Strange

The problem is not programming. I can't see why such a device would be programmed any differently than a conventional computer. You are just changing the way data is encoded. The problem is ultimately practicality and economics: does the extra complexity gain yiou a significant advantage. In general, for most new architectural ideas, the answer is no. You also have to deal with the conversions needed when you interface to the outside world. Your sine wave idea sounds similar to the various phase-shift encoding schemes used by modems to get more data into each bit transmitted. That is good for communication, but it isn't clear how you would use it in a computer: how do you store a frequency, for example.

I thought there was another thread recently about multi-state logic recently but I couldn't find it. There have been systems that have used 3 (or more) state logic in the past. And hardware modelling languages like VHDL and Verilog still do (they add X for unknown for 3-state logic; then strong and weak 1 and 0 for 5 state logic, and so on). In hardware terms, there generally isn't much benefit. It adds complexity and doesn't seem to provide much benefit. The one place where it is being used is in flash memory. These use multiple values in each bit in order to increase the storage density.

I am not sure. But it seems likely (if galaxies are far enough away to have significant time dilation then they may be too small to resolve the doppler shift from each side) I don't get it. You need to explain why adding a constant would change the distribution of speeds within a galaxy or, equivalently, the distribution of mass within the galaxy. Note: as with the velocity, it is not just the absolute mass of the galaxy that is significant, but the distribution of that mass: concentrated at the center but distributed in a sphere, unlike the galactic disk.

What is an "electrical beam"?

Many (most? all?) of the galaxies measured are local and so there is no cosmological redshift. And it is not about rotational speed; it is the way the speed changes with the radius from the center. A: predicted rotation curve B: observed rotation curve Slowing (or in the case of Andromeda, speeding) the rotation rate will not affect the curve. Exactly. They will be affected equally by the cosmological time dilation (if there is any). And so it will not make any difference.

Hellooooo! Why would it depend on the Doppler effect or their recession? As noted, it is the rotational profile (i.e. the way rotational velocity changes with distance from the center) that is important. These rotational velocities are measured using Doppler shifts - which will be red shifted on one side (where the stars, gas, dust, etc. is moving away from us) and blue-shifted on the other side. OK. There will be time dilation effects for very distant galaxies. But this will not affect the relative velocities at different radii.

The idea that a god created the universe at the big bang is (currently) just as plausible as any of the other hypotheses. You might say that is a "god of the gaps" argument, but it could be that a god created the "laws of physics" etc that allowed the universe (and life) to evolve to its current state. Of course, "miracles" are a problem. But if they remain one-off events that only have anecdotal evidence and so are untestable, then they are probably out of the scope of scientific investigation. I don't think it is (again, currently) possible to prove that the mind (soul?) is not an external entity that "drives" the brain. But I'm not the right person to be defending these ideas ... as I don't believe them!

There doesn't have to be a conflict. If you insist that your religion tells you that raindrops fall upwards, then this conflicts with observation. But if your religion says that you should find out how the world works and discover more about your God's creation by examining and testing reality then there will be no conflict. This is how many scientists worked in the past (and some still do).

The paper that was linked earlier gets the right result by adding the pure Newtonian calculation to the effect of gravity on the wave front combined with constant speed. This (as I understand it from a quick read) is, for purely geometric reasons, equivalent to the red-shift (and therefore curvature of space-time) in GR and hence produces the same result. This is an intriguing view (especially when applied to particles, which have an inherent wave-nature) but I don't know if it has any deeper significance.

As these facts and the sophisticated astronomy, mathematics and engineering skills are well known, it would seem to contradict your claim that "people don't appreciate the sophistication of the builders". Their sophistication is well understood. After all, they developed the writing system that is the ancestor of almost all scripts in use today (including this one).

Agreed. I didn't say he causes it. That is not the point. Neither is it relevant whether he writes it down or not. (And this is not even a religious argument, just one of pure logic.) The point is, IF he knows in advance all the choices we will make; then we WILL make those choices. (Otherwise he would be wrong, which is unthinkable.) Do you agree with that?

But it doesn't say that. You are inventing objections that don't exist. Why not say what you want to say and see if it is "censored".

I thought it was probably a waste of time. I tried. You are obviously determined to misunderstand. There is nothing anyone can do to help you. It is up to you to open your mind, start again, and read what is actually written. But that contradicts the description. She is in the center of the train. The strikes happen at each end. She is half way between them. You are changing the description to make it fit with your warped idea. Rather than reading what is actually said. Because you don't want it to be true. Well, tough.

What alternatives? I know little or nothing about pyramid construction so all I have said about that is that there does appear to be evidence of ramps but that no one insists that this is the one and only answer. And that the word for "ramp" did exist. And a few other factual errors. I am not presenting any alternative. As for the language issue. Yes, it could easily be shown (not proved) that cladking's theories are baseless. Just do a course in historical linguistics. (To draw an analogy with your comment about quadratic equations; if someone didn't believe the correct solution, the best suggestion is for them to study maths.) My "alternative" in this respect is that Egyptian is clearly a member of the Afro-Asiatic family of languages that have origins going back long before the 2000BC "tower of babel" he proposes. I am not an expert in Afro-Asiatic languages so I would have to do a lot of research to put together a case demonstrating this and I don't see any point wasting my time on it. (And nothing is "proved" in science.)

Indeed. Objective observation and measurement. I don't reject these at all. I can't imagine what gave you that idea. However, eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable. As has been demonstrated by scientific experiments. Anyone who suggests you should "believe your own eyes" is mistaken and ignorant of the facts.

Linguistics is not a very soft science. It relies heavily on data and mathematical analysis. "The evidence of your eyes" is about the worst sort of evidence available. I think it is more likely because your ideas are "not even wrong" so they don't even know how to begin explaining that it is nonsense. Imagine going to a car dealer and asking how many fairies are needed to make the engine go round. That is similar to what you are saying. Anyway, I actually came back to the thread to pass on an article I thought you might find interesting, on the relationship between "mind" and "heart", i.e. cognition and emotion, in Chinese: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=14807

Your dogma is making you irrational. It isn't about whether you know the answers or not. Let me rephrase and simplify the problem. Tomorrow Mr Smith is either going to save someone's life or kill someone. He hasn't decided yet. According to you God knows what he will do. Let us make sure that God doesn't cheat by making him crave the decision on a block of stone. Imagine he writes "John Smith will decide to kill. (Note to self, make space in Hell)" Now. John Smith has free will. So in the morning he can decide to either save a life or kill someone, yes? There is no restriction. So lets say he decides to save a life. Therefore God was wrong. "Ah!" You say. "God knew he would do that." So what God actually wrote on the tablet was "John Smith will decide to save a life. (Note to self, make space in Heaven)" But. John Smith has free will. So in the morning he can decide to either save a life or kill someone, yes? There is no restriction. So lets say he decides to kill. Therefore God was wrong. You can't have it both ways. Either God is omniscient and knows what we will decide and therefore we have no free will. Or we have free will and he can't know what we will do.

I'll get my coat.

It looks like a graphical representation of the initial steps of Eratosthenes sieve. The words around it appear to be nonsense, though. But not all the numbers on line 2 are prime. So you are not much better off. Not as far as we know.

No. You are making stuff up.

Maybe you are thinking of objects in water. Maybe if you spin one object in water, it might cause currents that will cause another object to move or spin. I really don't know. But gravity doesn't work like that.

Do you mean Lense–Thirring precession? That's the trouble, you rely on imagination rather than knowledge. That is what I mean by making things up.

What would cause this "energy twist"? And why do you insist on making up stuff like this? Why!!?!?!?!???

What force would make it rotate? Gravity acts as a force in a straight line between the centres of the bodies. It will not cause rotation (in the simple case of spherical bodies).

Let's make this more concrete. Imagine we get God to write down a list of all the choices (good or bad) I am going to make. Now, can I look at this list and decide that I will make different choices? Yes or No. If "Yes" then God was wrong. If "No" then I don't have free will. So which is it?