andrewcellini

i started a conversation on your newest link: Me: hello Program: hi Me: how are you? Program: no response was given Me: no answer? and this is where it took a while to load before bringing me to an error page.

how are they self luminous? they look quite reflective like they are made of a foil, and the videos are taken during sunlight correct? how did you confirm the response of this supposed entity to reflected light from a mirror?

it looped 4 strings when i said ok repeatedly. when typing what repeatedly it combined "what," with some other random string like "what, big dog." this isn't intelligent. when typing sentences like "are you intelligent?" it responded with "what, take a seat, chillin"

i don't know what to tell you. maybe someone had a 35th or 53rd birthday, that seems more rational than claiming they are plasma beings interacting. i don't even know how you could possibly conclude that from this video. frankly they all look like foil balloons. even the ones which "morph," which looks like multiple balloons tied together bumping around. but hey if they're plasma aliens... and this looks like a deflated foil balloon ps it's your video

OP, you claim that there is continuous change in shape. could it be a deflated foil balloon, or are you dead set on plasma life? it's movements seem more at the hands of the wind and gravity than orchestrated from it's internal processes. this video is linked through annotation on yours showing similar objects. looks like a deflated foil balloon.

i'm going with balloons, but from those videos it is hard to tell. edit: this video of yours is probably also a balloon -

uh, what? what is the relevance to "philosophy of calculus?" you didn't touch upon any mathematics and went off on a tangent about quantum computing (bad pun intended).

i don't think this is a fair comparison given lincoln has plenty more sources to verify his existence than a fiction book. how many primary sources exist for jesus?

this is how it seems to you, but have you ever tried having someone help you test this hypothesis to see if that is how it really is? have you done it in front of people or a doctor? i'm having a hard time imagining someone doing this, mostly because this is quite the claim and i've personally not read or experienced such phenomena. a video would be interesting. i don't know where this discussion is supposed to lead if anywhere.

well then we don't have free will because we don't have the power to do whatever we want. but assuming we have free will, how is it meaningful to have such a property seeing as god knows the outcome anyway and in fact is the origin of the outcome and the situation you face. this scenario is essentially indistinguishable from hard determinism when looked at from the outside. god is omniscient by your definition correct? god must know when we're about to change minds besides when we actually change them. if he only knows when we've changed our minds then he isn't all knowing.

how would someone use "energy twists" to describe a torque? where is the force perpindicular to the position of the object? this is what i meant by reading one paragraph of wikipedia; you don't nearly get the full picture.

do you know what a torque is? how does this picture show a torque?

clarify then to what extent our lives are predestined. if you mean that the entirety of life is plotted out, birth to death with every event accounted for then this is in direct contradiction with having free will. how can you build something to act one way and expect it to operate in another? seems like god has no idea what he's done.

what does this have to do with time? . i'm not so sure of the validity of this statement either, but it seems to be philosophy more than physics.

you should learn more fundamentals before trying to incorporate more complicated models.

electromagnetism =/= gravitation.

no, local gravity (like near the surface of the earth) can be approximated using F=mg where g is the field (acceleration due to gravity on a body). F=GMm/r^2 is newtonian universal theory of gravitation.

i think it would be best to not just read the introductory paragraph of a wikipedia page and then use what little information it provides to demonstrate the validity of you idea, you mix up terminology because you don't know what you're talking about.

i'm not so sure about the torah claim, but the quran's account of jesus is much different than the new testament; jesus never died by execution, jesus wasn't the son of god etc. the fact that jesus is mentioned is because the quran is an amalgam of abrahamic faiths and arabic tradition.

i'm just saying it's the earliest. you can't expect a fictional character to have a non forged history.

dendrites and their plasticity are very important to learning and memory http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7275/full/nature08577.html http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jnr.20759/abstract;jsessionid=E60D84E93AC86848130CBF7980A9B75D.f03t03

if you actually wish to take your exercises in thought into the realm of science, then learn what has been explained in science. these abstract concepts you refer to are really meaningless if you don't have a grasp on what they actually are. your local library probably has freshmen level physics and biology textbooks. there are free lectures on youtube from stanford and mit for instance that offer you lessons from actual professors. - here's a lecture on classical mechanics from stanford, a fairly good starting point for physics. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hph.html - this site has formulae and brief explanation of them, as well as a web of concepts in physics in each section and how they relate for visual understanding.

do you have a history of psychotic episodes? i'm not trying to be offensive, but i'm curious because you seem to be caught up in what you think to be reality rather than what others are trying to explain to you, and your theory is a word salad.

the earliest account of the supposed jesus of nazareth is by roman historian josephus, who was born well after the supposed life and death of jesus or at the very least was a child and not a historian during this time.

which is clearly false, like UNICORNS = REAL or THEORY = BRAIN FART this thread should be trashed.