Poonani Maker
Master Don Juan
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2007
- Messages
- 4,392
- Reaction score
- 927
You paid for dinner. You drove. You said "whatever you want is fine" every single time. All the effort, no expectations.
And she left anyway — probably for a guy who makes her pick up the pizza.
Painful. Also predictable. Her mind quietly concludes that anything requiring zero effort from her is worth exactly zero. You became a free sample, and free samples get taken for granted.
The 22 Rules flip the dynamic. Small shifts that get her investing effort, money, and time in you — until SHE'S the one afraid of losing YOU.
You paid for dinner. You drove. You said "whatever you want is fine" every single time. All the effort, no expectations.
And she left anyway — probably for a guy who makes her pick up the pizza.
Painful. Also predictable. Her mind quietly concludes that anything requiring zero effort from her is worth exactly zero. You became a free sample, and free samples get taken for granted.
The 22 Rules flip the dynamic. Small shifts that get her investing effort, money, and time in you — until SHE'S the one afraid of losing YOU.
That's pretty fundamentalist of you.Deep Dish said:Uh oh. There's trouble ahead.
Without going into detail, without the real need for details, you're wrong. I'm trying to take a minimalist approach, because I want to trust you can easily accept the ideas the video proposes are demonstrably nonsense and completely without merit. Just cut your losses and accept you had a brief moment of misjudgment.
Next Monday you'll feel more confident. After the gym you'll feel more confident. After one more drink you'll feel more confident. After you get a better haircut, a better jacket, a better job.
You've been "getting ready" for two years.
She's standing ten feet away right now. She'll be gone in four minutes. No amount of preparation will manufacture the courage that only comes from moving your feet.
Walk over. Stumble through the first sentence. Let it be clumsy. Let it be imperfect. You will feel more alive in those ten seconds than you have all month.
The video presented (easily refutable) arguments against the Big Bang but made no specific arguments for an electrical universe. Despite the many minutes to make a preliminary case, the arguments were promised to be forthcoming but never arrived. In fact, the conclusion made was non-sequitur.Gubby said:That's pretty fundamentalist of you.
Did you WATCH the videos? The thing seems pretty sound to me, though I'm not a physicist.
But we should point out that these are both theories. That means it's too soon to say anyone's right or wrong, remember?
*Shrug* I'm not really qualified to argue. But The big bang certainly doesn't hold up to conservation of energy. And I personally feel more comfortable with the idea that the universe has existed for infinite time rather than trying to wrap my head around the idea of there being nothing at all, which exploded. (Now a cyclical big-bang/big-crunch/big-rebang or big-bang/universe dissipates to uniform nothingness/big-bang I can see working).Deep Dish said:The video presented (easily refutable) arguments against the Big Bang but made no specific arguments for an electrical universe. Despite the many minutes to make a preliminary case, the arguments were promised to be forthcoming but never arrived. In fact, the conclusion made was non-sequitur.
No, an electrical universe does not qualify as a scientific theory, as it's not a well-established evidentiary explanation that has withstood rigorous testing. Large objects tend to have a neutral electrical charge, which rather speaks greatly against the electrical hypothesis.
A favorite tactic of the fringe, the video quickly and all-too-predictably devolves to alleging persecution and conspiracies. Pahlease. An electrical universe is not taken seriously by scientists because it's simply wrong. There are two types of science: experimental and historical, and both types are equally adept at tracking causation. The Big Bang is an exceptionally well-supported and valid historical science, whereas the electrical universe is a failure in experimental science.
Nighthawk nailed the real issue. This is religion disguised as antiscience, while the Big Bang is science and not religion.
What the hell does time=0 mean?Deep Dish said:The misconception of "something out of nothing" arises because our present knowledge of mathematics breaks down when time = 0
I don't like this attitude. My father's a scientist and from my experience the cutting-edge that he works at really isn't so far out.... a stretch, but not godlike, okay. Most of the people at his lab aren't trained in the specific discipline anyway and have to read all the textbooks to catch up! (this is genetics, not physics, thoPhysicists know and understand a galaxy more about physics than we mortal laymen could ever fathom, so if Big Science has no problem with the Big Bang regarding the law of conservation then neither should we.
You asked her if she wanted to grab coffee. Then you asked if the time worked. Then you asked if the place was okay. Then you asked if she'd prefer tea.
Four questions. Four chances for her to say no. Four signals that you're terrified of making a decision.
Plan it. Pick the place. Pick the time. Tell her where to meet you. She'll either show up or she won't.
Either way, you look like a man instead of a scared little boy.
How about this theory....Big science knows nothing. Big science used to believe that the sun revolved around the earth. Big science used to believe that the world was flat. Big science used to believe that Einstein was right about everything. Big science used to believe that nothing could travel faster than light.Deep Dish said:Physicists know and understand a galaxy more about physics than we mortal laymen could ever fathom, so if Big Science has no problem with the Big Bang regarding the law of conservation then neither should we.
http://www.amazon.com/Zero-Biograph...bs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211204592&sr=8-1Gubby said:What the hell does time=0 mean?
I agree with you. I think DD puts too much faith in science and scientist. Scientific theories get challenge and are changed quite a bit.Paradox said:How about this theory....Big science knows nothing. Big science used to believe that the sun revolved around the earth. Big science used to believe that the world was flat. Big science used to believe that Einstein was right about everything. Big science used to believe that nothing could travel faster than light.
She calls you when her car breaks down. When she needs help moving. When some guy she's actually dating treats her badly.
You're the listener. The reliable one. The guy who would treat her so much better, if she'd just open her eyes.
She won't. You trained her to see you as the low-effort option — the friend who requires zero risk and zero investment. Every favor dug the hole deeper.
The "22 Rules" break the pattern. You'll stop auditioning for a role she already cast and become the man she chases instead. It starts with Rule 1.
Right on.ketostix said:I agree with you. I think DD puts too much faith in science and scientist. Scientific theories get challenge and are changed quite a bit.
No....Teflon_Mcgee said:http://www.amazon.com/Zero-Biograph...bs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211204592&sr=8-1
This book touches on the topic.
It's a great book and everything is explained in laymans terms.
0's cause significant problems in cosmology and physics. Singularities start to happen an things just get weird.
She asks it casually, mid-sip. And you feel the floor open up, because the honest answer is work, gym, and a couple shows you're half-watching.
Women rarely say this out loud, but a man with a life is attractive before he says a word. The guy who spent Saturday deep-sea fishing and came back with photos and a story — he walks in already interesting.
The "22 Rules" pushed me to build a life worth talking about. Turns out the fastest way to be interesting to women is to be interested in your own life first.