senexa

Doesn't Galt use it to maintain the force field over his place in the Rockies? And if so, why are you and I still here?

I don't know how much this will help you, but it is fun to play with: The Nuclear Weapon Effects Calculator http://www.nuclearwinter.com/ It is a wonderful stress reliever for those bad brain days.

The moon had to have formed after the formation of the earth or it would have had nothing to orbit, and the earth had to have formed into a mass with enough gravitational pull to hold the moon to an orbit. The existence of the moon and/or life as we know it on the planet would have no relation to the formation of the earth itself. It became a planet upon coalescence of the vaporous clouds into concrete matter and it began orbiting the sun. Gott and Belbruno of Princeton are postulating that the moon was formed when a Mars-like superplanetesimal escaped from one of the Lagrangian points (either L4 or L5) right after the earth had formed, impacting the earth in a low-speed collision and causing a vaporization of rock, which then coalesced into the moon. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/moon_formation_040621.html I have at least three problems with this theory. In order for the impactor to have formed at L4 or L5, earth's gravitation pull must have been established and matured in order to be strong enough to equibalance that of the sun, which is not consistent with early formation. If the earth had been suffiently mature, could such a low-speed impact by a relatively amorphous mass be enough to split off a vapor cloud of enough enormity as to become the moon? And how would the vaporized rock coalesce into the moon without the strong gravitational pull extant today, and what forces were at work during that time to create an orb rather than rings. Ah, questions, questions. But those are my thoughts on the topic.

The article referenced below presents a very good overview of how our minds create the reality we choose and how they influence the reality perceived by others. I found it most thought provoking. REALITY MIND AND LANGUAGE as FIELD WAVE AND PARTICLE Special Field Examination In Language and Cognition For Professors Matisoff, Malkiel, and Sawyer Department of Linguistics. U.C. Berkeley © Danny Keith Hawkmoon Alford January, 1981 http://www.enformy.com/dma-rml.htm#ch1

58/F/usa

Hello, I'm a grey-haired grandmother who is fascinated by all areas of science, and too old to have had college as an option. Therefore, I am predominantly self-taught and will make glaringly stupid mistakes. I'm here to learn, ask questions, and pursue some of the avenues of thought that burn in my mind. I'm in the health care field, so anatomy and medicine always interest me, but I am fascinated by neurophysics, quantum anomalies, geology, geophysics, biology and philosophic discourse on just about anything. I just discovered this forum and reading the back threads has been SmartWater for a parched mind. Thank you one and all.

I think it depends on your definition of reality. If you assume the keyboard and computer are solid, concrete and discrete objects, then your mind would essentially be unable to influence their configurations. However, if you are functionally aware of them as particles interacting and interfacing with all of the other particles in the universe at variable rates of speed, then applying the magnetic energy field of your brain would most likely have great effect. We, ourselves, might be just a configuration of particles, perhaps embodied due to the constructive limitations imposed upon us by someone else's mental energy. Good topic to think about and research, thank you.

Given that the female brain hemispheres are generally more symmetrical than the male brain hemispheres, enabling stimultaneous right and left lobe processing; and given that female brains are generally more limbically active while male brains are generally more cognitively active, it might be that visual stimulation is actually a compensation for the lesser sensory stimulation perceived by the male. In other words, men see what is in front of them while women develop an overview of their entire surroundings. This is in keeping with the genetic development from historical imperatives. Hunters require intense concentration or tunnel vision to be successful. Gatherers require a constant awareness of the relationship of all things in the surroundings to be successful. Combining the brain advantages of the male and female in a symbiotic relationship can produce success in any endeavor.