## Blow my mind. | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 32130791 United States 02/18/2013 10:39 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward (OP)User ID: 31734258 United States 02/18/2013 10:40 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I often look through the eyes of others to figure out problems from alternate prospectives. Anonymous Coward 31734258 The doctors call it schizophrenia. I call it an abnormal amount of established neuro-pathways. Anonymous Coward 31734258 I call it no boundaries with ghosts. WindyMind Ghosts? You're saying schizophrenia is a metaphysical link between dimensions? Idk man.. I think most cases are the result of a fast brain and PTSD. |

Anonymous Coward (OP)User ID: 31734258 United States 02/18/2013 10:41 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

WindyMindUser ID: 26518293 United States 02/18/2013 10:43 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 18996623 United States 02/18/2013 10:45 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The man often considered to be the smartest person in America worked as a bouncer, and has developed a "theory of everything" but has problems getting it published in journals due to his lack of college education. [link to en.wikipedia.org] |

Anonymous Coward (OP)User ID: 31734258 United States 02/18/2013 10:49 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

WindyMindUser ID: 26518293 United States 02/18/2013 10:50 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 18996623 United States 02/18/2013 10:51 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | An interesting number trick from Christopher Langan's site: It only takes about a minute.......Work this out as you read. Be sure you don't read the bottom until you've worked it out! This is not one of those waste of time things, it's fun. 1. First of all, pick the number of times a week that you would like to have chocolate. (try for more than once but less than 10) 2. Multiply this number by 2 (Just to be bold) 3. Add 5. (for Sunday) 4. Multiply it by 50 (being a bit stupid) I'll wait while you get the calculator................ 5. If you have already had your birthday this year add 1751.... If you haven't, add 1750 .......... 6. Now subtract the four digit year that you were born. (if you remember) You should have a three digit number ..... The first digit of this was your original number (i.e., how many times you want to have chocolate each week). The next two numbers are your age. THIS IS THE ONLY YEAR (2001) IT WILL EVER WORK, SO SPREAD IT AROUND WHILE IT LASTS. IMPRESSIVE ISN'T IT? A: One reason people find this amazing is that it seems to reveal a mysterious mathematical connection between your age and your appetite for chocolate. Otherwise, why would it yield your age even though all you're feeding in is the number of times per week you want to eat chocolate? Shouldn't the randomness of your appetite for chocolate mess up your age? How does your age get in there in the first place? It must happen when you subtract your year of birth. But shouldn't subtracting your year of birth destroy any information regarding your appetite for chocolate? No. The procedure is structured in such a way that the number you choose simply gets bumped up a couple of place values, where it can't cross wires with the basic age and birth-year arithmetic. To see this, assume that you don't like chocolate and want to eat chocolate 0 times per week...i.e., that your chocoholic index is 0. Then what you start with is: (0 x 2 + 5) x 50 = 5 x 50 = 250. Now subtract 250 from 2001. What do you get? Presto! 2001 - 250 = 1751 That is, because 250 + 1751 = 2001, you're simply calculating the current year by adding 1751. So now we've got the current year, 2001. But what happens when you subtract your year of birth from the current year, provided you've already had your birthday? You get your age! That's how the age and birth-year arithmetic was reverse-engineered. Now what happens if you start upping your chocoholic index one binge at a time? If you up it from 0 to 1, you get (1 x 2 + 5)50 = 350 instead of 250, which means you're adding 350 - 250 = 100 to your age. If you up it to 2, you get (2 x 2 + 5)50 = 450 which means you're adding 450 - 250 = 200 to your age. And so on and so forth. Multiplying your chocoholic index by 2 x 50 = 100 simply moves it up to the 102 (hundreds) place, where it can't affect the 101 and 100 (tens and ones) places containing your age. It's a red herring! The author of this trick states that it can only be used this year (2001). Is that true? Well, yes and no. It's true as long as we insist on adding the "magic number" 1751. But it's false in the sense that we can update or backdate the trick to any year we like by instead adding a number equal to that year minus 250. For example, next year we'd add 1752, while in the year 2101, we'd add 1851. What if you want to eat chocolate ten or more times per week? No problem. But in that case, you end up with a number of more than three digits. The 101 and 100 places still contain your two-digit age, while the higher places contain your 2, 3 or n-digit chocoholic index. Can we change this trick into a new one? Sure! Choose the number of fast-food burgers you want to eat per day - your "Wimpy index" - multiply it by 4, add 12, multiply the result by 25, add 1701 (1700 if you haven't had your birthday yet), subtract your year of birth, and marvel at the results. This is sufficiently close to the old trick that you should be able to see how to cook up as many such tricks as you like. [Note that the product of the first and third numbers equals 100 - that's the multiplier that bumps your Wimpy index up two places - while the fourth number equals the current year minus the product of the second and third numbers.] Why would someone do something like this? It's just a bit of mathematical legerdemain that probably has the person who cooked it up laughing himself (or herself) silly over how gullible, innumerate and greedy for chocolate most of us are! |

Anonymous Coward (OP)User ID: 31734258 United States 02/18/2013 10:52 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The man often considered to be the smartest person in America worked as a bouncer, and has developed a "theory of everything" but has problems getting it published in journals due to his lack of college education. Quoting: [link to en.wikipedia.org] Anonymous Coward 18996623 Thanks for the comment. I remember hearing something about him. Going to take a look at his theory. |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 18996623 United States 02/18/2013 10:55 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The man often considered to be the smartest person in America worked as a bouncer, and has developed a "theory of everything" but has problems getting it published in journals due to his lack of college education. Quoting: [link to en.wikipedia.org] Anonymous Coward 18996623 Thanks for the comment. I remember hearing something about him. Going to take a look at his theory. Anonymous Coward 31734258 I personally wasn't really able to grep it fully. I'm going to give it another go at a later date. |

Anonymous Coward (OP)User ID: 31734258 United States 02/18/2013 10:56 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | An interesting number trick from Christopher Langan's site: Quoting: It only takes about a minute.......Work this out as you read. Be sure you don't read the bottom until you've worked it out! This is not one of those waste of time things, it's fun. 1. First of all, pick the number of times a week that you would like to have chocolate. (try for more than once but less than 10) 2. Multiply this number by 2 (Just to be bold) 3. Add 5. (for Sunday) 4. Multiply it by 50 (being a bit stupid) I'll wait while you get the calculator................ 5. If you have already had your birthday this year add 1751.... If you haven't, add 1750 .......... 6. Now subtract the four digit year that you were born. (if you remember) You should have a three digit number ..... The first digit of this was your original number (i.e., how many times you want to have chocolate each week). The next two numbers are your age. THIS IS THE ONLY YEAR (2001) IT WILL EVER WORK, SO SPREAD IT AROUND WHILE IT LASTS. IMPRESSIVE ISN'T IT? A: One reason people find this amazing is that it seems to reveal a mysterious mathematical connection between your age and your appetite for chocolate. Otherwise, why would it yield your age even though all you're feeding in is the number of times per week you want to eat chocolate? Shouldn't the randomness of your appetite for chocolate mess up your age? How does your age get in there in the first place? It must happen when you subtract your year of birth. But shouldn't subtracting your year of birth destroy any information regarding your appetite for chocolate? No. The procedure is structured in such a way that the number you choose simply gets bumped up a couple of place values, where it can't cross wires with the basic age and birth-year arithmetic. To see this, assume that you don't like chocolate and want to eat chocolate 0 times per week...i.e., that your chocoholic index is 0. Then what you start with is: (0 x 2 + 5) x 50 = 5 x 50 = 250. Now subtract 250 from 2001. What do you get? Presto! 2001 - 250 = 1751 That is, because 250 + 1751 = 2001, you're simply calculating the current year by adding 1751. So now we've got the current year, 2001. But what happens when you subtract your year of birth from the current year, provided you've already had your birthday? You get your age! That's how the age and birth-year arithmetic was reverse-engineered. Now what happens if you start upping your chocoholic index one binge at a time? If you up it from 0 to 1, you get (1 x 2 + 5)50 = 350 instead of 250, which means you're adding 350 - 250 = 100 to your age. If you up it to 2, you get (2 x 2 + 5)50 = 450 which means you're adding 450 - 250 = 200 to your age. And so on and so forth. Multiplying your chocoholic index by 2 x 50 = 100 simply moves it up to the 102 (hundreds) place, where it can't affect the 101 and 100 (tens and ones) places containing your age. It's a red herring! The author of this trick states that it can only be used this year (2001). Is that true? Well, yes and no. It's true as long as we insist on adding the "magic number" 1751. But it's false in the sense that we can update or backdate the trick to any year we like by instead adding a number equal to that year minus 250. For example, next year we'd add 1752, while in the year 2101, we'd add 1851. What if you want to eat chocolate ten or more times per week? No problem. But in that case, you end up with a number of more than three digits. The 101 and 100 places still contain your two-digit age, while the higher places contain your 2, 3 or n-digit chocoholic index. Can we change this trick into a new one? Sure! Choose the number of fast-food burgers you want to eat per day - your "Wimpy index" - multiply it by 4, add 12, multiply the result by 25, add 1701 (1700 if you haven't had your birthday yet), subtract your year of birth, and marvel at the results. This is sufficiently close to the old trick that you should be able to see how to cook up as many such tricks as you like. [Note that the product of the first and third numbers equals 100 - that's the multiplier that bumps your Wimpy index up two places - while the fourth number equals the current year minus the product of the second and third numbers.] Why would someone do something like this? It's just a bit of mathematical legerdemain that probably has the person who cooked it up laughing himself (or herself) silly over how gullible, innumerate and greedy for chocolate most of us are! Anonymous Coward 18996623 Hope his theory of everything is more entertaining than math. :) |

Quantum AnomalyUser ID: 27811971 United States 02/18/2013 11:00 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | [link to en.wikipedia.org] Anonymous Coward 18996623 Ausgezeichnet! |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 34454724 United States 02/18/2013 11:03 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward (OP)User ID: 31734258 United States 02/18/2013 11:06 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 34492014 United States 02/18/2013 11:07 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward (OP)User ID: 31734258 United States 02/18/2013 11:10 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward (OP)User ID: 31734258 United States 02/18/2013 11:11 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 34727417 United States 02/18/2013 11:12 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

WindyMindUser ID: 26518293 United States 02/18/2013 11:14 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Maybe you're right. But I don't how to operate spirituality. I'm a scientist. Anonymous Coward 31734258 Intellectuals on the spiritual path ..... I have seen it work. WindyMind I'll look into it. Does meditation count? Anonymous Coward 31734258 Sure but shit is amplified with a good teacher then again that is a whole new ball of wax and maybe you have enough. |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 18996623 United States 02/18/2013 11:17 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Weasel KeeperUser ID: 34643447 United States 02/18/2013 11:19 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 18996623 United States 02/18/2013 11:19 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The first photo of Earth taken from space: [link to en.wikipedia.org] Taken from a captured Nazi V2 rocket launched in the USA. |

Anonymous Coward (OP)User ID: 31734258 United States 02/18/2013 11:20 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ...Maybe you're right. But I don't how to operate spirituality. I'm a scientist. Anonymous Coward 31734258 Intellectuals on the spiritual path ..... I have seen it work. WindyMind I'll look into it. Does meditation count? Anonymous Coward 31734258 Sure but shit is amplified with a good teacher then again that is a whole new ball of wax and maybe you have enough. WindyMind Any particular style of meditation I should be looking at? |

WindyMindUser ID: 26518293 United States 02/18/2013 11:21 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Sure but shit is amplified with a good teacher then again that is a whole new ball of wax and maybe you have enough. WindyMind Any particular style of meditation I should be looking at? Anonymous Coward 31734258 no, meditation didn't work well for me it's complicated |

Anonymous Coward (OP)User ID: 31734258 United States 02/18/2013 11:22 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The first photo of Earth taken from space: Quoting: [link to en.wikipedia.org] Taken from a captured Nazi V2 rocket launched in the USA. Anonymous Coward 18996623 Very cool. |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 19977250 United States 02/18/2013 11:23 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 18996623 United States 02/18/2013 11:25 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward (OP)User ID: 31734258 United States 02/18/2013 11:30 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Great. I said blow my mind, not crash my brain. Now we wait.. |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 18996623 United States 02/18/2013 11:31 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Haha, I about shit myself too when I first saw that some years ago. Turns out it is related to this (very good) sci fi short story. [link to www.infinityplus.co.uk] |

Anonymous Coward (OP)User ID: 31734258 United States 02/18/2013 11:50 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Haha, I about shit myself too when I first saw that some years ago. Turns out it is related to this (very good) sci fi short story. [link to www.infinityplus.co.uk] Anonymous Coward 18996623 It looks like this a safe version of the original.. The original sounds like the plot of the movie The Ring. |

Related Threads