- This topic has 89 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
A probability of 0.1%
Short odds for an atheist, so you must be an agnostic then Ginger
Lay me 369,000/369 please. We’ll settle the bet when we meet in Limbo, then you can go your way and I’ll go mine, or I’ll go your way and you can go mine
Who knows?
You’re forgetting the 1000/1 includes my mark up.
The probability is a lot less than 0.1% imo.Value Is EverythingWolverhampton 2030
The lucky last there is a double bubble of traverse law and free energy.
Two horses come to the fore here. Christine Dunnett is often the fall guy in these low grade affairs and it is not until they reach a really low rating they pop up at Yarmouth or satellite track Newmarket at a huge price.
Wilde and Dandy
Win
Carries a penalty but may well defy it
College wizard
Each way
Has never won a race and has never got off a mark of 45 except once when running of a mark of 44.I can’t prove the existence of free energy or traverse law of physics. What I can do is tell you ( some of )what I’ve discovered.
I’ve explained how traverse law and free energy works. The title of this thread is somewhat misleading there is so so much more to the physics of racing than just non runners. That was my entry level to discovering the existence of physics in racing the best part of 20 years ago. I’ve uncovered a whole lot more besides since then and free energy and traverse law have proved to be the most compelling aspects of what I’ve discovered since then.
Not many threads where the op is ridiculed and told he is on crack cocaine yield 80/1 each way horses. I’m a firm believer in science. I also firmly believe we don’t understand the extent to which the science that is spoon fed us as gospel is far from accurate and complete.
For the record Christine Dunnett’s horse had only placed once previously in nine attempts. On that occasion the gelding although third at Yarmouth was over EIGHT lengths behind the winner. Today he got to within 2:75 lengths of the winner, a tremendous improvement. I believe I know where the improvement came from and what aspect of physics put the horse there. I also know I didn’t back this horse for any other reason than traverse law and free energy. I don’t need to refer to gingertipster’s amended comments ( but I will) I appreciate him saying he didn’t know I was backing other horses on different threads in different races at Santa Anita at far bigger prices than the two favourites idiomatic and Auguste Rodin. But I can again assure anyone I wouldn’t back them without clear indications or indicators that they are in receipt or may be in receipt of free energy or qualify for consideration as a horse in a physics position to run well.
I’d consider it breakthrough and ground breaking research which is coming to hand very nicely as I learn more and grow in confidence of my conviction.
I am glad October is over, 1. because I’d set specific targets relating to numbers of winners over the month (40) while the target was reached ( and exceeeded by many more than that number) in about the first ten days, it caused immense and unnecessary pressure. 2. November is the start of the jumps. Lots of trainers have held back horses for final end of season tilts at doing well in their races. The all weather becomes more of a winter affair and settles very quickly as grass trainers and horses pull away from the game or concentrate their efforts firmly on the all weather. I don’t have to rely on the draw with jumps and certain aspects of physics are far more weight relevant.
I think November is going to be a watershed 💦 period for many reasons. Melbourne cup tomorrow is a handicap and I’m hoping the weights and the all important draw will throw up some interesting ALEXANDERS.Gingertipster, I am not battling with you and I don’t mind your ridicule actually (light mannered or otherwise). I’ll quote you to give relevance to the context of my comments.
“Similarly, am sure there were good reasons to back the horses you backed earlier in the card (even the ones at fairly big prices you had placed). Just not the “free energy” reason or Tesla’s principle of the Universe being run by the numbers 3, 6 and (particularly) 9.”
//////////////////////////////////////
The draw numbers are irrelevant Gingertipster because the formula is both hypothetical and potentially literal and/or both. And contrary to you being able to read my mind, I backed the big priced second and third and big priced runner up to win purely because of the physics and for no other reason.“Short odds for an atheist, so you must be an agnostic then Ginger”.
———————————
No Drone, I am an agnostic atheist.
Ricky Gervais has it right:
Atheism is not a belief system.
If you tell me there is a god.
I’ll ask can you prove it?
You say No.
I say I don’t believe you then.
ie I don’t believe in god.Just as a scientist does not believe something when not proven.
It is thought over time there’s been 3000 gods.
3000 for people to choose from.
Vast majority of believers believe in just one god.
So they do not believe in 2999 gods.
I just don’t believe in one more than them.Value Is Everything“Gingertipster, I am not battling with you”
————————–
That must be why you’ve mentioned me / this now on at least three different threads on three different sections of this forum. Spreading the Gospel of 3, 6, 9, Traverse Law and Free Energy. LOL
Value Is EverythingI mentioned you because you are a major poster on this thread. I would say in contrast I’m a major contributor to this thread as I give reason and counter argument and try and provide examples to get my valid points across. I’m not battling you because you come from a stance of convention that things will always be the same that and accepted conventional science is all we have.
Yesterday as recently as last night I posted that an 80/1 shot might well defy your conventional wisdom due to an as yet unproven and UNDISCOVERED branch of physics that I have stumbled upon coming into play. Big G has said of you your intransigence in a discussion argument means there is little point in having a debate argument with you as you’ll say the sky is red when it’s white and white when it’s red. And you’re only happy if you’ve had the last word. I think if someone has countered your argument that he was backing ‘easy and obvious favourites’ and then claiming free energy by producing examples “pre race” of horses placing at huge prices 25/1 17/1 28/1 at the breeders cup and 120/1 into 80/1 last night.And each time I’ve stated “ this doesn’t prove my theory”. You won’t yield or concede an inch not even grudgingly.
I’m thriving on your ridicule because in essence Gingertipster you are rudiculing yourself. It isn’t an argument anymore it’s a rout. 🐈 & 🐭.
By the way as always you are welcome to the last word.
But physics will have the last word. It always has and always will. It was here before us and will be here after we have returned to the dust we all are, only humans hold themselves in such high esteem as to deem themselves to be important as to the workings of our world and our universe. This arrogance and lack of independent thinking puts us supposedly above the animals and to celebrate we hunt them to extinction without compassion or empathy. This disconnect from the natural world does indeed set up apart from the animals it is their world and not ours and history will prove they and nature will prevail.
There has always been traverse law and there has always been free energy. It is as old as the universe and that is what Nikola Tesla has always TRIED to tell us and like him before me he was laughed out of the room and ridiculed because he looked at things from a totally different perspective to the conceptual and conventional wisdom of his time.
He showed there were other ways of looking at things and to his dying day insisted he had something, but few gave him the time of day despite his stated desire to give the common man free power through free energy this rankled with authorities who wanted the common man to pay for everything and be kept in his place to preserve the order of the day and their own autonomy and by such the status quo.
We see it time and time again in our own society people who don’t conform see their ideas pitched onto the bonfire 🔥 of perceived conventional wisdom, the order of the day and yet the earth 🌍 really is round those machines do work faster than people and yet the sky really does not fall in after all.
There will be more examples of traverse law as top weights carrying penalties fail to defy their weight burdens and the bottom weights show unexpected improvement or free energy by the same token horses carrying these burdens elsewhere in the handicap will fail to put in the winning run their form demands and the energy has to go somewhere. Drawn alongside and weighted on the traverse college wizard was happy to oblige and the sky didn’t fall in. The difference is Christine Dunnett was not subjected to a ducking stool because even at Wolverhampton conventional wisdom has moved on. You should try it.No Drone, I am an agnostic atheist
Blimey, we’re in agreement Gingersecular
I find ardent, zealous atheists – typified by the likes of Richard Dawkins – to be as unappealing as ardent, zealous theists; though admittedly for every one of the former there’s millions of the latter
Personally, I lean towards Pantheism though am hardly an ardent zealot
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism
In the woods a man casts off his years, as the snake his slough, and at what period soever of life, is always a child. In the woods, is perpetual youth. Within these plantations of God, a decorum and sanctity reign, a perennial festival is dressed and the guest sees not how he should tire of them in a thousand years. In the woods, we return to reason and faith. There I feel that nothing can befall me in life,—no disgrace, no calamity, (leaving me my eyes), which nature cannot repair. Standing on the bare ground,—my head bathed by the blithe air and uplifted into infinite space,—all mean egotism vanishes. I become a transparent eye-ball; I am nothing; I see all; the currents of the Universal Being circulate through me; I am part or particle of God. The name of the nearest friend sounds then foreign and accidental: to be brothers, to be acquaintances,—master or servant, is then a trifle and a disturbance. I am the lover of uncontained and immortal beauty. In the wilderness, I find something more dear and connate than in streets or villages. In the tranquil landscape, and especially in the distant line of the horizon, man beholds somewhat as beautiful as his own nature.
Ralph Waldo Emerson – from his essay ‘Nature’ 1836
Blimey!
I've stumbled on the side of twelve misty mountains
I've walked and I crawled on six crooked highwaysHate to disappoint you Drone,
I think you’ve got Richard Dawkins wrong. From watching a few debates and videos I’ve seen that he too has a chink of what you might call agnosticism in him. There is very little difference – if any – between my beliefs and Richard Dawkins. I’m a “6” too. In that I do not rule it out completely, the same way as I don’t rule out there being fairies or pixies at the bottom of my garden.In reality most “atheists” are agnostic to some degree, ie not many are 7’s. Therefore I’d call what some want to call “atheism” agnostic atheism which is in turn different to being agnostic.
No, although I believe Pantheism is a wonderful idea, I can not believe in something just because I like the idea or wanting to believe, (Not that I am saying you believe in it because of those reasons). I don’t hold to anything resembling god, including the Universe, nature etc of Pantheism.
That said, I do believe in the importance of conserving nature. Have been a (bad) wildflower gardener since the 90’s and this year finished putting a wildflower / wildlife pond and bog garden into my new garden. Used to have a small “cornfield meadow” and “spring garden” in my old property, with native hedgerow and trees. Goat willow, wayfaring tree, hornbeam, hawthorn, crab apple, although as well as bindweed, bramble, ground elder and millions of wild strawberries. I could’ve done with a gardener!
Value Is EverythingValue Is EverythingFair enough Ginger. I hadn’t seen that snippet of Dawkins before – thanks for posting it – and find his thoughts wholly reasonable. So I’ve obviously done him a disservice, though what I had read and heard of his in the past has seemed altogether more vehemnetly atheistic
Think I’m 11/2 rather than 6 but that’s quibbling. Me, you and Dawkins in agreement: blimey blimey blimey
Good to know that you’re one of the happy band of TRF gardeners
May your bog garden flourish
Nikola Tesla was a brilliant scientist and engineer, Sam; especially with his work on the Alternating Current, X-rays, lighting etc. But beware of taking everything a scientist says as being wise or true. Doing many things because he thought they were based on science and physics.
3, 6, 9? Well, Nikola Tesla showed distinctive signs of what we’d now call OCD. Becoming obsessed by the number 3 which resulted in many compulsive behaviours.
Do you believe any of the following were due to “Science and physics”? Or OCD?
Walking around buildings 3 times before entering…
And when he came out had to turn right only and walk around the entire block before becoming “free” and therefore able to leave.
At the public pool he’d have to swim 33 laps and if miscounting had to start again from zero.
Also known to wash his hands 3 times in a row.
Every night would Curl his toes 100 times per foot, because it “stimulated his brain cells.
Needed 3 napkins at meal times.
Counting his own jaw movements and the weight of his meal was also important to him.
Stayed only in hotel rooms with numbers divisible by 3. Staying in room 3327 for the last 10 years of his life, on the 33rd floor of the New Yorker Hotel.Value Is EverythingHe’d only back horse drawn in stall 3 on the third race of the day if they were 33/1. He’d have a bet at £33.33 each way a third the odds to 3 places
If they were number 3 he’d double his stakeCharles Darwin to conquer the World
The trick here is not to get too hung up with the numbers, but the principle and an interpretation of the said principle.
Take it literally rather than as representative and you’ll be lost.
I’ve got the excellent soundtrack of Romeo and juliet playing in the background with a masterpiece of a performance from Pete postlethwaite.
When I land a tricast I’ll interpret it and it will become clear and obvious.
I’ve enjoyed the joust with gingertipster but for his negativity and lack of open mindedness we’d perhaps be consorting a breakthrough worth millions. To that end I withdraw to work. If a conversation and to that end an argument is only about winning then what would be the point? I opened this thread seeking open mindedness and reopened it best part of twenty years later in search of affirmation to offer new insight but the curious minds replaced by closed unquestioning inflexible minds with only a few exceptions but the few exceptions far outweigh the blinkered and by blinkered I don’t blanket describe and to find just three open minded souls is to find three thousand in relative terms. It is not my place to shape anyone’s determination let alone their minds. mine has always been an open one curious and knowing all as presented is not so and not clear cut. That why I’ve always said we are all in the gutter but some of us are looking at the stars ⭐️. I’ll never stop looking at these stars. Crazy as it may seem they have never shone so brightly and wether you understand the principle or believe in them it’s irrelevant.
Horses winning races at huge prices or short it will always be free energy negatives and positive top bottom middle.
I’ll be back on this thread hopefully one more time with news of a consort and collaboration. The talk of a man’s obsessions do as to suggest his inadequacies couldn’t allow him rationality or higher intelligence is akin to saying another’s obsession with value blocks his vision of reality nether are true or representative of someone’s capabilities or potential. The OCD society sought to point out I’d imagine that he had aspects of peculiarities that illuminated his genius rather than dulled them and to take such observations out of context to highlight someone shortcomings is disingenuous to a complete fault. We already know the human mind is able to do great things and that the stars can be reached for if your are outstretched upwards you cannot reach them they are not up there they are all around us and until you grasp that simple truth you cannot reach out to them not knowing their locale. Yet they remain in close sight. A spectrum is a strength, not a weakness it’s a power. Over on the tree thread we’ve put up songs and with his time coming up ever faster the old man’s favourite film looms larger in my mind and heart ❤️ so if you hold nothing positive keep your counsel.
One song from that film stands out.
So I have to get busy. But resurrecting this thread was done for a succinct reason and was to have led to a three horse conclusion but knowing now that there is no need to validate or vindicate my conviction, I’ll settle for an 80/1 to give notice of the existence of free energy along with the breeder cup results. It is not about proving right and wrong.
Time to get busy living.Well I got busy living and over a week on the factors remain the same. I have always tried to point out there is more, much much more to this than finding a single winner or using a set of numbers or looking at merely non runners.
The horse in question runs in the 2358 tonight at Del Mar in the United States.
The trainer by virtue of entering three runners has a huge controlling hand in this race. The draw is the relevant factor given that all these runners carry 8:8 here.
There were originally five runners the field is now just four strong with Bob Baffert represented by half the field.
I’ll post the four runners with their draws.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.