imatfaal

Try posting this site that you claim SFN is censoring again - I am sure that if you do a simple copy and "insert link" (its the icon with a chain and a green/white plus sign is ten from the left above ) we will all be able to check it out.

If that is not working - just type the url inthisformat(dot)com(slash)crackpot(slash)theory .

I am not sure how you can be so certain that TON 202 is breaking so many boundaries of physics; but yet, not have a well researched article that, at the very least, explains the methodology used.

Well I forgot what momentum and work specifically mean. I think work is something like how much force over what distance, but since the photon would never stops traveling distance, its infinite/pure something. And momentum is something like the mass times the speed.

[math] E^2= \rho ^2c^2 + m^2c^4 [/math]

setting mass equal to zero for the photon and rearranging

[math] \rho = E/c [/math]

A photon has momentum without having any mass - per the above equation - which can be experimentally measured .

numerical term, power of x term, derivative of x term

you can also have a certain concept that generates one single and one three fold state from a set of four. I am vaguely remembering this happening with two particles' spin - but the exact circumstances escape me.

SU(3) works on gluon/quark colours by reducing from 9 combinations to 8 because one of the superpositions is a seperate singlet state that does not exist - thus there are 8 gluons not the 9 which one might expect. I am sure there is a parallel ie a good example of a 4 output solution being reduced by one to make a triplet solution and a single solution.

There is serious scientific discussion under the topics of 'cellular memory' or 'bodily memory' about the possibility of memories being stored not just in the brain but also in the nerves of the various organs. There are many anecdotal reports of people who after receiving an organ transplant develop some of the same idiosyncracies of taste as their organ donors had, even though they did not know their donors.

 

But while it is interesting to explore the evidence for and against the possibility of some sort of somatic storage of memory, taste, and ideas outside of the nerves of the brain, the whole discussion is just confused if we start describing this general codification of memories all over the body as a feature of the body having a 'soul,' since that introduces a huge range of unnecessary metaphysical baggage for a scientific problem which doesn't need that hypothesis.

Cellular memory is normally considered as way out on the fringes - a pseudo-science. If you have any links to serious academic work on it I would love to see it - from what I can read it is posited by non-scientists without a real knowledge of cell biology in the body.

For those that are interested the correct name to be put into the search engine for H&B's catalogue linked above is HB93 1425+267. For LHW8 - H&B were in this instance cataloguers and compilers as well as observers - I cannot tell how much

credence they gave to the other's observations. And they provide no reference to the proper motion of the object in question.

Perhaps start by proving to yourself with simple 2x2 matrices; first with actual numbers and then with w,x,y,z. You should be able to do that without too much sweat, by simply working out both LHS and RHS and showing that they come to the same thing.

Unfortunately Captain - it's the blind leading the blind on statistical methods. Also would we be encountering an uncertainty limitation - I can't think of one off hand (would time/energy impact on measurements?) but I think the accuracy one would need would be staggering. I am trying to get to grips with equations - and failing at present.

I don't think anywhere reputable do free degrees online.

No. In simple terms the table shows you where you go next - if you are on 8 you goto 0, if you are on 7 goto 4, 4 stays on 4. Just looking at the table alone (or even more so instruction sets) it is sometimes tough to appreciate that loops / cycles will appear. The directed graph [with only one arrow LEAVING each node and the arrows corresponding to the table x and f(x) ] makes it obvious that loops will occur - ie the triangle formed by 1, 6, 3. Any number other than 4 or 7 will put you onto that triangular pathway. The compsci behind cycle detection is beyond me - but the wikipage you quote looks like as good a start as any.

I don't, but I don't think there is more that conjecture in favor of the assumption that the soul is contained within the brain. There are religious philosophies that treat the mind as separate from the soul and I think that shouldn't be dismissed, since it is possible that the mind is more akin to software whereas the soul could be more like the processor that runs the software; or maybe the energy that runs the processor. Anyway, the point is that until you can specify what "the soul" is, how could you specify what part of the body it would/could persist to live within?

Lemur - you introduced the soul into the discussion, it behoves you to elucidate. I can quite clearly state that I do not believe there is any evidence for conscious thought or the consciousness residing outside the brain. We cannot allow for the sake of argument every conjecture of every religion for that way madness lies; I do not give the existence of the soul (distinct from a conscious mind / brain) any credence; thus I do not have to specify where it is sited.

I could, but I wouldn't do that in a materialist discussion like this one. It could, however, be that the brain only acts as an apparatus for processing signals and stories thoughts, memories, and habits of activity. The soul could operate through the hardware and software of the brain to create a sense of self, memories, etc. without these being permanently attached to the actual experiential being utilizing them. Maybe you could even do some kind of partial brain transplant where memories and thoughts from the original brain were kept in addition to the implanted brain. That way you could remember the way you used to be - or your new soul could have access to how the old soul used to live in the body. Either way, how would you know which soul you were if you couldn't assume correspondence between mind/memories and soul?

You say you do not posit a supernatural soul - but that is exactly what you are doing. If something is non-attached to the concrete world, is non-corporeal, then we need an explanation that is beyond nature and science. I think you need to define, in as strict terms as you find possible, what you refer to when you use the word 'soul'.

And if amateur astronomers can measure TON 202's proper motion in the sky, which, if its redshift truly indicates its remoteness, means it is moving at 1100 c or more, shall we label them all "crackpot" as well? Or shall we question, as Janus does, the possible implications of TON 202's measured redshift?

Does Janus really say that? I presume you are referring to the quote in a separate thread - I have reproduced it below in case Janus does not notice he/she is being cross-quoted. My reading of his post is that the present thinking is that one or both of the measurements is/are incorrect - i apologize in advance if I have misinterpreted/misrepresented Janus.

As far as TON 202 goes, the calculated proper velocity comes from its proper motion( its side to side motion against the background of the sky), and assuming that its redshift is indicative of it being at a great distance. That is, if TON202 is as far away as its redshift seems to predict, and the measured proper motion is accurate, then it would be moving at 1100c. However, I don't think that there is any serious consideration that this is the case. In fact, this calculated proper velocity is taken to mean that one or both of these assumptions are flawed

Lemur - which part of the body, separate from the brain, do you claim might have some role in creating and maintaining the consciousness and memories? If you have any citations for the existence the above claim I would love to see it - but at present I do not believe we have any evidence that any part of the body apart from the brain is involved.

Or are you positing the existence of a supernatural soul? And iff you are advocating a soul that is manifest through non-corporeal interactions and media - this is beyond science and relies on faith.

I think you need to first look at the change in redshift that will occur within a measurable amount of time - my gut-reaction would be that it was so far below the noise threshold that no statistical technique could uncover it

I will dig out some pictures of simple curved line folding. They are not closed lines (this wouldn't work without pleating). Imagine a sheet of paper folded with three straight parallel lines - ie viewed from end the edge of the paper would form a W. You can also fold a piece of paper where these lines are curved (and the whole surface ends up curving) - its difficult and requires more precision.

Marat - is there any real evidence for that? I would love to read a paper on it. I feel it is a great idea that fascinates both the press and the story-writers but I am not sure anyone has actual evidence for it. There are so many emotional and societal reasons that would promote and sustain such a meme - but I have yet to see any back-up evidence for it. The difference in connexion ratios between cells in the brain and those in the peripheral nervous system are many orders of magnitude.

Ad hominem attacks are annoying in discussion forums because they shift the focus from content to users. The whole point of facebook is to make the users the content. It is a totally ad hominem medium. Childish at best; social ego-control at worst.

But that would apply to diaries, biographies, and a fair amount of historical narrative.

The Ad Hom argument is a logical fallacy and is frowned upon in fora such as SFN because this is an arena that exists to allow space for concepts and arguments to be tested and challenged; thus any Ad Hom detracts from an objective argument on the facts. But not everywhere is a debating club and we are not an objective species within our social environment. The vast majority of social interaction is highly personal and completely subjective. Your objection to facebook reads like an rejection of all media with content that is personality based; does this extend to a condemnation of, say, great literature like Dubliners, amazing personal accounts like Touching the Void, the intensely personal music of Joy Division - I could carry on but I am sure you get the idea.

So you're saying that since the idea of a deity or deities exists outside your logical thought process, you can't answer? Apologies if this statement is incorrect.

Basically yes - Not so much that it contradict my logical thought process, but that it blows away all the foundations upon which I start the process of applying logic. Of course I could answer, I would be strong and resolute and refuse to worship such an evil god, I would be weak and craven and give up all human dignity in exchange for future rewards; but who actually knows what or how they would react in real world future situations let alone those that challenge one's very ideas of reality.

It is a good question that I though I had managed to weasel out of answering - but failed there too... I'll probably burn.

I am not understanding your words and wish you could draw what you are working on. I will try going to the site and see if I figure out what you are talking about.

 

If I could draw it - then I could probably construct it. I will try and explain - but I am not good at it; I see models , I can't vocalize them. If you look at the picture to the right of this post - my picture is a modular origami model. Modular origami is when you create one simple design for a folded piece of paper - and you can combine many of them to create a complex shape. The shape to the right is made from 60 rectangular pieces of paper - folded in straight lines. I am trying to make a module (ie the simple building block) that I can fit together to make more complicated shapes - BUT i am trying to make it from paper that is folded into curving shapes. I cannot manage it, I can barely visualise it, no wonder I cannot explain it.

Regarding the remainder of your post - you seem to be doing pretty well. Where are you based? I know many people in UK who have studied to degree/masters/doctoral level in their sixties and seventies. I think its harder to learn at our ages than when you are 18 - but that just makes it more of a challenge! I would whole-heartedly recommend evening/distance learning with a well respected university/

Well for a start it could be zero - ie they are miles apart or concentric. I would ask myself some questions - does it matter what relative size - if Yes - why, what ramifications; if No move on. How can two circles be related - how many intersections do each have.

I think the question fails to work because I cannot imagine any circumstance in which I would believe the worship/salvation vs nonworship/damnation decision to be necessary and unchallengeable.

For something like that to be proved to me would require a sea-change in my worldview, contradict so much that I hold to be true, and go against the entire logical underpinning of my sense of self; I am not sure that I would be the same person. So much would have changed that I do not think I could give any valid answer as to what I would do in those new circumstances.

I would class it with the gedenken that posit a situation totally at odds with physics as we know it (FTL rocket etc) and then ask what happens - if you remove the basic foundation I can no longer base my answer on anything . Still a good question though...

Perhaps not right away. But you can make a conscious decision to analyze/study other religions and then make up your mind yourself whether God/s exist. The only problem I have is when people choose to become atheists when they haven't looked at any of the existing religions and what they have to offer. People automatically dismiss these ideas as being rudicrous without a second thought for tolerance as well as open-mindedness. Once a person has investigated in detail, he/she may be able to select which religion makes more sense and which ideas of "right" and "wrong" seem more correct and least misinterpreted/distorted. This may lead to a greater feeling of spiritual fulfilment as well as a belief in God/s whatever the religion may be. The faith may not be 100% all the time, but it will be there or not completely (as is the case with atheism).

Mr S and I have already confirmed that we went through this process - and the result in my case (and I think in his - sorry if I have misrepresented) is that there is no god. I have studied (my master's thesis was on the modern ramifications of the act of confession in early Christianity) , watched (my family are still Catholic) and even participated in Catholic/Christian worship ; and I have found no reason to believe in god - that is why I am an atheist, not because I cannot be bothered to look.

Vladimir Romanov has released source code for an algorithm which he claims can solve 3-SAT problems. The 3-SAT problem is NP-complete - and Romanov claims his algorithm will solve in polynomial time, this would prove that P==NP as all NP problems can be mapped within polynomial time to the satisfiability problem.

With such a seemingly easily falsifiable claim Romanov might be proved wrong quite quickly - for any with the maths and compsci skill here is Romanov's announcement and links to the source code and article - and for those who need a bit more background here is a link to a long slashdot ramble that has some good stuff in it

I don't think any human can have 100% faith, at least not all the time in regards to religion. It's an ongoing battle to achieve that complete level of faith, all the time. For example, Amrozi bin Nurhasyim (http://en.wikipedia....i_bin_Nurhasyim), an Islamic extremist who made the news headlines here in Australia a few years ago, because of the Bali bombings (which killed many Australians), was noted in the above wikipedia article that "despite his carefree demeanor throughout his trial and incarceration, he was reported to have been pale faced and shaking in the moments before his execution." This suggests that he was fearful of whether he was going to be punished or rewarded in the After-life by God after his death for the actions he probably thought were right at the time they were carried out. So, even the most convinced believer constantly questions his/her actions, beliefs, considers other possibilities and is in a constant position of denial as well as wonder/fear and open-mindedness (even though they probably wouldn't like to admit this for understandable reasons). You can increase/decrease your level of faith by investigating other religions as well as that of your own, but it never stops, one's level of faith will be in a constant increase/decrease, both subconciously and consciously as well as all the other levels.

Not sure that the moments before death are a good time to judge a man - the most obvious example of someone who questions everything in those last minutes, which I mention because it is disturbingly similar to the paragraph you have quoted, is:

Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me

I don't think your example or my parallel prove anything either way - they have little to do with faith, lack-of-faith, or questioning faith - it is terror, an over-riding all-consuming terror.

On a different note - the fact that a faithful person's level of belief can vary has nothing to do with the assertion that many of the posters have made, which I believe, that you cannot choose to believe. I will take your word for it that once you have a core belief, then you can choose to believe to a greater or lesser extent; but I am certain that you cannot make a conscious decision to start believing.

Soul?

Presuming medical advances that seems a long long way off... The brain is key - the consciousness in the brain would see a physical shell that looks/sounds different, but then I look/sound very different to when I was a teenager; the body feeding and protecting the brain would feel different, but I am sure the "slimmers of the year" who have shed over a hundred pounds feel different in their bodies and I am sure that changes would occur to your personality through the upheaval and other peoples reaction but our personality changes in greater or smaller leaps throughout life anyway.

It would be a massive physical and emotional challenge but without positing unproven supernatural or non-corporeal entities then the consciousness will remain with the brain not the body.