Strange

If you link imagination to consciousness, then I don't see how you can say imagination is everywhere as there is no evidence that, water, say is conscious. Then you say it is the result of random processes "in the mind" but then apply that to random process outside the mind. Finally, you claim that random processes are everywhere. But, outside of certain quantum phenomena, there is little or no randomness in the world. And even truly random processes like radioactive decay average out at the large scale so that we can quantify things like half-life, build nuclear reactors, etc. So ... not convinced, I'm afraid.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I nearly always give people the benefit of the doubt. I can't understand why, but there are apparently a lot of people whose approach to asking questions is to make a definite statement of what they think (with no question attached). I will usually try and explain what they have got right and what they appear to have got wrong. That sometimes leads to a constructive discussion. On the other hand, sadly, it more often leads to, "no, you are all mistaken, my idea is correct because it is based on pure logic". At which point it is entirely reasonable to pin the "crackpot" badge on them.

Interesting point. I suppose an infinite universe containing a finite amount of amtter is a possib ility, but I don't really know. I'm not aware of any scientists who think that represents physical reality. Just a limitation of the current model.

I am not trying to disprove a belief or faith. Just pointing out that omniscience is incompatible with free will. As I have no particular opinion on God or gods, nor on the existence of free will, I am not really interested in disproving anything.

So, like the Christian God, the Earth moves in mysterious ways. Other than Lovelock, who are you thinking of? It may not be a crackpot idea (it is a very old and quite interesting metaphor) but refusing to admit that some of the claims made are factually incorrect is behaviour typical of crackpots.

Wrong. Now, why do you put a higher value on having a random idea (and refusing to acknowledge it might be flawed) than rational thought?

To be specific, this is an incomplete sentence: That all primes except 2 and 3 are ... what?

Despite that diagram, it is not possible to create a tetrahedron from 2 triangles. All that digram shows (by breaking two triangles into three edges each) is that a tetrahedron has twice as many edges as a triangle. Well, that's a shock. It also doesn't require that the triangles are equilateral. So it is irrelevant to the new information in the article. Also, a carbon 12 nucleus only contains 1 triangle. So: no new information about triangles, half the number of triangles required, and the starting point is bogus anyway. You have yet to show how this is related to triangles. You have not provided any evidence that a thing called a "soul" exists. You would need to look at magnesium-24 to get two equilateral triangles and argon-36 to find a tetrahedron (if the pattern still applies in those cases)

Any bodily fluids, think (even sweat contains the virus). The Spanish nurse appears to have contract it by touching her face with a glove. But that may have been near her eyes, nose or mouth. I believe so. Because it is not airborne, so it needs direct contact with bodily fluids. More here: http://www.bbc.com/news/health-29556006

That is a straw man argument. No one has said that. On the other hand, if rely only on video evidence, then you will conclude that a stage magician can saw a woman in half. The problem is not the video evidence itself, if is jumping to unsupported conclusions based on that limited evidence.

There is no single amount of energy related to a force of 1N, even if applied to 1kg. Can you provide a reference to this. I have never heard of the dyne being used as a unit of mass, and cannot understand how it can be. Also, when you refer to "units of mass" are you thinking that mass should be quantised in the same way that charge is?

Many such services are implemented in interpreted languages ... PHP, Perl, Python, Ruby, Javascript ...

If you can't be bothered to explain your thoughts about it, I can't be bothered to make any further effort to understand. The article was interesting. I wonder if the alpha particle structure is maintained in larger nuclei as well...

That doesn't stop the organism containing the liver reproducing. A liver is not an organism. Or are you now claiming that the Earth is not a living organism, but is just an organ in a larger living organism?

Or maybe you need to explain better. You are right. I don't have a clue what that means. If, indeed, it means anything. As you state this as a fact, perhaps you can provide some references that support this idea? Why would I be afraid, or even care, what happens to your post. (But it should probably be in Speculations.)

I agree that all life is based on carbon. (Is there life which is not biological? Is there any reason to bring "soul" into a science forum - that should be restricted to discussions of R&B.) But I fail to see the connection to "a resultant, synergetic access to metaphysical-1 mind/intellect." (whatever that means) Unless you just mean, "here is some news about carbon, carbon is related to life, some living things have an intellect". But that is not really a logical argument, it is just a series of loosely connected statements. It is about on a par with: water is wet, dogs drink water, dogs play with sticks.

Poppycock and totally unrelated to the quoted article.

What is the difference?

I have been thinking about this all day. I can only make a couple of comments. I hope you think this is constructive. 1. I am struggling to make sense of the phrase "energy content of a newton of force". For example, you say "The rest mass is found by dividing the energy content of 300,000,000 newtons by c^2." But newtons divided by c^2 gives kg/meter, which is not mass (or energy). The energy imparted to a given mass by a force depends on how long the force is applied for: energy = force * distance (or :1 N . m = 1 J). So it isn't clear how you relate energy to force. Is this the energy after applying the force for 1 second? The trouble is, that the energy equivalent of an object defined this way is inversely proportional to mass: a 2kg mass will have half the equivalent energy of a 1kg mass. 2. In your model, the effective mass of an object decreases the greater its acceleration (the larger the force applied). Is that correct? In the "traditional" view, effective mass increases with increasing velocity. This should give us an easy way to test the two hypotheses and determine which is more accurate. For example, in your model, applying a constant force will cause an acceleration which reduces the mass. This means that the same force will be able to cause a greater acceleration which will cause the mass to reduce further. Causing the acceleration to increase. And so on. So, a constant force will cause the rate of acceleration to gradually increase. (Correct me if I have misunderstood.) Whereas, standard physics says that the effective mass increases with velocity and therefore a constant force will result in decreasing acceleration over time. (Which is one explanation of why a massive object can never reach a velocity of c.) So it should be possible to find cases where we can compare the effects of objects subjected to rapid acceleration and high velocities and see which model applies. I'll leave that there for the moment. I was confused by this at first. I think that what you mean is: "it requires a force of one newton to accelerate a kilogram mass to a velocity of one meter per second during after one second". That might seem like nitpicking, but your wording was ambiguous and confusing. - At first I thought you were saying the velocity was "one meter" (which obviously doesn't make sense). - But then thought you probably meant "one meter during one second" (i.e. one meter per second) for the velocity. But that leaves off the fact that it takes one second to achieve that velocity. - Another interpretation is that you were referring to the average velocity during that period of one seond. But that is 1/2 meter per second. So I hope you see why I was confused. So I wonder if I am misunderstanding the phrase "energy content of a newton of force" in a similar way....

Please provide an example. Then you will need to quote something specific from that page that supports your argument, because I can't see it.

You may be thinking of dark energy ... And dark energy doesn't accelerate masses, it accelerates the metric expansion of space.

Well, the universe might be infinitely large. Run away from that if you want but there is no real reason to.

The page you linked to still had nothing to do with the question. Again: can you name a single plant or animal where the offspring consist entirely of small lumps on the surface of the parent, which eventually get washed away without having any further offspring. Of course you can't because any such organism would be extinct after one generation. Yep. The human body does that and other things. The Earth does none of them. Ergo, not living.

You did. You said, repeatedly, that chemistry is random. I can't imagine anyone disagreeing with that. It is kind of obvious. Who does? So you don't mean "organic" (based on carbon) you mean chemicals that are only produced by living organisms? So your claim is: chemicals produced only by living organisms didn't appear until after living organisms appeared? Well, duh. Again, obvious. CHEMICAL REACTIONS ARE NOT RANDOM!

Nor do I. You seem to be missing the point. No one is criticised for having ideas. I have had some interesting and educational discussions with people who have come forwards and asked about an idea they have. The problem is with those people who are not interested in discussing their idea - other than people agreeing with them. If it is pointed out that their idea is contradicted by evidence they will ignore the evidence, get angry, insist they are right and all scientists are mistaken. Not at all. The whole reason that this and many other science forums exist is for just that purpose.