
and that if you wish to refer to nothing it must be relativised
to a box
But there is equally no such thing as "green" to put in
a box; where does this concept of "relativised to a box" come
from, and why is it so important in the case of "nothing" or
"infinity" but not in the case of "green" [or "three" or "anger"
or "run" or ...]?

[...]
Post by abelard
i am saying there is no such thing an infinity...including (no such
thing) as an infinity of numbers
Yet mathematicians use the concept in many ways and in
many contexts. Literally within reach of my keyboard, I can
find instances of "the line at infinity", "circular points at
infinity", "orders of infinity", "sum to infinity", "limit as
x -> infinity", "the infinity of space" and many others [though
not, AFAIK, an "infinity of hands"], as well as related concepts
such as "infinitesimal", "transfinite" and so on, from a variety
of areas in maths and science [let alone theology]. There are
strictly practical applications of "infinity" and "infinitesimal"
as [eg] values of games, that enable me to analyse such games and
determine the best move. So, I ask again, why do you single out
"infinity", but not "three"?
Post by abelard
nothing is not a definition of anything...there is no thing to
be not defined
No-one [sensible and again AFAIK] has suggested "nothing"
as a definition of anything, any more than they have suggested
"three" or "green" as definitions, except [eg] as translations
of words such as "trois", "drei", "vert", .... The more useful
question is whether there exists a concept which can sensibly
be described as "nothing", "green", ... which people broadly
agree on and can be used to advance knowledge or communication.
My dictionary suggests that in all the cases discussed thus far,
the answer is "yes", whereas in cases such as "puther", "kwess"
and "gullible", the absence of an entry suggests that the answer
is "no".
--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
abelard
2020-03-23 13:44:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Walker
Post by abelard
all 'abstractions' do exist...in the minds of individuals....
often they have no meaning outside the individual minds
humans attribute meanings to them..often meaningless meanings!
Yes, but you seem to single out "nothing" and "infinity"
rather than "three" and "green". From the PoV of this discussion,
I see no interesting difference. All of these abstractions have
practical uses.
because in everyday communication they lead to foolish/
false reasoning...
Post by Andy Walker
Post by abelard
Post by Andy Walker
Abelard wants
to put "nothing" in a box
no... i say there is no such thing as nothing to put in a box.....
and that if you wish to refer to nothing it must be relativised
to a box
But there is equally no such thing as "green" to put in
a box;
green is the response of humans to waves/particles
of light from cactus leaves impinging on the eyes
no separating box required

these effects can be empirically tested and experienced by
any(normal) individual....they can be discussed and checked
Post by Andy Walker
where does this concept of "relativised to a box" come
from, and why is it so important in the case of "nothing" or
"infinity" but not in the case of "green" [or "three" or "anger"
or "run" or ...]?
how much work do you want from me!
Post by Andy Walker
Post by abelard
i am saying there is no such thing an infinity...including (no such
thing) as an infinity of numbers
Yet mathematicians use the concept in many ways and in
many contexts. Literally within reach of my keyboard, I can
find instances of "the line at infinity", "circular points at
infinity", "orders of infinity", "sum to infinity", "limit as
x -> infinity", "the infinity of space" and many others [though
not, AFAIK, an "infinity of hands"], as well as related concepts
such as "infinitesimal", "transfinite" and so on, from a variety
of areas in maths and science [let alone theology]. There are
strictly practical applications of "infinity" and "infinitesimal"
as [eg] values of games, that enable me to analyse such games and
determine the best move. So, I ask again, why do you single out
"infinity", but not "three"?
you can use the term unicorn likewise...or with even more
clarity....
you can define unicorn to mean 7 bog rolls or even unavailable
bog rolls...though it does help to make your definitions
clear in advance...or even to bring a box along in advance
and hope
Post by Andy Walker
Post by abelard
nothing is not a definition of anything...there is no thing to
be not defined
No-one [sensible and again AFAIK] has suggested "nothing"
as a definition of anything, any more than they have suggested
"three" or "green" as definitions, except [eg] as translations
of words such as "trois", "drei", "vert", .... The more useful
question is whether there exists a concept which can sensibly
be described as "nothing", "green", ... which people broadly
agree on and can be used to advance knowledge or communication.
My dictionary suggests that in all the cases discussed thus far,
the answer is "yes", whereas in cases such as "puther", "kwess"
and "gullible", the absence of an entry suggests that the answer
is "no".
somebody wrote your dictionary/s...i am not responsible for their
confusions nor their daft proclivities

nothing doesn't 'mean' anything...trying to sneak it in with
respectable words like green is a socialist attempt to give
it substance
--
www.abelard.org
Andy Walker
2020-03-24 13:43:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 23/03/2020 13:44, abelard wrote:
[I wrote:]
Post by abelard
Post by Andy Walker
Yes, but you seem to single out "nothing" and "infinity"
rather than "three" and "green". [...]
because in everyday communication they lead to foolish/
false reasoning...
In "everyday communication" there is no discernible reasoning,
"foolish/false" or otherwise. You seem to be advocating that subject-
specific reasoning should not use technical words because people who
don't understand them will misuse them. From my personal PoV, it is
much easier to use phrases such as "the line at infinity" or "as x
tends to infinity" in discussions with colleagues/students than to
avoid them and produce proofs that are incomprehensible not merely to
the man on the Clapham omnibus but also to mathematicians.

In real life, when someone says "Bill Gates earns infinitely
more than the average person", it's much easier to smile sweetly than
to say, "That's a misuse of infinity, and it's less than 100000000000
times more" and risk a punch on the nose.

[...]
Post by abelard
how much work do you want from me!
Enough for you to understand your mistake, of course.
Post by abelard
Post by Andy Walker
[...] So, I ask again, why do you single out
"infinity", but not "three"?
you can use the term unicorn likewise...
No doubt, but mathematicians have used "infinity" with
well-defined technical meanings and with no confusion for
centuries, whereas "unicorn", however interesting to others,
has no commonly accepted technical meaning in mathematics.
Post by abelard
or with even more
clarity....
So it certainly wouldn't add to the clarity.

[...]
Post by abelard
somebody wrote your dictionary/s...i am not responsible for their
confusions nor their daft proclivities
Nor I. But I nevertheless find them useful in determining
what people may mean when they use words I don't fully understand.
Esp technical terms and obsolete Scottish dialect.
--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
abelard
2020-03-24 14:02:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Walker
[I wrote:]
Post by abelard
Post by Andy Walker
Yes, but you seem to single out "nothing" and "infinity"
rather than "three" and "green". [...]
because in everyday communication they lead to foolish/
false reasoning...
In "everyday communication" there is no discernible reasoning,
"foolish/false" or otherwise. You seem to be advocating that subject-
specific reasoning should not use technical words because people who
don't understand them will misuse them. From my personal PoV, it is
much easier to use phrases such as "the line at infinity" or "as x
tends to infinity" in discussions with colleagues/students than to
avoid them and produce proofs that are incomprehensible not merely to
the man on the Clapham omnibus but also to mathematicians.
In real life, when someone says "Bill Gates earns infinitely
more than the average person", it's much easier to smile sweetly than
to say, "That's a misuse of infinity, and it's less than 100000000000
times more" and risk a punch on the nose.
my prime work is teaching people to communicate and to
sort out their social, learning and psychological problems

in those area your unreal verbiage cause much problems
and misunderstanding

my focus is not on ivory towers or the daily mail where such crude
and disorganised interaction may get by..
Post by Andy Walker
Post by abelard
how much work do you want from me!
Enough for you to understand your mistake, of course.
Post by abelard
Post by Andy Walker
[...] So, I ask again, why do you single out
"infinity", but not "three"?
you can use the term unicorn likewise...
No doubt, but mathematicians have used "infinity" with
well-defined technical meanings and with no confusion for
centuries, whereas "unicorn", however interesting to others,
has no commonly accepted technical meaning in mathematics.
just as chess players have technical 'meanings' such
horse/knight/unicorn...in very narrow and pretty meaningless
contexts
Post by Andy Walker
Post by abelard
or with even more
clarity....
So it certainly wouldn't add to the clarity.
[...]
Post by abelard
somebody wrote your dictionary/s...i am not responsible for their
confusions nor their daft proclivities
Nor I. But I nevertheless find them useful in determining
what people may mean when they use words I don't fully understand.
Esp technical terms and obsolete Scottish dialect.
some people in very limited contexts

i'm all for people playing chess and amusing themselves...but
that is not the 'real world' which most have to navigate
--
www.abelard.org
abelard
2020-03-24 14:23:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Walker
[I wrote:]
Post by abelard
Post by Andy Walker
Yes, but you seem to single out "nothing" and "infinity"
rather than "three" and "green". [...]
because in everyday communication they lead to foolish/
false reasoning...
In "everyday communication" there is no discernible reasoning,
"foolish/false" or otherwise.
there is 'reasoning' that is outside the empiric(real world)

eg, the use of 'infinity' and 'nothing'
--
www.abelard.org
Farmer Giles
2020-03-23 15:12:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
all 'abstractions' do exist...in the minds of individuals....
often they have no meaning outside the individual minds
humans attribute meanings to them..often meaningless meanings!
    Yes, but you seem to single out "nothing" and "infinity"
rather than "three" and "green".  From the PoV of this discussion,
I see no interesting difference.  All of these abstractions have
practical uses.
Post by abelard
  Abelard wants
to put "nothing" in a box
no... i say there is no such thing as nothing to put in a box.....
and that if you wish to refer to nothing it must be relativised
     to a box
    But there is equally no such thing as "green" to put in
a box;  where does this concept of "relativised to a box" come
from, and why is it so important in the case of "nothing" or
"infinity" but not in the case of "green" [or "three" or "anger"
or "run" or ...]?
[...]
Post by abelard
i am saying there is no such thing an infinity...including (no such
     thing) as an infinity of numbers
    Yet mathematicians use the concept in many ways and in
many contexts.  Literally within reach of my keyboard, I can
find instances of "the line at infinity", "circular points at
infinity", "orders of infinity", "sum to infinity", "limit as
x -> infinity", "the infinity of space" and many others [though
not, AFAIK, an "infinity of hands"], as well as related concepts
such as "infinitesimal", "transfinite" and so on, from a variety
of areas in maths and science [let alone theology].  There are
strictly practical applications of "infinity" and "infinitesimal"
as [eg] values of games, that enable me to analyse such games and
determine the best move.  So, I ask again, why do you single out
"infinity", but not "three"?
Post by abelard
nothing is not a definition of anything...there is no thing to
     be not defined
    No-one [sensible and again AFAIK] has suggested "nothing"
as a definition of anything, any more than they have suggested
"three" or "green" as definitions, except [eg] as translations
of words such as "trois", "drei", "vert", ....  The more useful
question is whether there exists a concept which can sensibly
be described as "nothing", "green", ... which people broadly
agree on and can be used to advance knowledge or communication.
My dictionary suggests that in all the cases discussed thus far,
the answer is "yes", whereas in cases such as "puther", "kwess"
and "gullible", the absence of an entry suggests that the answer
is "no".
Andy, if you want to preserve your sanity I suggest you give up now.
Surely you can see that he's completely barmy.
Andy Walker
2020-03-23 19:35:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Andy, if you want to preserve your sanity I suggest you give up
[responding to Abelard]
Post by Farmer Giles
now. Surely you can see that he's completely barmy.
Um. Thanks, but I've spent a lifetime with "completely barmy"
colleagues, friends and students. I'm used to it. It's not catching,
even in "uk.p.m". I suppose at least I should be grateful that you
think I still have some sanity to preserve! At my age, that's not a
given.
--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
RH156RH
2020-03-24 15:03:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Walker
Post by abelard
there is no such thing as 'infinity'
Why would anyone expect an abstract concept to be a "thing"?
There's "no such thing" as 3,
It is a metaphorical thing.. RH

but it's still very useful, and helpful
Post by Andy Walker
to understanding. The only problem with "infinity" is that innumerate
people insist on abusing it.
--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
Svenne
2020-03-20 16:24:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by Svenne
Post by Keema's Nan
I have been trying to tell myself that with only 144 deaths out of a
population of 70 million, the UK is not yet suffering from a runaway
epidemic.
However, if I mention this to any friends they look at me as if I have
committed treason and are about to call the cops. It would seem that
the only information they are going to trust is that pumped out by the
BBC on a minute by minute basis. As I do not watch BBC News I can’t
tell what over-hyped nonsense they have been saying.
What saddens me is realising now, that the years and years of fear
instilled into the population (over climate change, floods, droughts,
suicide bombers, and any other catastrophes) have worked for the
establishment, and now the majority are just shrivelling wrecks
waiting for imminent Armageddon with as many weeks groceries supplies
as they can muster.
Like global warming deniers and other conspiracy theory idiots who
understand nothing about science or mathematics you completely fail to
grasp the basics. The science behind epidemics is the same as that
behind chain reactions that cause atomic bombs to explode and faulty
nuclear power stations to melt down. 1 infects 2, 2 infect 4, 4 infect
8, 8 infect 16, 16 infect 32, 32 infect 64, 64 infect 128 and so on. In
7 iterations the number has gone from 1 to 128. The next iteration will
go from 128 to 256 and so on, accelerating towards infinity. The idea
behind the measures being taken against Coronavirus is to dampen this
exponential growth rather as carbon rods lowered into reactors dampen
the chain reaction and prevent meltdown. You really should stop getting
your information from crazy.joes.conspiracy.theory.blog.com.
there is also a reverse process as the infected units run
out of people to infect(or atoms to split)
Correct. That is why epidemics eventually peter out and one of the
reasons why not all plutonium or uranium is consumed in an atomic
explosion. But while they are on the upward curve they can wreak havoc.
Post by abelard
there is no such thing as 'infinity'
That's why nothing ever reaches it.
RH156RH
2020-03-24 15:06:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by Svenne
Post by Keema's Nan
I have been trying to tell myself that with only 144 deaths out of a
population of 70 million, the UK is not yet suffering from a runaway
epidemic.
However, if I mention this to any friends they look at me as if I have
committed treason and are about to call the cops. It would seem that the
only information they are going to trust is that pumped out by the BBC
on a minute by minute basis. As I do not watch BBC News I can’t tell
what over-hyped nonsense they have been saying.
What saddens me is realising now, that the years and years of fear
instilled into the population (over climate change, floods, droughts,
suicide bombers, and any other catastrophes) have worked for the
establishment, and now the majority are just shrivelling wrecks waiting
for imminent Armageddon with as many weeks groceries supplies as they
can muster.
Like global warming deniers and other conspiracy theory idiots who
understand nothing about science or mathematics you completely fail to
grasp the basics. The science behind epidemics is the same as that behind
chain reactions that cause atomic bombs to explode and faulty nuclear
power stations to melt down. 1 infects 2, 2 infect 4, 4 infect 8, 8
infect 16, 16 infect 32, 32 infect 64, 64 infect 128 and so on. In 7
iterations the number has gone from 1 to 128. The next iteration will go
from 128 to 256 and so on, accelerating towards infinity. The idea behind
the measures being taken against Coronavirus is to dampen this
exponential growth rather as carbon rods lowered into reactors dampen the
chain reaction and prevent meltdown. You really should stop getting your
information from crazy.joes.conspiracy.theory.blog.com.
there is also a reverse process as the infected units run
out of people to infect(or atoms to split)
there is no such thing as 'infinity'
--
www.abelard.org
Infinity exists as a concept... RH
abelard
2020-03-24 15:10:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 24 Mar 2020 08:06:51 -0700 (PDT), RH156RH
Post by RH156RH
Post by abelard
Post by Svenne
Post by Keema's Nan
I have been trying to tell myself that with only 144 deaths out of a
population of 70 million, the UK is not yet suffering from a runaway
epidemic.
However, if I mention this to any friends they look at me as if I have
committed treason and are about to call the cops. It would seem that the
only information they are going to trust is that pumped out by the BBC
on a minute by minute basis. As I do not watch BBC News I can’t tell
what over-hyped nonsense they have been saying.
What saddens me is realising now, that the years and years of fear
instilled into the population (over climate change, floods, droughts,
suicide bombers, and any other catastrophes) have worked for the
establishment, and now the majority are just shrivelling wrecks waiting
for imminent Armageddon with as many weeks groceries supplies as they
can muster.
Like global warming deniers and other conspiracy theory idiots who
understand nothing about science or mathematics you completely fail to
grasp the basics. The science behind epidemics is the same as that behind
chain reactions that cause atomic bombs to explode and faulty nuclear
power stations to melt down. 1 infects 2, 2 infect 4, 4 infect 8, 8
infect 16, 16 infect 32, 32 infect 64, 64 infect 128 and so on. In 7
iterations the number has gone from 1 to 128. The next iteration will go
from 128 to 256 and so on, accelerating towards infinity. The idea behind
the measures being taken against Coronavirus is to dampen this
exponential growth rather as carbon rods lowered into reactors dampen the
chain reaction and prevent meltdown. You really should stop getting your
information from crazy.joes.conspiracy.theory.blog.com.
there is also a reverse process as the infected units run
out of people to infect(or atoms to split)
there is no such thing as 'infinity'
Infinity exists as a concept... RH
as does a unicorn and allah

but believing they are giving you orders(among other matters)
may cause you difficulties with the locals
--
www.abelard.org
Loading...