Cultcow Brad Watson / Richard Bradshaw Watson / Brad Watson_Miami - Jesus & Albert Einstein reincarnated, discoverer of GOD=7_4 Theory

[Kablamo]

You're not at all concerned that your unifying theory of the universe is a mere reporting of trivial statistical data?

I like what you're doing here, but when all is said and done, Brad will just treat it as a numerical version of the Euthpyhro dilemma, and Brad is Aquainas The Retarded. In Bradspeak: His unifying theory of the universe is not based on trivial statistics, but rather the trivial statistics are rendered significant because they are the basis of his unifying theory of the universe. Brad's position is broken on two ends, (or either horn of the dilemma), and you will not be able to chide him either way, because of his arbitrary and self-referential system of values.

Plz forgive my heresy, Watson(77) the Christ, GOD=7_4

 

[Brad Watson_Miami]

.

The Theory of Luck ​

luck 100 = [karma 4 + modesty 1] x [desire 4 + actions 4 + abilities 4 + contributions 4 + blessings 4] ​

These numbers come from the scientific method being used over many years. They are not "just arbitrary values I assigned to come up with 100"; far from it! I've tweaked it a few times over the years and have experimented with it extensively.

Like every scientific theory, the theory of luck works with everyone. And everyone is part of the BIG experiment now: everyone is being reincarnated and this theory will determine much!!

?

11919191496518

 

[AnOminous]

Like every scientific theory, the theory of luck works with everyone. And everyone is part of the BIG experiment now: everyone is being reincarnated and this theory will determine much!!

What crime did Einstein commit to deserve being reincarnated as a gigantic mongoloid?

 

[AP 297]

The Theory of Luck ​

luck 100 = [karma 4 + modesty 1] x [desire 4 + actions 4 + abilities 4 + contributions 4 + blessings 4] ​

These numbers come from the scientific method being used over many years. They are not "just arbitrary values I assigned to come up with 100"; far from it! I've tweaked it a few times over the years and have experimented with it extensively.

Like every scientific theory, the theory of luck works with everyone. And everyone is part of the BIG experiment now: everyone is being reincarnated and this theory will determine much!!

@tomgirl4life , he basically said nothing and repeated the exact same post again. Are you seeing a pattern here?

He will keep doing this. His logic is very confirmed and entrenched with bias. Asking "clever questions" will not work. He will not give you anything else except a word salad, sadly.

Please respond accordingly, or you will just get trolled by Richard Bradshaw Watson...

 

[Brad Watson_Miami]

Alright Brad. You want to talk math? Let's talk math.

Assume that we assign a point value to each letter in the English language as you prescribe: a = 1, b = 2, ..., z = 26. One can take the average value of a letter, which is 13.5. However, this clearly nonsensical, since letters don't occur in the same frequency in English (i.e. e is much more common that j, for example).

So I went to Wikipedia and looked up a table of letter distribution. Based on that table, we find that a occurs 8.167% of the time, b occurs 1.492% of the time, etc. Obviously, the total percentage of all 26 letters amounts to 100%.

Now we consider the weighted average of the point values, which we compute as follows: we take (a f_a + b f_a + ... + z f_a)/100, where f_* refers to the frequency percentage of each letter. Plugging in numbers, we can write (1 * 8.167 + 2 * 1.492 + ... + 26 * 0.074)/100.

Putting this into Excel, we compute a weighted average of 11.65818.

Consider your special number of 74. If we divide 74/11.65818, we get 6.3473474. In other words, most words between 6 and 7 letters are likely to have a point value sum of 74.

And would you believe it? The average length of a word in the English language is 6 letters.

In truth, there are no coincidences. However, there is statistics.

I'll take those Autistic ratings now.

Let's all read that again.

 

[Adamska]

What crime did Einstein commit to deserve being reincarnated as a gigantic mongoloid?

Writing the letter that convinced the Administration to develop nukes?

 

[voiceguy]

I will guess option #4, Richard does not understand what Pythagoras lie is and would rather pick a better easier target to rile up...

Hmmm...That strikes me as a reasonable addition to the hypotheses. This is why more than one scientist should be involved in any experiment, to spot possibilities the other one is missing.

Option 5: Brad didn't actually read the book he ordered me to read, he just skimmed through it to find statements out of context that seemed to support his theory and ignored the rest. (I am currently working on a chart to demonstrate to everyone what I have learned from the book so far. There's some really fascinating stuff in it [seriously] that I think everyone who has been following this thread will find most enlightening.)

Are there more hypotheses out there? Remember that the more hypotheses we start with, the better odds of a successful social experiment.

Meanwhile, Brad continues to frantically Google Kuthuli to find out what I'm talking about.

 

[Brad Watson_Miami]

What crime did Einstein commit to deserve being reincarnated as a gigantic mongoloid?

None. Now guess what you are going to be when your eternal soul is finally reincarnated as human?

 

[ChurchOfGodBear]

The Theory of Luck ​

luck 100 = [karma 4 + modesty 1] x [desire 4 + actions 4 + abilities 4 + contributions 4 + blessings 4] ​

These numbers come from the scientific method being used over many years. They are not "just arbitrary values I assigned to come up with 100"; far from it! I've tweaked it a few times over the years and have experimented with it extensively.

Like every scientific theory, the theory of luck works with everyone. And everyone is part of the BIG experiment now: everyone is being reincarnated and this theory will determine much!!

Show your work, @Brad Watson_Miami . Please explain how you used the scientific method to derive these values.

 

[tomgirl4life]

The Theory of Luck ​

luck 100 = [karma 4 + modesty 1] x [desire 4 + actions 4 + abilities 4 + contributions 4 + blessings 4] ​

These numbers come from the scientific method being used over many years. They are not "just arbitrary values I assigned to come up with 100"; far from it! I've tweaked it a few times over the years and have experimented with it extensively.

Like every scientific theory, the theory of luck works with everyone. And everyone is part of the BIG experiment now: everyone is being reincarnated and this theory will determine much!!

Way to not answer the question. It's like I'm watching an election debate. I'm looking for you, as a scientist, to show your work. Any scientist who attempts to publish a paper without providing their supporting evidence would be laughed out of a career. I'm asking you to show your methods for arriving at those values because, as previously stated, it appears they are merely arbitrary since everything else you have used either counts the number of letters or uses Gematria.

Surely, as a scientist who follows the scientific method you will be not only able but willing and eager to show why you are right.

Unless you really aren't Jesus Christ, Einstein, Lincoln, Fibonacci and Plato reincarnated and are instead just a rude(4, ignorant(9, delusioned(10 and imbecilic(65) crackpot(87).

 

[Alex Krycek]

The Theory of Luck ​

luck 100 = [karma 4 + modesty 1] x [desire 4 + actions 4 + abilities 4 + contributions 4 + blessings 4] ​

These numbers come from the scientific method being used over many years. They are not "just arbitrary values I assigned to come up with 100"; far from it! I've tweaked it a few times over the years and have experimented with it extensively.

Like every scientific theory, the theory of luck works with everyone. And everyone is part of the BIG experiment now: everyone is being reincarnated and this theory will determine much!!

These values are pretty arbitrary. Aren't actions pretty much the same as contributions and wouldn't blessings fall under the scheme of desire if you're using a dharmic interpretation of karma? Why is modesty less important than the others? Is this because you've been less than modest when discussing this theory with others?

 

[AP 297]

Let's all read that again.

I understood it just fine and so did @Kablamo , you are the only one here having a problem with it Richard.

@F. Hausdorff 's statement made perfect sense.

 

[voiceguy]

Now, now. Don't get him overwrought. You'll invalidate the experiment.

How about it, Brad? How you figured out who Kuthuli is? Have you found a way to reconcile the conundrum of both of you being Pythagoras in an earlier incarnation?

 

[Brad Watson_Miami]

.

I didn't read the Caballa book cover-to-cover. I've used it more as a reference book and doubt I will ever read it in a linear fashion and finish it.

I just got Forbidden Faith - The Gnostic Legacy from the Gospels to the Da Vinci Code by Richard Smoley (HarperCollins, 2006) on Moonday for $10 at a used bookstore in North Palm Beach. I'm both reading it from the beginning and skipping around. I don't think this is that uncommon among researchers.

On Monday, I also got Stephen Hawking - Quest For A Theory Of Everything by Kitty Ferguson (Bantam, 1991) for $4. I forgot to ask them for a discount on that one. I was distracted by a Star Trek collectible that I decided was too expensive.

 

[Alex Krycek]

I didn't read the Caballa book cover-to-cover. I've used it more as a reference book and doubt I will ever read it in a linear fashion and finish it.

I just got Forbidden Faith - The Gnostic Legacy from the Gospels to the Da Vinci Code by Richard Smoley (HarperCollins, 2006) on Moonday for $10 at a used bookstore in North Palm Beach. I'm both reading it from the beginning and skipping around. I don't think this is that uncommon among researchers.

On Monday, I also got Stephen Hawking - Quest For A Theory Of Everything by Kitty Ferguson (Bantam, 1991) for $4. I forgot to ask them for a discount on that one. I was distracted by a Star Trek collectible that I decided was too expensive.

You didn't read it cover to cover but you're using it as a key point for your system... I see why a lot of this seems broken and at times contradictory.

Yes, I do skip around when writing a research paper for a class or something like that... because I'm a college student trying to get an easy A and have interests outside the realm of classes. If I'm writing a comprehensive paper on something I really want to contribute information on I read my source material cover-to-cover before I make any assertions. Typically this would be under the realm of history rather than a theological system.

Star Trek > Hawking made me laugh though.

 

[voiceguy]

Option 5: Brad didn't actually read the book he ordered me to read, he just skimmed through it to find statements out of context that seemed to support his theory and ignored the rest.

I didn't read the Caballa book cover-to-cover. I've used it more as a reference book and doubt I will ever read it in a linear fashion and finish it.

That lends some credence to the fifth hypothesis, though not quite concretely enough to make it a theory. This means the experiment is still open to hypotheses, particularly those of an arbitrary nature to better match the test subject.

We will now see if the test subject is capable of solving the conundrum of two separate eternal souls occupying the body of Pythagoras simultaneously, thus breaking every metaphysical concept known to man except for the theory of demonic possession. Perhaps there is a theoretical statistics solution to the problem?

Input,Brad?

 

[Brad Watson_Miami]

.

It's a very simple74 equation which gives it alot of beauty74.

Golfers at the highest level all readily admit that luck is part of winning a golf tournament. The theory of luck is involved in every stroke in a golf round. I started really observing luck in my golf game and others about 30 years* ago and set out to explain it scientifically.

If you've read the book or seen the movie A Beautiful Mind about Nobel prize-winning mathematician John Nash, there's a scene where Russell Crowe and Jennifer Connolly go outside the Governor's Mansion and she asks him, "Do you believe in luck?" "No", he replies, "But I do believe in assigning a value to things." I don't remember whether I saw this movie for the first time after I had the theory of luck worked out or not?


*Synchronism: 4/29/15 12:26 "30 years as a lawyer." - ad on WSVN Ch 7

 

[ChurchOfGodBear]

It's a very simple74 equation which gives it alot of beauty74.

Golfers at the highest level all readily admit that luck is part of winning a golf tournament. The theory of luck is involved in every stroke in a golf round. I started really observing luck in my golf game and others about 30 years* ago and set out to explain it scientifically.

If you've read the book or seen the movie A Beautiful Mind about Nobel prize-winning mathematician John Nash, there's a scene where Russell Crowe and Jennifer Connolly go outside the Governor's Mansion and she asks him, "Do you believe in luck?" "No", he replies, "But I do believe in assigning a value to things." I don't remember whether I saw this movie for the first time after I had the theory of luck worked out or not?


*Synchronism: 4/29/15 12:26 "30 years as a lawyer." - ad on WSVN Ch 7

That's a fascinating story. Truly, I'm wiping a tear.

However, it does not address my question at all. You said you derived it with the scientific method. I am asking you to indicate how you applied the scientific method to create your equation.

 

[Brad Watson_Miami]

.

Had you heard of Simple(6,74) English(7,74) Gematria(8,74) before coming on this thread?

I had SEG all worked out before coming across that Caballa book. I've been writing about gematria since 1997 and I got that book maybe 5 years ago. (I've already stated this.) There's some stuff in that book that's wrong.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey everybody, I've got to go. Maybe I'll write here later and maybe I'll go back to writing in Google+ groups. I've just tweaked my Plan-it Theory booklet (40 pages) again. If anyone wants a FREE copy emailed to them, give me your email address.

GOOD-bye.

 

[voiceguy]

So you admit your luck theory might have been inspired by a movie about a schizophrenic mathematician. That certainly helps your decision to use arbitrary values to create your formula for luck (which, according to the book you ordered me to read would be gematriacized [Did I just make up a new word there? Oh,well, it seems to work for this example] as "luck"=1,225,311 [see pages 24-25]).

Don't fret, everybody, I will explain that concept shortly.

Now, Brad, would you indulge me and use your statistical prowess to solve the conundrum(3,151,421,144,182,113) of the double-souled Pythagoras(16,238,171,518,119)?

Had you heard of Simple(6,74) English(7,74) Gematria(8,74) before coming on this thread?

I had SEG all worked out before coming across that Caballa book.

The implication from that comment would appear to be that you made up SEG.

There's some stuff in that book that's wrong.

And yet it's the book he recommended to defend his theory. You know, Brad, Eisen was writing about gematria for almost 20 years before you started. Yet he and the Great White Brotherhood of Ascended Masters are all wrong and you are right. I'm assuming that the only things you consider true in the book are the things that appear to support your erroneous theories. No researcher does that. No serious scholar looks at a scholarly book and says "Well, the stuff I agree with is right and everything else is wrong." No, sir, the book is either ALL RIGHT or ALL WRONG. There is no middle ground when it comes to the search for knowledge. Thank you, Brad. Social experiment concluded. All that's left is to determine is what we have all learned from this.