andrewcellini

what problems did buddha solve?

that's not the point i was trying to make. try rereading what i posted, and in particular the paper i linked. the point isn't that there are no "quantum effects," rather the usefulness and necessity of them for neural processing seems low. there are numerous other empirical issues with the theory, hence the lack of mainstream acceptance. would you like some other papers?

a major problem with Orch-OR is that the brain is too warm, wet and noisy to preserve entanglement between microtubules to be useful for information processing http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9907009.pdf

recently picked up a copy of consciousness explained. i really enjoyed his lectures on the subject.

the model is supposed to describe an early universe that already exists and its evolution. it isn't a description of the origin of the universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mating_of_yeast

is there supposed to be light in this reaction (hv)?

dima, the units should cancel leaving a dimensionless number. v and c must have the same units. v^2/c^2 = (.5c)^2/c^2 = (.5*3e8 m/s)^2 /(3e8 m/s)^2 = 2.25e16 m^2/s^2 / 9e16 m^2/s^2 = ~.25 *sorry for lack of latex know how*

besides what strange has pointed out, you seem to discuss "electrical and magnetic energy" in one of your documents on page one and this doesn't make very much sense to me. how did you derive these quantities and how does it correspond to observation? how does chemistry work in this model? as one of my chemistry teachers used to say "electrons are where it's at yo."

i'm not, historians don't have any exact day or time for the supposed death of jesus of nazareth, hence the range of values that have been estimated. you seem to have a bias to the story-book version of jesus rather than an actual person; you are trying to fit reality to the gospels. if he actually died, what makes you think he rose? why must he spend only 3 days (hint this is a common jewish symbol for harmony between opposing forces) in the tomb if he is a corpse by this time? is he being moved?

source of such an astronomy study? 31 AD is not necessarily the death date of jesus of nazareth, it seems to fall into the range though. i don't doubt that such an eclipse happened, but the earliest account is in the gospels (matthew mark and luke to be specific) which should be taken lightly as they're probably parables and not historical documents, though they may mix the real with the imaginary. later accounts are noncanon literature and myths and there are no comptemporary historians who talk about such an event. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Peter http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf09.iii.i.html - more information including analysis of this gospel http://books.google.com/books?id=eER0zsCkFxUC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false - book on apocryphal gospels like gospel of peter

the entire new testament is probably a fabrication, and as such the events that supposedly occurred cannot be treated as actual events. are there contemporary records of the crucifixion eclipse?

it's more likely the crucifixion darkness is symbolic rather than an account of an actual event.

i believe strange is referring to the observed geometry (tetrahedral) and bond angles (104.5 between H's).

what is "force natural"?

what force?

relative, i'd like to repeat that you should probably do more studying on these subjects, including the formulae and their applications, and doing problems so that you can have a stronger grasp on the subjects. it seems you are avoiding doing this so far.

how would you know the probability of a given configuration of objects in the box unless you opened it many many times?

it would be better to learn more about the applications of the formulae you are using rather than taking my brief introduction to couolmbs law and immediately adding it to your theory.

Relative, Coulomb's Law F = k(q1q2)/r^2 = qE F is the magnitude of the electrical force k is coulombs constat 8.99e9 q is the magnitude of the charge r is the distance between charges E is the electric field due to a source, kq(source)/r^2 if you have two point charges of equal but opposite magnitude at a distance r, they exert an equal magnitude force in opposite directions. similarly if you have one charge q as as source with an electric field E at distance r from the source, you can set your other charge at this distance and find the source exerts a force on the charge.

it would help if you discuss what is going on in your diagram. just to clarify, you have 2 charged massive objects and you're saying the electromagnetic and gravitational forces cancel out?

this seems more like a train of thought rather than observations.

a lot of ifs and assertions and no evidence. you don't even know if what you've filmed is plasma.

nowyouknowFACS, how is that an answer to "what observation led you to this conclusion?"

relative it might help to draw a free body diagram of the forces to find out if there is a torque. however looking at your diagram i'm not sure what is supposed to be happening.