PDA

View Full Version : Mind over matter. Quantum communication.


Algebra
12-20-2009, 06:13 AM
(Part one)

In 1927 at a conference on physics in Belgium. A new proposal of mind over matter was admitted to try to resolve inexplicable behaviours in Quantum Mechanics.

Hiesenberg and Bohr approached Einstien with a new theory. That the minds of the reasearchers were effecting the results of experiments. This is because the mathmatics of predictability were not repeatable and reliable enough to explain what was happening.

At first Einstein could'nt accept this because it violated all mathmatical models. Years later however he admitted it was happening. So something must have convinced him it was true.

"Anyone who becomes seriously involved in the persuit of science becomes convinced that there is a spirit manifest in the laws of the universe. A spirit vastly superior to that of man" - Albert Einstien

So is it possible that the universe itself is alive and we are part of it?

This spirit which Einstien speaks of, is not a mechanical force like Gravity, Electro magnetism or the strong or weak forces, but is conciouseness itself.

"All matter originates and exists, only by virtue of a force. We must assume that behind this force is the existance of a conciouse and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter" - Max planck. The father of quantum physics. 1858 - 1947.

So to summarise whats been discussed so far.Our current Science can not handle conciouseness. Allthough some would say quantum physics can expain conciouseness, it actualy cant deal with an expeiment where a conciouse observer is involved.

Whenever there is a conciouse observer present. It causes a collapse of the wave function. The wave function is a mathematical construct which describes the wavieness of probabilitys of events at the Quantum level.
So when an observer is present they actualy destroy information and effectively set the wave back to zero.

Thus its is in theory, possible that human intention can significantly influence properties and materials in the nature of reality.

In 1957 Proffesor Hans Eysensick of the University of London. Wrote a letter insinuating of a conspiracy Invilving 30 major universitys and hundreds of respected scientists. To silence the truth about what they knew about human conciouseness.

After the United States had data from the Stamford research institute and Universitys worldwide regarding remote viewing and telepathy.
(They actualy managed to find a downed russian plane which crashed in Africa.)
They were terrified of what would happen if everyday people developed the power of their minds.

They carried out a smere campaign in the media to discredit what they had discovered because if we realised how powerfull our minds actualy are it would give us back the power that they try so hard to hold on to.

So by projecting our conciouse will form our body or mind via electro magnetic frequency waves produced by the heart in to the force that governs all matter. Could you communicate with people on the other side of the world or use it to view things that people dont want you to see?

Ill be attempting to answer these questions in part 2

Thats it for this section get your heads round this bit and i'll be back with the next part soon as ive done some research.

JazzRoc
01-10-2010, 03:16 PM
So by projecting our conscious will from our body or mind via electromagnetic frequency waves produced by the heart in to the force that governs all matter. Could you communicate with people on the other side of the world or use it to view things that people dont want you to see?.
No. Learn to spell.

jane doe
01-12-2010, 05:37 PM
I understand the presented concepts inspite of gramatical errors.

So by projecting our conciouse will form our body or mind via electro magnetic frequency waves produced by the heart in to the force that governs all matter. Could you communicate with people on the other side of the world or use it to view things that people dont want you to see?


As a "psychic", often I can heart-emotionally connect with my children and my friends without using any form of technology. A willingness between us proceeds the telepathy.

I also know of others who are invasive with their gifts and I disagree with their use of this "talent". Seeing what other people don't want you to see can heal or harm, be invasive or necessary.

BlueAngel
01-12-2010, 08:59 PM
Algebra said:

"So is it possible that the universe itself is alive and we are part of it?"

Ah, I would think so.

BlueAngel
01-12-2010, 09:12 PM
I understand the presented concepts inspite of gramatical errors.

So by projecting our conciouse will form our body or mind via electro magnetic frequency waves produced by the heart in to the force that governs all matter. Could you communicate with people on the other side of the world or use it to view things that people dont want you to see?


As a "psychic", often I can heart-emotionally connect with my children and my friends without using any form of technology. A willingness between us proceeds the telepathy.

I also know of others who are invasive with their gifts and I disagree with their use of this "talent". Seeing what other people don't want you to see can heal or harm, be invasive or necessary.

So, what form of technology do you use to heart-emotionally connect to your children and friends?

JazzRoc
01-13-2010, 01:32 AM
I understand the presented concepts inspite of gramatical errors.

So by projecting our conciouse will form our body or mind via electro magnetic frequency waves produced by the heart in to the force that governs all matter. Could you communicate with people on the other side of the world or use it to view things that people dont want you to see?


As a "psychic", often I can heart-emotionally connect with my children and my friends without using any form of technology. A willingness between us proceeds the telepathy.

I also know of others who are invasive with their gifts and I disagree with their use of this "talent". Seeing what other people don't want you to see can heal or harm, be invasive or necessary.
I suggest you are EMULATING this in your mind, the child (or whatever) also doing the same. This will produce the same agreeable result.

"Electromagnetic radiation" (if it were there) would be EASILY detected using a coil and a galvanometer. "Magnetism" - use a compass.

The fact is the mind can easily produce this illusion. We are all suggestible.

Get a proper job.

BlueAngel
01-13-2010, 01:41 AM
I suggest you are EMULATING this in your mind, the child (or whatever) also doing the same. This will produce the same agreeable result.

"Electromagnetic radiation" (if it were there) would be EASILY detected using a coil and a galvanometer. "Magnetism" - use a compass.

The fact is the mind can easily produce this illusion. We are all suggestible.

Get a proper job.

I

JazzRoc said:

"Electromagnetic radiation" (if it where there) would be EASILY detected using a coil and galvanomenter. "Magnetism" - use a compass."

What the hell are you talking about, JazzRoc?

JaneDoe included.

Nevermind.

Don't even try to explain it.

It's such BS.

Get a proper job.

BlueAngel
01-13-2010, 01:45 AM
Forgoodness sakes, could it possibly be that I'm the only sane person who posts on this forum?

JazzRoc
01-13-2010, 04:49 AM
What the hell are you talking about, JazzRoc?
The claim made that energy passes between one person and another can be tested with a compass and a radio receiver (edited).

If no change in readings is detected then the claim is false.

If that test hasn't been made then the claim has no basis.

If it isn't evidential and repeatable, it isn't science. It is pseudoscience like divination, astrology, and the rest of the atavisms of the past we don't seem to be able to shake off.

Snake Oil, anyone?

BlueAngel
01-13-2010, 08:05 AM
The claim made that energy passes between one person and another can be tested with a compass and a radio receiver (edited).

If no change in readings is detected then the claim is false.

If that test hasn't been made then the claim has no basis.

If it isn't evidential and repeatable, it isn't science. It is pseudoscience like divination, astrology, and the rest of the atavisms of the past we don't seem to be able to shake off.

Snake Oil, anyone?

Oh, wonderful.

Thanks for the explanation.

We can all sleep better tonight now that you've cleared that up for us.

AS I questioned.

Am I the only SANE poster/member of this forum?

:D

JazzRoc
01-13-2010, 11:19 AM
Am I the only SANE poster/member of this forum?
I am unable to answer that due to insufficient information.

Asking the question twice under the above condition renders your question paradoxical (and doubly unanswerable). :)

jane doe
01-13-2010, 11:38 AM
Forgoodness sakes, could it possibly be that I'm the only sane person who posts on this forum?

Everything is possible when you eliminate the rules. ;)

JazzRoc
01-13-2010, 01:35 PM
Everything is possible when you eliminate the rules.
Hey, good one... :)

EireEngineer
01-13-2010, 06:02 PM
JazzRoc said:

"Electromagnetic radiation" (if it where there) would be EASILY detected using a coil and galvanomenter. "Magnetism" - use a compass."

What the hell are you talking about, JazzRoc?

JaneDoe included.

Nevermind.

Don't even try to explain it.

It's such BS.

Get a proper job.
Never took HS Physics BA? EM could indeed be detected with a coil, a resonant circuit, and a meter.

BlueAngel
01-13-2010, 08:24 PM
Never took HS Physics BA? EM could indeed be detected with a coil, a resonant circuit, and a meter.

Who cares whether I took HS physics or not?

Is this how you judge people?

I'm not like you.

I don't PRETEND to know all because, unlike you, I don't have low self-esteem and need to do so in order to make myself feel better than other people.

BlueAngel
01-13-2010, 08:29 PM
Jazz Roc's comment to Jane Doe's quote, in my opinion, didn't seem to fit. Therefore, the reason I asked Jazz Roc what the heck he was talking about.

BlueAngel
01-13-2010, 09:18 PM
I am unable to answer that due to insufficient information.

Asking the question twice under the above condition renders your question paradoxical (and doubly unanswerable). :)

Undoubtedly!

:)

JazzRoc
01-14-2010, 05:46 AM
Who cares whether I took HS physics or not?

Is this how you judge people?

I'm not like you.

I don't PRETEND to know all because, unlike you, I don't have low self-esteem and need to do so in order to make myself feel better than other people.
I care, but not in order to judge you, but to determine the relevance of your reply.
I do not judge people. Except by their actions.
No-one is "like" anyone. We are all unique.
No-one "knows all", but some "know" better than others. Teachers, for instance.
You don't know whether or not I have low self-esteem (why should you?) so why suggest I do (wrongly)?
How would it be possible for me to know I felt "better than other people"?

BlueAngel
01-14-2010, 09:43 AM
I care, but not in order to judge you, but to determine the relevance of your reply.
I do not judge people. Except by their actions.
No-one is "like" anyone. We are all unique.
No-one "knows all", but some "know" better than others. Teachers, for instance.
You don't know whether or not I have low self-esteem (why should you?) so why suggest I do (wrongly)?
How would it be possible for me to know I felt "better than other people"?

Why are you replying to a comment I made to Eire?

jane doe
01-14-2010, 09:53 AM
This thread no longer reflects quantum communication.

JazzRoc
01-14-2010, 10:11 AM
Why are you replying to a comment I made to Eire?
Oops, sorry, consider it practice.

This thread no longer reflects quantum communication.
Nor would it ever have had, considering you cannot be an entangled particle(/wave).

jane doe
01-16-2010, 11:56 AM
This thread no longer reflects quantum communication.
Nor would it ever have had, considering you cannot be an entangled particle(/wave).

:D

JazzRoc
01-16-2010, 01:40 PM
:D
Deep. Very, very deep.

oneview
03-13-2010, 12:01 PM
(Part one)

In 1927 at a conference on physics in Belgium. A new proposal of mind over matter was admitted to try to resolve inexplicable behaviours in Quantum Mechanics.

Hiesenberg and Bohr approached Einstien with a new theory. That the minds of the reasearchers were effecting the results of experiments. This is because the mathmatics of predictability were not repeatable and reliable enough to explain what was happening.

At first Einstein could'nt accept this because it violated all mathmatical models. Years later however he admitted it was happening. So something must have convinced him it was true.

"Anyone who becomes seriously involved in the persuit of science becomes convinced that there is a spirit manifest in the laws of the universe. A spirit vastly superior to that of man" - Albert Einstien

So is it possible that the universe itself is alive and we are part of it?

This spirit which Einstien speaks of, is not a mechanical force like Gravity, Electro magnetism or the strong or weak forces, but is conciouseness itself.

"All matter originates and exists, only by virtue of a force. We must assume that behind this force is the existance of a conciouse and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter" - Max planck. The father of quantum physics. 1858 - 1947.

So to summarise whats been discussed so far.Our current Science can not handle conciouseness. Allthough some would say quantum physics can expain conciouseness, it actualy cant deal with an expeiment where a conciouse observer is involved.

Whenever there is a conciouse observer present. It causes a collapse of the wave function. The wave function is a mathematical construct which describes the wavieness of probabilitys of events at the Quantum level.
So when an observer is present they actualy destroy information and effectively set the wave back to zero.

Thus its is in theory, possible that human intention can significantly influence properties and materials in the nature of reality.

In 1957 Proffesor Hans Eysensick of the University of London. Wrote a letter insinuating of a conspiracy Invilving 30 major universitys and hundreds of respected scientists. To silence the truth about what they knew about human conciouseness.

After the United States had data from the Stamford research institute and Universitys worldwide regarding remote viewing and telepathy.
(They actualy managed to find a downed russian plane which crashed in Africa.)
They were terrified of what would happen if everyday people developed the power of their minds.

They carried out a smere campaign in the media to discredit what they had discovered because if we realised how powerfull our minds actualy are it would give us back the power that they try so hard to hold on to.

So by projecting our conciouse will form our body or mind via electro magnetic frequency waves produced by the heart in to the force that governs all matter. Could you communicate with people on the other side of the world or use it to view things that people dont want you to see?

Ill be attempting to answer these questions in part 2

Thats it for this section get your heads round this bit and i'll be back with the next part soon as ive done some research.

Algebra said:

"So is it possible that the universe itself is alive and we are part of it?"

Ah, I would think so.

Have no idea, about the process involved....

Conscious function: is unlikely, all by itself, to be a concern in such way.
Do you really think, existence - can be that flimsy?

However: in the event, that however, existence is perceived to be,
doesn't go over with us, consciously,
how anything exists, as things are - would have to crash.

This would only be, at the surface appearance of everything.

JazzRoc
04-03-2010, 02:36 AM
"So when an observer is present they actualy destroy information and effectively set the wave back to zero."

"Thus it is in theory possible that human intention can significantly influence properties and materials in the nature of reality."

The second statement is the ANTITHESIS OF TRUTH - A LIE.

"Thus it is in theory NOT possible that human intention can significantly influence properties and materials in the nature of reality." is correct.

How CAN "human intention can significantly influence properties and materials in the nature of reality" when a human presence collapses the wave function?

jane doe
04-03-2010, 09:39 AM
"Thus it is in theory NOT possible that human intention can significantly influence properties and materials in the nature of reality." is correct.


Properties are often changed by energetic frequency. Intention can be mastered without threshold detection.

JazzRoc
04-03-2010, 10:57 AM
By "energetic frequency" you must mean something I don't understand.
Forceful cyclic speed?
LOL.
I have mastered my intention without passing through any doorway.
Between the outside (our) world and the quantum world is the hardest of barriers to penetrate. It is only achieved within electronic components and used in a gross manner (switching) when it happens. There is no such thing as quantum communication.
I know there is a hope that there is "psi" energy. It's just that no-one has ever discovered any such thing, after many careful experiments.
Contemporary Science has put together a Standard Model of the types of material and energy that comprise our surroundings, and supernatural forces are not included.
If you insist on the unscientific, then I should remind you that the absence of Science was what made the Dark Ages "dark".

jane doe
04-06-2010, 08:37 AM
I know this sounds like a bunch of garble...but here goes:


P{sychic energy hasn't been written in theory. The mathematical equasion for telecommunication would probably involve the neural-pulse-energy transmission nodes between cerebral hemispheres. Research facilities for neural chemistry is still primitively exploring the effects of drugs on the regions of the brain, the magnetic impulses..yada yada. The study should involve the effect of communication between dna strands diffused/passed down thru each re-generation of source. When the language frequency between these strands is mathematically formulated, then it can tested and re-tested at will. Thus the theory would be proved and the energy isolated for such forms of communication to be controlled.

JazzRoc
04-06-2010, 09:39 AM
"The study should involve the effect of communication between dna strands diffused/passed down thru each re-generation of source."
I googled the above phrase, which is typically what I do when I want to get a feel of a topic.
Sometimes the whole thing might pop out like a popinjay in a jungle, but more usually the cluster of terms will pull in it and/or similar topics. That way soon indicates whether it stands alone in its field or not. If alone in its own separate field, then it has no perceived value. It is.
Apart from that, its phraseology seems like something out of fifties sci-fi movies. :)

jane doe
04-07-2010, 06:49 PM
Beauty and perfection does not exist on the internet. I enjoy a vision of beliefs independant of the source you referenced, respectfully.

JazzRoc
04-07-2010, 07:20 PM
Beauty and perfection are abstract concepts. Beliefs needn't be held. "Independent" has no "a" in it. The source I referenced was YOU. Respect will be returned when due.

jane doe
04-08-2010, 10:12 AM
I am corrected, you are potentially an entangled particle.


By adding fluorescent dyes to DNA and then spinning the DNA strands into nanofibers, researchers at the University of Connecticut have made a new material that emits bright white light. The material absorbs energy from ultraviolet light and gives off different colors of light--from blue to orange to white--depending on the proportions of dye it contains.


DNA light: Coating an ultraviolet LED with DNA nanofibers containing dyes creates a bulb that emits bright white light.
Credit: Angewandte Chemie
The researchers, led by chemistry professor Gregory Sotzing, create white-light-emitting devices by coating ultraviolet (UV) light-emitting diodes (LEDs) with the material. They are even able to fine-tune the white color tone to make it warm or cold, as they report in a paper published online in the journal Angewandte Chemie.

The new material could be used to make a novel type of organic light bulb. The light emitters should also be longer-lasting because DNA is a very strong polymer, Sotzing says. "It's well beyond other polymers [in strength]," he notes, adding that it lasts 50 times longer than acrylic.

Technology Review: Making Light Bulbs from DNA (http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/23042/?a=f)

DNA has been used to grow and assemble ZnO nanowires for piezo-electric sensors and to generate electricity from vibrations.


Is DNA hyper-communication a native internet? - Health Supreme (http://www.communicationagents.com/sepp/2003/07/15/is_dna_hypercommunication_a_native_internet.htm)

JazzRoc
04-08-2010, 10:34 AM
I am corrected, you are potentially an entangled particle. Technology Review: Making Light Bulbs from DNA (http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/23042/?a=f)
Is DNA hyper-communication a native internet? - Health Supreme (http://www.communicationagents.com/sepp/2003/07/15/is_dna_hypercommunication_a_native_internet.htm)
I'll take your word for it.

BTW those links have no connection with the topic.

jane doe
04-08-2010, 10:57 AM
Thank you. All apologies if I post links furthering the defense of my beliefs. Mind over matter and quantum communication are integral parts of every experience of this life. DNA generates electricity from vibrations..DNA is matter and vibrations are communication. :)

JazzRoc
04-08-2010, 12:03 PM
Thank you. All apologies if I post links furthering the defense of my beliefs. Mind over matter and quantum communication are integral parts of every experience of this life. DNA generates electricity from vibrations..DNA is matter and vibrations are communication. :)
In the outside world, away from within your mind, there are a set of rules that determine existence for the rest of us, which apart from "DNA is matter", seem to be of a different set.
This will be OK unless you decide to believe your world extends beyond yourself.
My world, for instance, doesn't take kindly to people proferring pseudoscience. It sees it as a cancer threatening to grow within science and remove reason, logic and meaning from the cultural skills pool.

jane doe
04-08-2010, 05:23 PM
Science isn't as weak as you suggest. You are the perfect conspirator, however. :)

JazzRoc
04-08-2010, 07:19 PM
Science isn't as weak as you suggest. You are the perfect conspirator, however. :)
I see you're keeping to form. I never suggested science was weak. People are, though.

I have never conspired in my life: I have a distrust of cliques, cells, cartels, conspiracies, which must spring from my anarchist fundamentalism.

I have a NH number, a passport, a NIE card for Tenerife, and I have a bank account now, but hadn't had one for a decade previously. I have few possessions. In fact all my possessions are tools.

That's what's wrong with your holding beliefs and not trusting in reason, logic, and science. You end up with no judgement.

jane doe
04-09-2010, 07:36 AM
That's what's wrong with your holding beliefs and not trusting in reason, logic, and science. You end up with no judgement.

Your use of the pronoun "you(r)" is inconclusive.

People are also strong and obtain strength with idea(l)s, mathematics, analysis of history and self-preservation, whether it implies a sociological/physical weakness or gramatical inferiority. What is the good of judgement when all of the cosmos reflect influxes and variables? If for one moment "you" and I began to think the same thoughts, there would have been a conjuncture of pure truth between us. I would never deny myself the pleasure of trusting my instincts over written theories. Theories are just as fallible as science. Let's evolve, drop the pronoun "you".

Did you even read the links discussing the vibrations of DNA?

jane doe
04-09-2010, 07:44 AM
more food for fodder:


The discovery of DNA was even called "the eighth day of creation."


Synthetic Biology: Creating New Life Forms by Rearranging*DNA by Bill Sardi (http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi55.html)

I believe the "ninth day" is more significant to quantum communication.

JazzRoc
04-09-2010, 09:08 AM
Your use of the pronoun "you(r)" is inconclusive.
Your use of a sentence isn't ever very conclusive.

People are also strong and obtain strength with idea(l)s, mathematics, analysis of history and self-preservation, whether it implies a sociological/physical weakness or grammatical inferiority. What is the good of judgement when all of the cosmos reflect influxes and variables?
Avoid implications. Just take the advice.
Judgement is necessary BECAUSE there are problems and pitfalls.

If for one moment "you" and I began to think the same thoughts, there would have been a conjuncture of pure truth between us. I would never deny myself the pleasure of trusting my instincts over written theories.
The first isn't really possible. The second would make you a mere animal, devoid of all humanity's cultural aspects.

Theories are just as fallible as science. Let's evolve, drop the pronoun "you".
Science (though fallible) exhibits a progressive and cumulative SUCCESS in a "stable" society. Hadn't you noticed?
The pronoun "you" automatically gets dropped when a conversation finishes.
Don't even get me started with your abuse of the word "evolve".

Did you even read the links discussing the vibrations of DNA?
Remember I'm different from you. Of course I did.

It doesn't have anything to do with the topic. Perhaps you ought to try and explain why you think it does.

jane doe
04-09-2010, 10:11 AM
This is interesting and also applies to Einstein(s) work:


Moreover, people form these kinds of concepts over a background of nonconceptual thought, she says. Nonconceptual thinking is often hard to describe in words. Still, it fires up intuition, artistic experiences, and the indescribable feelings attached to phenomena such as doing complex mathematics, feeling love or grief, and finding spiritual enlightenment.


http://www.heumanwrites.com/christineskarda/pdf/Into-the-mystic.pdf


Science (though fallible) exhibits a progressive and cumulative SUCCESS in a "stable" society.

Science and mathematics posess neither good nor bad cumulative traits subjective to a cultural influence, it is solely the human trait manipulating the study which interprets scientific languages [taking place]. DNA vibrations are very successful at communicating.

JazzRoc
04-09-2010, 11:28 AM
"This is interesting and also applies to Einstein's work: - "Moreover, people form these kinds of concepts over a background of nonconceptual thought, she says. Nonconceptual thinking is often hard to describe in words. Still, it fires up intuition, artistic experiences, and the indescribable feelings attached to phenomena such as doing complex mathematics, feeling love or grief, and finding spiritual enlightenment." - http://www.heumanwrites.com/christin...the-mystic.pdf"
That gossip dressed as fact is NO part of science. Einstein's work predates "quantum" anything. Even "Claws" my cat and "Sprocket" my dog cannot think non-conceptually. They always think in concepts too, like the rest of us animals.

"Science and mathematics possess neither good nor bad cumulative traits subjective to a cultural influence"'
But they then ARE subject to that influence, and time. Like evolution, good traits are expressed and poor traits lose out over time. Which is why my statement was correct.

"it is solely the human trait manipulating the study which interprets scientific languages [taking place]."
Is gibberish. Rephrase.

"DNA vibrations are very successful at communicating."
NO. Electron flow down the molecule is the MEDIUM, the MESSAGE is the code itself. The information flow is AWAY from the DNA and NOT towards it.

Of all you have written so far, only your statement "DNA is matter" has been correct. Everything else you have written has been confused, confusing, and utterly without value.

Just to clarify the situation. Conceptually...

Way to go with your method of dealing with problems in a discussion.

Can you tell me how this Is DNA hyper-communication a native internet? - Health Supreme (http://www.communicationagents.com/sepp/2003/07/15/is_dna_hypercommunication_a_native_internet.htm) is relevant to quantum communication?

jane doe
04-10-2010, 08:40 AM
Everything else you have written has been ...... utterly without value.



ditto.

you insult your way out of discussions. I've seen that trait in YOU through many words.

JazzRoc
04-10-2010, 10:24 AM
And you forget your way out of them.

Can you tell me how this "Is DNA hyper-communication a native internet? - Health Supreme" is relevant to quantum communication?

jane doe
04-10-2010, 07:01 PM
And you forget your way out of them.

Can you tell me how this "Is DNA hyper-communication a native internet? - Health Supreme" is relevant to quantum communication?

Humor me, I enjoy life-long debates. One particular debate which I had with a college professor lasted about 15 years. He believed Michalengelo's Sistine Chapel ceiling was chiaroscuro/sp...I felt his method for understanding and analyzing was idle. Thus after the ceilings were cleaned, voilla...he was wrong. Life in science is four dimensional, so many factors allow changes from the perception. Thus theory today, dead tomorrow. Art is science of the mind. DNA is communication of every life force. How could DNA be so naieve to not be audible?

You are correct, I don't think much about ending this discussion.

Can you ask your question a different way?

BlueAngel
04-10-2010, 07:29 PM
JazzRoc states that his is a scientist and engineer on his website.

Please provide us with your credentials at the door before entering.

Thank you.

JazzRoc
04-11-2010, 03:21 AM
Humor me, I enjoy life-long debates. One particular debate which I had with a college professor lasted about 15 years. He believed Michaelangelo's Sistine Chapel ceiling was chiaroscuro/sp...I felt his method for understanding and analyzing was idle. Thus after the ceilings were cleaned, voilla...he was wrong.
So he was.

Life in science is four dimensional, so many factors allow changes of perception. Thus theory today, dead tomorrow.
And now YOU are. Consider this vid.

2tcOi9a3-B0

Art is science of the mind.
No it isn't. Art is not science at all.

DNA is communication of every life force.
No it isn't. It's the medium which gets selected by natural selection. It's the natural selection that takes place that IS the "communication". Failed DNA enters oblivion.

How could DNA be so naive as to not be audible?
DNA is an inert and strong molecule because it needs to be. Any tendency to reactivity would decrease its functionality. The only activity it "performs" is as a template. You are very far from the truth here.

You are correct, I don't think much about ending this discussion.
Mmm.

Can you ask your question a different way?
Can you answer my question at all?

JazzRoc
04-11-2010, 04:21 AM
JazzRoc states that his is a scientist and engineer on his website. Please provide us with your credentials at the door before entering. Thank you.
I see you're still singed at your edges...