andrewcellini

 

No, no. Young people tend to drink a lot, spend a lot of time on the computer, and ride bicycles.

hey hey hey

i don't have a bicycle

-your thoughts?

 

~ee

i've come across this and did it myself. i blame watching the universe and through the wormhole without looking up anything to get a better picture (at least in my case lol). it is much easier to watch an hour long video or read a short article and think you understand all of quantum mechanics than to actually try to learn some of quantum mechanics, and i think is goes for just about anything in science (and possibly other fields of study).

i just heard a quote from lawrence krauss that i think fits, "people get inspired by physics even if they get it wrong, and there's nothing wrong with that."

I really am sorry for frustrating the higher-ups. As far as me personally, I will keep my mouth (posting relevant info I find) and my mind (looking for relevant info to post) shut like other mindless and suppressed individuals.

i'm not sure i understand. do you think that it would help your situation out more to have "educated guesses" from people doing what amounts to quick google and database searches, or "educated guesses" from people who actually work in the field which deals with your situation (whatever that may be)?

If energy is a constant, it can not be created nor destroyed, would the mind/soul be only energy harnessed by the body. This energy that is harnessed would have a certain frequency while still in the body and a certain frequency when the body dies. If one could focus on this energy frequency, couldn't this prove that there is a chance that some form of if you will "life" after death exists?

what do you mean by energy?

xyzt,

shouldn't it be equal to kt, not kdt, after the integration with respect to dt?

integrating both sides with respect to dt, the dt's will cancel on the LHS, leaving the integral of df on the LHS, and the integral kdt on RHS

but i could be mistaken.

 

If you let the discussion evolve, its my expectation that it will eventually delve into science, or the shores of it.

that wouldn't be up to me.

as mordred said, it might be helpful to lay out what you understand about relativity.

I mean the subject of this discussion is phylosophical, were not even arguing if something is correct or incorrect, you just want it to immediately jump into science or to relate to science.

to be fair, this happens to be a science forum.

also one of the guidelines of this sub forum happens to be "this is a science forum, and speculations are still to be discussed in that context. If it doesn't fit as a science discussion, or you refuse to discuss the idea as such, the thread will be closed down."

what answers have you gotten so far? how did you come to them?

Why can't gravity be the fourth dimension?

with what you've described, i'm not sure how you're using the word dimension.

 

The scientific experiment is above with results.

no it isn't, that is what seems to be a description of your ideas.

what tests can be independently performed in order to falsify or confirm your "theory?"

BUT IT COMES FROM THE QUR'AN WHICH COMES FROM ALLAH SUBNAHANU WA TA'ALA WHO IS THE CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE AND ALLAH SWT IS BEYOND MAN MADE SCIENCE.

but it comes from the bible which comes from yaweh...

but it comes from the bhagvan gita which comes from vishnu...

but it comes from the avesta which comes from zoroaster...

Sunspots strongly support my "theory" as do accepted cross sections of the star.

then you need to actually make a model of what you're talking about and show numerically how it predicts what is observed. i think you're gonna have a lot trouble with your black hole idea though, unless you simply don't know what a black hole actually is. it is not the same thing as the nucleus of an atom which is the dense, positively charged "central" portion of the atom containing protons and neutrons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_nucleus

Most will disbelieve this theory, however, as the world is not flat, the sun is not a ball of gas. The sun is a structured atom similar in structure to a phosphorous atom. Everything is relative. There is a molten ocean of gases on the surface of this radioactive isotope. When they part, and you see the surface of the star, it's black. These are called sunspots. What is known as a black hole is already there, the nucleus of the atom. As with any structured atom, most of the space within is empty, consisting of several shells of electrons, with the outer shell being the exterior of the atom. The atmosphere of the star is a composition of the gasses found heading toward it in space. We witness the atmosphere without knowing the truth.

 

 

this is not a theory. reading this it seems to be a bunch of disconnected premises, words which seem to be used unconventionally (for example "black hole" which you seem to be equating with "nucleus"), and claims which need evidence (for example "the sun is an atom"). this is probably because you haven't carefully examined any of the topics you've attempted to discuss in your informal education.

aquagenic urticaria comes to mind but i'm really not sure that she wouldn't be able to drink water due to it as it is an epidermal reaction.

If no one can understand any word{s} then they can ask. How many times are you and others going to yank my chain uneccesarily?

if you didn't have anyone "yanking your chain," you would probably not think twice about the validity of your ideas. at the very least i hope to provide you with some doubt as to help you strengthen not only your current ideas but any future ones.

how many times do you expect someone to read it before they understand it? i'm not going to reread ad nauseum something which hasn't made sense two times now. all of the entities you have presented seem to be unrelated except when you have explicitly and arbitrarily defined them as "souls." if this isn't the case then feel free to expand on it.

likewise if your numbers have some actual meaning it would be helpful for you to explain.

 

Andrew you need to...

i need to clearly understand what you're trying to say.

so you're neither going to confirm or deny that you are arbitrarily assigning numbers to words, or that you're just stringing together ideas which you may or may not even understand?

i'm not being trying to be personally mean towards you when i examine your idea and show you things that are ill defined by you, or things which probably are incoherent. i'm trying to clearly understand what you mean. for all i know, you are tossing numbers and words around meaninglessly.

at the very least try to form a stronger informal argument than what is contained in your op; it's clearly not a complete explanation if no one (so far) can understand what you're trying to say.

Now as to variation of the word Universe as "U"niverse, I think this is just another place where you maintain a very limiting/narrow mind-set. If you or others actually choose to understand what I mean by "U"niverse or any other words or words conected by texticon, then you and or they can ask. This is simple.

 

I think what is happening, is that some here feel that they are know-it-all types, ergo, if a person states something they do not understand, then it is a word salad of giberrish. Now that may be true in some cases, but not in my mind i.e. I can find your pages of true gibberrish or even type true giberish to give you example for relativety, but again, this trajectory you and others have introduced to this thread is a waste of bandwidth, and a sad lack of intellectual integrity. imho.

 

 

As for numerology, I think your mind is once again very narrow and lacks more wholistic understanding of what eactly numerology means or can mean. Conventional/classical numerology gives a qualitative meaning to a number and yes in this thread I did that to some degree by associating a number with some aspect of Universe and I have approached these associations from a rational, logical and common sense study of the numbers and their sets associated with very specific set of geometrical patterns---- 5 regular/symmetrical polyhedra ---that, are eternal metaphysical-1, absolute truths, that, exist everywhere and everywhen, irrespective of any alledged Multiverses or Omniverses, or parrallel universe's or bubble universe's etc.............

 

In general, I have only rarely added numbers together to arrive at some qualitative meaning, to associate with Universe or any of its parts. What I did with my Space{ 31 } etc...addition to 83 and then powering^ was a playful step further into the world of that which is consider to be the more classical-like numerology. Get over it,as it is not a serious claim, only my far reaching exploration into the world of numbers and number sets that may be associated to Universe and geometry in complementary ways, that you, I or anyone else does not yet understand.

 

If you could step outside of your narrow mind set, then you would find many scientists have many questions regarding the root nature of our finite, occupied space Universe. There exists those scientists types who believe Unierse is an illusion and all that really exists in mathematical/numerical probablities.

 

there's no one claiming that you made up the word universe, but your descent into "u"niverse "i"verse and the like are ill defined in your own post and indeed are incoherent. if you want to explain the meaning of it because I have no idea what is it to represent.

you are arbitrarily taking dimensionless numbers to be special and then associating them with words that may or may not even be related. there is essentially no use to it.

Well Andrew, lets begin with how you define soul. Then lets compare your definition with a few differrent dictionarys. Then lets compare those with others definition of soul.

 

Then maybe, just maybe, you can begin to grasp the tinest bit of why I equate soul with biolgoical,as a rational, logical and common sense conclusion. So show us some beef/content of what exactly you believe soul is. I wont hold my breath in anticiepation.

 

i understand that definitions can change, i think this is a pointless endeavor and here's why:

as there is no evidence for what is commonly referred as a soul, the supernatural spiritual kind, this is merely just redefining something such that we can say it exists. there's no point and it offers no use for science as the terms necessary to describe phenomena relating to what is commonly attributed to the soul such as awareness, will etc (and what you are also referring to the soul such as protons etc) either already exist or will exist and soul will probably not be one of the terms.

i urge you to reread your posts as they are riddled with not only incoherent analyses of roots of words and their relationships to words you've made up such as "U"niverse > Universe > universe{s} > I-verse < you-verse < we-verse < them-verse

but also more recently numerology.

there isn't very much that is rational about your posts

 

If you dont believe a proton is composed of 3 quarks, then you need to do some research. I know that may asking a lot of you....

 

If you cannot find definition of proton as being is composed of three quarks, then you need to get you panties out of there twit. imho

if you read my sentence i speak of how you indiscriminately call them just quarks rather than specify what flavor as if they're all the same. I even give you a source which says 2 up's and 1 down. i suggest reading comprehension for silly persons book series, but i understand that may be asking a lot for you.

if you want people to take you seriously you should

-refrain from becoming emotionally attached to your "ideas" such that you becoming angrily defensive of your "work"

-write your "ideas" in and intelligible form that can be understood by someone other than you

nothing relates the proton and the bacteria except that they have behavior that is observable and predictable to a certain degree. if you are using soul as characteristic behavior(s) or qualities of a system or collection of systems then that is more metaphorical than what most people refer to, some sort of ineffable or supernatural and supposedly existent entity.

you said "Proton/soul{?} = 3 quarks = OO OO OO = 2160 degrees of stable variation"

where you are:

-equating proton with soul and thus using your own unconventional definition of the words proton and soul which are clearly ill defined in your op.

-state that the proton is 3 quarks but don't say which quarks which seems to imply that all quarks are the same flavor. they're not.

-equate this with some pretty pairs of colored O's

-equate this with "2160 degrees of stable variation," which is ill defined. degrees of variations in what? what does it mean? how do you measure 2160 of them?

this isn't a dictionary, it's an encyclopedia. close enough. either way your definition of proton and soul (or both I guess) are nowhere to be found.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton

If you cant figure out then you need to go else where. imho

if someone can figure out

Pattern Integrity = Soul...

then they need to come in here and explain because it is pretty meaningless.

for example how is it meaningful to equate biological to soul? you're going to be hard pressed to find someone to accept this assumption.

another example is how ill defined the concept you're trying to introduce, pattern integrity, is in each of your posts. what do you exactly mean by pattern integrity?

what are you trying to discuss?

aetheric pressure

what is the point of this aether? is it in the same vein as previous aethers?

what do you mean by aetheric pressure?

This is YOUR statement NOT Mine!!! !

can you clarify your original statement if my understanding of it is not the same as yours then?

Your assumptions not mine!

then what would be your point?

clarification is most definitely needed.