immortal

I use MP3 Rocket software to download videos from youtube and also some music. This might be of help to you. Have fun!!! MP3 Rocket

No problem, we will have enough genetically modified crops (GM food) to feed the whole world and we can introduce new gene products(protiens) into their diet in those cultures which lack these metabolites, for example- vitamin A etc . It is absurd to have a pessimistic view on medical cures just because the world will end up in more hungry humans. I'm an optimist. According to Michio, the author of the book, 'Physics of the Impossible' , technologies like Teleportation, invisible cloaking devices, ray guns, perfect lens which might help us to look at DNA and protien molecules just through a microscope with out requiring any chemical action on them should be available with in a decade or so. The future looks bright in these areas. IMO they have to be inevitably appear with in a decade 'cause the technology is so promising. Isolating Quantum computers from the environment to avoid decoherence and time travel are considered to be much harder to happen in the near future. Not to forget bio synthethic trees planted in and around our houses and on streets to have a pollution free environment. Nano-robots which can replace erythrocytes would help us to provide oxygen and you could stay inside waters for more than 15min. The problem with nano-robots is that we have to find an effective way to establish communication between other nano-robots.

AFAIK, magnetic fields are capable of accelerating charged particles (bending them or driving them in a parabolic motion) but photons are not charged particles and magnets can not bend light beams. I think what Michio Kaku might be talking about (in his book 'Physics of the Impossible') is 'magnetic metamaterials' which is used to bend light rays by electromagnets which interact with the magnetic field of the light. Remember it is not the magnets which is bending the light rays in the literally sense rather the incident light carrying a magentic field of its own induces an electric current in the materials and therefore kicks in a chain of interacting magnetic fields oscillating at different frequencies in the artificial material and there by we change the magnetic and electric field of light waves and we can control its flow or the direction of its momentum. nano-magnets interacting through the magnetic field of light Journey of Invisible cloaking devices

When the elevator is accelerated to speeds near C say around 0.8c and it passes at those great speeds relative to the observer who is outside then the whole elevator will appear distorted but an Observer who is inside doesn't observe any distortion of the object, as he is at rest with respect to the object(elevator). Hence space-time is relative to an observer, it is space and time which is altered to keep the laws of physics same in all inertial frames and also since the speed of light is constant. "Therefore light is indeed bent by the gravitational field as seen from the point of view of an Observer from an accelerated reference frame which is equivalent to a gravitational field." Light is no more than any other freely falling object and therefore it takes a path as dictated by the curvature of space created by a body of large mass or for an observer who is in an accelerated reference frame. The theory also says that any gravitational field can be easily substituted by an accelerated frame. So is the reason for me to choose this elevator case as a model to easily comprehend the theory.

Let us assume an accelerating frame since an appropriate accelerating frame is nothing but a gravitational field. Here the Observer is placed in an elevator and is accelerated upwards and he sends a beam of light on the wall of the elevator. For an Observer who is in a inertial frame outside the elevator the light would appear in a straight line but for the Observer on the elevator the light beam will bend downward. It is because the Observer has a record of the beam at different times and he recieves the reflected light from the beam at the same time and hence those light which are far away from the Observer will leave its position earlier than the light which is nearer to the observer and therefore the beam appears to bend downward as shown from the first figure. (Since it has to travel more distance it takes more time and therefore moving clocks run slower). The light is bent just as any other object. Now if we assume that the light stays flat and it is the object that is bent then the following situation is shown in the second figure. Since the Observer on the elevator is at rest with respect to the walls or the object there can not be any distortion to the object. The situation can not be realized. So the frame of reference of an Observer will determine the nature of the event to an Observer and the laws of nature have the same form in any reference frame. Therefore light is indeed bent by the gravitational field as seen from the point of view of an Observer from an accelerated reference frame which is equivalent to a gravitational field.

To completely comprehend this the first thing is to view mind and brain as two different things as dual entities. We see the mind as a rope with one end connected to the platonic world (we see that numbers and even languages exist in their own realm and they are not something which was created by humans) and the other end connected to the five sense organs. We normally think that there is only one way to see things that is through our eyes but there is an another way of seeing things i.e. through rejecting the sense organs (by disconnecting the connection between the sense organs and the mind). It is normally believed that the more pleasure you give to the sense organs the stronger the connection becomes that's why most people resort themselves from worldly pleasure and end up in forests to seek the truth and have good control of their sense organs. It is in this state of mind (which will look like a fallen rope with its one end strongly connected to the platonic world(intelligence) and with other end set free from the sense organs) one has religious experiences and the things that they see should be the same thing what their masters had observed. There is consistency but these experiences can not be predictable and therefore can not be testified objectively and it is restricted to a subjective phenomena. This gives a new insight into the epistemological (means of gaining knowledge) capabilites of human beings. I think it is unwise to make quantum physics relevant to metaphysical enities. Science is about making models of the physical world which can be testified and it is wrong to comprehend God through reductionism. We should seperate one from the other. Even though we have hundreds of gods we are basically Sun (savithru) worshippers. We don't see the sun as something scorching in the day light we see him as a personal god who resides in each and everyone and who stimulate our minds through our intellect. We are resorted into idolatry but there is no truth in that. One can find the truth by surrendering one self to him. As far as appearance of Angels is concerned they are far different from what we imagine in our minds. It is very much wrong to describe them through worldly means. They are of a different nature but this doesn't mean that they are weird, their appearance is similar to humans. The Sun God has ornaments with blue and red pearls all over his body and the light will be eminating from them with such intensity that one can not see the true shape of the God. How one can say about a God with such precision is through revealation of God to those who are faithful to him and all see the same form it can not vary. In those times individuals would not be tested through debate or aguments instead they would be asked a question based on the expereinces that they have had and if the individual's expressed answer is identical to their experiences then the individual will be declared as someone who has witnessed the truth. They didn't accepted everything and it was not blind faith. I have got no idea what they are made up of, probably light and one would definitely don't find any angels in this body which is made up of flesh. What they mean is one's spiritual body something what one might attain after a rapture occurs and don't try to model them through the eyes it is beyond that, one needs a different epistemological ability to know it. All mythologies give too little information about the origin of gods, light and other stuff like the mind. The fact that the mind exists shows that what ever that stuff was got differentiated if everything is created by the mind then from where did the mind came from. In our mythology it is believed that one will know about the origin when one understands one's true SELF. So I don't know because I don't know myself. Know thyself.

praty said To better understand what consciousness offers to biological entities let me introduce this new perspective of it. Let us assume that you and your mother are having a conversation with each other and suddenly your consciousness is lost, you don't know where you are, you have no experiences, what you see is total blackness and you know nothing of your body nor your surroundings, you are not aware of it. In the mean time you're brain has normally fired signals and your mother can see your body with your eyes blinking and even talking to her. Now after a while you regain your consciousness and you ask your mother where was I and what was I doing and your mother replies "Well my son you were talking normally to me and you were blinking your eyes". Now you were not aware of anything about this nor do you have any knowledge about the conversation that you had. This is how a biological organism will be with out consciousness and any tree which was falling when you were chatting with your mother while you were unconscious will not make any sound, however the brain still might fire a signal and move you out from there if it was falling on you. The main problem is why we have to be aware of what we are doing, what's the point of knowing all this when the body along with its brain can survive and have its own instincts why we should be aware of what it does. This is the biggest problem facing biology. I think consciousness emerged when the brain was looking for some kind of feedback for its response something like an acknowledgement so that it can synchronize its firing more effectively. So the brain added this new element of reality so that when you spoke i.e when the brain fired a signal to contract and relax the vocal chords the brain added a qualia called sound so that it can get a feedback and learn or synchronize its firing. So just because sugar tastes sweet for us doesn't necessarily mean that it should taste the same way for an alien. It all depends on what kind of an element of reality their nervous system is projecting to them. It may be completely different compared to us. So our ancestors could have been wandering in the forests and marking places of their routes from their hunting places to their shelter and this feeling of knowing which was ensured through feedback gave the brain a different plasticity to synchronize its firing and also planning as well as thinking and changing from machines to what we know as human beings with a coulorful world to see. Therefore one can see that consciousness plays an important part in learning and syncronizing responses and the intelligence of a civilization might depend on the clarity of their consciousness. So yes an alien life if it is intelligent should atleast have some degree of consciousness. Due to the second law of thermodynamics any life of any form should try to reduce entropy with in its system and throw eat out to the surrounding environment. James Lovelock the founder of the Gaia theory hypothesized that we should look for alien life in the universe where there are points in which there is a considerable reduction of entropy. So the central dogma of life should remain the same. As far as chances are concerned one has to include various factors and it may vary depending on how habitable the planet is but there is nothing that will prevent an intelligent life to evolve in the cosmos if it has the right conditions for it.

The difference between Lucifer and other angels is that Lucifer thinks he does all things by himself, he thinks he has control over his life but he doesn't know the truth and he takes pride upon him and where as other angels see that it is their egos which is doing everything and they know the truth that they were always one with GOD. You are no where in this world picture. Who told that we are seperated from god we are always one with God. One can not do anything with out their ego, you can not give it up. Your ego is not your enemy it is your perception of it. Satan takes pride, God hates it. The common misconception is that the small light merges with the Supreme light as shown in videos and in pictures and this tends us to believe that we are seperate from God but it is not the truth. We are the light of God and everything merges into us(supreme light). As far as origin of angels is concerned, In my world view I don't see angels as someone sitting in heaven and they appear whenever they want to give us a message, NO!. Angels are in our bodies it is they who stimulate our minds. How do we know that the scripture is the word from God it is because when prophets wrote them it was these angels who guided them i.e. it is the angels themselves who made the prophets to write. God is not very far from us he is within us.

If I had the priviledges to change the syllabus or the content of the educational system I would first change the way how science is being taught in our schools. It is very disappointing to know that even now many teachers still stick to the lamarckian view of evolution in which organisms are evolved through a teleological purpose like the development of the long necks of giraffe and they hold this misconception that since humans are depending too much on machines and not using their body parts they think that in the future years humans will have large heads with short, thin, weak hands and legs. I almost blindly believed in that crap when i was in school. The work of Natural selection is never expressed in schools and this kind of mis-information can not be tolerated. I would introduce a curriculum which will make students to have a scientific bent of mind where individual thinking is developed and students are free to raise questions making the class more interactive. Learning through interaction would induce long term memory changes in the brain since they will be subjected to strong sensitization when compared to learning through memorization. I would also try to include a lot of chapters on literature. There are so many scholars who spend their whole life figuring out the truth and they express their ideas based on own personal experiences with such amazing language skills which is really astonishing and they takes us to a whole new world and it will take some time for us to come to normal terms after reading it. I wonder how many of us have such a capability and all their work will go unnoticed and majority of them will not be aware of it. It would be good if students are made aware of it with a small abstract of it which holds the same theme of the scholar according to their intellectual capability. This would considerably improve their language skills and their vocabulary. Language is very important since we comprehend this world through language, a good hold on language will lead to thought experiments in the mind and the expansion of knowledge. I still believe the reason why Aryans knew so much about the working of the universe and about ontology is because of their language 'Sanskrit' which helped them to have a completely different view of the world. Soft skills are important since our nation(India) is producing too many engineers but too little of them can be employable. I would also go for history, and include some information about all the cultures of the world and philosophy to teach them good conduct and also a good programme on sex education is advisable to avoid pornography. On an another note, do we want to see an another trail case like the one we had in the Dover high school about evolution/creationism? I think both sides of the argument should be taught and a direction has to be given on where the fallacy lies. Students should atleast have the wisdom to not to meddle science with metaphysical things.

There are things in this world which are more evil than that. Infact people do evil things to themselves, they peel out their eyeballs from their eye sockets, they chop off their own hands and they do some crazy things all for to show their faith to god. Even though it is really stupid to do that one can not imagine how they make up their minds to do such things. So it is not that impossible to experience those things with a calm mind if we assume it is god itself who forced them to do it. It all depends on how much a god fearing person are you and how much you really abide in the truth. If a person don't want to abide in the truth and if he just wants all the pleasures in the world without at the same time accepting the pain and harm that may arise due to natural causes then no one can help him. It is not god's fault. We can please god by having a right conduct. A king who is captured by an another king should not accept to work as a slave for him just to get the pleasures in a palace. A king must behave like a king and must be ready to accept the torture as it is his duty given for him by god. Similarly a person who has abided in the truth should accept everything as it is the work of god. If there were no mass extinctions then it would have not been possible for humans to arise in the first place so does this mean that mass extinctions are evil. We require everything from viruses to humans to make up this world. So god allows evil things to happen to produce things in this world which are good. If there were no new ecological niches how would new organisms could have evolved so it is inevitable for god to produce good things without harming anyone. So on the whole all the events that are happening in this world is nothing but god's plan to produce good things in the world. We have to inevitably follow that plan set by god and should accept both the bad and good things that will happen in one's life as it is the work of god to produce good things. So a person who has abided in the truth still sees his god as an omnibenevolent god even if his hands are chopped off for some reason.

No both play their part in causing the effect of pain. Some patients feel intense pain in some part of their body even though they don't have any injuries or physiological damage to that part of the body. Physiology may determine whether the pain is less or more but it can not define pain. It is mainly a mental qualia. Yes you can choose to experience it the way you want. Ofcourse having some extra muscles on your body which makes it as hard as a rock will reduce the amount of pain you feel. If you are very angry with the person who tortured you then his or her picture keeps coming in front of your eyes and it will disturb your mind and you will start to suffer more but instead if you think it was all god's plan and it was not the person's fault to torture you and if you are not angry with that person then the pain will disappear as soon as it came and you will have a pleasant mind. It all depends on our preconceived notions of it our likes and dislikes, our wants and don't wants. So one must be prepared to accept all the events that is happening to one with a calm mind and not let our anger grow when it doesn't go the way we wanted it to go. So yes if we can make up our mind then we can choose not to feel the pain of it. I find that people who undergo various taboos don't feel any pain as their body and mind are quite used to it.

If one person has abided in the truth and if god does things which look harm to one, to him which is for the greater good of all people then I don't call it harm and that person shouldn't have to suffer from it. I personally believe that we don't have free will and we are more like zombies. We can not control the things which are happening around us but what we can control is our attitudes towards it. So who is to blame if that person cries like a coward when god does things which look bad to one rather than accepting it with a smiling face. Who asked him to suffer in the first place? So i don't blame god for it. We have to blame for oursleves for not developing a calm mind like that. Read this excerpt from Meditations by Marcus Aurelius, the roman emperor " We ought to observe also that even the things which follow after the things which are produced according to nature contain something pleasing and attractive. For instance, when bread is baked some parts are split at the surface, and these parts which thus open, and have a certain fashion contrary to the purpose of the baker's art, are beautiful in a manner, and in a peculiar way excite a desire for eating. And again, figs, when they are quite ripe, gape open, and in the ripe olives the very circumstance of their being near to rottenness adds a peculiar beauty to the fruit. And the ears of corn bending down, and the lion's eyebrows, and the foam which flows from the mouth of wild boars, and many other things--though they are far from being beautiful, if a man should examine them severally--still, because they are consequent upon the things which are formed by nature, help to adorn them, and they please the mind; so that if a man should have a feeling and deeper insight with respect to the things which are produced in the universe, there is hardly one of those which follow by way of consequence which will not seem to him to be in a manner disposed so as to give pleasure. And so he will see even the real gaping jaws of wild beasts with no less pleasure than those which painters and sculptors show by imitation; and in an old woman and an old man he will be able to see a certain maturity and comeliness; and the attractive loveliness of young persons he will be able to look on with chaste eyes; and many such things will present themselves, not pleasing to every man, but to him only who has become truly familiar with nature and her works...." So the fact that there were people like this and still may be, in some part of the world shows that we can have a pleasant mind even when one is hurting that person.

God does bad things to those people who don't abide in the truth and he does it to get them back on track. So when a teacher gives punishment to a student it is for his own good and to make him better and it is not considered as bad and this doesn't mean that god will not do things which look "bad" to one, to those people who abide in the truth. A person who abides in the truth shouldn't be disappointed when all of a sudden god takes all of his wealth from him because it is not what matters in the relationship between god and a person. It is like unconditional love. The god may want that money to use it for the good of the whole and a person who abides himself in the truth shouldn't think this has a bad thing and conclude that god hates him or has no mercy on him. For the former case the relationship between god and Isreal given in the book Hosea is a good example and for the latter case Joseph's trouble times is a good example.

We can also see it differently . All scientific models indicate that the universe is billions of years old and earth is 4.5 billion years old. This is surely in contradiction with religions who say that the earth is a lot younger than that. It may be the case where when one starts seeing from the God's point of view the earth is indeed a lot younger than that. I mean our space-time continuum may be something which appears only in our minds and the true actual physical space-time may be completely different or like the distinction of phenomena by kant. So we might need both kind of models to account for both religious as well as scientific worldviews. We might accept both the truths with out having to show that one is bad and other is good. Cypress said I personally don't have any problem to include divine in science and it is not that impossible to prove the objective existence of god. The problem is as A_tripolation said it is intellectually dishonest. We can not include Divine unless there is a good testifiable repeatable method or an hypothesis for the empirical evidence for the existence of god. One has to inevitably hold this strong scientific frame of mind so that one does not fall into the belief of some pseudoscience which is even more worse than believing in some testifiable scientific model which has not enough evidence to account for what it claims to explain.

Good to see this, the bible also seems to agree with what i said earlier. "I myself have said, 'You are gods, And all of you are sons of the Most High. (Psalms 82:5) " --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Needimprovement said Yes it was inevitable for god to not to allow immorality in this world. When a person kills a human being in a war it is moral but when a person kills innocent people who don't have machine guns in their hands is said to be immoral. The latter situation is what is currently happening in this world. Now the question arises why does god allow these things in this world if he is morally perfect. I don't call those decisions has immoral i would rather call it a harsh decision, a necessary inevitable decision and I call it harsh because people have to suffer from it. But as you said the decision might be for the good of whole or for the maximizing of the moral goodness hidden in us. So he is always trying to create a morally perfect world. For example :- Recent discovery of the Gospel of Judas indicate that it was Jesus himself who told Judas to hand him over to the romans. Now when a man sees this he thinks this is immoral. Judas has betrayed his own spiritual master or father and therfore one see this as immoral. But if one starts looking at it in a different angle, in the longer run it was necessary for god to allow this as it was for the good of the whole.

Good point Cypress. It is normally postulated that both genetic as well as phenotypic variations account for differential development of novel forms. Whether it is advantageous or not depends on the overall fitness of the organism which is screened by Natural selection. Yes it is possible for a population to have multiple simultaneous divergent paths. It doesn't have to be the case where all the advantageous divergent paths for producing highly specialized sense organs where somehow induced only into human populations. It doesn't have to require any teleological assistence. Even other hominid populations might have had advantagoues divergent path for the development of sense organs. The fact that they survived the evolutionary race for some period of time shows that even they had advantageous divergent paths. The point where I think our population was lucky is that our population exploited the environment in rather different ways which was not possible for other hominids. We have to remember that development of new pathways helps the organisms to interact with new ecological niches. The environment induced different changes to our population and it might not been possible for other hominds to have the same environmentally induced phenotypic changes as it is highly unlikely that they would have had similar inputs from the environment or similar responsiveness to these inputs. So the way our population interacted with the environment after having divergent development pathways was important in making us to outcompete other hominids. Further this would have led to speciation and origin of humans. Yes there is nothing that prevents similar pathways to happen over and over again. The fact that species have diverged more than once from the Common ancestral population (CAP) shows that it is very much possible and likely. But as i have discussed earlier the problem is not of intiation of pathways but what happens after that, what evolutionary line that population takes after it has obtained some divergent novel pathways is very important. We also have to remember that the inputs from the environment are random but the kind of responses that the genome makes to produce phenotypic variations is not random. So it is very unlikely that different populations will have similar phenotypic variations in habiting different environments. I hope this satisfy you.

There are two possible answers, Firstly we humans might just guess what the truth is OR there is something called human intuition which helps us to understand absolute truths even though there is no algorithm or a set of procedure to absolutely determine the truth of a statement. Experience the latter possibilty yourself in here. My link

Are you claiming that those processes which are used by human designers to produce novel forms are the same processes that generated prior existing functional forms? Now I have to assume that this is organized by what we call the "MIND" because earlier you argued that the human brain can only store existing information but it can not generate new functional information. So can you please demonstrate how the human mind organizes this. If a process is neither random nor it is determinstic then it might be non-computable (Penrose's non-computability). So are you claiming that design processes are non-computable? Is there a non-computable physical process? I would be very interested in it if you can show one.

Yeah its morally right for a morally perfect god to create human beings who behave in a morally good way rather than just having hidden inherent attribute of moral goodness. But the problem is tommorrow suddenly we might have a global spiritual revolution who knows and the hidden attribute of moral goodness might just spurn out and the world may appear morally perfect. The fact that god might have given hidden inherent powers doesn't prevent this from happening. So its wrong to come to a conclusion that the given God is not morally perfect by looking at the current affairs of the world. So one has to be very carefull here before concluding that way.

Well first of all our picture of god is a poor one. We really don't understand him properly. I think one has to be very carefull while concluding the 11th argument "The actual world is not a member of S". It may be possible that god has created the world with beings who are very much capable of achieveing moral perfection. Just because humans appear finite and moderately evil from outside doesn't necessarily mean that they can not achieve moral perfection. They may be very much capable of achieveing moral perfection but god might have hidden their powers or omnipotence. So god might have given all the powers for its worldy beings to achieve moral perfection but the powers might be hidden. A moral scale of 5 for humans is not a limit and one may possibly be capable of achieving more than that. So the worldly beings are very much capable of achieving moral perfection and also they might just be as perfect as the God who created them. So god has really created gods and not just absolute finite evil humans. So a god can be omniscient and omnipotent even though the scale of the world might look too immoral apparently

The main problem is, from where this low entropy functional information is coming from or what is the source of this low entropy information. As you said the low entropy information may be coming from the human mind but how do we testify it and also irrespective of whether it comes from human genetic engineers, aliens or from some other things there may be a universal physical low entropy information source so the claim of design advocates can only survive and make sense only if one provides a way to testify that there is indeed a universal physical low entropy information which helps in the process of desigining novel functional forms. This is the way I see it. Otherwise it just doesn't make any sense to say that predictions of human engineers capable of designing novel forms from scratch also accounts for the origin of prior existing functional desings.

Let me make my argument more clear when I said Inteligent processes I meant those processes which account for the already existing functional forms and not a design process which account for the newly created novel forms. I said those Intelligent processes which account for the already existing forms must be outside of science. I also want a clear picture of what the Intelligent Design idea claim to explain. Does it claim to account for how the functional life forms arosed with the diversity we see today or Is it just a new field of science which deals with how genetic engineers generate novel new functional forms?

A testable hypothesis or a model which explains how the intelligent design processes account for the observations made will certainly convince me and I will not have any second thoughts in changing my mind if you can come up with it. But I don't want a paper which just indicates that there may be a design process to account for the observations.

Well it looks like it was the development of highly specialized sense organs in humans which gave them the slight advantage to outcompete other Hominids rather than their brains. The highly specialized sense organs helped them to communicate with each other which is very crucial in the learning process. This might answer your question. My link

Well first of all I think if it has to be a healthy discussion we must stop using the statement "I don't see". I think we are seeing things only what we want to see. This is frustrating. I mentioned previously that the researchers don't make any conclusions in favour of dualism from their observations. It is your opinion. They just noted that coma patients can indeed sense the instructions given to them from their surroundings and can communicate to the outside world by making cortical activity in the brain and one can measure the changes in these cortical regions and understand what they want to communicate. This just provides a new perspective on coma patients. Now where does the research indicate that it requires something other than the brain to account for the observations made. There is a lot of difference between knowing what the scientific community believes in and convincing the scientific community. If one can provide undeniable and testable evidence for the existence of the mind seperate from the brain then one can certainly convince the scientific community. But if someone comes up with an hypothesis which is not testable with in the scientific frame work then the scientific community doesn't have to give importance to that hypothesis. It doesn't matter whether that hypothesis comes from Stephen Hawking or Roger Penrose. May be I must go through once what the site rules say. Now again it simply indicates that there may be something other than the brain but it doesn't really prove that there is something other than the brain. Do you see the difference. I said that the issues like how the mind generates low entropy information and also where one can see the source of low entropy functional information are difficult to deal with within science. I asked you to give a testable model of the mind and you gave an evidence which just indicate that there might be something other than the brain. There is a lot of difference between the two. But this claim neither disproves nor uphelds my claim that intelligent design process must be outside of science. Even if aliens indeed design the diversity of life here on earth we should have atleast by now known how they might do it and we should have known from where the low entropy information is coming from. Do we have a testable hypothesis with in the scientific framework which shows from where the low entropy information is coming from or to put it correctly do we have a testable hypothesis which shows that the low entropy information is coming from the aliens. Then why there is not even a single research paper of Intelligent Design published in reputed reviewed scientific journals. It doesn't upheld my claim but it really supports it.