Endy0816

There's obviously a way of being intelligent in a way where you don't come across as being a know it all, so to speak. From my experience it's generally the unintelligent people who are overconfident and arrogant in their approach and with their opinions; usually enabled by their ignorance. And the people who know their stuff are usually the ones with more humility and who keep quiet.

Yeah, this is my thinking as well.

Match the group you are with. Generally some mix of recognizing what others are good at, while downplaying your own skills.

Both to reasonable limits of course. Don't be afraid to shine, just be willing to share the spotlight.

Most people attribute this to "muscle memory" but this is nonsense. My learning stopped when I figured out how to do it very early on. The fact is each successful attempt was not identical. My position and the initial position of the hand and arm varied somewhat. "Muscle memory" could not account for this apparently learned behavior. Just as an amputee who suffers the worst possible pain "in" his missing limb is not remembering old pain. It's far more likely that the ganglia in the human body are each conscious and each capable of learning.

Proprioception is pretty well understood...

Entirely possible to fool the system and "replace" the phantom limb. All based on your perception.

If your theory was correct, your visual perception wouldn't matter.

Best mention I could readily find:

 

The SGLT proteins use the energy from this downhill sodium gradient created by the ATPase pump to transport glucose across the apical membrane against an uphill glucose gradient. Therefore, these co-transporters are an example of secondary active transport. (The GLUT uniporters then transport the glucose across the basolateral membrane, into the peritubular capillaries.) Both SGLT1 and SGLT2 are known as symporters, since both sodium and glucose are transported in the same direction across the membrane.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_rehydration_therapy#Physiological_basis

As I understand the above the higher sodium concentration is enough to get the glucose through.

Also Osmos is more commonly referred to as Osmosis. Equalization across a membrane.

If there is evidence out there, then no faith is required anyway...

Exactly my point.

And Jesus being XX means that he would be a she. Are you sure you don't mean XXY?

Turning water into wine is perfectly allowed within the known laws of physics. The process which Prof. Frank J. Tipler proposes for the miracles of Jesus Christ uses baryon annihilation (which is allowed in the Standard Model, as baryon number minus lepton number, B - L, is conserved), and its inverse, by way of electroweak quantum tunneling caused via the Principle of Least Action by the physical requirement that the Omega Point final cosmological singularity exists. Tipler also proposes that the virgin birth of Jesus by Mary could be possible via Jesus being a special type of XX male who obtained all of his genetic material from Mary (i.e., an instance of parthenogenesis). Tipler concludes that the Star of Bethlehem was either a Type Ic hypernova located in the Andromeda Galaxy, or a Type Ia supernova located in a globular cluster of our own Milky Way Galaxy.

Thankfully, I didn't come up with that bit of craziness. Why it is used as an example.

Parthenogenesis is at the far end of theoretically possible, but wouldn't have any reason to think it would result in someone with male characteristics.

Only other real world thing would be if Mary was a chimera with a former male sibling's cells. In that case Jesus would be normal in terms of his genetics, if not the circumstances of his conception.

Falls under magnetohydrodynamics. Combines Navier-Stokes with Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism.

I've always been kind of interested in it after we had a case of ball lightning on the sub. Followed the poor guy up a ladder(read: stairs). He survived but got singed pretty good.

I'm really not saying miracles are real.

I'm saying there is some evidence out there. Not the best quality of evidence nor delivered by the most reputable research, but still evidence to consider. I'm sure most people have seen the assorted documentaries and whatnot.

You venture too far down that path though and you are left talking about the Omega Point theory, baryon-lepton conservation and Jesus being a XX male.

My personal plan is to wait until I die and then ask. God and/or an Afterlife may not exist, but one can still make plans based on a potential.

Anyways in that vein this is reaching my limit for religious debate. Gets too circular after a very short while.

 

 

Can you give an example of a miracle after death?

After my own demise?

You'll have to wait a bit for that one. If at all possible though I promise to get the word out.

I have that sinking feeling I'm being drawn in. Obviously we need more cranks here to enliven our days...

Faith - firm belief in something for which there is no proof

By straightforward reasoning if there is sufficient proof there can be no faith.

Most generic definition anyways. Other definitions are in the form of trust or belief in religious doctrine. Equally valid but still a bit on the pointless side if your knowledge level is sufficient.

I figure I'll just ask(or not) about the assorted miracles after death. Most efficient strategy. Only in the case of physical immortality will I devote time to investigating them.

Not really how I interpret it but okay.

Whether these events happened exactly as described is less of an issue to me than whether at some point they happened even if to a lesser degree.

Honestly, Occam's razor suggests it was just massive poetic license and misunderstood events. Don't need much in the way of science to explain in that case.

Believing something with out evidence or facts is nothing but gullibility...

Which we also define as faith. If you can explain everything, you can no longer have faith in anything.

Really doesn't matter what you believe, but you should at least have the option to make up your own mind on the subject.

Would you care to cite some of that evidence for those things i have put in bold print?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah#Historicity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_myth#Claims_of_historicity

Red Sea was something to the effect of an earthquake causing a tidal wave to form. As the wave moved up the Red Sea the water drained out before it. Moses was able to cross, Pharaoh pursuing was caught directly in its path.

Not the best quality evidence but reasonably plausible or I wouldn't have mentioned it.

How do you lose a degree of freedom when discovering that a miracle can occur and be repeatable through scientific observation? Also, isn't it mostly in human nature to be curious about the world around you? To want to know all there is to know? Being able to explain away phenomena seems essential to the human condition.

You would end up with only facts though. Freedom to believe or disbelieve is dependent on having something you can't explain.

Division of the loaves and fishes? Pillars of salt?

You could debate whether they were speaking literally or not, but you could make that same point about any of the assorted miracles in the Bible.

Some of the geological and medical miracles maybe. Some of those explanations make "Goddidit" start to look reasonable, but I'll allow the possibility.

I just think it violates some essential human element attempting to explain everything away. If you can explain every miracle you deny yourself a degree of freedom. I figure I'll find out(or not) in due time. My own random thoughts on the matter, feel free to believe what you will.

On the flip side scientists are developing a method to turn female bone marrow into sperm. It will only be a matter of time until we have a whole generation of little messiahs running around.

I honestly don't doubt that some recorded events had a real world cause. A fair bit of evidence for that. Sodom and Gomorrah, Red Sea, Flood, etc.

My issue comes when people attempt to explain all miracles away in the same fashion. If they were all caused by natural phenomenon then they need to be repeatable. If they are repeatable, they aren't miracles.

Leave God some kind of gaps.

The Omega Point theory is not widely accepted as being true in the first place...

Are you talking about wireless charging using radio waves, or an actual zero energy input device?

Yeah, easier to just store electricity and then emit the light on demand.

Plasma based weapons could be another option to explore.

Main issue is that this isn't a Scientific Journal or even one of the less than Scientific Journals out there. The next Einstein could publish here and would have a rough time of claiming credit, let alone a Nobel prize.

Most of what you write is also vague. You don't get points in science for vagueness.

The guy who says:

"Hypocortisine in a 5 mg dose along with a 30 mg dose of Thetrazine, will cure Trewq Cancer in 9-10 days."

will get the credit.

Besides that as has been mentioned your "cure" would kill the person and then some. There are real world novel treatments out there that are safer by far. That's what is going to get the research.

the Lorentz equation does give a more accurate time

This is absolutely correct. As you are now on record for stating this we can stop debating the matter.

Galilean transforms stopped being used because they didn't accurately describe reality. That's it. No grand conspiracy, they just didn't work at the observed speeds.

Got it exactly right.

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

Our world population growth has been quietly slowing as of late.

IMO the only issue we'll have to deal with is a finite population. Presents social problems for countries, but ecologically we'll be better off.

They've been making inroads on intercity gardens and skyscraper farming. Not sure on how it stacks up in terms of efficiency, but is a promising development.

I think we actually have enough resources for everyone. We'll probably end up with a renewable energy and recycling based economy. There's a whole lot of "garbage" sitting out there we can process. Any additional material we can use plants/microbes to produce/extract for us. Easily enough material goods available for everyone and we're already moving away from material possessions anyways.

If you right click on the axis you should have an option to format, then need to adjust the interval between tick marks.

Hard to be sure this is what you want without looking over your shoulder.

1 Foot

The Foot is a unit of measurement.

1 Q

The Planck Charge is a unit of measurement.

 

In physics, Planck units are physical units of measurement defined exclusively in terms of five universal physical constants listed below, in such a manner that these five physical constants take on the numerical value of 1 when expressed in terms of these units.

 

the gravitational constant, G,

the reduced Planck constant, ħ,

the speed of light in a vacuum, c,

the Coulomb constant, (4πε0)−1 (sometimes ke or k), and

the Boltzmann constant, kB (sometimes k).

Bit redundant but to be clear that bolded part is the reason that Planck charge was invented.

It is less arbitrary than a unit based upon a human appendage, but it is still arbitrary.

I also dislike video "proofs", but never watched them thinking that they are actual proof. But more as another tool of information that if I come across something I didnt hear or read about before, I turn around and research it without going to any sites like youtube

 

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alberteins130625.html#JvQMIdlGwHT1HiF3.99

 

To raise new questions, new possibilites, to regard old problems from a new angle, requires creative imagination and marks real advance in science

Albert Einstien

What kind of person or group would benfit from promoting a psuedo science, but I will take your warning into consideration though.

But still think the concept of the SEG itself is still viable, I just haven't gained a true comprehension of it yet, but when I do being deterred by a psuedo science will have no effect on me.

 

Also at the end of the day my hypothesis is that the SEG or sceince and math behind is viable and feasable to the needs of the world, and as with any hypothesis it needs to tested, tested, tested, again and again to remove all possible doubt.

Advertisement dollars, promotional books, kits, research funding, etc.

Big business selling people snake oil. I'd do it myself if I could stomach the hypocrisy.

Einstein also said, "You have to learn the rules of the game. And then you have to play better than anyone else."

The 3 laws of thermodynamics are the rules of the game. Within those rules you still have a ton of room to maneuver. There are real world novel energy sources you could apply your intelligence to instead.

Microbial, human bio-energy, tidal, etc.

Pseudoscience will just rot your brain.

 

In December 2000, one of the best physics journals in Russia , "Technical Physics Letters," published an article by VV Roshchina and SM Godin's "Experimental study of physical effects in dynamic magnetic system." It seems that the members of the editorial board of the article did not look hoped to conclude the reviewer. Meanwhile, even a quick look is enough to understand that it can be published only in some anthology of science fiction. Indeed, in a short note mentions the anti-gravity (the weight of the unit during the experiments subsided from 350 kg to 250 kg), and a "magnetic walls" found at a distance of 15 m from the axis of the apparatus, the magnetic field strength with distance from the axis does not decreased, and other miracles. To the credit of the editorial board, I must say that in the pages of his magazine she apologized to readers for publishing this article. And one more little detail regarding the mentioned article. It is published on behalf of the Institute of High Temperatures, however, the latter to these "studies" has nothing to do. And such a facility at the institute has never been. By the way, this kind of forgery - it is standard practice pseudoscience.

Original page - translated

Fraudsters! Just who I would want to lend credibility.

Just to note, most posters here dislike video "proofs". Serious time sucks.

There is ambient electricity. The problem is tapping it in an efficient manner.

Mainly thinking Telluric currents, Earth's magnetic field and your neighborhood leakage. Mostly low energy sources or come with high inefficiencies.

The easiest issue to pinpoint in SEG is that the permanent magnets would lose energy. You certainly could get something to spin for awhile running off them, but it wouldn't go on forever.

For that matter if you did have a free energy source that for whatever reason required magnets, electromagnets would be more reasonable to work with instead.

...and there are some impossible things. You cannot breath in a vacuum no matter how much you believe.

Your thoughts can impact reality and your perception of that reality, but reality still has the final say.

Really nobody knows for sure, so you are free to believe whatever you want on this one.

My own thought is that a singularity wouldn't be a singularity anymore in an environment without space itself existing.

M_U/0 => M_U

Cyclic universe theory with an entropy reset going on in between.

Best fit in terms of observable phenomenon. There are plenty of other theories out there though. God, vacuum fluctuation, colliding branes, you name it.