petrushka.googol

I wish to define a particle as MPc where M = mass of the particle and c = color of particle. P -> particle = photon. Integration of a continuous spectrum of discrete colors on subscript (mass) yields zero and integration of superscript (color) over the same yields white color. This is perceived as a wave. (transverse waves).

If we imagine light as composed of 7 native colors, each with a discrete "colored" photon, could we then visualize white light as the product of entanglement of these native photons? (each of which exist at different energy levels.)

"Sacred" means something that enhances your value system. (in a broad sense). "Blood" can definately be construed as sacred. Ever heard of eucharist ?

My contention is that if light is sacred what constitutes light is also sacred. By analogy, if a man is holy each cell in his body is also holy.

They worshiped the source of photons (which is as near as the idea stated in the OP that they could get).

Since most of the photons we encounter come from the Sun. I guess it's deification was expected among ancient cultures....

Light increases levels of melatonin (derivative of serotonin (decreased levels contribute to depression)). Melatonin is related to sleep rhythms. More light = more rest.

I think the power of light is evident in healing people with depression. Light is known to alleviate symptoms of depression. i guess this is because it gives us the freedom to appreciate nature in it's resplendent beauty.

To rephrase, I am referring to platonic relationships (where oral / visual communication dominates over touch).

To use a cliche, I'm insinuating a kind of soul-soul bond as opposed to one defined by temporal limitations, as it were, if you get my drift.....

In my defence I state that it is impossible to ascertain the veracity of each article that occurs on a website. I was only citing a link which I neither endorse nor condemn. I was merely soliciting some opinions to gauge what people really think. I think penalizing me for this was a trifle indiscreet.

As a thumb rule religion and ethnicity are directly correlated. Hinduism is dominant among Indo-Aryans, Islam and Judaism among Semites, Christianity among Anglo-Saxons and Eurasians, Buddhism among the Mongoloid race. Though this is not always true, the general trend is reflected in this metric.

Pls refer the link : telepathic ability in dolphins http://www.paulapeterson.com/ITP/InterspeciesTelepathicProject.html

When we adhere to a religious denomination we subconsciously limit our preferred choices of kinship. Our potential mates usually (not always) follow the same or parallel faiths and this limits variation in the species. This is how I perceive cultural mores impacting genetic diversity.

I imply both these assertions.

Why is it that most major religions in their original variants have persisted in Asia and Africa ? Does this point to a socio-cultural pattern of evolution ?

I found your post particularly palatable. In line with the OP our internal synergies meet more than meets the eye....

I don't endorse telepathy.... I was simply stating a what-if .....

What about telepathy ?

Why do people focus on external appurtenances rather than internal synergies ? Should we not talk heart to heart rather than face to face ? Is this a step in social evolution ? Please opine.

To answer your query, at the largest possible perimeter. (as permitted by geography and socio-political constructs.). Also I consider a nation as a logical entity, not just a physical one.

How difficult is positive social engineering ? (the social network). Humans usually agree to disagree. (wars occur as a result). Try to create harmony among individuals through humor (as an illustration). We all know how difficult it is to share a joke and be appreciated for the same. (Good comedians are the soul of the party.). Think of how difficult it is to create a positive social group (or network). Why is it that humans essentially like to isolate themselves from the mainstream? Is it an evolutionary adaption for our survival ?

When visualizing the factors in identifying / building a nation the key is identifying the main traits of any nation, much like a search engine does. India is essentially a Hindu nation, but that does not mean that other communities do not exist therein. It is just that the central theme of the nation is Hinduism. It is like saying that all people in Arab countries are Arabs. This is not true. But as we all know, films and media capitalize on an Arab theme when describing Arabs. It is as irrational as saying that no Arabs wear jeans. (look at the images in popular media), they seem to suggest otherwise.But then they reflect popular (and essentially) dominant culture.

Close integration leads to homogeneity, does it not ?

Early civilizations relied on observations made with the naked eye. Rainbows are described even in the Bible. I agree that the word "atom" comes from Greek roots and that they even theorized that light comes from a stream of particles. But then does that not substantiate my hypotheses ?