JaKiri

This is true. They're called tachyons, and can never go slower or equal to the speed of light. They're approaching the same problem from the opposite direction.

Aside from the spelling errors (although if it's translated from italian I can understand), I don't see why all electrons being identical means you can't have isolated thoughts, ditto the electric field. A computer uses electrons to transmit data, and they're the same electrons (not literally), yet the results we gather are much different from different computers, much different from what we tell it to do. The whole section seems to me to be saying the equivilent 'We can't transmit pictures on light! It's LIGHT for god's sake!'. Furthermore, the last bit of the first section is an attempt to 'blind them with science'; not only is it seeming to make an attempt to revive Laplacian Determinism, it's also ignoring the fact that people are not saying that consciousness is something that breaks the laws of physics. To sum up the argument of the first section 'Because there are laws of physics, consciousness cannot exist.' As for the second paragraph, I had higher hopes from the title, 'Biological life does not imply consciousness', because that can work in two good ways; 1. that everything biological is not conscious. 2. that everything conscious doesn't have to be biological. However, you went down a totally different route, exclaiming that because you can replicate some throught processes in computers, that means that animals aren't alive. Surely that's totally misunderstanding the concepts of thought and consciousness, and overestimating the regard that animals are held in, in terms of mental agility? There is no reason that a computer could not be conscious. It then goes on to say that we're all 'Biological robots' and implies that this is something awful that disallows the existance of consciousness. Why? We are all results of our programming (as it were), socially and physically. You cannot argue that we would be the same people today if we had different genes, or were isolated from society. Us being programmed or similar doesn't exclude consciousness. You also haven't justified why it is bad. You've just stated that it is. That's not only bad science, it's bad arguing. As for 'Cerebral activity and consciousness', that's ignoring Occam's Razor. WHY shouldn't we assume that the brain is the root of consciousness? Some brain damage alters consciousness, or at least empirically it does. Lobotomisation wouldn't work if the brain didn't have some part to play. What about those drugs you mentioned so readily? They act on the brain, parts of the brain KNOWN to be involved in vision, in thought, in the like, and it's therefore perfectly reasonable to assume that the brain is involved in this kind of thing. Furthermore, there's also the matter of the nervous system; that all goes back to the brain. The bit about physics! 1. You've completely misunderstood the scientific method, or have defined words for you own purposes. There is NO scientific theory that arises from first principles. 2. I've no idea where you're going with the 2nd paragraph. It is true that physical laws are simplified in the most case (noone uses SR to calculate the mass of a car going at 20mph, say), but your sentence which reads 'The laws of physics have a general validity, but in their application to specific systems, it is possible to use simpler rules, specific for that kind of system; these rules are neither extraneous, nor independent from the laws of physics, but they are a direct consequence of the law of physics. ' has no meaning. Simpler formulae are almost NEVER derived from more complicated ones; they are just the relics of the previous wave (like Newton and Einstein), which have been superceded because they were inaccurate. Furthermore, your statement 'If they predict things that are outside the laws of physics, they must be wrong!' is not actually the case. It is entirely possible that the laws of physics can be wrong, and indeed it must be assumed that they are, and if there is substantial evidence from an experiment, be it of another science or nay, to suggest that the results gathered in other experiments are incorrect, then it must be repeated and explained or debunked. Furthermore, you're talking as if 'PHYSICS' is one big constant body. It quite clearly isn't. It's changing all the time, as new research with greater accuracy is performed, new mathematical interpretations are constructed, and the like. If something in physics is proved incorrect, it doesn't mean that ALL SCIENCE IS DESTROYED! It just means that there is a more accurate way of looking at things now, so results will be better to theorise with. Look at Newton. Newton was wrong in many ways, yet it doesn't stop the planets going around the sun, or the like. All scientific theories are based around what we can measure, and they're bound to be consistent with the evidence, at least up until a certain level of accuracy. As to the next section ('Laws of physics in history') I like the way you're assuming that the standard model of quantum physics is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, and that it will NEVER CHANGE. This is quite clearly not the case, as it's the area that's undergoing most rapid change at the moment. You say that a change in astronomical laws won't affect QED; I say it will. Something like GR is an 'astronomical law', yet its metaphysics needs to be consistent with that of QED, otherwise we know that there is something wrong (this is the case at the moment, and is why things like String Theory are being formulated). The 2nd para in the section I've already dealt with. It's all about approximating, and building on old results. 'First principle calculations' NOTHING in science works from first principles. It all has to be empirically verified. Furthermore, your assertion that we can calculate from the subatomic to the atomic is flawed. Look at Schroedinger's Wave Equation. This is regarded as impossible to solve for more than 2 bodies. So unless you're calculating a single hydrogen atom from theory, you're going to have to approximate. Furthermore, as I've said before, your assertion that 'Physics is right, therefore consciousness cannot exist in the body' is flawed. The conclusion largely deals with matters dealt with before (as is its nature), however, it must be REITERATED in reply that the article appears to arise from assuming that the science of biology is in some sort of competition with physics, when in fact they're both working from the same method. If the science of neurochemistry hasn't gotten far yet (although it's doing very well), it must be stated that it's a VERY YOUNG SCIENCE. And once again, I must point out that the standard model of QM is hideously flawed. The theory of evolution Again, this is an area which you either don't know about or haven't understood. We DO have sufficient evidence to suggest that the human organism came about through evolution (otherwise it WOULDN'T BE SUGGESTED), and there are suggested paths that formation of consciousness might take. And then you go and waste all my time by showing yourself to be a religious nut at the end. Thanks very much. (I also doubt that you have a respectable PhD, although it is a possibility. If you do, why not try to learn about what you're saying.) And a final note. Do not attempt to blind people with science on a SCIENCE FORUM. [edit] Oh, and re: the FAQ, you're talking a lot of bollocks in there as well. 1. Since when was maths part of physics? 2. Genetic mutation is NOT a direct consequence of QM. 3. Whut?

The Milky Way is a good on. Andromeda is pretty visable too, if you know where to look.

Look at it like the peak of a mountain. When you're on top, an balanced, you'll stay there forever. However, say there's a wind blowing. You'll gradually get pushed off the top of the mountain, and from thenceforth you'll be accelerating more and more rapidly, as you fall down the sides (or get closer to either the earth or the moon; the further away from the lagrange point* you are, the more one of them 'dominates' force wise). Hence, if you want to stay at the top, you need to correct your position occasionally, like a satellite using thrusters. *A lagrange point is a point in space where the gravitational pull of the moon and the earth are equal and opposite.

I meant bees. (Demosthenes sounds similar to 'The Moth's Knees', and 'The Bee's Knees' is an expression meaning exceptional)

Maths is all about being correct, and to say the square root of 4 is 2 (as opposed to A square root) just isn't right.

I think he means public, not pubic, btw.

I don't see why there is an elementary difference between equations and 'evaluations'. The square root of 4 is ALWAYS +-2, it's just not expressed verbally for simplicity (you'd probably not get away with saying it's 2 at a higher level). Furthermore, my analogy does hold, because it's precisely the same thing at work.

You're right for the first one. As for the second... :pi:r2h is the equation for the volume (you can tell because there's 3 lengths being multiplied). The 2nd equation you gave is correct for the surface area.

This is why more things need the precise language of science.

I thought the latter was what we were talking about

I don't particularly see why it would work, especially as the issue is designed for children and their parents to use ('I'm not posting my CC information all over the internet!!!!!')

Fermat's Last Forum Post. Furthermore, I don't see any reason that would promote someone to make other people think ill of them, except maybe some distorted arrogance. The same people are posting them. That's a pretty big connection. For instance, if I called you a slathering moron repeatedly in another thread, I doubt you would take my posts the same way as if I had said something complementary.

Whilst you can make up situations that will horrify everyone, I don't think there's particularly any real danger of anything happening because of address release. Furthermore, (re: censorship) I find that teenagers tend to swear more than any other demographic group (except maybe geordies).

He said he took an oath. Is it that hard to READ? As to the last part of your post, quite a few people can see it, even if you can't. A good example would be the rather paranoid responses to his tomfoolery in that thread about your computer.

Any personal details? That's making it VERY difficult to sign up to a LOT of websites. Most notably email programs, and stuff like the NintentoPoints system. It's just an extra layer of hassle, when for most things there are alternatives without this problem*. How many kids (or parents for that matter) are going to want the other half of the equation to spend so much time mucking around with what they want to do? It also discourages legit users (for instance, I wouldn't want to use my CC details to do anything online except buy things), and for very little gain. It would surely be much more useful to actually tell people to not fill in information such as that on suspicious sites. *This also applies to your porn analogy. A quick search on google for relevent terms came up with some 71,600 results. [edit] You're also still assuming that there's some kind of character assassination going on. I prefer shooting the message than the messenger.

As an example, lets look at the equation: (x-1)2 = x2. It's pretty obvious if you multiply it out that x = 0.5. However, if you take the square root of both sides... x - 1 = x 1 = 0. This doesn't work, does it? It's a similar problem to the one above, in that you have to get the right sign on the square root, because it can be either positive or negative. If we change it to x - 1 = - x (-x being the square root of x2) 2 x = 1 x = 0.5, as required.

I don't quite get what you're proposing to implement here. WHERE would this be applicable?

Lagrange points, and that's ignoring all other forces (be it from solar wind, other gravitational sorces, or whatever), and you'll drift in time.

http://directory.google.com/Top/Science/Physics/Relativity/Special_Relativity/?tc=1

Dinner party. Someone reveals that, in one of the glasses of wine not yet served, there's been placed the contents of a vial of poison. Etc.

That's incorrect. The question clearly states ONLY the 36th square is counted, not those that preceed it. Furthermore, it's fairly trivial to demonstrate that the sum of the first 36 squares is 236-1, and this is merely complicating the matter.

1, 2 are pretty funky, and I won't spoil them by revealing the answers so quickly. 3, be it not altogether radical, you see obvious repetitive tendencies. 4 I preferred as the poison question.

I don't see how you could manipulate someone by any other method.

Well, given that you've based the entire question of orbitals being spherical, I think it's more rendered invalid than answered, except 3 and 4. Electrons aren't known to be spherical (we don't even know if they have a volume), and 1 is the same as 3 and 4 (sort of)