Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
A link would've been sufficient, and I'm already quite familiar with this website, and hundreds of others that make the same exact claims. However, at this point we're not concerned with yours or my interpretation of the samples, we're concerned with the interpretation of the first two experts consulted, who identified the samples as containing... in @Mountainmike's terminology... 'epithelial material'. Which is a pretty broad term as both plants and animals contain epithelial material.
The question then is how do we get from simply epithelial material to traumatized cardiac tissue from a still living patient. That's a pretty big gap if the interpretation is as blatantly obvious as people like you seem to think it is.
But first, what I'm trying to confirm is whether Dr. Robert Lawrence actually changed his mind after hearing what other experts had to say. Every quote that I can find which makes this claim, doesn't actually say that he changed his mind. Just that he could understand how the samples could be interpreted that way, not that he actually agreed with that interpretation.
What makes the timeline interesting is how the experts progressively get from mere epithelial material to traumatized cardiac tissue from the left ventricle of a still living patient.
At this point I'm just trying to get the facts right.
I suggest giving up the belief and scientifically investigate the mystery .. using the evidence as it presents itself.True, none-the-less, being an advocate of the Principal of Sufficient Reason, I'm a firm believer in the premise that there has to be a logical explanation for why things are the way they are.
Noooo .. things are the way they are because we decide what 'are' means.Now as to why they are at all, that question would have to extend to God Himself, and may indeed be unanswerable.
Its a persistent mystery for as long as there's human minds around capable of investigating.Is that the end of the story... or the beginning of the story?
Can anyone categorically confirm that the sample was not tampered with?
Of course the sample was the same. Doctor Castanon and Ron Tesoriero did a very good job of chain of custody.
Physics is not the only way to determine what is reality and therefore claiming its the true source of reality is beyond physics and science itself and more a metaphysical claim and there a belief. It can only determine what its designed to determine which is objective reality within the causal closure of the physical. Beyond that it has nothing to say. So claiming belief or spirituality or anything transcendent of the physical is unreal or unsubstancial is unjustified.So what? Physics doesn't care about your feelings, nor does reality.
No its a useful description of the limits of the science method in accounting for nature of reality.Metaphor is useless if it only serves to confuse things and obfuscate reality.
Physics is not the only way to determine what is reality and therefore claiming its the true source of reality is beyond physics and science itself and more a metaphysical claim and there a belief. It can only determine what its designed to determine which is objective reality within the causal closure of the physical. Beyond that it has nothing to say. So claiming belief or spirituality or anything transcendent of the physical is unreal or unsubstancial is unjustified.
No its a useful description of the limits of the science method in accounting for nature of reality.
Yes it can only be excluded within the causal closure of the physical, within what the science method is designed to measure, the qunatified world. It has nothing to say in any factual way about other stuff outside that parameter.Substance asserted without evidence, can be excluded by the physics of substance.
As I said to Hans the metaphor serves as a good description of the limits of science.I agree with @Hans Blaster's comment on the obfuscation introduced by metaphors here.
How do you know time is a product of physical systems. Thats the part you can't prove with science. You can't use science to prove science. Thats when it becomes more than science and more a metaphysical belief.Your talking about time. Time is a property of physical systems. This isn't some sort of weird philosophical topic.
As I said to Hans the metaphor serves as a good description of the limits of science.
So?Science can describe the physical behaviour of time, but then the explanation is a human made idea quantifying time.
Humans do.But who says the human made idea is the right way to measure what we call time.
The only other way to 'know what time represents as fundemental reality' is by dreaming up a fanciful fiction about what fundamental reality is. (I suppose if you keep sprouting that fiction, then some gullible person will eventually believe it, too .. but not scientific thinkers .. that's for sure).Evenso it can only make descriptions of time within a limited methodology and scope which is not the be all and end all of how we can know what time represents as fundemental reality.
I can't see how this follows. What are you basing this on.Excuse me for butting in here, but I see this quite differently. If reality exists as you seem to describe it, and it's somehow possible to interact with the past... then the conclusion would have to be that we can't interact with the past. I realize that that seems like a heck of a Catch-22, if it's possible to interact with the past, then that means that we can't interact with the past.
Except light doesn't always travel in straight lines and can also bend. Also if the observer is the one that is creating that measure and outcome then the photon was in superposition until it was observed by a conscious observer thus giving it position in time and space.Richard Feynman used to describe why light always travels in a straight line by explaining that the photon takes every possible path from the source to the observer, and this includes paths that travel both forward and backward through time, and if one sums up all of these paths the only ones that survive are the ones that take the straight path from the source to the observer. All others are destroyed by interference before ever actually existing. And voila, you end up with light always traveling in a straight line, and what that means is that all the paths that traveled forward or backward through time got destroyed. Hence, at least for photons, in a world where time travel is possible... time travel isn't possible, because the only things that survive in a reality where time travel is possible, are things that don't time travel.
Not for consciousness. If consciousness is something beyond the physical realm then it is not bounded by time and space. It doesn't conform to the laws of physics. But from what I understand even QM points to reality being more relative fundementally.So if one wonders what would happen if we could interact with the past and the future, then all that we have to do is to take a cue from those photons, and without having to do the whole sum over histories thing, simply assume that in a reality where time travel is possible, the only versions that survive are the one's in which we don't time travel.
I am glad you said "this particular version of 'reality''. Because thats all it is, a particular measure based on certain assumptions.This also means that this particular version of 'reality' is our equivalent of a straight line. 'A' follows 'B' in a linear series of cause and effect, because any series that diverges from that path gets destroyed.
Not sure what you mean by God walking around the garden. Didn't Christ walk around the garden.The conclusion: the source of reality is such that it will by its very nature give rise to linear series, with no discernible need for intent. But this isn't to assume that that intent isn't there anyway. Theists may well be correct, and reality may simply be the product of God's nature, and I wouldn't disagree. Where I would question them however, is in their understanding of God. When He starts walking around in a garden, then me and many theists are gonna have a problem.
The point was 'Time' is a human made concept, an abstract idea about time. The abstract idea itself is not an objectively real thing and therefor cannot be verified scientifically. So human ideas about what time represents, what it is are not the objective truth independent of humans.So?
Try developing a description of time for rock, a tree, a bucket of water, etc.
Who else cares about descriptions of time other than us humans?
Are you serious?
Thats the point, its circular reasoning. Its true because we say its true. But in reality humans don't agree what time is or represents. There are many ideas about what time represents in the world. Some natives have no idea of westernised concept of time. They have no clocks.Humans do.
The best way to understand time is through the only way we can know time which is our conscious experience of time. Now it seems strange to me that when trying to understand 'time' that we devise some 3rd party measure beyond our experience rather than actually using the experience itself for what it is warts and all.The only other way to 'know what time represents as fundemental reality' is by dreaming up a fanciful fiction about what fundamental reality is. (I suppose if you keep sprouting that fiction, then some gullible person will eventually believe it, too .. but not scientific thinkers .. that's for sure).
I agree but it does have a bearing on what is beyond science, how we can know what 'time' is beyond the qunatified measure of it. Surely your not claiming that so called 'real science' is the ultimate truth about what time actually is.The limits of your understanding, perhaps, but it has no bearing on any real science.
Parte del mio problema sta nell'ottenere informazioni di prima mano. In altre parole, non voglio dover fare affidamento su ciò che ha detto il dottor Castanon riguardo a ciò che ha detto il dottor Lawrence. O quello che ha detto il dottor Castanon su quello che ha detto qualche laboratorio. Voglio vedere i veri rapporti di laboratorio o un documento che confermi cose come il cambio di opinione del dottor Lawrence. Senza quello sono solo dicerie. @Mountainmike sembra riluttante a fornire tale documentazione e non ho intenzione di andare a comprare qualche libro solo per trovare un riassunto di due o tre paragrafi dei risultati.
Fino ad allora rimarrò scettico, perché sembrerebbe essere la cosa più prudente da fare, in caso di dubbio, chiedere documentazione, se non ne arriva nessuna probabilmente c'è un motivo.
Except light doesn't always travel in straight lines and can also bend. Also if the observer is the one that is creating that measure and outcome then the photon was in superposition until it was observed by a conscious observer thus giving it position in time and space.
Even the way light behaves and when observed depends on the relative position its being observed from and even within that light can be observed different from the same position. Which seems to show that it doesn't always travel in a straight line from its origin and that observation can influence how its positioned within the objective world. The famous Dress (gold or dark blue comes to mind). Colour inversion is another.
In a flat spacetime photons only travel in straight lines. More generally they follow geodesics of the curved spacetime. Feynman's analysis still applies.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?