Iwonderaboutthings

You are talking about discrete levels of quantification, In no relation to genetics in the human body, this does not explain why some humans age either faster or slower than others, this does not explain physical characteristics from person to person and does not explain how some people get along while others do not, some more educated and some not so educated. Due to the relation of frequency and time.. And yet we all experience residual images in the mirror similarly??? This 100% does not make any sense, due to quantification of energy. Unless you describe this in a paranormal sense it would perhaps be a better explanation other than just mirrors, numbers and rays of light going in straight lines that disappear proportional to the square? Where exactly do they disappear to re-appear is more like the question here. Mass And Equivalence Principle. But due to frequency unchanged, this seems more of an involved question then we may perceive it to be. The mass and equivalence principles would entirely denotes all this. Question: If the preference is base 10 numeral systems, then why would science involve trigonometric function and or methods of sine and cos in re-fractional indexes??? I mean with all these radio waves in the air I assume some will eventually intersect.. No, "frequency " they " book authors "have said" does not exist in re-fractional indexes.. Here it is again: IE: As the speed of light is reduced in the slower medium, the wavelength is shortened proportionately. The frequency is unchanged; it is a characteristic of the source of the light and unaffected by medium change. I am willing to accept this information to be wrong I am very familiar with all speeds of light, I was refereeing to Vacuum since this is where it originates from... AGAIN PLEASE NOTICE: IE: As the speed of light is reduced in the slower medium, the wavelength is shortened proportionately. The frequency is unchanged; it is a characteristic of the source of the light and unaffected by medium change. You are correct with 3*10^8 m/s, I just have issues with exponents they don't make any sense whatsoever in relation to time though.. Of coarse they are multiples of the 1... AND WHOMEVER DECIDED TO DISAGREE WITH THIS, YOU DISAGREE WITH FACTS.. Chomp on with your snicker snack Vampires soulless entities trapped in the dark

Ohh , ok thanks.. Yes I am talking about photons going in all directions not only omni but in all "morphed and warped" directions as well. Yes I know about the tangent of light rays.. The issues I am seeing here are frequency related. Reason: Refraction reflects off surfaces flat as per the angle of incidence and the plane of incidence and tangent of the plane. Another reason for this is because of the refraction index information one of them states: "As the speed of light is reduced in the slower mediums, the wavelength is shortened proportionately. The frequency is unchanged; it is a characteristic of the source of the light and unaffected by medium change. Now, This explains quantum affects that do not deal with "physical matter" from what I know so far... So your example of photon energy is in this relation of frequency and residual images from a human that appear to begin and end at 1.. Your example 0.5m back = 1m/299792458 m/s = 3.33*10^-9 s).. Since c is found everywhere at once this issue with frequency would imply dimensions unaccounted for outside the barriers of h itself... Now, The inverse square law would imply that distance does not exist because of exponential decay. This was why I refereed to a 3d game's origin in the real world frustum example of digital cam at 0 0 0 position in empty space. That would mean Flat Hyper Space...We would be all relative to it then. So believing in " virtual reality" would then be the case of choice and freewill..

Are you sure your value for c is correct sir? This is just a guess here, but shouldn't it be simply 16 a hex number?? 16.01850574440275 8*2 = 16 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexadecimal Here is a link: Documentary about Horizon Parallel Universes " "Dr. Michio Kaku" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-nP4yD1hkk On a special note here, Discoveries are never made with a closed mind... This is what science is all about, it is about discoveries.. About your crack pot offer link. I am not going to tolerate insults nor sarcasm from Moderators Whom Abuse Their Power On This Site. You are welcome to ban me from this site at your own expense. My post is not in any way shape or form insulting discrediting or whatever... I will only continue this conversation with you if you apologize for your rude words towards me. Other than that, if not banned I will continue an adult discussion with the other members whom refrained from insults.... Because light is also referred to as bosons, meaning they pass through matter right?? The issue is how light is from the past and not from the present " time" as per cosmology. What keeps the light rays sustaining a human reflections and their motion over time? Never knew this about fish thanks.

Opps sorry ajb, I should have stated that the speed of light is static and found everywhere all at once... Here was the conversation on that some time back... http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/79035-numerology-what-is-the-big-deal/ Hymm, color and energy yes they can be measured, but isn't that more for the subjects of QM, QED and other phenomena dealing with uncertainty?? I really should have mentioned the " quantum of action earlier" playing a role here, I sorta forgot to add this to my OP, but I think it is only obvious that it would be a valid case since were are dealing with "residual images right" and multiples of time meaning that people can see themselves moving in the mirror over time... On the notion of bosons, wouldn't these light rays just pass through the mirror then, leaving ample time of quanta to reveal an image of the subject in the mirror " from the past" traveling to the future onto the present as time traveled back and fourth through the quantum of action??? This may explain the reason why we can see ourselves moving in the mirror. But if this were the case h would override c or become balanced??? I don't even know how to begin here, this is weird stuff to talk about... There is something not correct about light rays " just reflecting off " matter" in general. This would mean their is a " proprietary um HUGE incidence angle" un-accounted for, this being the case time would then be flat like a hyper plane????? I don't want to get too complex but I am aware that that k in re-fractional indexes decays exponentially. But what keeps us from disappearing from our residual image then???? If heat is energy and humans radiate heat then aren't humans a type of energy??? Like the photon humans have color and energy too.. Whats the deal ? Yes I wrote that but with collective resources, I am still unsure of this.. Title: photons have no mass, how can they have momentum? http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2229/if-photons-have-no-mass-how-can-they-have-momentum If humans cannot detect this, then how can humans see themselves in the mirror?? This could only mean one thing then... That would be that the human mind is faster than the speed of light, which would explain why humans don't " realize this." QM talks about how we can change reality with our mind and our thoughts, not sure if this is possible however there have been some advancements where neural devices can help people whom are " disabled" move the mouse button on the computer screen with their mind. I don't remember the article but I am sure someone here knows about this... On the notion of this dimension, what I should have stated is that this dimension seems to be larger than we think it to be, leaving the notion that we are experiencing residual forms that dismiss a mirror in general.. Yes thanks I am very familiar with Snell's law " just recently" and now has led to another issue that does not make any sense at all with human perception... One thing is how k decays exponentially. I thought that an exponent was the unit's length?? About 3d, are you talking about the frustum>? The set virtual camera points at you at 180 degrees.. Z is depth it causes the Illusion of distance in a 3d game..However what is the origin of Cartesian space? If you take this 3d engine and place it in the real world, the question would need answers.. I used to create video games some time back so I am very familiar with 3d graphics and those " very very" costly memory chips." It has inspired these types of questions, I do believe in virtual reality by the way I think the issues is how can the human mind keep all that data present for one second of animation in the mirror over time and distance in the real world? If that's applicable. That is a lot of brain work if you ask me...

It is stated that the speed of light has no mass and does not exist in this dimension. IE Statically known to exist in the known regions of time but not space.. Also the consideration of particle waves adds more speculation to the OP's question. If a person were standing in-front of a mirror and light rays were present, how can " information" from the light beams travel into the retina to the brain and project a virtual image for the observer upside down??--> again photons carry no information, are mass-less and do not exist in this dimension... This would also mean that depending on the person seeing themselves in the mirror that "distance" is an issue, IE you can see yourself " entirely" in a mirror about 1/2 your size standing about 3 meters away. Again c is measured in meters per sec as a distance. Totally does not make any sense what so ever due to the geometry of incidence from behind the mirror's consideration: If particle waves are what they say they are then part of the reflected person is real and has some type of mass and or energy! Making matters worse, the entire reflection of the person is projected from the past not the current and or present state of the person's time. This is why I am stating that distance is an issue. Uhmmm Scotty Beam Me Up, ring a bell??? This would make sense by they way I am also asking if this is truly a physical case then shouldn't the person in-front of the mirror become multiples of time, meaning, that since c =1 second how on earth can animation IE movement from the person's reflection be at all possibly even seeing by the person and " other observers"???? THATS A LOT OF EYES THE PERSON MUST HAVE! Totally does not make any sense. That being said, the person seeing themselves must be seeing their "own self" from the past since that is how light from celestial bodies are used to see in the past and determine the age of the universe and etc... However not in my particular point of view, re-fractional indexes of elements also refer to the issue of light as in Special Relativity Cases.. INCONSISTENCIES OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY WITHIN PHYSICAL MEDIA http://www.santilli-foundation.org/Sunset-Sunrise.html If at all on the honesty of those whom want true answers, I am hoping that scientist here will consider this something to look further into....

You don't think that "Lady Gaga" "hip hop music" rap music" the internet, cell phones and " Viagra" had any influence in today's "modern sexual activity?" I think homophobia is in relation to " closet cased gays" making my entire OP more complex... I am, I mentioned in my OP about religious points of views, I think many members did not read the entire post, again, this is why I kept placing the Virgin Marry....

UMMMMMMMMMMMMM EXCUSE ME??????????????? Max Planck was ridiculed because he used mathematics and numbers so physicist had an issue with that, Einstein believed in God, how dare you not know this.... You words: condescending manner How is giving someone a nice compliment condescending??? Its called Jealousy, Hello??? As per scientist and 6 figure a year jobs I agree with you if you are referring to scientist in third world countries..oh Give me a break...

So then obviously you agree with religion as per their Virgin Marry??? That's why I placed this all over this thread... I'm sorry but facts are facts here, gay people cannot give birth to children like straight couples can... Science deals with protocols of facts not magic.. Because of this both religion and science agree... Religion supports their Virgin Marry And science supports a miracle that one day two men might conceive... that is pathetic considering both groups IE religion and science are always at each others throats.. How odd.... I will because I am here to learn

O O, you seem not to get it.... A real gay man does not get sexually aroused by females, and vise versa... DUH!

Crossing the line?? There is another member here whom placed a link in where they were demoralizing religion for their beliefs in homosexuality, at least here I am asking if it is wrong... If you " read" my replies I have already stated that I am gay and have more experiences on this subject both with religion, scientist and regular people.... I have not disagreed with anyone if homosexuality is wrong, I am simply asking questions... I have not stated that homosexuality is wrong at all... The matter is that they cannot reproduce the natural way...Production and choice like I have been hearing seem to be not related?? Now this make better sense to me thanks. Phenomenon you mention. So then, why would science have an issue with: A religious point of view? An Astrologist point of view? A psychic's point of view? Regarding " homosexuality? You said yourself science only describes things in nature....

This is the 2nd time I read someone correcting a universal homosexual mind frame, how interesting How about all 100% male and one 0% male?? WOW! Now would't that be a gay guys dream "Cum" true Whyyyyyyyyyyyyy " thank you sir" So disregarding everything you have stated just now, you still placed your own 5 year old thread here " for a reason." I was very impressed how you " aimed" at religion in your thread and not your own personal point of views, as though instigating and or pointing the finger at them " like advocating atheism", At least here I am asking questions... Yes the male penis was created " past tense here" for when a woman and man have children , they also create the genitals...Its called genetics. Unless you have another reasoning please share this.. The other post you mention is filled with bias towards religion, UMM AGAINST THIS FORUM'S POLICY RIGHT??? UMM YEA WHATEVER! Not to mention G h and c, still not being = 1 as per SI units still used in 2014, good point! I agree with you " me lad"

Does that also include your subconscious? I 100% disagree with you on the notion of my critical thinking. I have been gay all my life, and I have never seen anyone one of my gay friends have children while engaging in same sex, unless they ended up like the Virgin Marry , I keep saying that here. Please note, I am not talking about animals, although thanks for mentioning this I did not know this about animals It is humans " front lobe" thinking mammals per say if that's better I wish to discuss here. About science and biology, I was under the impression that " biology " and chemistry went hand in hand as termed universally a "science" IE person has a tumor, then is placed on chemotherapy?? Is this how this works?? Not sure if attacking someone's idea or their "personal" should qualify as being ok, the idea came from the person so the person is the make of the idea " just saying"

Oh god! I am an open gay male, I know what it is like to be gay, and not wanted " anywhere" you go, by religion and by " scientist." I don't hold grudges though, I know you are all still trying to accept each other, at least I ask questions.. Not sure if I agree with your statement that everyone has homosexual thoughts though.. With that said seems like I have more experience in this matter than anyone here " from what I know"

Your words: Science tells you how things work That is exactly my point, 2 penises don't give birth to a child, a vagina and a penis do. Again, Unless you end up like the virgin marry,I hope you get the "the point here" there has not yet been any bad mouthing on groups here, plus I have already stated my point of views about this in my OP, I suggest you " re-read it" I agree with you ajb, I should have mentioned something like this..

Why cant we just look at " healthy humans" that are able to re-produce, why do we need to complex things more than what they are? Yes I am aware of the elderly,menopause and etc... I was hoping that my OP would be direct enough and maybe I should have pointed this out earlier.. Yes I am aware that I have an " original thinking mind" But you said it yourself, humans are complex due to their cognitive mentally remember? So, then I look at it this way.. If religion states that homosexuals are wrong, and on the scientific side they cannot produce children, then homosexuality is " wrong" as per what religion states and as per scientific fact. Again: Its wrong because " although healthy" they cannot reproduce, although not sterile, they still cannot reproduce..Unless of course one of them ends up like THE VIRGIN MARRY, GET IT<------? Another thing bowls down though, religion and science don't obviously agree, but would they agree on the whole of my OP? Having in mind what I just mentioned? Here it is again: Its wrong because " although healthy" they cannot reproduce, although not sterile, they cannot reproduce..

I read your entire reply, I think you are being a little too analytical its quite simple. If everyone on the face of this planet " turned gay over night" Would we still have humans on the face of this world in say " 150 years or so"? Or better yet, if our parents were gay, would this conversation between you and me still exist? I think the answer is quite obvious...NO Gay people within the lines of " same sex" dont have children " period " So then, as per science, focusing on sex only " please" would their one day be a machine to create babies without same sex couples? I think that if this would ever be, our perceptions on gays and straights would then be revolutionized, till that time we are left with these un-answered complexities.

I find this posting of yours quite offensive! You seem to lack knowledge that " although" animals may be homosexuals, the real " deal" is that they are not under the jurisdiction of " religion, leaders, and other " front lobe thinking animals" meaning humans" This post lacks " real" issues with " real " scenarios about a gay person's and or a lesbian person's true life and public issue in the world.. Also you " highlight" religious teachings." In some countries they don't use religion as an excuse to defy gays and or lesbians, they consider their un-willing contribution of having children a financial burden for the countries survival. so then you agree in adultery?? if you do then you support.. STDs, children with no father's and or mother's, you support tax payer money that goes to fund the broken family and etc.. Lets face it, adultery does not fall into the hands of religion, it falls on common sense. I haven't really met anyone whom agrees their spouse should lay with others sexually and if they do, they don't respect themselves!

Ok, I will be more specific here: The male penis was created to be inserted into a woman's vagina, and through ejaculation the woman may be able to conceive a child " if and only if both subjects are healthy and not sterile in any way shape and or form... Although recent styles have changes IE anal sex oral sex and masturbation and etc, I am sure this is how the male body and the female body was designed to be, and seems to be doing the job correctly till date. I used science because " without" science we would not understand" Sterile individuals Artificial Insemination Condoms Contraceptives STDs Birth Defects Cumulative Genetics And other explicit research that engage in sex with the opposite sex. Correct me if I am wrong but did scientist discover these things??? Wrong as per science? What hoped to express is that, a woman and a man are the only two species in " nature" that can create life, anywhere at any given moment on this planet " from what I know" if and only if both subjects are 100% with no deficiencies. I was under the impression that "science" studies the laws and behavior patterns of nature??? If the answer is yes, then I feel you have made a mistake by removing my post elsewhere... Yes I had mentioned " adoption" previously in OP, thanks.. why do " you" get away with insulting other members here??? FYI, I have already mentioned your suggestions in my OP... And this topic is about Gays and Lesbians, please stay on topic here.... OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, I GE IT NOW, YOU SEEM MY OP COMPETES WITH YOURS... LOL HOW FUNNY!

I was going to place this in another section of this forum, but I think it is valid for physics and science due to the nature that homosexuals and lesbians cannot have children " physically natural." And yes I am aware of the choices on adoption. I am also aware of artificial insemination and " blink banks" BUT unsure if this is considered natural and not sure if the condoning is psychological? IE, same sex attracted to same sex? And no I have no biases towards any particular groups at all. In case no one here understand the dogmas linked to Homosexuals and Lesbians here is a list of sort. On world biases Gays and Lesbians have issues with the following: Keeping a job " due to discrimination" Continue going to church Have equal pay rights, IE have no children, not married etc Legal Marriages Have their lives threatened Are made fun of And at times have the blame placed on them Depression, Anxieties and other Emotional Issues " due to discrimination" These are because Gays and Lesbians are treated " horribly by the world." I want to point out that religion states that being Gay or Lesbian is due to how " again" they cannot conceive naturally among others. With that said: It is "scientifically known and impossible" for two men or two woman to conceive a child "naturally" from what I know so far. Thus in regards to " scientific evolution" and the prolonging of people on earth, IE, Only men and women give birth to children naturally, would the above discrimination on gays and lesbians, including those from religion be valid?

This is a discussion on " pollutants" and other un-safe environment " threats" from scientific experiments, products and etc. Please stay with my OP, your opinions at lease for me are of non importance... I have provided some links in where it is " in plain" view that scientist are the causes of this. I am aware that scientist are not perfect and they will continue doing mistakes either in their research or with plain day to day choices. Tobacco Companies Will Publish Ads Saying They Lied About Smoking Dangers. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/10/tobacco-companies-publish-ads-lied-smoking-dnagers_n_4577689.html A medical report in the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health confirms that workers exposed to high levels of RF/microwave radiation routinely have astronomical cancer rates. http://www.rense.com/general78/rad.htm

Thanks for your responses your time has been appreciated, " seriously" but please don't tell me to be careful with my style and or " fashion" showing appreciation to other members " whom have impressed me." It makes you seem Jealous Not really concerned with " answers" more over with facts.. I have read and read and I have concluded that science like regular people all share the same notion in common when dealing with hidden scheme, fame, riches and what have you.. In my personal opinion, no one understands this world, no one respects true science for what it is, and really no one seems to dare challenge themselves with " true discoveries" at least in a original method these days. Boring it seems like students are more concerned with grades and a 6 figure a year job versus the art and elegance of scientific creation. They eventually become these very scientist. HOWEVER, can I blame them????? In today';s world scientist whom want to " really discover things" need to do so on their own! Leaving behind the granola bars, birkenstocks and comfort zones and walk into the lions mouth hopefully out the other end in one piece. Otherwise you end up ridiculed like Max Planck and Albert Eisenstein for thinking out of the box. The progress of science, has been dreadfully awefull, irresponsible and 100% A WASTE OF TAX PAYER MONEY.. I know that, and thanks for pointing that out. But you see their is the issue with G, h and c, they appear to be incompatible to 1 as per SI units.... How then can you investigate something like this? Particle Collisions? Have you any idea how expensive these test are??? Think about it, loads of money goes into these test and the environment is the last thing on a scientist's mind. Since the results of these test are not previously known to exist yet, how does scientists know they are safe to perform in the first place???? I guess they take risks?? That is what this entire OP is all about... I think you need to do some research on Hiroshima Jake1, seriously no joking here..

I think I agree with you thanks! Before I go on here: How do I reply to only one of your questions and highlight that area so when I comment you can know which " area " of your response I am referencing??? In other words: Do you see my previous comments and how you focus on areas of interested highlighted in the grey boxes?? How do you do that??? I see the button " reply" then I see multiple reply.. I am unsure how to do this..

I also see separate villages rather worlds in social media in our current day and age, where anyone can be anyone behind a computer screen. uneducated ideologies I believe will remain no matter what type of educational systems are present. Infact, I think the more humanity knows the more corrupt and secretive humanity becomes, Hence Victoria' Secret" Living off the land would be a great idea IE: no synthetic foods, preservatives and etc. As per the dark ages, From What I Know: It was caused by relocating certain eatable goods from one country to the other, in the process the relocated food "rot" due to climate changes, which caused major problems and major starvation to begin, this " being only one of them." AGAIN FROM WHAT I KNOW OF THE STORY. However I am sure it was due to what we see today, simply "human greed." I am aware the Dark Ages had quite a few other issues that example was just one of them. The whole matter is yes I truly believe that we would be better off without the " science" utilities we have till date.. QM " still relies on Classical Physics " Equations thus, G, h and c do not pair to be = 1 as per SI units... WHY???????? Is this what is causing issues with global warming?? Is it due to incorrect methods of " translation"? IE measures?? There is too many missing pieces in Science to be even termed science. Which is the reason why I believe that the " application" needs much much work if science ever plans to work in more earthly ways.. Give or take, science " does not mimic mother nature, due to this."

Yes some scientist do need blaming and I agree with you.I think that many people just blame science as a whole and don't realize that their exist good scientist and bad ones? It has been hinted that scientist have little say in their discoveries? are these patented issues? Meaning others take away ownership of discoveries? It would not surprise me one bit. So if this would be the case, then why bother with science? Their are other jobs out there. Just for the record I was warned about not answering to post "consistently" and when I do someone else answers for this person I replied to... This very reply was for Jake1 As you can see, Jake1 accused me of not being consistent with replies in another posting "Do Scientist Believe in Love" is there another method of avoiding this confusion? that's evolution in today's world and personal preferences. were talking about " pollution." But I do appreciate you being an educator, I would just hope you are grasping the point here.. Well if your a MOD, then suspend my account and or give me warnings,, can you do this???? If not please refrain from instigating others with your personal likes and dislikes pertaining to---->" debates." So then " obviously" there are some things that scientist can't control" that being greed and financial systems.... Well I am still waning for the day when G, h and c are all = 1 within SI Units. Till then you may be right HA!

I 100% disagree, the reason for this is because science is the assertion " laws" of mother nature, therefore G and c are constants, although many argue about these constants in " theory and postulates"to be inclusive they have been " proven"' physically as constants so far. Perhaps that is another way of looking at my rambling In regards to my additional 37 questions, they are thus regarded to the belief in love and its existence shared by " everyone" regardless of life style and or beliefs, however the physical evidence has not yet be " found" to support " anyone's belief and or affirmations. Love seems to be only " valid" for those whom are politically correct in their dogmas, depriving others of such experience. Thus science and the whole of humanity cannot prove love exists at all. Making the assertion that all of them have no clue about " physical attraction." Since this is the case, I assume the whole of physics must be incorrect as well as per Newtonian Mechanics... How so? well, G and c are " too" not physically proven, thus only remain as un-seen forces F= ma, Force is a product of two interactions, the force is what I refer to here. True discoveries are made when you are able to consider everything you have known to be wrong... So, can Love some way be proven to physically exist? And if so, would we need to buy it like all scientific discoveries??? I Don't mean to get graphic here but let me give some examples: Love making for instance can be experienced by man with man , man with woman, woman with woman and even woman and another man or another woman. What makes this wrong or right? at this point whom cares Gay men can adopt, heterosexuals can naturally conceive and a man that is sterile in his marriage can also adopt and vise versa. I hope you get the point here... What makes this however right or wrong is dogmas and discrimination, privations on something that no one on earth as of yet can prove to exist " love." While some denote love for gays, many denote love for " mythical beliefs systems" and yet as you can see, Love is shared regardless. As per my deciding in "Do Scientist believe in love" OP I chose scientist because they have more validity on phenomena, physics and many other areas of rigorous study... As per regards to" God" sorry but I have been warned not to mention " the loving god of religion" I 50% disagree with you...It takes a pretty good scientist to have that skill type mentally, good scientist are rare these days. You words: unbiased objective investigations seems non applicable to my OP, as you can see I may be even kicked out of this forum Understood, but when members highlight "certain" areas of my comments and or replies giving focus to just that part I have stated earlier, it is very very hard for me to stay consistent,,, I will do my best, thanks. I have served as a CGI instructor, teacher and mentor and have donated about 4 years of free work labor to disadvantaged people for free, at my " young age" I serve the elderly, take care of my mother, am a woman's activist, humanitarian, and practice selflessness, since the age of 13 I have helped people in broken relationships and continue doing so. I have nursed back to health people with aids and other health conditions and inspired them to go back to school and become what they " dream of." Those are just my hobbies Sorry I have not read the post on the Ozone layer yet I just got on my computer about and hour ago I think, I will try to check this out soon for ya before I log off, otherwise I will check it out later.. I find it very difficulty at times to answer questions from " multiple members." The main reason for this is because when I reply to a comment their can be " another member replying and not the member I replied to. Also, I am still trying to figure out this multiple quote function they have here. Mine from what I see, only allows to reply to one post at a time. Also how do you " copy" my quotes and focus on those areas in those grey sections??? I don't know how to do that, or it does not allow me.