andrewcellini

right, but you didn't define lambda as anything.

to the extent to where people understand what you mean. it helps when the equation is actually a model of what you're trying to say.

I really don't understand what you're trying to say with these equations. R doesn't seem well defined by that equation, and if you're using lambda in a different way than convention you need to define it the way that you mean otherwise this equation is completely meaningless. also why are you bringing in hamiltonians when you don't really know what R is or, at the very least, you haven't defined it right?

how does one stage the way nature works? it always is doing what it does as you say even when we're not there, which makes no difference to experiment because it is performed in this reality. the only way to get results that you want to observe is to conceive of a way to and cause it to happen. if you can't then your theory is wrong. this is the core of science pretty much.

this doesn't make sense. you have to devise a way in which to observe the conclusions of theory (or not) from reality, which is an experiment. how does one understand reality without looking at it in a given context?

have you conceived of an experiment to test these ideas? to be honest it seems like a very incomplete thought. what do you mean by energy?

what would this have to do with discussing your ideas?

you are missing the bigger issue here; you can't equate karma with newtons laws because it is taking the theory out of its useful context and making it a non sequitur. any conclusions you are deriving are essentially baseless and are clearly illogical.

you're honestly coming off as delusional and this isn't meant to offend you. perhaps a language barrier exists but it seems like you just want to keep broadcasting your ideas without discussing their validity and maybe you can't.

this shows a deep misunderstanding of what newtons third law means and is a gross misapplication of the theory.

This doesn't make any sense. How can morality be ground in F=ma? this would require evidence of god.

how can you claim to understand essentials when you don't understand the math behind it and what it means? one misunderstanding is saying time is static. spacetime is static (which itself has a specific mathematical meaning that i don't know if you understand)

you're thinking of planets as if they're completely isolated from other systems. what would be the reason for it not to interact with it's surroundings? also why do you think it needs to be an electromagnetic interaction for it to be "observation."

so you accept that the brain is taking time to process sensory information, but not doing what your "conscious spirit" is doing, as in examining these data sets and their relationships essentially (albeit on a higher order of processing). i don't think you've really come to any logical conclusion, especially when current technology with such low resolution leaves many questions unanswered (for now presumably) in neuroscience. what reason would you need to add this extra entity to a theory of mind when there is no reason or evidence to assume the brain can't possibly perform this task? rereading, i still don't think you understand relativity. i don't understand relativity well either, but i don't try to draw conclusions from what i do know because what i know of it could be flawed (probably is). can what you describe be derived from einstein field equations?

look into ideal gas law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas_law

we never really experience what is happening at any given moment because there is a delay from signal transduction to conscious perception, as well as action to perception of action occurring even though that delay is a short amount of time (say about 50 ms for visual transduction to perception, meaning we're perceiving what has already happened). how does this relate to your "theory?" also how does relativity fit into this mix?

thanks a bunch, will definitely check out those links and that david griffiths book.

Iwonderaboutthings, there is probably no pattern to the "6's" that you are highlighting, or at the very least not the pattern you are "observing."

Is it possible within the standard model for, say, top and bottom quarks and tauons to act in ways analogous to atoms? EDIT: obviously by the title i didn't know how to ask this question. it may very well be a stupid question.

so you're not going to actually argue your point?

James, from your own citations, there is not a single reputable scientific journal. you prove my point, that he (almost) strictly publishes in works of psuedoscience without me doing the work. as for your claim that there are "zero refutations" of tipler's "theory", i can assure you there are many including one by author michael shermer in his book "Why people believe weird things" which brings to light lack of evidence and testability.

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

lol no refutation of tiplers work exists in peer reviewed literature because he strictly gets his work published in non peer reviewed pseudoscience journals i wonder why...

i don't think this thread can happen...

placebo effect is a strong one