Hatred on this Forum

[Bill Yung]

Yes. The sun definitely orbits around his own planet.

That might not seem so strange as you think. The latest documented cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) confirms the seemingly inexplicable results that show the Earth in the center of the universe, in terms of "shells" of "matter" that radiate outward, and "planes" of the universe that mimic those of our sun, etc. Not a one of the top thinkers has yet found any other explanation for this bizarre finding. But not so bizarre if you remember that we view the sun in the center of things only because doing so seems more obvious. Rotating frames of reference are just as valid as non-rotating ones. More to the point, Einstein's Relativity Theory, if it is correct, means there can be no way to determine exactly which things are moving in which way.

[Alan Mendelson]

Coach belly, no one ever responded to your post about how I get criticized about DI being possible, but regnis who had claimed to actually influence dice has not been criticized at all.

Clearly if I say red, redietz and V and Mickey and probably Moses and certainly kewlj will say green. Keystone, MaxPen and jbjb and RS will just say whatever without even mentioning a color.

LOL

[MisterV]

I believe DI is "possible" in the limited sense that a properly tossed "dead cat bounce" might possibly be achieved.

Other than that: fuhgedaboudit.

[Moses]

.
Clearly if I say red, redietz and V and Mickey and probably Moses and certainly kewlj will say green. Keystone, MaxPen and jbjb and RS will just say whatever without even mentioning a color.

LOL

MenZell. That's not true. I'd say orange which is a shade of red. You're a hoot.

[coach belly]

I believe DI is "possible" in the limited sense that a properly tossed "dead cat bounce" might possibly be achieved.

Other than that: fuhgedaboudit.

The dead cat bounce can be achieved, but that won't alter the normal distribution of the numbers such that...for instance...a 4 or 10 can be rolled with greater frequencies than could be rolled randomly?

My understanding is that's what the DIs claim...that they can roll certain numbers with greater frequency than random.

The dead cat bounce can't produce those results?

[redietz]

Coach belly, no one ever responded to your post about how I get criticized about DI being possible, but regnis who had claimed to actually influence dice has not been criticized at all.

Clearly if I say red, redietz and V and Mickey and probably Moses and certainly kewlj will say green. Keystone, MaxPen and jbjb and RS will just say whatever without even mentioning a color.

LOL

Check your memory neurons, please. If you look at my few posts regarding dice influencing, I've said I thought historically it probably had happened, but equipment changes probably diminished its effectiveness considerably. I base these thoughts not on any personal experience, because I do not play craps, but on listening to people who have played during the last 50 years, and who have vouched for its existence. People I respect who do not invent stuff.

I worry when you do things like completely get wrong something someone has said multiple times, or when you pluck wayward factoids from the web to make this case or that.

[Bill Yung]

Coach belly, no one ever responded to your post about how I get criticized about DI being possible, but regnis who had claimed to actually influence dice has not been criticized at all.LOL

I guess that you have to up your lying. Regnis got away also with vouching for Redietz.

[Bill Yung]

... pluck wayward factoids from the web to make this case or that.

Hey, just stumbled across this one. Couldn't resist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrase...thing_.2842.29

[regnis]

Coach belly, no one ever responded to your post about how I get criticized about DI being possible, but regnis who had claimed to actually influence dice has not been criticized at all.LOL

I guess that you have to up your lying. Regnis got away also with vouching for Redietz.

I attribute it to my incredible good looks.

And the hope that he keeps sending the checks.

[slingshot]

Yes. The sun definitely orbits around his own planet.

That might not seem so strange as you think. The latest documented cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) confirms the seemingly inexplicable results that show the Earth in the center of the universe, in terms of "shells" of "matter" that radiate outward, and "planes" of the universe that mimic those of our sun, etc. Not a one of the top thinkers has yet found any other explanation for this bizarre finding. But not so bizarre if you remember that we view the sun in the center of things only because doing so seems more obvious. Rotating frames of reference are just as valid as non-rotating ones. More to the point, Einstein's Relativity Theory, if it is correct, means there can be no way to determine exactly which things are moving in which way.

Wow! An informative post on this forum. Should it be true it would be an interesting study on the Creation theory. First He created the heavens and earth!!! Now I have a topic of interest from this forum! Thanks!!

[Bill Yung]

Data from the Planck Telescope published in 2013 has since found stronger evidence for the anisotropy. "For a long time, part of the community was hoping that this would go away, but it hasn’t," says Dominik Schwarz of the University of Bielefeld in Germany.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_evil_(cosmology)

Anisotropy means not the same in all directions, the opposite of isotropy. The universe may not be the same in all directions, after all, ie, there may be a center to it. Then Relativity Theory might not be so basic, as opposed to Quantum Theory, or even completely correct.

There's not much support for the notion that the speed of light fluctuates, anymore, because that, and some other things, make up the fine-structure constant of the universe, a dimensionless number that may be the most basic number of all in physics, where "the rubber hits the road" with matter and field. It has, more or less, been proved to be constant, although no one knows how to write that number algebraically. So, Relativity Theory can't be too far off correct if the speed of light remains constant (depending on what it passes through.)

I'm taking a little break from my own "theory of everything" to catch up on a lot of other work. Hands tied. However, these are great times to play (rest) with what I call "fun" numbers, numbers that together seem to form their own little mathematical "field" of numbers, but connect to nothing logical. You have to figure that there are all sorts of non-numerical meanings of numbers too, beyond just writing, eg, 3 as three. Different ways for numbers to be "numbers but not". And, that some of the really important numbers in math and physics would be more than just numbers. There are many paradoxes involved with summing up a universe. How else to overcome any of those?

Today, I noticed that 411 = 3 X 137, and 137 = 4^2 + 11^2, a Pythagorean prime. The inverse of 137 is rather close to the fine-structure constant. The number that a famous physicist told his students to put up on their wall. It has a sort of "cult following" among theoretical physics, as well. Notice how the 4 and 11 make up the 137, and, versa, how the 137 makes up the 411. You would have to go to the other site to see the significance of the 411. (If we are the 42nd dimension, then the 41st, which in a way comes before and after us, is our "tracks".) Then 41 + 1 ---> 411 comes from trying to add 1 to the 41, on the end, but after the end. Sort of a limit after the limit. How do we become our "tracks", which are beneath our matter and fields? Does the fine-structure constant remain constant between "different" universes? Is it actually somehow just, exactly 1 / 137?

[slingshot]

Data from the Planck Telescope published in 2013 has since found stronger evidence for the anisotropy. "For a long time, part of the community was hoping that this would go away, but it hasn’t," says Dominik Schwarz of the University of Bielefeld in Germany.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_evil_(cosmology)

Anisotropy means not the same in all directions, the opposite of isotropy. The universe may not be the same in all directions, after all, ie, there may be a center to it. Then Relativity Theory might not be so basic, as opposed to Quantum Theory, or even completely correct.

There's not much support for the notion that the speed of light fluctuates, anymore, because that, and some other things, make up the fine-structure constant of the universe, a dimensionless number that may be the most basic number of all in physics, where "the rubber hits the road" with matter and field. It has, more or less, been proved to be constant, although no one knows how to write that number algebraically. So, Relativity Theory can't be too far off correct if the speed of light remains constant (depending on what it passes through.)

I'm taking a little break from my own "theory of everything" to catch up on a lot of other work. Hands tied. However, these are great times to play (rest) with what I call "fun" numbers, numbers that together seem to form their own little mathematical "field" of numbers, but connect to nothing logical. You have to figure that there are all sorts of non-numerical meanings of numbers too, beyond just writing, eg, 3 as three. Different ways for numbers to be "numbers but not". And, that some of the really important numbers in math and physics would be more than just numbers. There are many paradoxes involved with summing up a universe. How else to overcome any of those?

Today, I noticed that 411 = 3 X 137, and 137 = 4^2 + 11^2, a Pythagorean prime. The inverse of 137 is rather close to the fine-structure constant. The number that a famous physicist told his students to put up on their wall. It has a sort of "cult following" among theoretical physics, as well. Notice how the 4 and 11 make up the 137, and, versa, how the 137 makes up the 411. You would have to go to the other site to see the significance of the 411. (If we are the 42nd dimension, then the 41st, which in a way comes before and after us, is our "tracks".) Then 41 + 1 ---> 411 comes from trying to add 1 to the 41, on the end, but after the end. Sort of a limit after the limit. How do we become our "tracks", which are beneath our matter and fields? Does the fine-structure constant remain constant between "different" universes? Is it actually somehow just, exactly 1 / 137?

,
Too far beyond my comprehension. I'm just having trouble understanding the simple beliefs, I.e., the temp of the sun being cooler close to the sun than 10,000 miles away. Or the earth is the only spot in the universe to observe the eclipses.

[Bill Yung]

I've been thinking about this stuff for thirty years, but still struggle with it. The "fun" numbers, only for a few years. Those give me something to do between the different theories I am trying to put together into one.

[The Boz]

If anyone had any question that this lunatic isn’t Garnabby. Sorry if posting links to another forum is against the rules. Then again we don’t have rules here and Fisk is a good dude.

http://thepenaltybox.freeforums.net/thread/101/god


Page after page of just talking to himself.

[Bill Yung]

Right or wrong, I welcome all the criticism I can get: the more mistakes, the more right answers. Even if it's only about me "arguing" with me. A fun way to walk through life.

You wouldn't want to end up on an dead-end egg-shell forum talking to yourself through others, not having grown up even this much. You only have to calmly inform the Wizard that he's no genius to get "nuked" from there. He is a true loser. Sorry, not so much fun. A little money, maybe, if you ever see it.

[slingshot]

Right or wrong, I welcome all the criticism I can get: the more mistakes, the more right answers. Even if it's only about me "arguing" with me. A fun way to walk through life.

You wouldn't want to end up on an dead-end egg-shell forum talking to yourself through others, not having grown up even this much. You only have to calmly inform the Wizard that he's no genius to get "nuked" from there. He is a true loser. Sorry, not so much fun. A little money, maybe, if you ever see it.

This is probably why I'm a nut job- observing the hands/deals and watching over time how they seem to correlate with the possibility of programming a machine to simulate randomness yet control pay outs so that the correct percentages fall within regulations. I hadn't seen it in a long time, but two months ago as I hit the deal button to start a new hand, there was a perceptible hesitation as a Royal was dealt to me.

[Alan Mendelson]

Oh no, sling. Please don't fall for that myth about hesitations. Many truthful articles are available about that hesitation. It's nothing more than a routine pause. You saw the hesitation before a royal, and I see it all the time sometimes when I'm getting junk or a pair or better. That hesitation has nothing to do with the computer thinking "it's time to pay" or "it's time not to pay."

[AxelWolf]

Oh no, sling. Please don't fall for that myth about hesitations. Many truthful articles are available about that hesitation. It's nothing more than a routine pause. You saw the hesitation before a royal, and I see it all the time sometimes when I'm getting junk or a pair or better. That hesitation has nothing to do with the computer thinking "it's time to pay" or "it's time not to pay."

This is by far one of few most sane things you have ever said.

[slingshot]

Oh no, sling. Please don't fall for that myth about hesitations. Many truthful articles are available about that hesitation. It's nothing more than a routine pause. You saw the hesitation before a royal, and I see it all the time sometimes when I'm getting junk or a pair or better. That hesitation has nothing to do with the computer thinking "it's time to pay" or "it's time not to pay."

Of course you're probably right. It's certainly a noticeable " glitch", if you will, and the points seem to start tallying even before the hand completely fills. But more to the point are the days of seeming bias versus periods of success.

[jbjb]

Oh no, sling. Please don't fall for that myth about hesitations. Many truthful articles are available about that hesitation. It's nothing more than a routine pause. You saw the hesitation before a royal, and I see it all the time sometimes when I'm getting junk or a pair or better. That hesitation has nothing to do with the computer thinking "it's time to pay" or "it's time not to pay."

Of course you're probably right. It's certainly a noticeable " glitch", if you will, and the points seem to start tallying even before the hand completely fills. But more to the point are the days of seeming bias versus periods of success.

It's not a glitch and is on every machine. It's the counter resetting.