studiot

Hello Jaden, please don't take offence at this, but since you say you don't know how memory works how can you then go on to offer an explanation of entropy changes due to memory changes? Billwald was correct in saying that Shannon 'information' refers to data not ideas. However he was incorrect in saying that entropy always cannot be measured (registered) within a system. FYI (pun intended) the link between classical entropy and information arises because for any system that may only exist in certain 'states' we may store shannon information (data) by causing that system to take up one of those states. For a simple example a switch may be on or off - 2 states - 2 chunks of data. The link between this and classical entropy was stated by Boltzman in 1896 and is [math]S = k{\log _e}(w)[/math] in conventional notation, where S is entropy , w is the number of possible states and k is a constant. Current theory has that memory and thought activity is conducted by 'synapses' which are biochemical switches in the nervous system (including the brain) that transfer information between neurons. Here are two good links to neurons and synapses http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/cells.html http://faculty.washi...dler/cells.htmlhttp://faculty.washi...er/synapse.html

Since you claim to write impeccable English, please explain the exact meaning of the above in words suitable for someone who was born within the sound of the Great Bell of Bow. (I presume you fully understand the implications of that birthplace within the english world).

You claim that English is your first language, yet none of these responses are in proper English. I asked so that I could make allowances if your native language was not English. You claim a document none of which is found in the Bible and which your own reference dates at several hundred years after the Bible was drafted the is a Bible or some part of it. I have (politely) asked for an explanation of the point or question you wish to make in this thread so discussion can proceed, but have received no definitive answer. In response to an attempt to analyse the data you have presented I have, however received several arrogant and dismissive responses. go well sir

Nor would I guess does any man have complete knowledge. However it is by exchanging knowledge that progress to the benefit of all is made. So if you have better knowledge, I will gladly accept it. The title of this thread states it is about the Old Testament so I have listed some of the things I know or have been able to find out that may be relevent in the spirit of open discussion. I think it important to establish some facts before trying to prove anything. Are you sure you are referring to Clement of Rome? He is not known to have been a great writer. http://en.wikipedia..../Pope_Clement_I That is why I asked about Clement of Alexandria, who was. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_of_Alexandria Later Popes Clement were all in the second millenium AD so presumably out of the frame for this. This is the clearest quotation you have made so far. However I don't know why you did it. Partly because there was no explanation or reason given and partly because your reference has it as at least two centuries after the death of Clement of Rome, given a fifty year uncertainty about his dates. I really would encourage you to make some actual point or points that can be discussed.

Is this preaching or discussing?

It is a shame you have chosen not to expand on your original post since it had the potential to be a good discussion. 1) I assume you are referring to Clement of Alexandria, not later Popes of that name. 2) The Epistles of Clement were written in the 2nd century AD, just too late to be included as one of the books of the New Testament. They were never a candidate for the Old Testament. 3) Various versions of the Old Testament I was referring to have big differences for instance the Pentateuch includes only the first five books. The Septuagint book of Jeremiah has a significant different order of events from the same book in the Mazaretic version. The (hebrew)Mazaretic is the version usually used in Western Bibles and was created about a hundred years before Clement. The (Greek)Septuagint predates it by some four to five hundred years.

OK, well a nice discussion but it does not take me any closer understanding what you are trying to say.

I suggest we are (all) conditioned to associate change with time by the oft used phrase "rate of change"

Can't see whether you have picked my examples out to agree with or disagree with but they are offered as examples of change without time. If, however you insist on the same object, how about this example, still keeping with colour. What colour is a blue ball viewed under A) a strontium light b) a sodium light c) a magnesium light

To say time is the only measure of change is nonsense. Take a ruler and paint one end blue and the other red. I can see red or blue depending solely upon a chage to spatial coordinates, further the red and blue exist simultaneously, which brings me to another observation. Consider an event on Earth (event A) and a disconnected event on the planet Zog (event B). Because they are disconnected no amount of time will morph A into B.

Well I meant the Christian Bible, of which there is more than one version. That Bible is not really a single book but a collection of documents from different times ands places. Different denominations of Christian include different sets of documents in their collection. I had not heard of your reference being dubbed a Bible before. Further by picking out your response in my post#6 was about the fact that there are some books in the Old Testament with differing accounts of the same events, because these books were written in different places. It was also a good example of my comment that I did not follow your statement beyond the first clause. I wondered if the second highlighted sentence had any relevence.

So it wasn't a reference from the Bible (any Bible) then. What's the problem with making that clear?

Sure thing Capt' I understand. I would just like to know the reference so that I can look up the context. Although, considering the smart-alec responses to my genuine questions I may not bother. I was, after all, only trying to help and to understand what had been said.

I have no idea what the deleted reference in your original post was but your original post does not make sense at this time. Was your original quotation from the Bible? If so, which Bible? I am also having trouble following some of your English, is this not your first language?

Thank you michel for posting the diagram. I fully appreciate juan's statement that the mass becomes asymptotic to a vertical line through C. However it provides no information whatsoever for what happens with v > c. No one has ever produced an experiment or observation to test if the relationship changes beyond c or remains the same. Now consider the tangent function. This has the same form up to a fixed value ie is asymptotic to a vertical line through 90. However if we proceed through 90 lo and behold the line which has disappeared out of the top of the paper is seen coming back in from the bottom. This behaviour could not have been predicted from the behaviour at x<90.

Well in addition, modulo 4, it equals 10. go well

Hello Rich, It would be to your advantage to review your ideas of 'order' and probability before trying to mix them up with entropy. It is very common to think of say a crystal lattice as 'order' because it is formed into a pretty pattern. This is nowhere near the truth. You can take any (possible) state whatsoever of a system and call it 'order'. Probability theory then makes the comparison with the totality of other possible states. Since most systems have (very) many possible states the possibility of finding the particular one you have called order, when sampling the system at random, is very low. Further distinction is possible by clumping states into sets of similar ones. This difficulty in understanding how random processes can result in a directed outcome is very common and appears in many areas of the application of probability. A particular example is Darwinianism. A further profitable consideration would be to apply Newton's laws (they are sufficient for qualitative understanding) to your cloud of gas. Some force makes the gas coalesce. What are the classical thermodynamic implications of that statement?

No one has any proof that the laws of subluminal mechanics can be extended beyond c. All is supposition at superluminal speeds. Equally when discussing 'time travel' people inherently mean a different form of mechanics (wrongly I think) from that involved in space travel. To whit they say the train travals from London to Glasgow. They mean the whole train - all the carriages engine etc. They don't mean one carriage is removed from the middle of the train and displaced by itself to Glasgow. Yet when people talk of time travel this is exactly the scenario they are proposing by the statement the train travels to Glasgow.

It is a pity to attribute to someone long dead something he did not say as the basis for a paper. Clausius actually said "Die Warme kann nich von selbst aus einem kalteren in einem warmeren Korper ubergangen" I see not even the ghost of a cyclic integral in that statement.

Can't see the connection between 'reason' and 'democracy'. Are you suggesting that a non democracy is devoid of reason in government? Hammurabi and Solomon were pretty autocratic guys, yet they are also noted for beeing pretty 'reasonable' rulers. I see reason as about the pursuit of objectives. It has nothing to do with any value system for those objectives. For instance, the islanders of the South Seas were cannibals yet their society was reasonable by their lights. Similarly a company of Pirates was democratic, but was its reasonable?

Shufeng-zhang Two responders have not argued with your paper. Both posted questions designed to clarify what you are saying and help you with a discussion. You have been rude and dismissive to both and completely failed (refused?) to clarify your points. I have not come across a more tolerant scientific forum than this one so I fear you will soon loose your voice here if you carry on discussion in this way. I have not yet sought to debate with you since all I have done has been to try to establish the basis for your paper. I think the following sequence speaks for itself.

Aways happy to discuss rationally in another thread.

Your own words in two successive posts. A general categorical answer brooking no exceptions. An exception. So how should I take this insulting response? Surely the correct response to someone who has a misconception is to say something along the lines of "Division by zero is not defined in the circumstance you are proposing, but can be achieved in certain specialised cases." with or without further amplification.

Fair comment, I apologise for introducing time to your thread.

Here is the second fraction rewritten: [math]\frac{1}{2}*\frac{3}{3}*\frac{4}{4}*\frac{5}{5}*\frac{6}{6}...... = \frac{1}{2}[/math] Can you see that no matter how far we go along the product, taking the same number of terms top and bottom, all the terms cancel except the first, so we are left with a half? So in this case (different numbers would yield different answers) [math]\frac{\infty }{\infty }[/math] evaluates to 1/2. When I first met this sort of thing an older wiser bear said to me "There are many infinities" "How so?" I asked " How else would infinity/infintity come out at so many different answers?" he growled. go well