Posts by dmouse

It happens to me a lot - eg. dreams of suffocation and hearing on the news in the morning that miners have been trapped and died. But it doesn't involve prophecy really, as I'm dreaming the events are actually happening.

I have a theory that sometimes, when we are in very deep sleep, we somehow resonate mentally with other's emotions. If those emotions are powerful enough then we can pick up on them subconsiously, and incorporate them into a dream.

One of the most disturbing examples of this that I had was when I dreamt I was putting salt on slugs, to kill them. As I poured salt onto a particularly large slug it turned over and metamorphed into my daughter. She just soundlessly uttered 'why?' as she died. The next morning I turned on the news and the top story was about a couple who had been convicted of manslaughter. They had fed their newborn baby on just processed foods. Their daughter had died from an overdose of salt.

67

Your Face Goes Here!

by Farkel in

jw
friends

i think you know put us on to something.

comf started out the imitation and others, like myself and tr followed suit.

imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, you know.

dmouse

Great idea Farkel!

I hope you don't mind me jumping on the bus.

21

"PEACE & SECURITY" has been decla...

by proplog2 in

declarations of peace occur at regular intervals.

wars end and.

treaties are signed.

dmouse

Very interesting post, propolog2.

When I saw all this happening on the news the first thing that occurred to me was the 'peace and security' prophecy (their nano-mindbots are still there, in my head, prompting my thoughts, God damn them!).

Thinking rationally though, I think this is just another ‘peace and security’ thing, with no special religious relevance. The collapse of communism in Russia and the fall of the wall etc was a far more significant event if you are looking for such stuff.

In 20, 30, 40+ years time we will be looking for, and finding, the triggers for Armageddon.

But I agree with you about one thing, that Putin needs to be watched carefully.

9

" Logic problem "

by BATHORY in

jw
friends

in a previous thread dmouse mocks me for giving a serious reponse to what i see as a serious question about infinity from pubsinger.. it said that " it has nothing to do with reality, its just a logic problem " or some crap to that tune.. ok dmouse to appease yourself to the board, and buy back face, i ask you the following.

please answer according to the " obvious law " you imposed on me.

a question was asked on the scientific american magazine web site(sciam.com) which was close to this, .

dmouse

Sorry BATHORY, I’ve only just seen this thread.

In a previous thread dmouse mocks me for giving a serious reponse to what i see as a serious question about infinity from pubsinger.

Forgive me if that’s how it came across, I had no intention of sounding sarcastic. However, my comment was regarding your response to my logic problem not pubsinger’s.

It said that " it has nothing to do with reality, its just a logic problem " or some crap to that tune.

Do you not believe then that there can be pure logic problems unconnected to reality? I don’t understand your issue with this. Also, you proceed from a false premise, as I’ve already said, I made that comment in regard to your comments about the logic problem I posed, not pubsinger.

Ok dmouse to appease yourself to the board, and buy back face, i ask you the following. Please answer according to the " obvious law " you imposed on me

What!? I’m not in the least worried about your illusions about me losing face. The board doesn’t care either. You’re making an issue about nothing. And why do you put “Obvious law” in commas, as if you are quoting me? I never said that, and I never imposed anything on you.

"Is there a minimum value of time?".
Well dmouse, can you speculate ?? Its easy easy japaneesy !!
Everything is relative......

OK, I’ll give it a bash, though I haven’t done any research on this. I would say off the top of my head that there isn’t a minimum value of time. However small amount of time you define you can always shorten it, theoretically. Time is defined as a continuous forward flow of an event. Something has to happen for time to be measured. In reality though there may be a limit to the smallest unit of time we can measure, due to the fact that by observing we influence what we observe (on this scale).

I don't profess to be the Oracle, knowing all things (far from it) so if you have the definitive answer then let me know - I'm always willing to learn.

226

UK & IRELAND MAP

by ballistic in

jw
friends

i had an idea that i could build a uk map of everyones location which would show you instantly who is in your area from jwd.. (it might be an idea to do a seperate us one aswell but i'll wait and see if this one takes off first, or if anyone from the us wants to volunteer to do that one).

(and australia but you are all in the same backyard anyway - literally!!!).

anyway, all you have to do is post or email me your username and town and i will draw you on the map above which will change gradually to include everyone!.

dmouse

Leicester.

The map's gonna get pretty confusing though if you put a lot of names on!

12

Any good at math?

by Pubsinger in

jw
friends

what is infinity doubled?.

what is infinity halved?.

somebody humour me please!

dmouse

well, we're not talking reality here BATHORY, it's a hypothetical situation, a logic problem.

Much like - 'if there's a man talking in the forest and there is no woman there to hear him, is he still wrong?'

12

Any good at math?

by Pubsinger in

jw
friends

what is infinity doubled?.

what is infinity halved?.

somebody humour me please!

dmouse

(LOL @ Farkel!)

You're right xyzzy.
An immovable object and an irresistible force cannot logically exist at the same time. The separate existence of either one negates the existence of the other.

If you make the statement, for example, that an object is immovable then you negate the possibility of an irresistible force. You can’t have both. If you say that a force is irresistible, then it cannot be resisted (by anything); as soon as something resists the force (ie an immovable object) then by definition the force is no longer considered irresistible.

I suppose that you could have an object which is BOTH an irresistible force and an immovable object.

12