************************************************** **
It went boom! But at least they learned a valuable lesson there. NASA has had quite a few "expensive" lessons; both in wasted time and money, and in human life.

"It's a very sobering feeling to be up in space and realize that one's safety factor was determined by the lowest bidder on a government contract." Alan Shepherd

Brainwaves
 

All of us work out to develop and tone up our muscles. But purportedly, there is a way to tone up the brain and understand it's working even better. Its called EEG...

Electro-EncephaloGraph. Its also known as the Neurofeedback or Biofeedback machine. It moniters the brain waves (like alpha, beta, theta, delta) and lets us know using a sonic or visual signal... we in turn focus our minds and try to generate the waves of the highest order. In so doing we learn to control the brain and be more relaxed, conscious and creative. Ofcourse its available in the hospitals, but I'm talking about the smaller ones for household use. Is it effective as a neuro-development device? How much does it cost?

Nasa software uses metric... especially after the units mix-up with the mars orbiter. But Nasa hardware often uses english because their tools and machines are still in english. It would be a huge expense to retool their shops.

It didn't go boom, it just didn't didn't enter mars orbit and kept on going because of mistakes with english vs metric units.

I'm going to get on my Nasa soapbox now. Yes, Nasa learned a lesson from that, and from the shuttle accidents. But the real lesson to be learned was with congress, and it certainly fell on deaf ears. I've heard a lot of complaints against Nasa. The shuttle is too expensive. They have too many accidents. They don't have their eye on the real mission - sending people to mars. Well the problem all along has been with congress and presidents. Nasa knows how to reduce costs in the shuttle. They can reduce accidents, and they would love nothing more than to send humans to mars. The problem is lack of funding. Congress and the American people would like nasa to do all these things, but Congress & presidents won't pay for it.

The shuttle has high operating costs because they were short changed during the development of the shuttle. So they skimped on design and shifted the costs to operational costs. The shuttle had to prove to be cost effective so they had to have a high flight rate and launch satellites that could have been launched by unmanned rockets. So they didn't listen to engineers that said it was too cold to launch Challenger.

They also skimped on testing because there were no funds for testing. Testing that would have shown the real dangers of falling debris which led to the Columbia accident.

So did congress & Bush learn from past mistakes? No. Bush proposed a new program called Vision for Space Exploration. The program is fantastic, and exactly what our country's space program needs to make huge advances. All the rockets required are being developed under a program called Constellation. The aim is not the moon, not mars, but for Nasa to learn how humans can travel, live and work throughout the solar system to exploit literally new worlds of resources. Bush can't even provide full funding for his own plan. Again Nasa is having to skimp on design which will translate into higher operational costs, and possibly lives of future astronauts. Democrats in congress criticized him on underfunding Nasa throughout his terms. So what do the democrats do now that they are in charge? Rather than correcting Bush's mistake of underfunding Nasa they throw together the Augustine Commission with the initial goal of declaring Ares I (the launcher for the new capsule) as too expensive. It is clear that congress will NEVER learn the consequences of underfunding space programs. This is rocket science... it's going to take some dollars. To fully fund the Constellation program would take another $3 billion per year. Congress belched out $2 billion for the cash for clunkers program like it was chump change, and Obama just spend about $2 trillion on BS programs. Don't get cheap now. Nasa's budget is just .5% of the nations budget. And on top of Nasa's budget, lawmakers tacked on an extra $750 million in pork barrel spending for their districts - for things like a dinosaur museum and other non-Nasa business.

Look at this:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/co...s_aug09_1.html

This is the Ares 1-X launcher that's assembled and ready to go within a couple of months. It's the first test Ares launcher and it could very well get canceled before it can even launch. :censored:

Controlling the most advanced computer we know of
 

************************************************** **********

Is it effective?

Yes, to a small extent. Let me draw an analagy here. Suppose you had a thousand piece orchestra which you place in a large building. Then you place a rockband in there with them. Then you add the Morman Tabernacle Choir, a country western band, some soloist instrumentalists, a few solo singers, and a German polka band. And they all begin to play and sing. You, on the outside, are monitoring the data you are getting from your fifty contact microphones which you have applied to 3 of the 4 outside walls of the building. Now, you wish to affect what your michrophones are reading. You can not hear what it sounds like inside the building; all you know is what your data reports. The only ways you have to affect the inside enviroment is by raising or lowering the temperature inside, changing the rate at which fresh air is pumped into the building, dimming or raising the lights, and shouting instructions to the musicians via a loudspeaker. However, the only language you speak is Pashtan, which none of them understand. Can you affect the data that your instruments are picking up? Oh yes! You notice that when you flash the lights off and on; there is a change. When you scream via the loudspeaker, you see that the data change. When you turn off the air exchange, the data gradually tends toward a flatline as more and more members inside fall unconscious, and then begins to peak more after you restore the air and people revive. And so on. Then if you really want to change your data, you introduce some hallucinogenic drug into the air system, or give them only whiskey to drink.

The point here is that the brain is a wonderously complex computer and we are trying to decipher it's workings and affect them from a relatively small number of data pickups which are located outside the walls of it's container.
This area of human exploration is still in it's infancy and it is debatable what much of the data signifies.

Cost. You can buy bio-feedback devices for under $100 for very simple ones, or more complex ones that cost multi-thousands. An EEG machine that is up to scientific standards falls into the tens of thousands of dollars range and requires a great deal of expertise to interpret the data. The cheaper machines that you might buy for home use will have limited data pick up and readout, depending on what you pay for. Yes they do work in the sense that with practice you can affect what the data is reading. However, there are many false claims and misrepresentations out there by quacks and frauds. If you really want to try this, I suggest you start small and go from there. Get a small bio-feedback device and find out if it works for you.

Sounds to me like it went "Boom"
 

The Mars Climate Orbiter was intended to enter orbit at an altitude of 140-150 km (460,000-500,000 ft.) above Mars. However, a navigation error caused the spacecraft to reach as low as 57 km (190,000 ft.). The spacecraft was destroyed by atmospheric stresses and friction at this low altitude. The navigation error arose because a NASA subcontractor (Lockheed Martin) used Imperial units (pound-seconds) instead of the metric system.

went boom = destroyed

Amen to the rest of your statement!

Thank you Jenae, for the neurofeedback thing. This point blank answer is really funny, so thanks again for using your sense of humour.:D


To Tracycoxx:

I have heard *some* people say that NASA is filled with Agenda-Pushing Bureaucrats! If that is true, then you cant blame the Congress for all the episodes that ended with a misfire! NASA itself needs an ablution.:p

Brainwaves
 

Jenae, your answer was a Loooong one, but with little essence! No games, remember? Thats your promise. The facts about the cost and which brand to buy is not known to me. You can help me there if you want to. You have only mentioned a 100$ :( and nothing else!

Scientific Facts

We can know a lot about the brain with an eeg-neurofeedback device. And we can really control it. You know, Jenae, whats wrong with your analogy? You said we have access only to the external, when actually we have access to the most internal phenomenon of the brain.

Its the Mind!

So, we can monitor the waves with an eeg and the inside of the brain with the mind itself. And we can discover what clicks the generation of a particular brainwave. Thats why they call it feedback. Whatever thought or, emotion or, meditative mood causes a wave, we can feed more of it to the brain with the mind!

Waves:

alpha wave = usually occurs in dreaming. In wakeful state it denotes relaxed mood and contentment. It increases the efficiency of that individual.

Beta wave = nervous tension and anxiety, unhappiness.

Theta wave = usually happens in sleeping state. It may occur in waking state in short bursts... only to denote creative impulses and problem solving insights.

Delta wave = Complete relaxation. It occurs only in Deep Sleep state, where REM stops.

If you can control your brainwaves, you can be like ... ...
Albert Einstein or, Leonardo da Vinci. :D Yay!

Ah yes. I was thinking of the Mars Observer. But then come to think of it, that one probably blew up too.

What agenda are you talking about? If it's the agenda of getting to the moon or mars, then yes, Nasa has them.

p.s., why do SO MANY emails in this thread look like RANSOM NOTES?!

"If we cannot prove something's existence, it must be non-existent." OR, "If I cannot detect something, it must be a lie."

These statements are illogical and utterly Unscientific. There are scores of things that we know nothing about. But our ignorance cannot hinder their existence. Take for example, the Radio waves. Nobody knew about radio waves before Heinrich Rudolf Hertz discovered them in 1888 AD; Yet they have existed in full glory since the beginning of this Universe!

We cannot prove the existence of God or, Soul with our scientific instruments. But that doesnt disprove the existence of such an entity.

Yes, anyone can believe in anything... but that doesnt make it real or unreal. The Truth remains as it is.

Emails?? In this forum? I dont see any emails here! Do you mean posts?:confused:

To Jenae
 

Ransom notes? ( letting out a big sigh :rolleyes: )

To Jenae La Torque:
OK, Jenae, you are not obliged to answer everything I ask. Its just that I Love this thread, you had started and nourished so far. Its one of the most information-rich threads in the whole forum! You seem to be someone with a sizable IQ. Thats why I like bombarding you with challenges. Its not malicious, just an intellectual joust.:respect::respect:

P.S. To Tracycoxx:
My joust with Jenae is a matter of mutual consideration. Does it bother you?

Pluto
 

The International Astronomical Union declared Pluto as the Nineth Planet of our solar system in 1930. Why has it suddenly been kicked out of the list?

I'm not speaking for Jenae but as an atheist myself. Yes, it's unscientific to say conclusively that there's no god. But although I hold science in high regard, we still must make judgement calls, because the existence of god is not going to be scientifically resolved in our lifetime, if ever. But each of us must make up our minds. I can scientifically explain much of what many religious people would attribute to god, except for the big bang. I can't explain how the universe came from nothing. But saying god did it doesn't explain the even more bizarre concept of a god coming from nothing. For me, there is absolutely no reason to think there is a god, except for ancient myths. But scientifically, I cannot rule it out. But then, scientifically, there's no reason to think there is a god. So for myself, I decide based on the preponderance of evidence that the universe behaves according to physical laws, and that there is no good scientific evidence of the supernatural, that I do not believe in a god. So color me atheist.

Of course NOT. Actually I agree. Jenae has done well with this thread.

God
 

Our decisions only affect ourselves, as I said before, the Truth remains the same no matter what we believe in.


You could attribute to God, apart from the first bang, called as Nada or primal sound in Yoga, the creation of life! Science with all it's paraphernalia cannot create it yet! Not even a single cell!
Or could you explain by science how the oxygen cycle, water cycle, all the inter-dependence of living beings become so well planned? I guess the atheists would rather give the credit to a Lucky Accident! (Like the way they try to mumbo-jumbo the origin of life :lol: . Science believing in Luck!) Imagine, every reaction, every fusion, all the cycles of the Universe taking place due to a series of Lucky Accidents! This must be the idea of a mad Pocker Player!


I find every aspect of Nature to be a miracle. Men are so proud that they have created energy! Look at the ocean, look at all the sunlight in a single day, billions of Kilo Joules of power! We create electricity, ...Look at a single thunderstorm; it unleashes more electricity a whole Nation can produce in a Year! We created nuclear power... the sun runs with Nuclear fission. We can invent things, because it is already there in Nature! Michael Faraday created the first ever electric motor... he discovered electromagnetic induction. Did you know that he worshipped Nature as God?

Why is this NOTHING so favourite to you?
Why does it have to be the beginning of everything? To the Theists, God is the origin and end of everything. Whatever you call It, God, consciousness, soul... or some even paint a name and personality on It... like Elahi, God, Krishna, Jesus, because people cannot relate to It otherwise.:p The real thing is that Ultimate Truth or Consciousness! It is. It has always been there. The universes bloom and collapse upon the substratum of Truth.

You may dislike Religions. But they are just institutions either ushering people to that Truth or trying to take advantage of the believers. But God (I hope you are not allergic to that term; its more convenient than X, Y, or It) is beyond such group activities. "Believe in our dogma, or you will go to hell." If I can find this statement foolish, I'm sure God feels more so! Seriously I believe God as the Fountainhead of Consciousness, of existence. Nobody can deny his own Consciousness!

Tracy, As you may, or may not have noticed, I am reluctant to accept the label "atheist" as I indicated in post #165. I prefer to align myself with Sam Harris in that regard. If you are not familiar with Sam Harris; please take time to watch some of his talks on youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=630y_aBIuc0 is a good one to start with.

He makes the point very well that since we do not have a label for those that don't believe in astrology, Elvis is still alive, or the Earth is flat; then why should we be labeled. We aren't the ones that are making claims on silly, unsubstantiated notions. It is the theists who should be the ones to bear a label, not us. We are the ones who are being rational.

Please watch Sam and join with the rest of us who don't believe we should be labeled so.

[quote=sesame;102666]Our decisions only affect ourselves, as I said before, the Truth remains the same no matter what we believe in.
************************************************** *******

The Truth! ????

Sesame, you are the one who is blinding himself to the truth.

I have to wonder if you really understand the basic concepts of evolution since you refer to evolutionary steps as "accidents". From the context of your statements, I think that you don't understand that the definition of accident as used by scientists means " by chance ". To illustrate this point:

1. If you drop a coin from a hand's breath above a flat level surface, most of the times it will end up resting flat on the table. Once in a while though - it will by chance end up standing on it's rim. I know this because I have seen it several times in my life. Improbable things do happen. If you don't believe so, then read any of Charles Fort's books or at least Google him on the internet and read up on the amazing things that happen by chance. LOL You referred to mad ( crazy or pissed off? ) Pocker ( Poker ?) players. I have played enough poker in my life to experiance losing a hand while holding 4 aces. And, No!, I wasn't mad....just amazed.

2. If you are with me so far, then I would like to expound on the "accident of life" in terms of chance. How many atoms in the sea? Gazillions right? How many seconds in the time span that scientists believe life formed in. Gazillions right? So we have gazillions of atoms and gazillions of seconds for one event to occur - the first step in evolution by chance. It is very probable that this first step happened many, many times. Some of those progressed no further, but some made a second step....and a third ....and a fourth....and a fifth and so on. All of the changes occur by chance. Those "accidents" that contribute to the survival of the species in some way are then sometimes passed on to offspring. All of the rest of evolutionary theory follows from this. Now it seems to me that you have only a very rudimentry and somewhat fragmented knowledge of science in this area. There has been a lot of effort by theists of one type or another to bring science down in this area. So far they have failed. The best any of them can do is point out that we don't know yet how some things work, which is a far cry from disproving the legitimate claims of science. To say that we are unable to produce a single living cell yet doesn't mean that there is a god somewhere that can. The only way they could prove such a thing to my satisfaction would be to produce through their prayers, meditation, sacrifices, or whatever mumbo jumbo, a living cell. Come on, it's time for a good old fashioned miracle here. LOL We seem to be in short supply of them lately.

3. "I find every aspect of Nature to be a miracle." - Sesame

I am sure that by miracle you mean the definition as "wondrous, amazing, or remarkable" and not as "something which apparently contradicts known scientific laws". If you mean wonderous, I agree, Nature is amazing! It is amazing what Nature does for us- it is amazing that a volcano can erupt and wipe out villiages below, it is amazing that the ocean can produce tsunami waves that can wipe out thousands of people and destroy what man has built along the shoreline, it is amazing that earthquakes can destroy and kill so much. Now these would not be referred to as miracles by most people in history; rather as "wrath of god" events. Not to be nitpicky, but the sun is an example of Nuclear fusion not fission.

4. "We can invent things, because it is is already there in Nature!" - Sesame
You had best explain this apparently silly statement. While you are at, it please find me an example of an electric motor in nature.

5. As to Michael Faraday believing in Nature as god. Are you saying that he believed in Nature as a supernatural being or entity who created the world and manages it? What do you mean by saying he worshipped it?

That is enough for now, I have things to do now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sesame (Post 102510) Jenae, your answer was a Loooong one, but with little essence! No games, remember? Thats your promise. The facts about the cost and which brand to buy is not known to me. You can help me there if you want to. You have only mentioned a 100$ :( and nothing else!

You didn't grasp the concept I see. All of those wave types that you went to great pains to list are only general divisions of wave forms that are typical of various mind states. Very, very general divisions. We can't point to a wave form and say, "Sesame is thinking of a long legged brunette Tgirl with d-cup breasts." No; we can't even tell if you are looking at a blue screen or a red one. No, it's even worse than my analogy. At least there by selecting one microphone we may be able to tell you that the polka band just the other side in playing "Roll out the Barrel".


And yes they are still external. The pickup sensors are on the outside of the brain. Do you think they are measuring the electrical activity at the core of the brain? Just like the microphones on the outside wall of the analogy will not pickup a solo singer in the middle of the building.

The whole point here is that I don't believe it is worthwhile to invest anything in a EEG device, at this stage of its development and application, for anyone outside of scientific inquiry. That is why I suggested you start small. As to finding out what is available, did you check for yourself by using Google? I just took a quick look and there are all kinds of EEG and other bio feedback devices on the net. I myself will not reccomend any of them. Just as I wouldn't recommend you buy a pocket knife if your intention was to clear a forest.

And, if you have "access to the most internal phenomenon of the brain", then I am sure many scientists would love for you to join them and demonstrate your mastery of this. They would even let you use their EEG machines for free.

Brain Mastery is not impossible
 

Oh Jenae, dear sister, I can see that you couldn't grasp the concept! Ofcourse the EEG is an external device and its monitoring the brainwaves from the surface of the brain. So, yes they ARE external. Yet we have the inborn facility to access the most internal phenomenon of the brain. I will explain that later.

:lol: You can make me laugh, even when we are fighting. Witty!

Jenae, we as human beings are capable of thinking, analyzing and meditating on account of having complex minds! This Mind is the facility I'm talking about. This almost ever-active Mind is the most important phenomenon taking place in the brain. Alas, the scientists have it too. So the chance you told me about is gone!

But all intellectual fights aside, its truely amazing to think that we can achieve very high levels of brain mastery! Imagine if you could instantly go to a relaxed state at will, or, gain very deep insights, or, be highly creative whenever you wanted! Then you could be a genius!

There was a scientific investigation carried out in the Tokyo University using EEG under a strictly monitored environment. 48 Zen Buddhist monks aged between 24 to 72 were selected. The same number of volunteers were taken, who had no experience in mind training. They were all supposed to meditate for 30 minutes, sitting crosslegged, with eyes open and focus on a spot on the floor 3 feet ahead.

The untrained group exhibitted the anxious beta waves throughout the whole time. But the Zen monks surprised everyone. They slipped into very relaxed alpha waves in the first 10 minutes, then they went into the Theta state denoting amazing creativity and insight. This inner peace, achievable only in sleeping state was demonstrated by them with eyes wide open!

There was something I read yesterday...
I think it applies here. We may not have deduced the path from individual hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, etc... atoms to amino acids to RNA to cells, but that does not mean that isn't how it happened. We have data points in chemistry, astrobiology and biology that start to paint the picture on how life evolved from inanimate matter. Here's an article that shows one piece of the puzzle:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...n-the-lab.html


The Earth's atmosphere wasn't always like this. It originally consisted of hydrogen & helium. These light gasses easily escaped the Earth when heated by the sun. Then the atmosphere was primarily water vapor, CO2, methane and ammonia. 3.8 billion years ago, life started, and began to alter the atmosphere. The CO2 and water vapor content decreased while nitrogen rose. Life forms breathed primarily CO2. If they could think they would thank the gods for creating such a perfect CO2 atmosphere for them.

Beginning at 2.5 billion years ago, the atmosphere began to change again as early life forms exhaled oxygen into the atmosphere. As more and more oxygen entered the atmosphere some species evolved to breath oxygen.

Of course, if conditions were not right for life here, there would be no life to marvel at how perfect conditions are for life. Isn't this obvious? Life would sprout elsewhere where conditions happen to be favorable.

Straw man argument. You mischaracterize atheists' views and then point out how silly they are. It's not just luck that conditions are right for life here on Earth. Is it just luck that we have a beautiful sunny day here? No, it happened because of a high pressure zone that moved over where I live. The high pressure zone is from the movement of temperature zones caused by solar heating and the Earth's rotation, etc. Actually, the mineral content of our earth and the solar system in general are due the prior contents of the gas & dust cloud that existed here before the formation of the solar system, and also to a local super nova that spread heavier elements, including radioactive aluminum, which decays into magnesium (a common element among the rocky planets). Other evidence of the super nova include diamond dust found in meteorites dating more than 5 billion years old.


It is amazing, but it's all ultimately explainable.

If you want to worship nature, fine. But it doesn't make sense to worship something that is by definition natural as something supernatural.


Good question. Nothing, as I see it, is the complete absence of matter and energy. Most of our physical laws are based on the geometry of space-time. Why does our spacetime have 3 spatial dimensions, and one dimension of time? It is very likely has more dimensions as string theories suggest. But whatever the configuration, why that configuration? So nothing would include the absence of spacetime and all other dimensions as well. In fact, any attribute you might use to describe 'nothing' would not be applicable because that would be something.

Why is this state a favorable beginning? Because anything other than nothing would beg the question: How did that come to be?

I can without effort.

Makes sense to me...

Prove it first by creating life. How about "Life came from Life force itself"?

Exhale oxygen!!! Its like that "emails in this thread" thing all over again! Did you mean emit by photosynthesis?

I didnt say the Ultimate Consciousness is devoid of energy! It is the source of all energy. With E=mc^2 and matter-antimatter collisions, you can see that there is a state when all matter fuses into Energy. But here you and I differ. You prefer stupid energy and I conscious energy.

You take nature for granted, as if you know it all! I think we know very little about nature. How old is our knowledge of science? 200 years maximum. Natural and Supernatural are different terms concocted by us! But Nature is one. We call Supernatural whatever we cannot explain with our limited knowledge. But it belongs to the same Nature.

You cant deny your own consciousness. Because if you do, you prove that you are conscious.

With the current discussion going on about origins here is a question that is more philosophical than scientific (although there might be some science to it).

What was there before the big bang and how long was the period before the big bang?

How do you define time?
Where was time before the big bang?


Space is such an important factor in multi dimensions!
How much space did this universe occupy before the big bang?

How many times did this universe expand and collapse? Like Bang...Bang...Bang...

How long has it been doing it?

Since year 0

I had higher expectations for this conversation. You seemed like someone who could grasp the experiments in evolution I cited. You make a huge point out of a trivial use of words to draw attention away from the fact that I showed that your oxygen cycle, water cycle, and the inter-dependence of living beings example doesn't necessarily have to be planned by a god. Yes I know plankton do not have lungs. Blood receives oxygen in the avioli in the lungs. That's how animals exhale CO2. Photosynthesis is the mechanism plants and microorganisms use which uses CO2 and oxygen is the byproduct - i.e. exhales oxygen "i.e. give forth gaseous matter". Look it up, but try and keep up with the actual content of the conversation.

Same with the nothingness I described. Try and focus here: Why is this NOTHING so favourite to me. (and no I won't ridicule your grammer there): Because anything other than nothing (and yes, that would include conscious energy) would beg the question: How did that come to be?

Stop deflecting and continue the conversation.

__________________________________________________ __________

So.... our knowledge of science only goes back 200 years? maximum? Ok, let's seen now 2009 ...minus.... 200 .... equals....... 1809. No science before the year 1809. Oh, you are absolutely right ...... there were no scientists before then........ they were heretics and unbelievers Best to burn em, hang em. whatever, ...just shut them up before they erode the faith of the faithful. Fie on Newton! To hell with Benjamin Franklin! Keep Galileo in jail until he dies!:lol::lol::lol:

Nature as God
 

Just because scientists have observed a few Laws, dont take nature for granted! "Oh, its that simple nature we've always known!"
NO! Its that Ancient, mostly Unknown Nature, that has controlled everything since the beginning of time. All the mysteries are inside her belly!

Who conveniently created life from non-living matter? Who sustained it in this hostile environment? What caused so much water in liquid form on earth? Who taught the first phototrophic bacteria or algae to photosynthesize? What plan caused the emitted oxygen to support all other lifeforms? All other cycles... Nitrogen, CO2, H2O, Aminoacids, RNA, DNA... ... I mean not only things concerned with life, but also atoms, their structure, their properties, sub-atomic particles, electrons, their orbits, their hungry and satisfied states... its amazingly well planned! You think all these connections happened by chance? This unscientific fascination of prejudiced scientists with Chance or, Accident or, Luck is so illogical!

Just think of it, the states of matter, solid, liquid, gas, ionic vapour, plasma, fusion, energy... its arranged in a perfect order! Come on, Tracy, this cannot be random!

I am not talking about the insane worship ritual of some deity here. I am talking about Nature in the most Logical manner.

Logical thoughts
 

There was no theory of relativity or Quantum mechanics then. I know Gallileo died in 1642. Kepler lived before 1630 and Copernicus before 1543.

If you really want to go back, Euclid lived in the 3rd century BC and there was Vedic Mathematics 1000s of years ago.

Great sage Kapil, the author of Samkhya Philosophy admitted the existence of soul, but denied God, in absence of proof! (Samkhya gave rise to Vedanta and Tantra )
In the Later Vedic age, Philosopher Charvak said, there is no afterlife, so take huge loans, eat butter, enjoy life. There is no God to punish you!

So what? In every age, some people believed in God, some remained sceptics. What I am trying to say is, that Nature's perfect engineering is proof enough of a Higher consciousness. Nature herself is God!

I am not looking for some bearded man on a throne, set upon some clouds, who either sends you to heaven, or, to eternal hellfire, for the work of one tiny lifetime! This idea is indeed preposterous.:p

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well then you had best explain how Nature is God. And don't give me that perfect engineering nonsense again, and everything in Nature is a miracle BS.

If nature is such a perfect engineer, then somebody better talk to whoever is in charge of quality control.

The fact is that you are suffering from PITS syndrome and you are the only one who can cure yourself of it. You don't seem to have as bad of a case as a lot of people, so perhaps there is hope for you.

Who created the entity who caused all these things? Who created the entity that created the entity who caused all these things? Who created...

When did I say it was random? Actually you claimed that was my position before and I called you out on your strawman argument. I went through lengthy explanations of cause and effect examples showing that it wasn't just random. Apparently that went in one eyeball and out the other. If you want to have meaningful discussions you will have to stop mischaracterizing my position.

Astronomers tell us that the universe is expanding.

What is the universe expanding into?

Is it displacing anything as it expands?

How much more can it expand?

Again you are mischaracterizing. Who brought up bearded men on thrones and heaven and hell?

Evidence of order is not evidence of consciousness. Take the game of life for example. These complex designs
http://www.codeproject.com/KB/cs/Gam...rit/Life35.png
were created by a few simple rules:

* A cell is either dead or alive.

* Each cell (dead or alive) is evaluated according to the number of immediate neighbours (maximum eight in original model).

* Then according to the number of neighbors, each cell may be born, stay alive or die.

(and yes, I know a consciousness invented the game of life, but that was only to create the virtual world where simple physics exists). You can claim that a consciousness created the laws that govern the universe and gave rise to life on earth like a gigantic game of life. But still, who created the consciousness? What does the consciousness exist in before it creates the universe?

Here's an example that doesn't include any consciousness. It's just math. The mandelbrot set, which uses the iterated equation Z = Z2 + C. From that, infinitely complex fractals can be created.
http://www.ddewey.net/mandelbrot/spiral.png

Is there ANYTHING else other than nature? Are you not a part of Nature? If nature had not designed it so perfectly, how could anything work? Would atoms react to form compounds? Would haemoglobin in blood react with oxygen? Would calcium ions be effective in the synapse... and allow you to formulate arrogant answers?

Your medula oblongata controls your breathing automatically. Your heart cells vibrate automatically. Your enzymes and hormones secrete on time... and allow you to live. Its a miracle that you are alive and not falling down dead like a pebble... thats because we dont sustain ourselves, we dont control our muscles, glands and nerves! Nature does it for us.

Nature is miraculous, her laws are mysterious... such were the thoughts of Michael Faraday(without whom there would be no motor today, no generators... we would be using oil lamps and candles... Now, forget the quantum theory and relativity by Albert ). Einstein considered himself to be a child collecting pebbles on the shores of Nature. (He was not an atheist. He changed his several religion more than once in his lifetime.)

And here comes little Jenae, proud of her bookish knowledge and wikipedia quotes... who is blind to nature's awesome power (she must be raving mad!!!)


Yeah, your logic is so unsound. The expanded and contracted Universe cannot occupy the same amount of space! One is extremely big, another is very small in volume.

Thats a good one! I guess you are too tired to think straight today.

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. ~Albert Einstein

In his later years he referred to a cosmic religious feeling that permeated and sustained his scientific work. He wished to experience the universe as a single cosmic whole..

In 1926 Einstein said, "He [God] does not throw dice" referring to randomness thrown up by quantum theory.

Sesame~ This is what I am saying that in Nature, everything is well planned, nothing is a random or chance occurence.

I don't quite see the point in asking questions that you know full well are unanswerable at this time. What is your point here? Do you suspect I am an alien from a super advanced race, and might impart some wisdom to you?;) Do you want some nonsense answers like I gave Sesame when he asked the same type of questions? :lol: Are you drawing attention to the fact that there is so much in the universe that we don't know, not to mention what lies beyond it? So what? So where? and So how?

Is there ANYTHING else other than nature? Are you not a part of Nature? If nature had not designed it so perfectly, how could anything work? Would atoms react to form compounds? Would haemoglobin in blood react with oxygen? Would calcium ions be effective in the synapse... and allow you to formulate arrogant answers?

Your medula oblongata controls your breathing automatically. Your heart cells vibrate automatically. Your enzymes and hormones secrete on time... and allow you to live. Its a miracle that you are alive and not falling down dead like a pebble... thats because we dont sustain ourselves, we dont control our muscles, glands and nerves! Nature does it for us.

Nature is miraculous, her laws are mysterious... such were the thoughts of Michael Faraday(without whom there would be no motor today, no generators... we would be using oil lamps and candles... Now, forget the quantum theory and relativity by Albert ). Einstein considered himself to be a child collecting pebbles on the shores of Nature. (He was not an atheist. He changed his several religion more than once in his lifetime.)

And here comes little Jenae, proud of her bookish knowledge and wikipedia quotes... who is blind to nature's awesome power (she must be raving mad!!!)


Yeah, your logic is so unsound. The expanded and contracted Universe cannot occupy the same amount of space! One is extremely big, another is very small in volume.

Thats a good one! I guess you are too tired to think straight today.

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. ~Albert Einstein

In his later years he referred to a cosmic religious feeling that permeated and sustained his scientific work. He wished to experience the universe as a single cosmic whole.. Einstein became angry when his views were appropriated by evangelists for atheism. :yes:

In 1926 Einstein said, "He [God] does not throw dice" referring to randomness thrown up by quantum theory.

Sesame~ This is what I am saying that in Nature, everything is well planned, nothing is a random or chance occurrence.

There is no correct answer to what I asked. It is all a philosophical discussion. I was hoping to spark a discussion among the members on what their thoughts are on this subject.

If you read the post above in referance to more foolish questions then it should be obvious why I replied as I did.

Now I can see why you think Einstein was in your camp. That quote of his regarding god's dice has been brought up so many times we are literally sick of hearing it. The correct quote is " God does not play at dice with the Universe." which or course did refer to his uneasiness at the implications of quatum theory. There is nothing there to suggest that Einstein believed in a god. What he also said was:

The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.
But I am convinced that such behavior on the part of representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress. In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself. This is, to be sure, a more difficult but an incomparably more worthy task ...

and

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. -- Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press

some more quotes by good old Albert:


The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.
-- Albert Einstein, in a letter responding to philosopher Eric Gutkind, who had sent him a copy of his book Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt; quoted from James Randerson, "Childish Superstition: Einstein's Letter Makes View of Religion Relatively Clear: Scientist's Reply to Sell for up to £8,000, and Stoke Debate over His Beliefs" The Guardian, (13 May 2008)

I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.
-- Albert Einstein, obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955, quoted from James A Haught, "Breaking the Last Taboo" (1996)

I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.
-- Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press

One thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike -- and yet it is the most precious thing we have.
-- Albert Einstein, echoing Robert Green Ingersoll ("I admit that reason is a small and feeble flame, a flickering torch by stumblers carried in the star-less night, -- blown and flared by passion's storm, -- and yet, it is the only light. Extinguish that, and nought remains." from the Field-Ingersoll Debate), quoted from PhysLink.com

I myself like this one the best:

The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion. Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions, and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seem to me to be empty and devoid of meaning.
The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. The religion which based on experience, which refuses dogmatic. If there's any religion that would cope the scientific needs it will be Buddhism....
If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed.
The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.
Immortality? There are two kinds. The first lives in the imagination of the people, and is thus an illusion. There is a relative immortality which may conserve the memory of an individual for some generations. But there is only one true immortality, on a cosmic scale, and that is the immortality of the cosmos itself. There is no other.
-- Albert Einstein, quoted in Madalyn Murray O'Hair, All the Questions You Ever Wanted to Ask American Atheists (1982) vol. ii., p. 29

I think you had better come up with sources on when and where Einstein became angry and more importantly, the reason he became angry.

There were 3 possibilities. The universe is closed, and therefore shaped like a 4D sphere, flat, or open, and shaped like a 4D hyperboloid. The WMAP probe has given us the answer. To very close approximation, the universe is flat. So it extends out to infinity in all directions.

It can still expand. The distance between two points in the universe will, on the whole, increase.

How much more can it expand? Forever.

__________________________________________________ _____________

I am not blind to the awesome power of nature. And I cerainly am not raving mad. You are the one who is ready to worship nature as a god because you believe it is perfect and so well planned. And all without any evidence. That is irrational behavior. It is irrational to believe that nature is perfect when there are so many examples of things that go wrong in Nature.
When you encounter a child with a cleft palatte, or when you meet a person with Down's syndrome, do you say "Praise Nature for making you this way."
When Nature brings a tsunami to your shores and kills thousands of people, do you just smile and say, "It is Nature's will." I should hope not. If I was standing where my house used to be and my family was all dead; then you come up to me and voice such opinions I would simply kill you and say "Ain't it wonderful that Nature needed you dead because you were TSTL."

Since this hasn't been answered, I'll go ahead and answer. Even though Pluto does have it's own moon, Pluto is smaller than the Earth's moon. Also, more and more objects have been discovered like large asteroids as well as large icy bodies beyond Pluto's orbit in the Kuiper belt. Not only that, but Pluto's orbit is inclined 17 degrees relative to the rest of the planets' orbits. So some astronomers have for years been wanting to downgrade Pluto's status as a planet.

Out of respect for Pluto's discoverer, Clyde Tombaugh, it has remained a planet. But after he died in 1997, there were increasing calls to downgrade Pluto. In 2006, the International Astronomical Union came up with some arbitrary categories of planetary bodies:
Planet
* is in orbit around the Sun
* has sufficient mass to be roundish
* has cleared its orbit of debris

A non satellite body fulfilling only the first two of these is a Dwarf Planet (which is what Pluto is now called). If it fulfills only the first criteria, it's a Small Solar System Body (SSSB).

So there are now 8 planets, and 5 dwarf planets in the solar system. They are Ceres (once considered a planet for many years), Pluto, Eris, Makemake, and Humea.

Tracy - Is Hoagland nuts?
 

I am interested in your views on Richard C. Hoagland's Hyperdimensional physics.

http://www.enterprisemission.com/hyper1.html

So what do you think? Is he on to something or is he another Velikovsky type?

Yeah, he's 100% nut job and has been for many years. There is more BS in that link than there is in Lubbock TX. Do you see anything in there of merit? If so we can start there.

I found the truth
 

:yes:______________________:yes:__________________ :yes:__________________:yes:

I found the truth abouth the "Face on Mars"!!! It is posted at:

http://www.geocities.com/beaver_militia/nasa.html

Now this really makes sense!:rolleyes: I guess I kinda always knew it too.

Hi there.

Remember when we first met (Posting VS Pictures)?

I said that "bisines is business" was an excuse for someone that had done something dispicable?

Well, if busines is business, why then in the movie "Duplicity" are the 2 ceo always at eachother'd throat, if business was business, when one got the other they would kinda laugh about it, since business is business and not personnal?

Oh, and it is a nice movie.

JohnDowe.

Business is Business
 

It is an ideal that the perfect businessman would like to attain, but is pretty much not possible for most humans. Which is mostly a good thing.

I think this really came out in the Godfather movies. That idea is used several times thoughout the series until Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) finally hollars BS and says it definately is personal.

I havent seen Duplicity yet, but am looking forward to seeing it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

Damn... the secret's out

Because they like picking on the "little" guys.

JohnDowe

Dear Jenae, could u please, identify this gorgeous girl? I've already tried a specific ID thread on this forum, but with no luck, infortunately! Thanks a lot in advance!

Pretty old pics here
 

_________________________________:yes:____________ _________________

These pics are at least 7 years old or even older. The name I have her filed as is Langa. On some of the pics she was named Nune. The last photoshoot I saw of her was after she got her boob job. Go ahead and post what you have of her in a new thread and I will add some. She merits her own thread and who knows what other members can contribute.

Tnx
 

Thank you so much, dear Jenae! You're the first who knows at least smth about this sweety! Any idea which exactly thread she should go to? Or if speaking about a completely new thread, maybe you can suggest a good title for it? Tnx! :respect:

Jenae, just let me say that you have nawty lookin eyes. makes me wonder whts going on behind them.

anyway, to the question i have for you.

why do dogs turn in a circle a few times before they go sleep? i have never come across a satisfactory answer to that one yet.

What are the definitions and the normal usage of "to imply"?

___________________________________:rolleyes:_____ _______________________

Asian Sweetheart Langa, Lovely Ladyboy Langa, Langa, aka Nune are some suggestions for hew own thread. Notice that I am just suggesting since I don't want you to tell me "where to go":lol:

Imply definitions
 

_______________________________:innocent:_________ ______________________

So you want to implicate me in this?:lol:

Imply 1. to involve as a necessary circumstance: speech implies a speaker. 2. (of words) to signify or mean. 3. to indicate or suggest, as something naturally to be inferred, without express statement.

I had noticed that some dogs did this and just assumed it was a doggy thing to do and never wondered why. I asked Bob why he did this and he said it was just the safe thing to do. "Safe thing?" I asked. "Ya," he said, "Ya wanna make sure it is safe to lie down and relax the old bones for a bit. It really sucks to get jumped when you are in the middle of a nice dream about Fifi." He continued, "Turning around gives me a mindset about where I am in relation to the universe ie. sights, smells, exits, etc.. That way if some bad shit comes down, I know which way to jump......and whose ass to bite!"

I was going to test this out the next time I saw him sleeping, but I only took one step towards him and his lip curled back and exposed his teeth as he slightly cracked an eyelid. Test over:lol:

Then I wonder why native English speaking people(I guess) say that it is used wrong in the question:

Answer: Yahoo

Is this a wrong usage? I would say definition 3 is correct, or do I not understand? Or is that not a normal use?

Yes I would say that the numeric sequence does imply Yahoo, because if you recognize that is an internet address, and enter it; you do arrive at the Yahoo site.

A very good sence of humor you have, swetheart! Thank u! I'm very pleased to deal with such a smart and intelligent person as you definitely are! :respect:
OK, let's start a new thread: "Lovely ladyboy Langa (aka Noone)" seems pretty appropriate title for it. So search it in this forum freebies's main menu and you're always welcome to add your content as well! ;)

Nads
 

Hey Jenae,
Do you have a name for the sweety I posted on "nads to love"?
Randolph

扁平胸 - 没有乳房 - 不漂亮
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Like the title says; not the kind of Tgirl I am interested in, so I don't even remember seeing her before.

Are there any REAL straight and factual accounts...
 

Jenea,

This one is probably NOT going to be found here on this website but maybe you or someone else knows where I might find...

A REAL and factual description of the feelings and "first impressions" a male to female transitioner feels immediately after the gender reassignment surgery, not the breast augmentation, but the genital reconstruction part.

If I must offer and explaination then here it is, and it is the truth. I would like to write a FANTASY story that involves a male to female transition happening somewhere around 1990-1995. When I read a story, I really like to read accurate and factual things in the stories, I appreciate an author who "does their homework" and gets it right. So when I write, I feel compelled to do my homework, in hopes that any of my readers will recognize that even though I write only fiction, it is accurate fiction that they can really get into.

So what exactly I am looking for is... What does the new woman feel and think in the first minutes, hours, and days following the surgery? Do they typically come out from under the anesthesia and feel like their (now non-existant) penis is hurting? Numb down there? Throbbing pain? No pain but maybe very aware of the empty place? Have any REAL male to female transitioners put their experiences up on the internet somewhere?

How soon after the surgery are they able to safely have sexual intercourse? Does is usually feel bad? Good?

Also, what do they FEEL in their emotions when this is done? "Oh damn! No going back now!" - or maybe - "Finally! So happy to have this finished!" Or do they feel like they are on a hormone drive emotional roller coaster?

For me better than most fake ones. I'm not sure if I got the context of the last. Not brilliant at swimming?

Edit: Word to word translation doesn't work. Now I got it, don't have to answer.

Why is there a lot of people who has fear of being outgoing? and why is there a lot of people who needs to humiliate other to feel good?

It is all part of the game called survival. The survival instinct is one of the prime components of our mental makeup and to some extent; our physical bodies outside of the brain. The thing that separates men from mice is our ability to overcome our fears by understanding the basis for them and then finding a way to transcend them. Is it an actual fear of being outgoing that people have, or is it a lack of confidence in themselves? There is nothing like success to breed confidence. A person who has had success in being outgoing, will be more outgoing. If you don't experiance success in being more outgoing and you wish to; then it is time to use your brain to evaluate why. What are you not doing right? Study those who are successful. Can you do what they do? Is it in your nature to act as they do? Can you change your nature? It is mostly a mental thing. Sure there are some who will have natural advantages in being more outgoing; they are bigger, smarter, stronger, more attractive, etc. When it comes right down to it, "men are not created equal." The important thing is to know your strengths and limitations. I wouldn't challenge Michael Jordan to a one-on-one game of basketball but I would take his money in a game of pocket billiards.

Social interaction is like a game, and there are rules and effective strategies to it just like any game. If you don't know the rules and/or don't have any experiance, then most of the time, it is best to play it easy until you do. If you screw up; then admit it (most importantly to yourself). Learn from it and figure out how you will do better next time. Don't rationalize the mistake, blame the other person(s), or lie to yourself; such thoughts are not helpful. And don't play the victim! While people may sympathize with a victim, they have admiration and respect for the one who gets back up and jumps back in the game.

For the record. Everyone you interact with, keeps a record of you in their memory. If you tell them lies all the time, then your record will be as a liar, and everything you say will be subject to disbelief. If you say a lot of inconsequential things, then they will not bother to listen well to what you say. However, if you only speak to say something insightful or wise, then your record will be as one who is worth paying attention to. We all know people who are outgoing "chatterboxes" who natter all the time and say nothing worth remembering or even thinking about much. It is a true test of friendship when you can sit with someone and just enjoy their presence without much being said. So people need to think about the records they are creating in other's minds. If you are creating good records then you will not fear to be more outgoing as you will have confidence that you will be listened to.

Humiliating others. Humiliating others is just a form of intimidation at times. It is a rat race out there and intimidation is often used to obtain the desired results. The key here is to probe the person's motivations. Is he just doing it to be a "meanie"? Or is he trying to motivate you to a differant mode of behavior or thought? That is what you need to figure out; the motivation behind the action. I have found that there are actually very few people who are "meanies". And 99% of those are of a brutish mentality anyway and need to be dealt with as such. Humiliation of a child is uncalled for unless the child has repeatably made the same mistake even after they understand the issue. Thus it is a very rare thing to need done. Humiliating adults is also a distasteful thing but is also sometimes necessary. Humiliation threshholds differ from one person to the next. What constitutes a humiliating intent on a chat board is differant from that of a face to face conversation. Face-to-face; a questioning look may be sufficient to get the point across that you are having trouble accepting what they are saying. On a chat board, you need to spell it out. Sometimes several times. People have a tendancy to state things that aren't true a lot on chat boards. I want facts and substantiation. If I am not buying what you are selling, I am going to say so. It is not a matter of feeling good because the other guy is made to look stupid; rather, it is a matter of having good information.

Do you like to go shooting? If so, what kind of guns do you shoot?

I live in Wyoming
 

__________________________________________________ ______________

We all got lots of guns in Wyoming. I am sure there are many more guns in Wyoming than there are people. I don't have so many, only nine. My cousin is a leetle bit gun crazy; he has over fifty. Then there is my friend Bob who has, I don't know how many, but it's in the hundreds. Now, most of mine are sporting arms; for hunting and if necessary - killing varimints! I don't have any assault rifles (my cousin has enough to arm all of our kinfolk) but I do have a couple of Walthers, P-38 9mm and PPK-.380. The rest are hunting rifles and shotguns.
I don't shoot so much anymore; in fact I would say I'm out of practice.
Haven't went hunting in years as I don't need the meat. Never did look at hunting as a sport. Damn, when you come down to it, I've probably killed more deer by hitting them with a truck then I've ever shot. In the wintertime you can't drive anywhere without the damn things jumping onto the road in front of you.

I got a chuckle out of your location USSC.:lol: I guess we can assume you are not a bleedin' liberal. I suspect you are somewhat of an anarchist by nature. Are you by any chance a fan of Robert Heinlein books and the quotes from them? If not you should look some up on Google.

I know what you mean. I used to live in Colorado and remember my dad got a nice buck lodged in the grille of his truck. It never ceases to amaze me how much a deer can fuck up a vehicle going 55mph and just shrug it off and wander away.:confused:

No, I am neither liberal nor an anarchist. I prefer the term "misanthrope". I haven't read any works by Mr. Heinlein but you have definetly raised my interest now.

Never shot a PPK. How do they handle? My sister is looking into getting one for home use as she now has a kid.

I used to have a couple rifles but now all I have is my M44 Mosin-Nagant. I miss my little M1 Carbine and .17HMR.:( They were fun little rifles.

I wouldn't reccomend a PPK as a home defense weapon. Too small, not enough stopping power. Not to mention - not too much of an intimidation factor there. For home protection it is hard to beat a 12 guage pump shotgun loaded with buckshot. For personal carry for women, I would reccomend as big a pistol as they are comfortable handling. But definately loaded with hollow-points.

Sorry to hear you don't like people; maybe you need to live somewhere like Wyoming where there aren't so many of em. Once you get away from the bigger towns here, most of the people are fine.

Jenae
I have a couple of questions I need answers to.
What has happened to kimberly Devine I never hear anything about her anymore has she retired?

Who is this bald dude that is in 99 percent of the shebabe porn videos espeially the oes where they guys get anal fucked?

Has Mariana Cordoba ever done any videos where she fucks girls or guys hard because I have found very little of it on the internet.

Thabks in Advance
jimbo46

1 Kimberly Divine - Well, as you may have noticed, she got pretty fat and sloppy later on in her career. I don't know what happened to her, but I hope she invested wisely with whatever money she did make. Hate to think she is out walking the streets or something like that.

2. The bald guy - I don't pay a lot of attention to the guys in the videos but I think I know who you mean if he is the one that has made some good work with Vaniity. There seem to be several bald studs (shaved head) working the girls the last few years. And getting worked over by them as you said.:lol: Were you wanting to contact him to see if he needs an understudy? What a job!!!:yes:

3. Mariana C works as an escort in Europe and doesn't seem to do that much in video work. In fact I haven't seen anything new of her in quite a while. There is only so much money in the video business and if a Tgirl has the right stuff, she can make a lot more as an escort. Believe me when I tell you that we don't ever see the cream of the crop when it comes to the most beautiful Tgirls. They are locked up tight by the super rich guys, many of who are in the middle east. I'm talking about girls who get a minimum of a thousand bucks a night, seven days a week, 365 days a year.

Does it make a difference when a shemale keeps her dick or has it removed.?

That question sounds like something a five year old child would ask. You need something a lot more specific than that to ask.

well whats the point in asking then if you don't know.

Simple question - simple answer
 

YES !

But in the actuality, it is not really removed so much as transformed. The surgeon generally uses part of the penis in the reconstruction to form the vagina. Rather, it is the testicles (balls) that are removed. Since they are no longer supplying the body with male hormones, and if the patient is taking female hormone supplements, then the feminization of the body proceeds at a faster pace. This would include redisposition of body fat, body hair reduction, breast development, skin texture change, etc. And of course, they now get to sit down to pee.:lol:

Genetic memory.
 

What do you think of the theory that our memories are encoded into our DNA in an Assassins Creed sort of way?

Sure it is possible. After all, what we term "natural instinct" would seem to be contained within the genetic code. It is not a far reach to consider the possibility that more individual memories might be encoded there also. Since we really don't understand how information like instinct is encoded there; it is difficult to see how individual memory could be encoded.
However, there are indications that more specific information than instinct is encoded in us. Witness the various cases of twins separated at birth and then reunited many years later. They both owned the same model of car, same breed of dog, their wives look similar, same work field, etc...
As to passing memories on to offspring; only memories prior to the production of the egg or sperm would be conveyed by the respective DNA. Some other means would have to be possible for later memories. A quantum process maybe?? Lots of possibilities have been explored in various novels such as the Dune series by Frank Herbert. In it, the Bene Gesserit sisterhood pass on memories from one to another by mind sharing. Another interesting idea is in Anne Rice's book, The Queen of the Damned, where the sisters belong to a tribe that ritually eat their dead so as to preserve/save their essence.
We are at the frontier of genetic knowledge and who knows what wonders lie over the horizon.

Hi there.

Genetic memory...

There is the mental and there is the physical, the mental is harder to pin down since we can and do change our minds, but physical, there is a definate link.

If a woman wears high heels on a regular basis before she gets pregnant with a daughter, her daughter will have a greater ease in wearring high heels than a daughter of a woman who rarely or ever wore high heels, the same is true for most other physical traits, what the parents can do (on a regular basis) the offspring usually can too, within reason of course, small changes like the high heel example are common, more pronounced and noticable ones are called mutations.

No, i don't mean like X-Men, but they would be very big mutations, bigger than any mutation ever recorded.

JohnDowe.

This sounds like Lamarck and Lysenko beliefs in the inheritance of acquired characteristics. No scientific research supports this idea. :no:

Hi there.

Whe i was in high school we did genetic experiments, we cross polinated red beans with white ones and the results were 100% predictable the next generations all the beans were red, the next after that was 75% red 25% white.

Also, i took the high heel example because i have a bit of a high heel fetish, and when i asked some girls i knew if they had problems wearing high heels, those who wore them regularily said no, and often stated that their mothers didn't either, while the ones that didn't said that they tried but couldn't and i asked if their moms did and they didn't

Not scientific but, such experiments would take decades to run to term with little chance of getting to the end, since everybody has a life of their own and have "more important" things to do.

JohnDowe.

John, you forgot to mention if you have trouble wearing high heels, and if you asked your dad if he had trouble.;)

Hi there.

Love your wit.

Dad, no heels, me, my 5.5" HH boots are comfortable to me, they cost me $300.00 quality males a BIG difference, the girl that sold'em to me at a fetish store was impressed by my proficiency in them, maby dad did wear high heels too?


I believe you gave some Rep points for that post?

Whome ever it was said: "Nice Dom Mistress outfit + your balls are showing!"

Well, i just KNEW i should have worn a longer skirt...

JohnDowe.

Epigenetics
 

I may have to take back that statement. A new study called epigenetics reveals that inheritance is not limited to our genes. Studies have shown that effects of exposure to pesticides and other chemicals, such as cancer can be transmitted to future generations. This is very disturbing evidence suggesting that we must be very careful to preserve and protect our epigenome from damage.

Why dont you see more shemale pornstars & pornstars in general using condoms. when engaging in anal sex in movies with the high risk of getting HIV & AIDS from unprotected sex especially anal sex.

Oh shit , wonder how the ID people are going to twist this.
 

In referance to epigenetics

Like A. Pope said, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing..." I get so disgusted with the silly analogies that the God-believers and the Intelligent Design advocates come up with. I recently saw some folksy looking guy explaining on YouTube that since life doesn't spontaneously appear in a jar of peanut butter in a matter of days; then it couldn't have arisen on Earth without a Creator.

I tell you what I would like to see. A nationally televised confrontation between the evolutionists and the Intelligent Designer people. First each side would be allowed to make their case. Then each side would be allowed to refute the other's case. Then both sides would be given lie detector tests on selected questions and then finally each side would be given IQ tests. Now, how do you think that would turn out?

I for one don't like seeing the ole weiner wrap in vids. And a lot of others feel this way. So, I would suppose that now they require performers to have a "clean bill of health" before they are signed up.

I don't think this would work, why? Some of the ID people may be intelligent but they are not capable of being reasonable. They are like the OJ Simpson jury. That jury would have let him off even if they had stood there and watched him do it. Its like the Baptist church sign. they are hopelessly locked in to an irrational paradigm.

Granted I dont like to see condoms especially in the money shot when instead of just jerking and shooting ur load they pull that nasty codom off and shake and lick it. But with how easily ppl can get HIV & Aids you cant be too careful.

OMG lol !! Did the church members acrually put that up there or is it some kind of prank?

Hi there.

Prank or not, in their view god gave made us as we are including reason...


JohnDowe.

To clarify further
 

So that there is no misunderstanding here; my OMG was a joke. As far as I am concerned, the whole idea of God is a joke. I could see that someone put that up there as a statement on the reality that reason is the enemy of faith when it comes to religion. If the church people put that up there as a statement that sums up their position, then it is definately a concession that they realize that: although their belief is unreasonable, they are going to stick with them cuz they can't face the fact that they are mortal and the end of it is just that: their personal ending.

Am I an atheist?

Nope, I am a normal, intelligent person who has weighed the evidence and found it overwheming lacking. So, I refuse to be the one who assumes a label. The THEISTS are the ones who need a label as they are the ones who believe in imaginary friends. They are the ones who refuse to put away their childish beliefs and face the world as it is.

GOD = Goofy Old Dogma

Hi there.

How about you and your dad?


JohnDowe.

LOL, like most ranch kids, I grew up in cowboy boots, which have higher heels than most boots. Cowboy boots is what my dad and uncles wore most of the time even when not riding. Big time cowboy/ ranching family ya know. One of my uncles was the star on a nationally broadcast television show. So now I actually prefer heels of a moderate height although I do have some in the 5-6 inch range. My old man never did come to grips with my activities in the TV department and never mentioned it after I was grown. He may have figured since I was going out with women that was all in the past.

Hi there.

So your uncle Emory had his own tv show, how fitting...


JohnDowe.

Nope
 

Nope, Uncle Emory has never cowboyed as far as I know. Oh, he has ridden horses when he came up to hunt mulies, but he has never worked cattle off a horse as far as I know. No that uncle was my Dad's brother. Uncle Emory was actually my Mom's uncle; brother to my grandma.

OK here's is one for you.

Driving into town today, I noticed a young couple walking down the street. She was doing a very good job of wiggling her butt. Why do girls do that? Even very young girls do it, it seems to come naturally. How come?

Engineering and learned behavior
 

Some of the aspects of the way women walk comes about naturally because of the way women are built. Women have a lower center of gravity and a broader pelvic structure. This naturally produces more "wiggle in the walk" as the Big Bopper sang. Now the degree to which this wiggle is emphasized is dependant in large on the mental state of the individual. The bump and grind of a burlesque queen is one end of the spectrum, while the tight ass mince of a church mouse might be the other end. The walk of a women is dependant upon her present state of mind and her intentions. Women will walk in a differant manner at differant times, and it may depend in large on who is watching. Many women definately have a provocative walk that they can call upon in case of need.

Young girls are on their way to being a woman, and many of their behaviors are learned from their observations of "big girl's behavior". Girls are naturally aware of how much attention they are recieving and soon learn the ways to maximize or minimize it. If they do or not, depends on their enviroment and how they are brought up. They may be encouraged in this behavior, or they may not. Such signals may be verbal, but more often than not, they are in the non verbal department, ie.. raised eyebrow, frown, smile, etc.

I would say that the girl you described was very much happy with herself and/or with her guy and was expressing it in that manner.

T-girls are sometimes lacking in this area of "feminine wiles.":lol: :lol: It is something that has to be learned and consciously practiced since most don't have a lifetime of experiance at it.

Hi there.

High heels also enphesize the wigly walk.

JohnDowe.