172 posts shown.
Nicholas Williams44 said:From an electrical engineering standpoint, that isn't quite accurate...
The one thing you can definitely measure around an outlet is the electromagnetic field. It's a simple test if you have a sensitive electronic probe; it will light up whenever the voltage is live, regardless of whether anything is plugged in or not.
However, regarding health impacts, we're talking about low-intensity, low-frequency alternating fields (meaning very little energy), which drop off significantly with the third power of distance. Humans aren't really that sensitive to these things—we deal with much harsher exposure when we spend too much time out in the summer sun.
It is true that the electric field from an outlet is very weak. But don't ignore the fact that a head might be exposed to it for eight hours every single day, and the question is how many years that lasts.
In any case, I believe it isn't ideal to have your head closer than 10 inches to an outlet. This assumes nothing is currently plugged in (like a nightlight or a clock radio); if something is plugged in, the electric field intensity is considerably higher.
Additionally, measurements have shown that the electric field intensity is lower (when measured near the head) if the outlet is installed with a proper grounding pin, because the field distributes differently.
Lawrence V.
Roger Hall15 said:Does seeking the truth actually change anything?
If we don't know what the truth is, we can't truly aim for it. 😢
Small lies versus big lies... Why is one considered small and the other large?
Perhaps everyone just uses their own subjective scale.
In any case. 😲 Is there even a term for the void left behind by a minor lie?
The message itself doesn't lose value. If the lie is smaller, what exactly becomes larger?
There is a very real risk of spiraling into depression if you overthink this too much. 😵
Most of the time, we are simply chasing our own preconceived notion of the truth.
And those notions tend to shift as we mature, learn, grow, and age.
V.
To determine the scale of a lie, you first need a yardstick for the truth.
But I don't claim to possess the truth.
So, I cannot assert that my own words are absolute truth.
Everything is a lie. The only real question is whether it is a small lie or a large one.
And everyone uses a different ruler to measure that difference.
boldsailor32.
Staying aware???
By any chance?
Or is it the most important thing of all?
boldsailor32.
Why should a soul even bother to "grow"? What does that term actually signify?
Perhaps we are simply searching for the most fundamental elements. Something pure and uncomplicated....
Refinement isn't usually about adding more knowledge; rather, it's about stripping away the excess...
V.
Gaudrath said:You might not enjoy it quite as much if two tons of explosives go off right in your face... 😁
I will admit, she can be pretty "explosive" herself...
boldsailor32. 😉
My dear Hannah holds multiple world records in glider piloting.
She also knows how to handle a Messerschmitt 163 rocket plane when the situation calls for it, and she’s even brave enough to hitch a ride on a V-1...
"A saint one moment and a sinner the next, depending entirely on what the occasion demands."
I absolutely adore her!
V.
hollowviper72 said:Oh, so now you claim to know my very essence? Please. That is what happens when amateurs try their hand at divination. They get lucky once or twice and suddenly think they can read souls. 😁
*I* suspect you're just bitter that I hold a moderator position. Since we are speculating. 🙂
It isn't just that I resent your moderator status on this "me, myself, and I" board. It is also that I am hopelessly in love with a petite, emotional, gentle, non-aggressive blonde glider pilot who finds her sky identification within the wind...
Last year, I dedicated an entire post to her over at online witch...🙂
Her name is
Hannah 🙂
V. 🙂
P.S.
Pictures
hollowviper72 said:Fair point. I agree. However, since my specialty involves all forms of divination, I should remind you that divination is much more subjective than observing someone's actual behavior. You are essentially basing your conclusions on pure subjectivity. 🙂
"It doesn't matter what color the cat is. What matters is that it catches mice."
V.
hollowviper72 said:.
.
.
It wasn't your methods I found funny, but your contradictions. First you claim we should judge people by their actions—which is objective—and then you say you go by "feeling," which is subjective. If you want to judge me by my actions, I believe I am one of the most mild-mannered and tolerant moderators on this forum. 🙂
.
.
.
"Don't listen to what a man says—watch what he does..."
Neither listening nor watching provides an objective judgment. Both pass through the filter of my own subjectivity. One can only be more or less subjective.
Perhaps you are capable of making an objective judgment because you possess absolute truth.
I do not possess it, so I am incapable of being objective.
All my judgments are subjective, especially when images and colors pass through a crystal ball. I make no claim that they are the only correct ones.
V. 😉
mrkenangelo said:You forgot to mention the beans.
Soak your beans overnight.
Boil them in a pot with plenty of water and a pinch of salt.
Once cooked, transfer them to a deep skillet. Add some olive oil infused with Mediterranean herbs and a dash of Stella.
While they simmer, slowly pour in beer until the beans completely break down. Then, reduce the beer until everything is nearly dry...
Mmmmmm... 🙂
V.
hollowviper72 said:I get it. That’s your whole "judge by actions" routine. In reality, you'd rather rely on some crystal ball or just a "gut feeling." Look, I respect anyone trying to tap into the Force, but that takes serious discipline. And even when you master it, your intuition doesn't always grasp the full truth.
Anyway, believe your feelings if you want. It's no skin off my nose. 🙂
Since this isn't a subforum dedicated to science, psychology, or law—it’s a free-style spirituality forum—my observations of your actions through a crystal ball, or my subjective experience of your essence, shouldn't be met with mockery. Especially since you serve as a moderator for this very space.
Unless, of course, you're using this moderator role to satisfy an inner craving for power and control over others...
By the way, I don't recall ever asking how you became a moderator here. We never actually discussed it.
I can only assume Anderlon asked you to step away from that detached, passive Eastern mindset and accept the role for the greater good and the progress of the forum.
I imagine you swore an oath before the World Economic Forum that you wouldn't settle disputes with a sword, but would instead bring peace to the people in this forum.
Whether they wanted it or not.
V. 😉
P.S. Quick note: I didn't catch the two posts above; we were typing at the same time.
hollowviper72 said:I see. And how exactly did boldsailor32 reach that highly, uh, informed conclusion?
He reached it by reading tea leaves and relying on a gut feeling about how things are going.
It is a feeling he cannot back up with math, logic, or legal arguments.
But I trust him.
V.
Since we are discussing fighter jets, things work a bit differently when you look at the bigger picture...
About thirty years ago, fighter jet designers hit a massive paradox. A modern supersonic interceptor has to be able to fight opponents at high altitudes and supersonic speeds, yet still be effective against ground targets at subsonic speeds.
The requirements are contradictory. You need flight stability so the pilot can cruise without constant fatigue, but you also need extreme maneuverability to dodge incoming missiles or track an enemy during a dogfight. It needs raw power and speed for combat, but reasonable fuel efficiency for long-range autonomy.
Here is the catch: if you design a stable aircraft, its physical inertia and aerodynamics make it sluggish. It lacks agility.
If you design an aircraft optimized for rapid maneuvers, it becomes inherently unstable during normal flight. The pilot would struggle just to fly straight, and landing would feel like a total gamble.
If you aim for a middle ground—moderate stability and moderate agility—you end up with a decent trainer jet for basic scenarios, but it fails in real combat because it isn't agile enough, and it fails in transit because it isn't stable enough.
After several half-hearted attempts using variable-geometry wings, engineers finally found the winning combination.
They design the aircraft to be highly unstable. This instability is exactly what grants it incredible agility and maneuverability.
Stability is then achieved through a computer-controlled active stability system. Essentially, a computer uses sensors and actuators to monitor the plane's behavior hundreds of times per second, constantly making micro-corrections via electro-servo devices based on millions of data points. If that computer fails for even a split second, the pilot wouldn't be able to keep the plane level, let alone land it safely.
That kind of aircraft is capable of any combat role while remaining steady for long-distance cruising. It is agile, and it is exactly as stable as the immediate situation requires.
It adapts perfectly to whatever is needed in the moment.
Your glider, Gaudrath, is a beautiful, highly stable aircraft. To quote you: "It isn't aggressive, but it gets where it wants to go at its own pace."
But the sky I fly in isn't empty or peaceful. It is a battlefield filled with daily struggles. For someone living by their own hard work in the urban grind of the US, life is a series of small and large battles—a succession of mental crises. You have to be mentally agile to resolve them quickly, and they must be resolved fast because new ones are always coming. You are constantly scanning the environment and adjusting your flight path to match the situation. It is exhausting. You have to maintain active stability while staying ready for sudden maneuvers. There are moments of relaxation or quiet cruising, but those aren't permanent states. The only permanent state is being shot down. Death is the only thing that quiets the mind.
With its slow pace, lack of aggression, and inability to perform sudden defensive maneuvers, a glider simply isn't the right craft for me, or for many of my friends, given where we live and work.
And flying a glider in this environment—which certainly isn't a peaceful field—wouldn't be wise.
A glider needs open skies. Neither of us is stopping anyone from changing our lifestyle to something more stable and materially modest, so we can quiet our minds and glide through life like a seagull in the open air.
As I told an acquaintance of mine the other day—a follower of Krishna who was struggling with his own internal conflicts: "Your Bhakti Yoga philosophy is a great choice. But it’s meant for living and working in a spiritual community outside the city. Trying to do it here? You're just making yourself suffer..."
Look, Gaudrath, your sailboat is basically the Jonathan Livingston Seagull of the fleet. 😉
boldsailor32.
hollowviper72 said:If we're moving from household appliances to aviation, a fighter jet is never moderate. A military jet is always loud, aggressive, constantly rushing, and incredibly difficult to steer or stop once it's on a path. It gulps fuel like there's no tomorrow, ignoring any sense of conservation, and runs dry fast. It flies far, but you don't see much because everything happens too quickly. It wants to reach high altitudes, but it can't stay there.
No, a glider is the true example of a moderate person. It glides elegantly and quietly, observing everything without ever being rushed. Its design understands wind currents perfectly, allowing it to go wherever there is sky. A glider travels far and climbs high, turning easily and gracefully. Because it is silent, it can actually hear the sounds of its world instead of drowning them out with its own racket. It isn't aggressive, yet it reaches its destination exactly where it wants, at its own pace.
Moderation stems from wisdom. A wise person is a thoughtful person, and a thoughtful person is never impulsive or aggressive. You are all mistaken if you confuse gentleness with weakness or moderation with mediocrity. You are wrong because you fail to grasp the aspirations of a wise man, fueled by the false belief that you have already achieved wisdom yourselves. I know I am not wise. I know I don't fully grasp what I think I know, so I quiet my own noise to learn the path of wisdom from the heavens. You fighter jets, caught up in your own power and tension, see nothing beyond your own flight path and hear nothing but the roar of your own engines.
Trying to convince you is pointless. You are deaf. 🙂
That last sentence tells us exactly what you think: that you are wiser than everyone else.
And those who are "deaf" are simply anyone who refuses or is unable to accept your version of wisdom. 😁
Why does this remind me of Lukić? 🙄
V.
Oleander said:😉 That fluidity and flexibility... everything just shifting whenever it needs to, right there on the spot?
Only if you remain consistent with that approach. 😁
.
.
Spot on!
That's exactly what I meant by consistency. 😁
V.
Ryan Wilson2 said:The orthodox Stem 😈
Personally, I prefer an orthodox Flap over those supposedly balanced Stem types. They are nothing but traitors. 😁
I am still not fully orthodox myself. I fluctuate between 75% and 90%, but I am improving every single day.
By my definition, a "Stem" is someone who actually lives their truth in daily life—someone whose actions consistently match their words.
Regardless of what those thoughts may be.
V.
The Scammer vs. The Pro
Are you a fraud or the real deal? Which one are you?
boldsailor32.
P.S. If you cheat, you're only cheating yourself.😁