Maybe THIS is what 4-D is, and can get us to where God is?

[Iamme]

We all know what 2-D is and what 2-D is in regard to geometry. Can you think of what 4-D could be, yet be based in geometry. (Gee...ahm a tree. ha!). Well, your'e in luck. I can! I know what it is, and nobody else does. Care to guess what it could be before I tell you? I will give you a hint. You "can go there", like you can in 2-D, or 3-D, by simply following an 'arrow' that you shoot. Anyone care to take a shot at this? Then I wil tell you what God might have to do with it.

[geni]

We all know what 2-D is and what 2-D is in regard to geometry. Can you think of what 4-D could be, yet be based in geometry. (Gee...ahm a tree. ha!). Well, your'e in luck. I can! I know what it is, and nobody else does. Care to guess what it could be before I tell you? I will give you a hint. You "can go there", like you can in 2-D, or 3-D, by simply following an 'arrow' that you shoot. Anyone care to take a shot at this? Then I wil tell you what God might have to do with it.

The universe has only three large dimensions. This is slightly critical since otherwise thigs such as planetry orbits would not be stable.

[Iamme]

Ah, take a guess, based on my ascertion that dimensions are this realm that can be traveled or traversed. Use that as a definition. Then take a guess. You'll maybe go, "Ya. He's right. He's onto something there. Why *aren't* they calling this the 4th dimension? (I'm serious about this, based on my definition of dimension.)

[Babe from Missouri]

Ah, take a guess, based on my ascertion that dimensions are this realm that can be traveled or traversed. Use that as a definition. Then take a guess. You'll maybe go, "Ya. He's right. He's onto something there. Why *aren't* they calling this the 4th dimension? (I'm serious about this, based on my definition of dimension.)

No we won't. No more guessing game, just enlighten us.

[Iamme]

How can you speak for "we", when you are just a "me". I'll tell you in due time. So start licking your chops.

[Hawk one]

*Predicts that Iamme will come up with some pretty tame rhetorics that is supposed to support his belief in his god, but which will crumble as it will contain unsupported assumptions, logical fallacies, or just plain lack of any evidence.*

[apocalypse]

...based on my definition of dimension.)

My definition of a dimension is IQ points. Therefore, I know of over 60 dimensions this year alone. Give me a break...

The 4th dimension that humans experience is time. Carl Sagan has a very good explanation of it in the series "Cosmos".

With that in mind, I know what the 4th dimension is. And I visit it every femtosecond (or whatever unit of measurement a person likes to use) every day.

[logical muse]

I know what it is, and nobody else does.
Please don't tell us, otherwise your statement will no longer be true.

[Hydrogen Cyanide]

When we do a transient analysis of a structure using Finite Element Analysis (such as for non-linear vibration)... the dimensions used are X (length), Y (height), Z (depth) and Time. To really have fun, try dealing with a three dimensional object on a two dimensional computer screen.

[chipmunk stew]

up/down
left/right
backwards/forwards
in/out
was/will be

5-D! Boo-Yaa!

[Ladewig]

up/down
left/right
backwards/forwards
in/out
was/will be

5-D! Boo-Yaa!

clockwise/counterclockwise

6-D! Boo-Yaa-Yaa!

[Kumar]

clockwise/counterclockwise

6-D! Boo-Yaa-Yaa!

may be --past/present/future, vertical/horizontal, circle/square...

But, Should we not see directions/dimentions of a "dot" or "point" to understand what God might have to do with it?

[Donks]

clockwise/counterclockwise

6-D! Boo-Yaa-Yaa!
Actually, you can do the rotations relative to any of the 3 axes, so 8D!

[Schneibster]

To properly answer your question in the first post, "spacetime."

[chipmunk stew]

Actually, you can do the rotations relative to any of the 3 axes, so 8D!Aw, yeah! Triple dog boo-yah!

[Dancing David]

There are always the human dimensions of ignorance, arrogance and self delusion.

[Soapy Sam]

Backside foremost,Tits up, Seaside, Deosil and Widdershins.

[Ladewig]

C'mon, Iamme, give us an answer before the kitten photos start appearing in this thread.

[chipmunk stew]

C'mon, Iamme, give us an answer before the kitten photos start appearing in this thread.Too late...


http://www.wonkette.com/images/this%20kitten%20reminds%20me%20of%20moby.jpg

[Odin]

We've already had the Iamme and Kumar dimensions, now all we need is the Iacchus dimension to create a whole alternate reality.

[TjW]

We've already had the Iamme and Kumar dimensions, now all we need is the Iacchus dimension to create a whole alternate reality.

For some very small value of 'reality'.

[Pope130]

Iamme,
Returning to you original question:
"Maybe THIS is what 4-D is, and can get us to where God is?"

Since we must go from where we are, to where your god is, your god must not be everywhere.

"If it was easy they'd get civilians to do it."

[espritch]

For some very small value of 'reality'.

:D That was dang near brilliant!

[Wudang]

Too late...


http://www.wonkette.com/images/this%20kitten%20reminds%20me%20of%20moby.jpg

Looks great. Could you post the recipe please?

[Ziggurat]

Looks great. Could you post the recipe please?

Well done. The reply, I mean. Medium rare on the kitten.

[gnome]

Iamme, I think your definition of "dimension" is inappropriate. A dimension is not a "realm" you can "go to" -- contrary to the slipshod way the word is used in science fiction movies. If it really was that way, there wouldn't be three apparent dimensions, but one (here). I think of a dimension as any continuum used for measuring. So objects are several-dimensioned: they have height, width, depth, duration, frequency of reflected light (color), distance from my right toenail, etc.

I honestly object to considering Time "the" 4th dimension. It seems odd to assign ordinal numbers to dimensions. Is "height" the first or second dimension? :P Time, as I see it is "a" dimension, along with all the others.

The only part of this that I don't feel I have understanding of is the many dimensioned nature of the universe discussed in string theory... something like eleven or twenty-six dimensions or whatever. What's the difference between those "fundamental" dimensions and made-up ones, such as my toenail measurement?

[Iamme]

*Predicts that Iamme will come up with some pretty tame rhetorics that is supposed to support his belief in his god, but which will crumble as it will contain unsupported assumptions, logical fallacies, or just plain lack of any evidence.*

Okay, here it comes.

Oops. Wait. I have to finish reading all the posts to see if anybody guessed what I had in mind about what 4-D is.

[Iamme]

up/down
left/right
backwards/forwards
in/out
was/will be

5-D! Boo-Yaa!

Nope. You covered a lot of things, but left one thing out. I will demonstrate with the shooting of the arrow into or out of 4-D. And I will write to a science journal and have them write about ME instead of Stephen Hawking. :)

[Iamme]

To properly answer your question in the first post, "spacetime."

Can you describe to me what "spacetime" is, exactly to where this just doesn't sound like a doctor calling lungs pulmonary rather than lungs, if you know what I mean?

No. MY 4-D is another physical dimension realm, like 3-D is. I am not kidding.

And you all know what it is, except it has never ben defined as 4-D. But I will show why it SHOULD be.

[HeyLeroy]

Nope. You covered a lot of things, but left one thing out. I will demonstrate with the shooting of the arrow into or out of 4-D. And I will write to a science journal and have them write about ME instead of Stephen Hawking. :)
Maybe we'll see you here? (http://www.apa.org/journals/abn/)

[Iamme]

Too late...


http://www.wonkette.com/images/this%20kitten%20reminds%20me%20of%20moby.jpg

Awwwww. That is really cute.

Luckily for *IT*, it's not at my house, because I have this sadistic tendency to stick streamers of duct tape on their tails or toss them into full bathtubs, just to see what they'll do. :)

[Iamme]

Iamme,
Returning to you original question:
"Maybe THIS is what 4-D is, and can get us to where God is?"

Since we must go from where we are, to where your god is, your god must not be everywhere.

"If it was easy they'd get civilians to do it."

I don't know everything but the surface I am going to scratch regarding the 4-D I am going to write about in a second. It is possible that we can get to God in one of two ways, or the dimension comes full circle through infinity and joins back up with what we know of as a possible infinitus 3-D. Ill explain.

[HeyLeroy]

Awwwww. That is really cute.

Luckily for *IT*, it's not at my house, because I have this sadistic tendency to stick streamers of duct tape on their tails or toss them into full bathtubs, just to see what they'll do. :)


Why does this not surprise me?

I don't know everything but the surface I am going to scratch regarding the 4-D I am going to write about in a second. It is possible that we can get to God in one of two ways, or the dimension comes full circle through infinity and joins back up with what we know of as a possible infinitus 3-D. Ill explain.

We're waiting............

[luchog]

"Didn't they get to six in Baby I Want Your Love Thing?"

[Schneibster]

Can you describe to me what "spacetime" is, exactly to where this just doesn't sound like a doctor calling lungs pulmonary rather than lungs, if you know what I mean?So in other words, you don't understand the idea that there are four dimensions and therefore six axes of rotation because you can't do the math to figure out what that implies? OK, never mind.

[Iamme]

Here we go. I'll try to be brief.

Will you agree with me that a definition of the known physical dimensions, that traveling along, into, or out of those dimensions is possible? Will you agree? I hope so, because that is the foundation this 'new' dimension is based on. Not some poppycocked realm that none of us can grasp.

The arrow?

Okay, that is our means of travel, jus tso i can show you that it is a place you can actually go, just like with 3-D. But it can't be 3-D because if what I am about to tell you occurs with the arrow shot, it would come out the other side of the ball. But it can't, with this 4-D.

What happens if you are inside a giant rubber ball and you shot the arrow into or out of a giant rubber ball, whether you are standing on top the ball or you are inside the ball, that that arrow is going to still remain in the 3-D realm? I hope so.

But let's take a more careful look at about shooting the arrow "into" the ball. It will come out the other side, in a 3-D world...correct? Correct.

Now here is the 4-D part. Tadaaaa. Finally!

When you shoot the arrow, you shoot for the heart of a molecule, and from there it enters the heart of an atom, and from there it enters the heart of a quark, etc., etc., until......

Until what?...is the question. You are now entering realms that are spaced apart, I have been told, whose relationship distances, in relativety, are similar to that of solar systems! You are actually like traveling in space. Outer space. Only this is inner space. A dimension all of it's own..and should be called that, justly, because like I said, you can actually enter the inerds of a ball, and not come out the otherside, like you would if you were passing through 3-D!

Rather than the arrow, you could miniaturize on this travel, like in the movie "Innerspace", and travel into the very structure of what the material is made of until you finally get to some transitional point to where it unifies perhaps with pure energy.

Now where exactly would that be? Well. Think of yourself as being in there . You would feel like you are in outerspace without knowing where to go next. Then again, you may be entering the realm of "the brioght light" and may wind up at where the energy of the Big Bang is being emitted. (on-going, limitless, not a one time event)

But is it possible that you could actually exit and come out where the infinite boundries of 3-D space wind up? And we know just from the fact that I said infinite, that they can't 'wind up" *any*wheres. So let me explain further how innerspace and outerspace could actualy tie together at some common point of energy.

Now think of the pattern generated by the polar attraction a of a magnet. We all know what the pattern looks like with metal filings sprinkled about the magnet.

Now think of my 4-D realm (going into the ball, but never exiting..yet the distance if you were to miniaturize in relativety to the surroundings, the distance would be as great as space and *would* be space.

There would be no distinction as to where the internal infinity of this innerspace went and where the infinity of the outer space went and they may actualy join up as one viscous circle like the circle created by the power of the magnet.

Perhaps the magnet was to reveal this to us, for all we know. (God giving us a clue of how enless power and infinitey...going round and round where forces go into and then back out of...)

I lay awke at night pondering such things, and last night, actually, I came up with the notion that scientists don't have it quite right. I now believe there was not Big Bang. I am about to tel you how the stars are "fleeing" from us, in all directions, without the Big Bang, as some one, singular event, and the relationship with all this, regarding God.

I do not believe that there was ever a 'nothing', and then energy was created through some gibberish like I have read in my Discover Magazine. What makes logical sense to me is that there was always an energy force. Always. And still is. The energy force was always emitting energy. That means the energy has to be everywhere, and there can be no confined space. That space itself is not a dimension itself. We only percieve space *after* a form of energy comes into existance. The point of origin of the energy field is of no relevance, for when it occurs and spreads outwards in all directions, the univers(es) become larger and larger, and hence the stars appear to flee away.

Because we too are fleeing away form the central emision core (I will call it..the source of the power and energy), and so is that energy and matter that has already been emitted and out in front of us...everything will appear to flee from us.

But how can we come to grips with more and more energy pouring into an already infinite universe. Simple. It just keeps growing. It would be "infinity + 1". It is hard to grasp that. But if your think about it...if you think about a forever emitting energy force that is creating energy that turns into matter that is ever flying out from the source, and there is no boundry of space, I can't see why this is not possible. What is happening is this energy is like trying to fill up a borderless pit. It can keep filling, and filling and filling,

And I believe that it could be possible, that if one enters the realm of the 4-D where you lose sight of any matter and it becomes an ill-defined energy...that perhaps it converges into this "God" wher the source of the energy is emitting from, from the center core. A core that we think only happened once, and call it a Big Bang, but I believe is a core that is stil emitting.

That is the only thing that can plausibly make any sense to me, at this point in time in my life.

Now do you want to hear my theory as to what all this means for us, and eternal life? I have another theory that ties all this together. Something that makes sense. Something like re-incarnation, but it's not reincarnation *exactly*, in the sense that most reincarnationists think it is.

[logical muse]

I thought you said you'd try to be brief.

[Donks]

Now do you want to hear my theory as to what all this means for us, and eternal life? I have another theory that ties all this together. Something that makes sense. Something like re-incarnation, but it's not reincarnation *exactly*, in the sense that most reincarnationists think it is.
By all means, please enlighten us.

[Ducky]

Multi-dimensional way to God?

I've heard this before.

www.timecube.com


I want the last 5 minutes of my life back for reading this crap.

[Iamme]

Response to logical muse:

Ya, I know. That's what I thought before I got started.

My friend says to me, after I explained this to him. He said, "It's impossible for us not to be in a 3-D world." Well, in away, he is right, I guess. You enter an atom, and you are still in the 3-D world. But at the same time, what we call 3-D is when you shoot into a molecule, dead center, with an arrow, and it comes out the other side. But in what *I* describe, you shoot into it, and you only go deeper into the heart of what it's made of. You can't come out the other side. Innerspace, to be brief. And I can't see why this wouldn't be another dimension then.

I have windows by my bed and I gaze up at the stars in bed, and wonder how you could have a universe that just happens to end out some 13.5 billion X 6 trillions of miles, and *there* it ends? That absolutely makes no philosophical sense.

Or, that out of nothing, at some point in time, and *only* at that time, energy sprang into being and exploded into matter? That sounds ridiculous also.

The only thing that makes sense and that which we are given as proof to the eternal, like magnetism, is the fact that we are simply a part of infinity. Inwardly and outwardly. And it is a possibility the two conjoin.

And when we die, our life is done. But then we, being free of any particular body that we are tied to, can simply become a new *me* (but in no way the same me, with the same brain or anything) on any number of planets in an endless universe. That it makes sense that this could actually be. Not that *we* are reincarnated. But that because we no longer exist when we die, that a whole new person when it is born, has to become a *me* and that could be a new you, with plenty of places to exist. And then it makes sense why we have an endless universe with endless life abounding everywhere.

If you were to go deep into space and peer back at the earth and someone were to say there is life there, but nowhere else, and some God put us there, and then you looked at the earth you could barely see, that was this spec in a seemingly endless universe...does that make sense? No. But I believe energy and life is all tied together and is everywhere. And the fountain from which all this arises is something we call God, which needs no other entity before it.

[chipmunk stew]

...
in/out
...

Nope. You covered a lot of things, but left one thing out.

Now here is the 4-D part. Tadaaaa. Finally!

When you shoot the arrow, you shoot for the heart of a molecule, and from there it enters the heart of an atom, and from there it enters the heart of a quark, etc., etc., until......

Until what?...is the question. You are now entering realms that are spaced apart, I have been told, whose relationship distances, in relativety, are similar to that of solar systems! You are actually like traveling in space. Outer space. Only this is inner space. A dimension all of it's own..and should be called that, justly, because like I said, you can actually enter the inerds of a ball, and not come out the otherside, like you would if you were passing through 3-D!In other words: in/out...

[chipmunk stew]

I'm intrigued with the part about the "viscous circle". Could you elaborate on that, please?

eta: this is the part I'm wondering about [emphasis mine]:
There would be no distinction as to where the internal infinity of this innerspace went and where the infinity of the outer space went and they may actualy join up as one viscous circle like the circle created by the power of the magnet.

[delphi_ote]

http://www.stuffonmycat.com/media/2/20051117-DEXTER.jpg

That is all.

[1984]

Okay, I'm an obvious minnow to this part of the forum, but Iamme's theory reminds me of the film the Incredible Shrinking Man (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050539/) the (1957) version.

From the IMDb: "This spare, cheap, black-and-white film, starring unknowns, has the ruthless, unswerving narrative drive of an arrow into a bullseye."

Closing soliloquy narration: I was continuing to shrink, to become... what? The infinitesimal? *(snip)*

So close - the infinitesimal and the infinite. But suddenly, I knew they were really the two ends of the same concept. The unbelievably small and the unbelievably vast eventually meet - like the closing of a gigantic circle. *(snip)*

To God, there is no zero.

There's even a cat in it.

[Alkatran]

This is one of stupidest theories I've ever read.

First of all, you invent a mathematical concept of 'inner space' and claim that it's just as large as the normal space. Now, this could potentially work if we lived in R-cubed but... uh... we don't. Space is discrete as far as we can tell.

Besides the fact that you math makes no sense, I don't see how it would show that God exists.

And your definition of dimension is wrong.

Adn your response to this post better not have more incoherent math.

[clarsct]

You think he used MATH to arrive at this...

Erm...well...I wouldn't call it a theory or even a hypothesis...Not bright enough to be an idea...

AH!

Iammism.

There we go.

You think he used any form of mathematics in this Iammism? Why on Earth would you assume any such thing?

I was pretty sure he pulled it out of his backside, Occam's Razor and all, but I could be wrong, I suppose.

[Ladewig]

Dude, were you smoking pot when you thought of this stuff? Seriously.

You are now entering realms that are spaced apart, I have been told, whose relationship distances, in relativety, are similar to that of solar systems! You are actually like traveling in space. Outer space.

Here is the crux of the problem. What you were told is wrong. Go to the library, or the internet, and read up on atomic theory. Atoms are not like solar systems in any sense.

[delphi_ote]

http://petstore.robynanderson.com/archives/2004/11/30KittenFight.jpg

[UrsulaV]

This totally reminds me of this time I was on acid, and briefly grasped the nature of extradimensional reality, and attempted to explain it to my boyfriend using a Lego spaceship and a string hung from the ceiling.

In the morning, while I obviously no longer could remember what the hell I'd been talking about, I still had a Lego spaceship and my string, which I suspect is more than Iamme's got.

[Odin]

Iamme, your theory suffers from one fatal flaw-
http://static.flickr.com/28/59646176_959f86ff51.jpg?v=1131099317

[chipmunk stew]

http://irc.projectjj.com/godkills.jpg

[Iamme]

In other words: in/out...

This was in reference to the poster describing the various directions that 3-D can go.

But in all honesty, with yourself and us...were you thinking *in* to mean going *in* the way *I* defined *my* going in? In 3-D, you can go in and out, but in both cases, when you go, in, you are coming back out again of the same solid object, on the opposite side. With MY *in*, you are not coming back out. You are just getting deeper and deeper into the internal bowels of what's in the core of an atom. And what's in the core of it, and it, and it, and it..till..if you DO come out somewheres, it is not going ot be coming out the other side of the 3-D object.

[Iamme]

Iamme, your theory suffers from one fatal flaw-
http://static.flickr.com/28/59646176_959f86ff51.jpg?v=1131099317

Ha.

Did you happen to see on funniest animal videos, the picture of a kitten where the owner was pointing a gun at the kitten and the kitten had it's 'hands' raised in the air? :)

[Iamme]

This totally reminds me of this time I was on acid, and briefly grasped the nature of extradimensional reality, and attempted to explain it to my boyfriend using a Lego spaceship and a string hung from the ceiling.

In the morning, while I obviously no longer could remember what the hell I'd been talking about, I still had a Lego spaceship and my string, which I suspect is more than Iamme's got.


But the didfference here is what I am saying really isn't so much my own theory, as it is in identifying an already described realm as that very realm as being another physical dimension that they shouold just call 4-D. There is nothing poppy cock at trying to come to grips with a travel into the inerds of matter and then energy. It is indeed there. There is no disputing that (At least not that I am aware of.). I'm not talking pink elephants that fly, here.

The part about it re-emerging out of it's self as like the discriptions we read about black holes...THAT again is conjecture. That part of the theory is still up for debate. But I do believe that that part also makes some sense, as it ties the whole packagae together quite neatly, when discussing infinity and some unknown, perpetual, infinite energy source.

Do you ever lay awake at night and think such things, or do you just contemplate what time to put on the cofee maker and if you want Eggos or eggs the next morning?

[Iamme]

This totally reminds me of this time I was on acid, and briefly grasped the nature of extradimensional reality, and attempted to explain it to my boyfriend using a Lego spaceship and a string hung from the ceiling.

In the morning, while I obviously no longer could remember what the hell I'd been talking about, I still had a Lego spaceship and my string, which I suspect is more than Iamme's got.


But the difference here is what I am saying really isn't so much my own theory, as it is in identifying an already described realm as that very realm as being another physical dimension that they shouold just call 4-D. There is nothing poppy cock at trying to come to grips with a travel into the inerds of matter and then energy. It is indeed there. There is no disputing that (At least not that I am aware of.). I'm not talking pink elephants that fly, here.

The part about it re-emerging out of it's self as like the discriptions we read about black holes...THAT again is conjecture. That part of the theory is still up for debate. But I do believe that that part also makes some sense, as it ties the whole packagae together quite neatly, when discussing infinity and some unknown, perpetual, infinite energy source.

Do you ever lay awake at night and think such things, or do you just contemplate what time to put on the cofee maker and if you want Eggos or eggs the next morning?

[Iamme]

Dude, were you smoking pot when you thought of this stuff? Seriously.



Here is the crux of the problem. What you were told is wrong. Go to the library, or the internet, and read up on atomic theory. Atoms are not like solar systems in any sense.

Not in ANY sense? Like the protons and electrons orbiting the nucleus is not like planets orbiting the sun? And isn't, dimentionally, in relativity the distances supposed to be like the said expanses in the solar system?, with great space between the electron and the nucleus? Without me going to the library, just kindly enlighten, please.

[epepke]

This was in reference to the poster describing the various directions that 3-D can go.

But in all honesty, with yourself and us...were you thinking *in* to mean going *in* the way *I* defined *my* going in? In 3-D, you can go in and out, but in both cases, when you go, in, you are coming back out again of the same solid object, on the opposite side. With MY *in*, you are not coming back out. You are just getting deeper and deeper into the internal bowels of what's in the core of an atom. And what's in the core of it, and it, and it, and it..till..if you DO come out somewheres, it is not going ot be coming out the other side of the 3-D object.

That's not a dimension.

It does remind me of a Philip K. Dick story: "The Indefatigable Frog."

[force_redo]

That part of the theory is still up for debate.
So, the rest is proven, then?

Will you agree with me that a definition of the known physical dimensions, that traveling along, into, or out of those dimensions is possible? Will you agree?

Errrm... No?!
When was the last time a circle with no depth whatsoever visited you for tea and biscuits?

FR

[Rolfe]

http://www.b5-dark-mirror.demon.co.uk/caramelkit.jpg

Rolfe.

[3point14]

So, your 4th dimension is size?

Wow.


And will someone please explain about the kittens??

oh, and Fowlsound -

I want the last 5 minutes of my life back for reading this crap.


Surely you knew what you were letting yourself in for?

ETA -
I have windows by my bed and I gaze up at the stars in bed, and wonder how you could have a universe that just happens to end out some 13.5 billion X 6 trillions of miles, and *there* it ends? That absolutely makes no philosophical sense.


It's not the only thing that makes no philosophical sense, trust me.

[Bronze Dog]

When a thread gets very silly, it's JREF tradition to start posting recipes and kitten pictures. Or kitten recipes.

[3point14]

Thanks! I am enlightened.

I like kittens.

Couldn't eat a whole one though.

(sorry, I'll get my coat)

[UrsulaV]

But the didfference here is what I am saying really isn't so much my own theory, as it is in identifying an already described realm as that very realm as being another physical dimension that they shouold just call 4-D.

Nope, the difference is that I came down eventually and realized that I had not, in fact, redefined physics, I had merely brandished a Lego spaceship at the ceiling and said "Y'know? Y'know? See?!" a lot.

At the moment, I'm afraid, you don't even have the spaceship thing goin' for you...


Do you ever lay awake at night and think such things, or do you just contemplate what time to put on the cofee maker and if you want Eggos or eggs the next morning?

Generally when I lay awake at night, I think about houses made out of giant root vegetables and what sort of hats squirrels would wear. It's still total nonsense, I grant you, but it looks better on a greeting card.

[KingMerv00]

Iamme, don't bother writing to a science journal.

On second thought, write to a journal but make sure you send me a copy of their response.


3point14, the kittens are are response to a post that doesn't make any sense. It lets the sender make a complaint about the thread without putting time and energy into a real response.

[TX50]

I haven't got any pics of kittys. May I post a Lego Spaceship instead?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v692/whisky01/legoEnterprise.jpg

[Alkatran]

This was in reference to the poster describing the various directions that 3-D can go.

But in all honesty, with yourself and us...were you thinking *in* to mean going *in* the way *I* defined *my* going in? In 3-D, you can go in and out, but in both cases, when you go, in, you are coming back out again of the same solid object, on the opposite side. With MY *in*, you are not coming back out. You are just getting deeper and deeper into the internal bowels of what's in the core of an atom. And what's in the core of it, and it, and it, and it..till..if you DO come out somewheres, it is not going ot be coming out the other side of the 3-D object.

You apparently aren't using the same definitions as us. For example, you seem to have a different definition for: 3-D, in, out, deeper, internal bowels.

Like it or not, the only way to 'go in something' and not come out the other side is to simply slow down/stop before you exit. That doesn't mean you've entered Neverland.

Not in ANY sense? Like the protons and electrons orbiting the nucleus is not like planets orbiting the sun? And isn't, dimentionally, in relativity the distances supposed to be like the said expanses in the solar system?, with great space between the electron and the nucleus? Without me going to the library, just kindly enlighten, please.

Electrons are only like planets in classical physics (100 years ago) and in high school. I'm sure you've heard of electrons being waves and what-not. Well according to physics, the electron orbit is a wave, not a particle orbiting another particle.

[UrsulaV]

I haven't got any pics of kittys. May I post a Lego Spaceship instead?

I gotta tell ya, that's a much cooler Lego spaceship than the one I met God in that evening...

[luchog]

I prefer wombats

http://www.speakeasy.org/~hardrock/pictures/wombat2.jpg

[KingMerv00]

I prefer wombats

http://www.speakeasy.org/~hardrock/pictures/wombat2.jpg

After seeing that picture, I too prefer wombats.

[Ducky]

Fowlsound -




Surely you knew what you were letting yourself in for?





Indeed. I should have known better with an Iamme thread. After all, we all know that big pharma is making crop circles through their alin proxies to distract us from the insidious plot to keep us all sick and only Kevin Trudeau can save us from fish smelling vaginosis, the so called "duty" of jury duty, facing our mortality through having children, those 9 idiots that think they know best for us all, and those gays that act like gays.


:hb:



(Did I miss any other inane Iamme threads in that list?)

[delphi_ote]

(Did I miss any other inane Iamme threads in that list?)

Not to cause you more pain, but there was the one about seeing through glass.

Oh, and...

http://www.hobbylinc.com/gr/trf/trf17080.jpg

[Iamme]

That's not a dimension.

It does remind me of a Philip K. Dick story: "The Indefatigable Frog."

What *IS* it then?

If you enter a 3-d box, either you are going into it, out of it, or into it..but out of it again, somewhere else. Period.

But in my aptly named 4-D, you may just go in that box and...perhaps even disappear! Seriously.

[Iamme]

Indeed. I should have known better with an Iamme thread. After all, we all know that big pharma is making crop circles through their alin proxies to distract us from the insidious plot to keep us all sick and only Kevin Trudeau can save us from fish smelling vaginosis, the so called "duty" of jury duty, facing our mortality through having children, those 9 idiots that think they know best for us all, and those gays that act like gays.


:hb:



(Did I miss any other inane Iamme threads in that list?)

This actually cracked me up and brought tears to my eyes. :)

[Ducky]

What *IS* it then?

If you enter a 3-d box, either you are going into it, out of it, or into it..but out of it again, somewhere else. Period.

But in my aptly named 4-D, you may just go in that box and...perhaps even disappear! Seriously.



If you have possession of said box, please test that hypothosis for us.

[Alkatran]

What *IS* it then?

If you enter a 3-d box, either you are going into it, out of it, or into it..but out of it again, somewhere else. Period.

But in my aptly named 4-D, you may just go in that box and...perhaps even disappear! Seriously.

You can't just redefine terms and then act like you discovered something!

The closest thing to what you are talking about is a black hole: things go in and don't come out.

[TobiasTheViking]

Hm, i think i have an idea of what he means.. that isn't to say i agree.

Imagine this, we have a fourth dimension that is size. So we can go into an atom by moving backwards through the size dimension(thus becoming smaller). Kinda like an expanding cone. Go backwards(towards the point where it is smalles) and we can become small and enter the atom. Go forwards and we become larger...

That is the only way i can understand whe Iamme is saying. I don't know if that is what he meant, but either way it is clearly bollocks.

Sincerely
Tobias
*gah*, if i'm starting to understand Iamme i've clearly begun to get too much sleep... or too little.

[chipmunk stew]

*gah*, if i'm starting to understand Iamme i've clearly begun to get too much sleep... or too little.Take one of these and call me in the morning:

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/kitten.jpg

[Ducky]

Take one of these and call me in the morning:

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/kitten.jpg



Now we know how Oswald did it...

[AnotherSillyAlias]

Dude, were you smoking pot when you thought of this stuff? Seriously.



Here is the crux of the problem. What you were told is wrong. Go to the library, or the internet, and read up on atomic theory. Atoms are not like solar systems in any sense.


Sure they are, they have bits on the inside and bits on the outside and things go round and .... well, and stuff, you know ...


Hmmmmmm....

[chipmunk stew]

But in all honesty, with yourself and us...were you thinking *in* to mean going *in* the way *I* defined *my* going in?He acts like he's the only one who's ever imagined an infinitely shrinking perspective! Bah! Kittens to you:

http://www.orionis.de/images/2004_05_30_b-kitten.jpg

[UrsulaV]

Iamme, I think you've gotten stuck on a fundamental problem.

Just because an idea is NEAT and COOL, it doesn't mean it's TRUE. The universe is not much concerned with neat ideas.

I'm sure this particular idea of yours would be neat. But it isn't real. It has no basis in observable reality. You just had an idea you thought was cool. "Cool" however, does not neccessarily equal "true."

For example, it would be damn neat if ammonites had been intelligent. They had tentacles that maybe they could use to manipulate stuff, and they were around halfway to forever, and cephalopods are brainy little buggers anyway, and they could practice elaborate shell-inlay scarification and base-12 tentacle math and names like "Inksquirter," and "Stripeshell." It would be awfully cool if there had been an ammonite civilization.

But, of course, there wasn't. Reality will not be altered merely because I think talking ammonites are a neat idea. My neat idea has no particular impact on the way the universe works.

And because I realize this, I may paint ammonite tribesman, I may write the epic nine-volume saga of one ammonite's Ayn Randian struggle against the oceanic establishment--hell, I may even dress up as a giant ammonite for special occasions!--but I don't try to claim that ammonites really were civilized and that we're living on the remnants of ancient cephalopod glory.

No matter how cool my idea is, it creates no obligation in the universe to conform to it.

You appear to believe that your neat ideas, merely because they are NEAT, must somehow inform reality. And I regret to inform you, just because you have an idea that seems cool at two in the morning while staring at the ceiling, it doesn't mean you've realized something fundamental to the cosmos. I have seen giant cloud trilobites devour the moon at 2 AM, but that doesn't mean that the relationship between moon and trilobite is what's missing from our understanding of physics, it just means I've got a vivid imagination.*

I recommend a creative outlet. Go write a novel or an RPG sourcebook or paint pictures or SOMETHING. If your idea seems cool, use it as a premise and do something creative with it. People love a cool premise. You're obviously very enamored of your imagination. Go use it somewhere that it's useful. Coming up with nonsensical "theories" that have no basis in reality don't do squat for either you or reality. They aren't REAL. They don't accurately describe the way the world works, and they're only earthshattering to you. As an effort to explain reality, they fail utterly.

But they might make pretty good fiction. So you might wanna consider that.


*And yes, did a lot of drugs in college.

[delphi_ote]

He acts like he's the only one who's ever imagined an infinitely shrinking perspective! Bah! Kittens to you:

And also you.

http://mk29.image.pbase.com/u5/sid_presley/upload/37106198.may17catfight4.jpg

[LostAngeles]

So aside from the fourth dimension being time, all I can think of when I read the OP is the bit in my Calculus book that explains that when you find the volume with a triple integral, it's just dz dy dx (in some order) and no function, because if there was a function, it'd be the "hypervolume" of that region. Or as I read it, "HYPERVOLUME!!!!!"

I'd thank you for firmly cementing this in my head Iamme, but I already took that test and got a goddamned A.

[LostAngeles]

Iamme, I think you've gotten stuck on a fundamental problem.

Just because an idea is NEAT and COOL, it doesn't mean it's TRUE. The universe is not much concerned with neat ideas.

I'm sure this particular idea of yours would be neat. But it isn't real. It has no basis in observable reality. You just had an idea you thought was cool. "Cool" however, does not neccessarily equal "true."

For example, it would be damn neat if ammonites had been intelligent. They had tentacles that maybe they could use to manipulate stuff, and they were around halfway to forever, and cephalopods are brainy little buggers anyway, and they could practice elaborate shell-inlay scarification and base-12 tentacle math and names like "Inksquirter," and "Stripeshell." It would be awfully cool if there had been an ammonite civilization.

But, of course, there wasn't. Reality will not be altered merely because I think talking ammonites are a neat idea. My neat idea has no particular impact on the way the universe works.

And because I realize this, I may paint ammonite tribesman, I may write the epic nine-volume saga of one ammonite's Ayn Randian struggle against the oceanic establishment--hell, I may even dress up as a giant ammonite for special occasions!--but I don't try to claim that ammonites really were civilized and that we're living on the remnants of ancient cephalopod glory.

No matter how cool my idea is, it creates no obligation in the universe to conform to it.

You appear to believe that your neat ideas, merely because they are NEAT, must somehow inform reality. And I regret to inform you, just because you have an idea that seems cool at two in the morning while staring at the ceiling, it doesn't mean you've realized something fundamental to the cosmos. I have seen giant cloud trilobites devour the moon at 2 AM, but that doesn't mean that the relationship between moon and trilobite is what's missing from our understanding of physics, it just means I've got a vivid imagination.*

I recommend a creative outlet. Go write a novel or an RPG sourcebook or paint pictures or SOMETHING. If your idea seems cool, use it as a premise and do something creative with it. People love a cool premise. You're obviously very enamored of your imagination. Go use it somewhere that it's useful. Coming up with nonsensical "theories" that have no basis in reality don't do squat for either you or reality. They aren't REAL. They don't accurately describe the way the world works, and they're only earthshattering to you. As an effort to explain reality, they fail utterly.

But they might make pretty good fiction. So you might wanna consider that.


*And yes, did a lot of drugs in college.


If you do not write any of this bit about the ammonite civilization, I will eat your brain. I don't care if it's just a sentence like, "The young ammonite faltered, its cillia wrapped tightly around its sword." I find myself far too amused by this concept.

(But in general, yes. Awesome fiction, not reality.)

[AnotherSillyAlias]

If you do not write any of this bit about the ammonite civilization, I will eat your brain. I don't care if it's just a sentence like, "The young ammonite faltered, its cillia wrapped tightly around its sword." I find myself far too amused by this concept.

(But in general, yes. Awesome fiction, not reality.)


I think you might find that the Ammonites had light sabres!

[Ducky]

If you do not write any of this bit about the ammonite civilization, I will eat your brain. I don't care if it's just a sentence like, "The young ammonite faltered, its cillia wrapped tightly around its sword." I find myself far too amused by this concept.

(But in general, yes. Awesome fiction, not reality.)



Still convinced Iamme is actually an experiment for some master's thesis on programming AI netbots.

It's the only explanation for the ability to form coherent sentences about complete crap.

[AnotherSillyAlias]

Still convinced Iamme is actually an experiment for some master's thesis on programming AI netbots.

It's the only explanation for the ability to form coherent sentences about complete crap.

Oh I don't know, ever listened to a politician, especially an Oz politician?

[Ducky]

Oh I don't know, ever listened to a politician, especially an Oz politician?


Not if I can help it :)



Point taken, though.

[delphi_ote]

*And yes, did a lot of drugs in college.

Cephalopod civilization? Be honest. You haven't "graduated" yet, have you? ;)

[disfunkster]

Awwwww. That is really cute.

Luckily for *IT*, it's not at my house, because I have this sadistic tendency to stick streamers of duct tape on their tails or toss them into full bathtubs, just to see what they'll do. :)

Great, borderline animal abuse really makes me happy. Have fun with that.

:(

[UrsulaV]

If you do not write any of this bit about the ammonite civilization, I will eat your brain. I don't care if it's just a sentence like, "The young ammonite faltered, its cillia wrapped tightly around its sword." I find myself far too amused by this concept.


Well, this is the best I can whip up in fifteen minutes. I'll let somebody else narrate the epic saga...

http://www.metalandmagic.com/Trans/ammonitus.jpg

[delphi_ote]

Well, this is the best I can whip up in fifteen minutes. I'll let somebody else narrate the epic saga...

http://www.metalandmagic.com/Trans/ammonitus.jpg

:clap: That drawing and the accompanying tale deserve their own thread.

[LostAngeles]

Well, this is the best I can whip up in fifteen minutes. I'll let somebody else narrate the epic saga...

http://www.metalandmagic.com/Trans/ammonitus.jpg

Oh my god. Oh my [rule 8]ing flying spaghetti monster and all the invisible pink unicorns. That's incredible. Absolutely [rule 8]ing incredible. Sure, I sound like an idiot for saying cillia because I was thinking one celled when I know what an ammonite is, but goddamn it.

Can I use that as an avatar please?

[LostAngeles]

:clap: That drawing and the accompanying tale deserve their own thread.

http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?t=47871

I asked for it to be moved.

You do realize I should be finishing my schoolwork and going to bed right?

Edit: Moved! http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?t=47873

Did you know that when you edit mid-thread it opens the box in the thread. Very sexy.

[UrsulaV]

Can I use that as an avatar please?

Go for it! Glad you like it! *grin*

[TjW]

Still convinced Iamme is actually an experiment for some master's thesis on programming AI netbots.

It's the only explanation for the ability to form coherent sentences about complete crap.

Interesting. I've long maintained that the road to artificial intelligence runs through artificial stupidity.

[AnotherSillyAlias]

Interesting. I've long maintained that the road to artificial intelligence runs through artificial stupidity.


So cruel ...



:)

[Psi Baba]

Iamme, you've been reading Horton Hears a Who again haven't you?

[alfaniner]

You can't just redefine terms and then act like you discovered something!

The closest thing to what you are talking about is a black hole: things go in and don't come out.

Or a Roach Motel...

[Ducky]

Iamme, you've been reading Horton Hears a Who again haven't you?


That would be my fault. (http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?t=45905)

[Psi Baba]

That would be my fault. (http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?t=45905)
Ha! That's great. I hadn't even seen that. Good job. I've totally given up on Iamme. I've decided he's a lost cause altogether.

[Ducky]

Ha! That's great. I hadn't even seen that. Good job. I've totally given up on Iamme. I've decided he's a lost cause altogether.


Seriously? I thought that was what you were joking about when you asked if he'd read Dr. Suess. That's too funny.


Edited for moronic spelling.

[Iamme]

Hm, i think i have an idea of what he means.. that isn't to say i agree.

Imagine this, we have a fourth dimension that is size. So we can go into an atom by moving backwards through the size dimension(thus becoming smaller). Kinda like an expanding cone. Go backwards(towards the point where it is smalles) and we can become small and enter the atom. Go forwards and we become larger...

That is the only way i can understand whe Iamme is saying. I don't know if that is what he meant, but either way it is clearly bollocks.

Sincerely
Tobias
*gah*, if i'm starting to understand Iamme i've clearly begun to get too much sleep... or too little.

Yes.

And if this is not a dimension, and you are dealing with a ball, then why when you send something into the ball (I'm sounding like a broken record, but I can't understand why everybody is having a hard time accepting this), in the normal fashion, the sent something will enter the ball and then come out the other side.

With my named dimension, you are entering into the very heart of matter and energy itself and you may find that you may emerge at the singular where energy meets matter, and you may even be jetted out and come out where outerspace is creating an on going Big Bang, spewing out enerrgy and matter, filling up the infinite universe whicxh can never fill up.)

[Iamme]

Iamme, you've been reading Horton Hears a Who again haven't you?

No. But I have always liked Horton Hatches the Egg. One of my all time favorites.

[Iamme]

Well, this is the best I can whip up in fifteen minutes. I'll let somebody else narrate the epic saga...

http://www.metalandmagic.com/Trans/ammonitus.jpg

Is this the creature that comes out of a 3-way manage' twe (or however you spell it) and you wind up with a newborn that is the cross between a snail an elephant (pink would have been nice for effect) and an octupus? And then you use the photo of your newborn to be your families coat of arms?

[AnotherSillyAlias]

Is this the creature that comes out of a 3-way manage' twe (or however you spell it) and you wind up with a newborn that is the cross between a snail an elephant (pink would have been nice for effect) and an octupus? And then you use the photo of your newborn to be your families coat of arms?

I bet you did really well in school! :rolleyes:


Your French is pretty good too.

[Iamme]

Iamme, I think you've gotten stuck on a fundamental problem.

Just because an idea is NEAT and COOL, it doesn't mean it's TRUE. The universe is not much concerned with neat ideas.

I'm sure this particular idea of yours would be neat. But it isn't real. It has no basis in observable reality. You just had an idea you thought was cool. "Cool" however, does not neccessarily equal "true."

For example, it would be damn neat if ammonites had been intelligent. They had tentacles that maybe they could use to manipulate stuff, and they were around halfway to forever, and cephalopods are brainy little buggers anyway, and they could practice elaborate shell-inlay scarification and base-12 tentacle math and names like "Inksquirter," and "Stripeshell." It would be awfully cool if there had been an ammonite civilization.

But, of course, there wasn't. Reality will not be altered merely because I think talking ammonites are a neat idea. My neat idea has no particular impact on the way the universe works.

And because I realize this, I may paint ammonite tribesman, I may write the epic nine-volume saga of one ammonite's Ayn Randian struggle against the oceanic establishment--hell, I may even dress up as a giant ammonite for special occasions!--but I don't try to claim that ammonites really were civilized and that we're living on the remnants of ancient cephalopod glory.

No matter how cool my idea is, it creates no obligation in the universe to conform to it.

You appear to believe that your neat ideas, merely because they are NEAT, must somehow inform reality. And I regret to inform you, just because you have an idea that seems cool at two in the morning while staring at the ceiling, it doesn't mean you've realized something fundamental to the cosmos. I have seen giant cloud trilobites devour the moon at 2 AM, but that doesn't mean that the relationship between moon and trilobite is what's missing from our understanding of physics, it just means I've got a vivid imagination.*

I recommend a creative outlet. Go write a novel or an RPG sourcebook or paint pictures or SOMETHING. If your idea seems cool, use it as a premise and do something creative with it. People love a cool premise. You're obviously very enamored of your imagination. Go use it somewhere that it's useful. Coming up with nonsensical "theories" that have no basis in reality don't do squat for either you or reality. They aren't REAL. They don't accurately describe the way the world works, and they're only earthshattering to you. As an effort to explain reality, they fail utterly.

But they might make pretty good fiction. So you might wanna consider that.


*And yes, did a lot of drugs in college.

Well we know that molecules are in objects, and atoms are in molecules and quarks are in atoms and... well, then there are those neutrinos...and they keep finding stuff. And then we don't know how energy came into being by itself, or matter, and can you think of anything more unifying than what I am saying?

I believe what I am describing could be like the cone idea, or perhaps even an hour glass shape. When you are at the smallest part of the hourglass you are at the point of singular where energy and perhaps something we don't know about gives birth to matter. If you go one direction from this singular point of the hour glass, you have small unknown energy particles turning into matter which trun into atoms. And if you come out the other point of the singular, you are coming out into another dimension we call space, where there is a huge energy machine (the heart of the universe) that is like a giant cooker, creating the large gases and objects of the universe.

And to complicate things, these two ends may somehow meet each other. (I have to ponder on this a little more though. But I feel like I'm close to something here.)

[AnotherSillyAlias]

And to complicate things, these two ends may somehow meet each other. (I have to ponder on this a little more though. But I feel like I'm close to something here.)

I'd say you're a bit too close to the heater. Move back a little and get yourself a cool drink.

[Iamme]

I bet you did really well in school! :rolleyes:


Your French is pretty good too.

I *did* do good in school, actually. My 5th grade teacher thought I'd be a leader some day.

I took German, not French...because I have that Kraut blood in me.

Achtung! Meine diehaben mischlinglingzie offrauenze.

[Ducky]

Please stop feeding the twat - I mean troll - people.

[AnotherSillyAlias]

Please stop feeding the twat - I mean troll - people.

It's a bad habit of mine. I love poking trolls with sharp sticks. Very addictive.

[epepke]

What *IS* it then?

If you enter a 3-d box, either you are going into it, out of it, or into it..but out of it again, somewhere else. Period.

But in my aptly named 4-D, you may just go in that box and...perhaps even disappear! Seriously.

I think the usual term is "degree of freedom."

I got into a discussion with someone about ten years ago over the fact that some virtual reality dimension had this (they called it "scale") and called it a dimension. But it isn't.

If you only have one, you can call 'most anything a dimension. However, if you have more than one, in order to call them dimensions, they have to transform together in certain ways. There are a hell of a lot of ways that they can transform, but there has to be some way. What you have described doesn't cut it as a fourth dimension.

[UrsulaV]

Well we know that molecules are in objects, and atoms are in molecules and quarks are in atoms and... well, then there are those neutrinos...and they keep finding stuff. And then we don't know how energy came into being by itself, or matter, and can you think of anything more unifying than what I am saying?

I believe what I am describing could be like the cone idea, or perhaps even an hour glass shape. When you are at the smallest part of the hourglass you are at the point of singular where energy and perhaps something we don't know about gives birth to matter. If you go one direction from this singular point of the hour glass, you have small unknown energy particles turning into matter which trun into atoms. And if you come out the other point of the singular, you are coming out into another dimension we call space, where there is a huge energy machine (the heart of the universe) that is like a giant cooker, creating the large gases and objects of the universe.

And to complicate things, these two ends may somehow meet each other. (I have to ponder on this a little more though. But I feel like I'm close to something here.)

Do you even bother to read anybody's posts any more, or do you just hit "reply" to something at random and start blathering?

[delphi_ote]

It's a bad habit of mine. I love poking trolls with sharp sticks. Very addictive.

It's best we don't incorporate fowlsound's slip of the tongue into your post. Things might get a little too Freudian in here.

[HeyLeroy]

Can anyone tell me how to post a kitten picture? I think one is called for. Either that or I post my recipe for toast. (I make a mean dry white toast)

[AnotherSillyAlias]

Can anyone tell me how to post a kitten picture? I think one is called for. Either that or I post my recipe for toast. (I make a mean dry white toast)

You need a recipe for toast?

I just grab a slice of bread and whack it in the toaster and let it do it's thing.

Interesting.

[Pope130]

You need a recipe for toast?


The dry white toast is easy, it's the five fried chickens that make it tricky.

[Ducky]

The dry white toast is easy, it's the five fried chickens that make it tricky.


Four fried chickens. and a coke.

[Pope130]

Four fried chickens. and a coke.
Thankyou for the correction Fowlsound, I abase myself. Take my fedora and sunglasses 'til I have again made myself worthy.

Robert

[HeyLeroy]

http://astradyne.co.uk/tet/kittens/kittens32.jpg

I'm glad you all caught the reference. Now go dress up like a Hasidic diamond merchant and put on some Aretha.

[gnome]

Dear Sirs:

I object to what I see as the misuse of kitten photographs in this thread. The "kitten" reply, as it is known, has a very specific and traditional purpose: to calm nerves when a particularly heated thread generates unacceptable rancor between members. In this threat the kittens are being used as "doe snot" and I should point out that the official "doe snot" of JREF is recipes.

Yours, etc.

Gnome (deceased)

[AnotherSillyAlias]

Dear Sirs:

I object to what I see as the misuse of kitten photographs in this thread. The "kitten" reply, as it is known, has a very specific and traditional purpose: to calm nerves when a particularly heated thread generates unacceptable rancor between members. In this threat the kittens are being used as "doe snot" and I should point out that the official "doe snot" of JREF is recipes.

Yours, etc.

Gnome (deceased)

A most informative post, thank you.

Is there an official picture to denote particularly stupid posts, such as those from Iamme or the kiliks of the world?

If not, might I suggest a sheep, remarkably stupid animals and, like stupid people, very common and found throughout the world.

Thank you for your attention.

[luchog]

And because I realize this, I may paint ammonite tribesman,

s/may/must

Soon.

hell, I may even dress up as a giant ammonite for special occasions!

I'd pay to see that.

--but I don't try to claim that ammonites really were civilized and that we're living on the remnants of ancient cephalopod glory.

Ia Cthulhu! Cthulhu ftagn!

[luchog]

Either that or I post my recipe for toast. (I make a mean dry white toast)
Does it come with a whole fried chicken?

[luchog]

Dear Sirs:

I object to what I see as the misuse of kitten photographs in this thread. The "kitten" reply, as it is known, has a very specific and traditional purpose: to calm nerves when a particularly heated thread generates unacceptable rancor between members. In this threat the kittens are being used as "doe snot" and I should point out that the official "doe snot" of JREF is recipes.

Yours, etc.

Gnome (deceased)
Wombat stew.

First, get one wombat...
http://www.speakeasy.org/~hardrock/pictures/wombat4.jpg

[YoPopa]

Wombat stew.

First, get one wombat...


Now place Wombat inside of a quark while slowly bringing the Amazon River to a boil.

.

[HeyLeroy]

Dear Sirs:

I object to what I see as the misuse of kitten photographs in this thread. The "kitten" reply, as it is known, has a very specific and traditional purpose: to calm nerves when a particularly heated thread generates unacceptable rancor between members. In this threat the kittens are being used as "doe snot" and I should point out that the official "doe snot" of JREF is recipes.

Yours, etc.

Gnome (deceased)

Dear Sir:

Please accept my apologies for wanton use of kittens. As a recent member of the JREF forum, I am still not fully versed in the genereal user etiquette, or, unwritten rules, as it were. It was certainly not my intention to violate said rules.

In my defense, I received this notion in another thread, from another long-time poster (who shall remain anonymous). This poster informed another newbie that it was acceptable to use either kittens or recipes as "doe snot". Apparently, this is not the case, and I shall refrain from the use of kittens, as such, heretofore. Henceforth I shall only use them as "fire extinguishers", as apparently this is the unspoken rule here.

Again, my sincerest apologies.

My condolences to your deceasedness.

I remain,
HeyLeroy

PS: What is the etiquette on wombats?

[delphi_ote]

Dear Sirs:

I object to what I see as the misuse of kitten photographs in this thread. The "kitten" reply, as it is known, has a very specific and traditional purpose: to calm nerves when a particularly heated thread generates unacceptable rancor between members. In this threat the kittens are being used as "doe snot" and I should point out that the official "doe snot" of JREF is recipes.

Yours, etc.

Gnome (deceased)

Due to the inanity of this topic, we were forced to devise a way to pass the time. Practicing our emergency thread kittening procedure seemed the most logical way to weather the duldroms. One can never be too prepared, as a flame war can break out when one least expects it.

If our over-vigilance has offended sir, I most humbly apologize.

Alright. Back to the drill everyone. Ready?

Israel!

[HeyLeroy]

Ex Machina!(the big-ass CNC machine I used to run) (http://www.wmptl.com/images/photos/reko.jpg)

[Psi Baba]

You need a recipe for toast?

I just grab a slice of bread and whack it in the toaster and let it do it's thing.

Interesting.
Heywood Banks has the best recipe for toast. And it goes something like this. *Ahem*

All around the country, coast to coast,
people always say what do you like most,
I don't wanna brag I don't wanna boast,
But I always tell 'em I like toast.

yeah TOAST yeah TOAST

I get up in the morning bout six AM,
have a little jelly have a little jam,
I take a piece of bread and I put it in the slot,
I push down the lever and the wires get hot,
I get toast!

yeah TOAST yeah TOAST

now there's no secret to toasting perfection,
there's a dial on the side and you make your selection,
push to the dark or the light and then,
if it pops too soon just press it down again,
make toast.

yeah TOAST yeah TOAST

When the first caveman crawled up from the dregs,
They didn't know what would go with the bacon and the eggs,
must have been a genius got it in his head,
plug the toaster in the wall and go buy a bag of bread,
and make toast!

yeah TOAST yeah TOAST

Oui Monsieur, bonjour coquette,
Une croissant? Et vous auvent?
Maurice Chevalier, Eiffel Tower,
Oui Marie, baguette, bonsoir!

FRENCH TOAST! FRENCH TOAST!!!

[HeyLeroy]

I prefer Elwood Blues' recipe for dry white toast.

[ZeeGerman]

Lay off the dope man.:D

Zee

[luchog]

PS: What is the etiquette on wombats?
Don't eat them.

[chipmunk stew]

Don't eat them.Or shave them, apparently.

[HeyLeroy]

Or annoy, harrass, or tease them. They're sensitive li'l buggers! Lotsa dark meat, tho'.

[chipmunk stew]

Don't eat them.[wombats, that is]Chipmunks, on the other hand are fair game.

http://director.hu.mtu.edu/mtublogs/mariya/archives/chipmunk.jpg

---------------
CHIPMUNK STEW
•2 pounds diced chipmunk (the legs are most of the meat but the breast is good if you have the patience)
•Minced garlic
•Chopped onion
•Hot peppers
•Guinness stout
•Butter
•Hot pepper flakes
•Chicken or possum stock
•Peeled and quartered potatoes
This actually tastes a lot like chicken (but still with a difference). It's best made with Rocky Mountain chippers (East Coast chippies are too small) and perhaps served with a nice Sauvignon Blanc. Marinate the chipmunk meat in the garlic, onion, hot peppers, and Guinness. Saute in a skillet with butter, pepper flakes, and salt. Cook quickly until browned. Deglaze the skillet with the stock and put it all into a large saucepan or stockpot along with the marinade and the potatoes. Cover and bake at 275 degrees for two hours. Remove from the oven and, in a separate pan, reduce whatever marinade is left and whisk in six ounces of additional butter. Combine reduced marinade with chipmunk meat and serve.