I don’t know if I need to get out the infamous paper bag or–even worse–the Doctor Doom mask out yet. As you may recall (if you are a long time reader, anyway) is that the mind-numbing stupidity of certain MDs has driven me to want to hide my face in utter shame at the embarrassment caused by my fellow physicians. Most frequently, it has been everyone’s not-so-favorite creationist neurosurgeon with dualist tendencies, Dr. Michael Egnor. So bad was he that I compared him one time to Deepak Chopra.

Damned if P.Z. hasn’t led me to another highly embarrassing physician woo-meister. Worse, it’s not just a physician woo-meister, but apparently a reasonably well-respected physician-scientist; that is, when he isn’t laying down swaths of napalm-grade burning stupid woo that easily rivals that of Deepak Chopra. So break out the Doctor Doom mask yet again, it’s time to take a look at just how much nonsense a physician can lay down.

Guess where he is. That’s right, his name is Dr. Robert Lanza, and he’s got a blogging gig at–where else?–The Huffington Post. The first post of his that got my attention is entitled What Happens When You Die? Evidence Suggests Time Simply Reboots.

I take that back. Dr. Lanza might be able to out-woo the master himself. At least it’s a diversion. I’ve been a bit too serious lately.

Still, on paper at least Dr. Lanza has an incredibly impressive-sounding CV:

Robert Lanza is considered one of the leading scientists in the world. He is currently Chief Scientific Officer at Advanced Cell Technology, and a professor at Wake Forest University School of Medicine. He has several hundred publications and inventions, and over two dozen scientific books: among them, Principles of Tissue Engineering, which is recognized as the definitive reference in the field. Others include One World: The Health & Survival of the Human Species in the 21st Century (Foreword by President Jimmy Carter), and the Handbook of Stem Cells and Essentials of Stem Cell Biology, which are considered the definitive references in stem cell research. Dr. Lanza received his BA and MD degrees from the University of Pennsylvania, where he was both a University Scholar and Benjamin Franklin Scholar. He was also a Fulbright Scholar, and was part of the team that cloned the world’s first human embryo, as well as the first to clone an endangered species, to demonstrate that nuclear transfer could reverse the aging process, and to generate stem cells using a method that does not require the destruction of human embryos.

Wow! All he lacks is the requisite multiple nominations for the Nobel Prize.

Still, a brief trip to PubMed to peruse Dr. Lanza’s publication record is nothing to sneeze at, with a respectable number of publications in the peer-reviewed scientific literature (not all of the ones in the link are his; “R. Lanza” is a not uncommon name). It did rather irritate me to se him calling himself a “professor” at Wake Forest on HuffPo, given that his own website describes him as an adjunct professor. A relatively minor point, but the title of “professor” implies a full academic affiliation with Wake Forest University with tenure, while, in medical schools at least, the title of adjunct professor is usually only given to part-time faculty who do not hold a permanent position. Still, it’s just the sort of thing that HuffPo readers with a penchant for the kind of “science” that Dr. Lanza lays down would be likely not to know.

Here’s what I mean. Get a load of the introduction to Lanza’s post:

What happens when we die? Do we rot into the ground, or do we go to heaven (or hell, if we’ve been bad)? Experiments suggest the answer is simpler than anyone thought. Without the glue of consciousness, time essentially reboots.

Oh, no! I think I know what’s coming. It’s going to be a bunch “universal consciousness” nonesense similar to the sort that Deepak Chopra loves so much. Time “reboots”? How on earth would he know? What “experiments” have shown that this is likely to be true? Inquiring minds want to know! So I donned my Doctor Doom mask, complete with a new feature (a clothespin to hold my nose), and I dove into this mass of woo-ey-ness to find out what this fantastic evidence is. Let’s read a long:

The mystery of life and death can’t be examined by visiting the Galapagos or looking through a microscope. It lies deeper. It involves our very selves. We awake in the present. There are stairs below us that we appear to have climbed; there are stairs above us that go upward into the unknown future. But the mind stands at the door by which we entered and gives us the memories by which we go about our day. Everything is ordered and predictable. We’re like cuckoo birds who appear through a door each morning. We fancy there’s a clockwork set in motion at the beginning of time.

But if you remove everything from space, what’s left? Nothing. The same applies for time — you can’t put it in a jar. You can’t see through the bone surrounding your brain (everything you experience is information in your mind). Biocentrism tells us space and time aren’t objects — they’re the mind’s tools for putting everything together.

Deep. So deep that I immediately regretted not donning my hip boots as I waded into the intellectual equivalent of the muck and worse. Dr. Lanza takes a trivial fact, namely that we humans can only experience the universe and time through our senses, and boards the crazy train with it. You think I’m being too harsh? Think again. Lanza piles woo upon woo, stealing liberally from Deepak Chopra and other masters of “quantum consciousness” to argue not just that the senses are the only way that human beings can experience the universe but that human beings create the universe through their consciousness. In Lanza’s view, when we die, our universe dies with us and then reboots. Seriously. You can’t make stuff like this up. He also regurgitates arguments that would make Deepak Chopra blush in the service of this concept:

In fact, it was Einstein’s theory of relativity that showed that space and time are indeed relative to the observer. Quantum theory ended the classical view that particles exist if we don’t perceive them. But if the world is observer-created, we shouldn’t be surprised that it’s destroyed with each of us. Nor should we be surprised that space and time vanish, and with them all Newtonian conceptions of order and prediction.

Yes, Einstein showed that time is relative to the observer, but he’s probably doing backflips in his grave at this abuse of his theory. Just because the passage of time changes depending on your frame of references, slowing down as you approach the speed of light, does not mean that time is meaningless or that it “reboots” when you die. Quantum theory did not end the view that particles exist if we don’t perceive them. At least, I never learned that when I took quantum mechanics, both in my physics classes and my physical chemistry classes.

I have to wonder if Lanza is confusing the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which states that position and momentum, cannot simultaneously be known to arbitrary precision by an observer. In other wors, the more precisely one property of an object or particle is measured, the less precisely the other can be known. Or perhaps he’s riffing on the paradox of Schrödinger’s cat, which illustrates the principle of superposition in quantum theory. Basically this is a thought experiment in which we place a living cat in a steel chamber with device containing a vial of hydrocyanic acid. In the chamber, there’s also a very small amount of a radioactive substance. If even a single atom of the substance decays during the test period, a mechanism will trip a hammer, which will then break the vial and kill the cat. Because the observer cannot know whether an atom has decayed, the observer can’t know whether the vial has been broken and thus can’t know whether the cat is alive or dead. Since we can’t know, the cat is both alive and dead, which is analogous to a quantum superposition of states. It’s only when the box is opened and observe the cat that the superposition is lost and the cat becomes either alive or dead. This is sometimes called the observer’s paradox, where the observation affects an outcome and the outcome does’t exist until the measurement is made. More specifically, there is no single outcome until it is observed.

None of which means that the cat doesn’t exist if we’re not observing it, which is what Lanza seems to be “arguing.” I really did think I was reading Deepak Chopra! Oh, wait! I could have been! Chopra and Lanza teamed up back in December. Like a fusion reaction, putting them together resulted in a nuclear fusion explosion of woo. In any case, his sole “evidence” for his amazing concepts? An anecdote about using a steel trap to capture a woodchuck and a man who told him to capture dragonflies and then later made him a metal dragonfly.

I kid you not.

Still, Dr. Lanza goes far beyond this. Apparently he has come up with a whole new theory of woo. I know, I know. I shouldn’t use that word for this. You’re right. So I’ll call it a hypothesis of woo, namely “biocentrism.” In brief, this idea claims that life has primacy in the structure of the universe and that therefore biology is the most important science. Basically, in biocentrism, life creates the universe rather than the other way around, and, according to biocentrism, current theories of how the physical world works don’t work and can’t work until they account for consciousness and that which manifests it, namely life. Of course, Lanza’s written a book about his ideas, but the shorter version (albeit still Orac-length wordy) explanation of biocentrism was posted last year on MSNBC.com in the form of an article entitled å. It’s completely a “theory of everything.” With woo. As I read it, there were parts where I once again had a hard time identifying whether I was reading Deepak Chopra or Robert Lanza:

Consciousness is not just an issue for biologists; it’s a problem for physics. There is nothing in modern physics that explains how a group of molecules in a brain creates consciousness. The beauty of a sunset, the taste of a delicious meal, these are all mysteries to science — which can sometimes pin down where in the brain the sensations arise, but not how and why there is any subjective personal experience to begin with. And, what’s worse, nothing in science can explain how consciousness arose from matter. Our understanding of this most basic phenomenon is virtually nil. Interestingly, most models of physics do not even recognize this as a problem.

Of course, consciousness is a fascinating scientific question. However, its existence does not mean that the mind somehow creates the universe. It does not mean that space and time are products of consciousness and do not exist outside of the observer, which is what Lanza argues. Because our understanding of consciousness is not comprehensive does not give Lanza a legitimate opening to hang whatever pseudoscience he wants to drop on it. Not that it stops Lanza from bringing up one of the hoariest canards favored by creationists everywhere, the Anthropic Principle:

The world appears to be designed for life, not just at the microscope scale of the atom, but at the level of the universe itself. Scientists have discovered that the universe has a long list of traits that make it appear as if everything it contains — from atoms to stars — was tailor-made just for us. If the Big Bang had been one part in a million more powerful, it would have rushed out too fast for the galaxies and life to develop. Result: no us. If the strong nuclear force were decreased two percent, atomic nuclei wouldn’t hold together, and plain-vanilla hydrogen would be the only kind of atom in the universe. If the gravitational force were decreased by a hair, stars — including the sun — would not ignite. In fact, all of the universe’s forces and constants are just perfectly set up for atomic interactions, the existence of atoms and elements, planets, liquid water and life. Tweak any of them and you never existed. Many are calling this revelation the “Goldilocks Principle,” because the cosmos is not “too this” or “too that,” but rather “just right” for life.

Of course, creationists invoke the anthropic principle in order to argue that “God did it,” that the reason life exists couldn’t have been due to random events billions of years ago but rather must be because a “creator” or, of course, “intelligent designer” must have “designed” the conditions that would allow life to arise. Lanza takes a different view, heaping scorn on the “God did it” use of the anthropic principle favored by creationists but putting in its place–well, let Dr. Lanza tell the tale:

At the moment, there are only four explanations for this mystery. One is to argue for incredible coincidence. Another is to say, “God did that,” which explains nothing even if it is true. The third is to invoke the anthropic principle’s reasoning that we must find these conditions if we are alive, because, what else could we find? The final option is biocentrism pure and simple, which explains how the universe is created by life. Obviously, no universe that doesn’t allow for life could possibly exist; the universe and its parameters simply reflect the spatio-temporal logic of animal existence.

Note the very same argument from incredulity favored by creationists. Life couldn’t have possibly arisen by chance! But Dr. Lanza can’t settle for the “God did it” option, and he doesn’t like a more careful consideration of the anthropic principle. The weak, or planetary, anthropic principle is simply a statement of the obvious, namely that the particular universe in which we find ourselves possesses the characteristics necessary for our planet to exist and for life, including human life, to flourish here. This is pretty obvious and requires no great insight. The “strong,” or cosmological, anthropic principle goes beyond that and posits that every aspect of the universe, its physics, its physical constants like the gravitational constant, are custom-designed to lead to human beings. It’s sometimes stated something like this: Because the universe is compatible with the existence of human beings, the dynamics of the initial conditions of the universe and the elementary particles that existed then must have been such that they influenced the fundamental physical laws of the universe in such a way as to result in human beings.

So if God didn’t do it as far as leading to the evolution of human beings, then what did? Well, the usual explanation is that we wouldn’t be here if the laws of the universe weren’t such that they allowed us to exist. Not to Lanza. Lanza explains this not through God or gods or “designers” but rather by making each and every one of us a god who creates our own universe in our consciousness. Sure it’s a fun (and, most of all, ego-gratifying idea), but it has no basis in science.

Basically, in order to put each and every person (and in particular himself) at the center of his own personal universe that exists because his consciousness exists, that dies when he dies, and that “reboots” again after death, Lanza abuses the cosmological anthropic principle to claim not that we wouldn’t exist if some creator or “designer” hadn’t designed the universe so that we would come to exist but rather to claim that we created the universe. It’s like the Strangers creating and modifying the city of Dark City at will, only Lanza doesn’t think this is science fiction. In the end, this is simply a variation of Deepak Chopra’s quantum consciousness woo, but with a twist. Chopra argues that the universe creates consciousness and that we are the manifestation of that “cosmic consciousness,” our own consciousness sharing in that of the universe. In contrast, Lanza reverses things. Our consciousnesses are prime.

What a massive ego Lanza must have!

Time for me to get out the Doctor Doom mask again. It reall is difficult to go out in public when I know such fellow physicians are flooding that wretched hive of scum and quackery (HuffPo) with more wretched nonsense.


  1. #1 TK
    September 6, 2011


    It is a basic reality that if atheism is correct, then no human has any real existence. You would only have the *illusion* of existence.

    According to atheism/materialism, there is no actual “you”, or your existence, only the illusion of it.

    On *this* Dawkins and his gang are absolutely correct!

    Lanza is basing his ideas on the original interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, the standard interpretation, that of Neils Bohr, Erwin Shrodinger, Werner Heisenberg, etc. That nothing has any objective reality, and that consciousness creates the world around us.

    Also, this idea has been extended further by Prof Roger Penrose who has propounded the idea that the wave function = mind.

    Prof Penrose is an atheist and even he believes that.

    I would recommend “The Emperor’s new Mind” by the above.


  2. #2 TK
    September 6, 2011


    Sorry Orac.

    The article was shit.


  3. #3 Ken
    September 6, 2011

    When you die you’re dead. Survival of consciousness after death has never been proven and never will.

  4. #4 TK
    September 6, 2011


    “Prove it. Show us the scientific literature that gives the evidence that the chemical changes in DNA replication are a conscious choice.

    Unless you provide supporting documentation we will assume that you are pulling those statements out of thin air.”

    Not sure where you studied biological sciences, but it is a basic fact, and clearly demonstrated by the DNA molecule itself. It is sometimes referred to as the “mysterious” factor.

    Only someone who lacks the basic knowledge on how evolution actually works would come back with “prove it”. It is patently obvious.


  5. #5 TK
    September 6, 2011


    “When you die you’re dead. Survival of consciousness after death has never been proven and never will. ”

    All the evidence appears to be to the contrary.

  6. #6 Chris
    September 6, 2011

    Okay, you have pulled every thing you said out of thin air. Nothing you posted is objective, just subjective. All you have proved is that you are full of hot air.

  7. #7 Chemmomo
    September 6, 2011


    Only someone who lacks the basic knowledge on how evolution actually works would come back with “prove it”. It is patently obvious.

    Well, TK, actually, we’re asking you to demonstrate that you have that basic knowledge. We each already know what our own knowledge base is. We’d like some insight into yours. And on this forum (certain commenters notwithstanding), it’s customary to know what you’re talking about and back your ideas up with sources.

    By the way, do you know what a Hamiltonian is? How about a wave function?
    Once you get back to me on those, we can talk Quantum Mechanics.

  8. #8 herr doktor bimler
    September 6, 2011

    Prof Roger Penrose who has propounded the idea that the wave function = mind.

    Then it should not be difficult to quote his actual words.

    the standard interpretation, that of Neils Bohr, Erwin Shrodinger, Werner Heisenberg, etc. That nothing has any objective reality, and that consciousness creates the world around us.

    The “Copenhagen Interpretation” is nothing like that, you unsurpassed nimrod. And your claim to know what you are talking about is undermined by the easily-verified fact that Erwin Schrödinger never accepted the Copenhagen Interpretation.

    My first degree being in mathematical physics, I get grumpy when mendacious gobshites try to co-opt physics for their personal cargo cults.

  9. #9 Krebiozen
    September 6, 2011

    Have you actually read ‘The Emperor’s New Mind’? Just curious.

    “I don’t like it, and I’m sorry I ever had anything to do with it”.
    Erwin Schrödinger on quantum physics

  10. #10 herr doktor bimler
    September 6, 2011

    …the DNA molecule itself. It is sometimes referred to as the “mysterious” factor.

    I was unable to find any of these references on the WWW and am hoping that TK will provide us with more details.

  11. #11 müzik dinle
    September 7, 2011

    Others believe it’s just a random occurrence along the development and evolvement of the universe. I have read a lot on this subject but there’s nothing convincing that I have seen. I find the random argument even more difficult to believe. Happened to have attended the body show in Arlington, VA. I was amazed at how complicated and organized the human body is. I just think there must be something more complicated than random evolvement that we probably don’t understand with the existing knowledge.

  12. #12 Justin
    October 19, 2011

    I suggest you do a bit of reading about evolution and natural selection, starting with ‘The Blind Watchmaker’ by Richard Dawkins, which should help you understand this. It attempts to answer the question you ask. You can download an electronic copy of the book here, web hosting the first link on the page.

  13. #13 polished concrete
    October 19, 2011

    I agree with A hypothesis which depends upon a phenomenon which has never once been observed to occur is just simply not as plausible as a hypothesis which has no such dependencies. Period. Try to claim that they are actually equally plausible and you will just confirm that you are talking about some airy realm of theory and not the real world

  14. #14 TBruce
    October 20, 2011

    I just think there must be something more complicated than random evolvement that we probably don’t understand with the existing knowledge.

    A tip: evolution isn’t random.

  15. #15 Salon
    October 25, 2011

    Is R. Lanza’s thesis that we’re all stuck in our personal lifelong rerun of “Groundhog’s Day?” If time resets, does that mean I’m taking the same ride again? Is this the 20th time I’ve been through the year 2011? I still have so many questions for you, Dr. Lanza.

  16. #16 Business Ideas
    October 25, 2011

    This my take and my view so don’t blast me for having an opinion on this as many here love doing. I agree with A hypothesis which depends upon a phenomenon which has never once been observed to occur is just simply not as plausible as a hypothesis which has no such dependencies. Period. Try to claim that they are actually equally plausible and you will just confirm that you are talking about some airy realm of theory and not the real world

  17. #17 Baby Games
    December 31, 2011

    But have you thought of this: I am personally quite convinced that “our self” is just stored in the RAM of our brain computers, thus, following a reboot (taking the Lanza woo from granted), who are we?

  18. #18 Lucas Kondowe
    January 11, 2012

    Was in Las Vegas last weekend and decided to see the Bodies Exhibition for the second time. I had seen the show three years ago in Arlington, VA. If one pays attention to the complicated detail of the human systems, one can only marvel at how such a perfect complicated system can be put together. Now I know this forum has folks from various backgrounds and beliefs. I can only say, it’s amazing!!!!!!

  19. #19 Prometheus
    January 11, 2012

    Those who feel that “random” evolution can never explain the complexity of macroscopic animals (like ourselves) need to wrap their over-evolved brains around a few points:

    [1] Based on the available fossil record, life has been evolving on this planet for over 3.6 billion years. I know that large numbers are hard for some people to grasp, so let me put it in some perspective – 3.6 billion seconds is over 114 years. A lot can happen in 3.6 billion years.

    [2] Evolution isn’t random – the mutations are random, but the environment “selects” the mutations. “Bad” mutations die out, neutral mutations accumulate and “good” mutations lead to more offspring. The selection isn’t random – selection gives beneficial mutations a “boost”.

    [3] Complexity actually supports evolution because much of the complexity of macroscopic animals is redundancy. Things have evolved multiple times in multiple ways and there are many bits of complexity (such as the “backwards” arrangement of mammalian retinas) that are, well, “bad engineering”. No intelligent being would put a quadruped spine into an animal that walks on its hinds legs, but that’s exactly the kind of spine we have.


  20. #20 AdamG
    January 11, 2012


    It’s true that “this forum has folks from various backgrounds and beliefs.” However, we are unanimous in our acceptance that the absolutely beautiful process known as evolution via natural selection is responsible for producing not only the complicated system known as the human body, but also every other complex biological system, from the smallest bacterium to the largest cetacean. I’ve devoted my life to the study of this process and I too “can only say, it’s amazing!!!!!!”

  21. #21 Lucas Kondowe
    January 16, 2012

    Does the evolution process predetermine death? i.e. is death a random event?

  22. #22 alison
    January 17, 2012

    Lucas, as Prometheus implied, our bodies definitely aren’t perfect – something that supports evolution but not the idea of a ‘designer’. After all, why would a designer do such a ham-fisted job?

  23. #23 Industrial Floors
    February 10, 2012

    This is a great post with interesting comments, I really enjoyed reading it. I must say that the subject matter is well discussed and I will definitely coming back for more. I’m gonna bookmark and share this to my friends. Thank you for this!

  24. #24 wally barker
    March 4, 2012

    The poster is, as Dr. Lanza would recognize, trapped within his own paradigm and unable, or unwilling, to let go of it to consider new ideas. Actually, these ideas are not new – the book Biocentrism is – but Dr. Lanza stands on some prestigious shoulders. Dr. Lanza gives solid scientific support for his position which is not uncommon in certain circles. Sure – his position threatens many – especially physicists – but his views are scientifically unassailable. He also has unchallenged personal integrity and scientific credentials which would be the envy of most of his detractors. Which would you rather – go down yet another theoretical rabbit hole complete with strings, knots and hundreds of imagined Universes or utilize the evidence of your own personal experience?

  25. #25 Chris
    March 4, 2012

    Mr. Barker, was there any particular reason that you dropped your incomprehensible word salad comment on this almost two year old article?

  26. #26 Bafa
    March 14, 2012

    “So I donned my Doctor Doom mask” 🙂
    Indeed, for this kind of crap, it’s much needed.

    Thanks for the laugh.

  27. #27 Dolton
    April 30, 2012

    Well i am not a physician but i would stop at this elements.

    1 )Space

    2 )Universe

    Let’s start with space that is defined as infinite. It means that never ends.Anyone can really perceive that?Something that never ends …never?!!!
    When the space and universe gets infinite and i mean infinitely big i tend to not really perceive that.
    Then again if we think of an end at some point ,the question is, what is it after that end?!!!!!

  28. #28 Chris
    April 30, 2012

    Dolton, did you ever take calculus? Infinity is more of a concept, and it helps to learn about it by brushing up on some mathematics.

    Some reading suggestions:

    Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea by Charles Seife

    In Pursuit of the Unknown: 17 Equations That Changed the World by Ian Stewart

    When Least Is Best: How Mathematicians Discovered Many Clever Ways to Make Things as Small (or as Large) as Possible by Paul Nahin

  29. #29 Bronze Dog
    April 30, 2012

    On the topic of the “edge” of the universe: If space had a positive curvature, it wraps around to the other “edge.” Go far enough in one direction and you’d end up returning to your point of origin.

    But, IIRC, space has an overall negative curve for a “saddle shaped” universe, but I don’t know the implications for that.

  30. #30 Dolton
    April 30, 2012

    Chris ,if i judge by maths then i would say:
    1) Universe is a function of space
    2) Materia (everything materialistic) is a function of space
    3) even life is function of space too
    and when space goes to infinite then all of this elements go to infinite too. So i would say there should be infinite way of life rather than ours in the universe.Maths makes it simple for us to accept aliens exist for example.
    On the other hand if we are in architecture we say:
    Space is imagination 🙂

  31. #31 Narad
    April 30, 2012

    and when space goes to infinite then all of this elements go to infinite too

    That’s not quite how a “function” works.

  32. #32 Chris
    April 30, 2012

    Dolton, you need to work on your calculus a bit more. Since it is estimated that the observable universe is estimated to have about 1080 atoms, you might rethink your assumptions.

    And to start with some pre-calculus concepts like how functions work and how to use “limits.”

    You might also wish to acquaint yourself to the definition of the word “alien.” It is a person or thing that comes from another country, place, government, etc. A person who comes from Korea to study in Canada is a “resident alien.” A plant that is transplanted from South Africa to England is an alien plant. Zebra mussels from Europe are considered an alien invasion in North America.

    There may be life on another planet, but since they are not here (it is just too far between here and any other star system): there are no living aliens from other solar systems on this planet.

    I am trying to sincerely answer your off topic question, but if you are going to turn it into a joke and go off into silly tangents I will no longer waste my time.

  33. #33 Dolton
    May 2, 2012

    Narad i didn’t quite define how a function works.
    Simple function f(x) = 2x + 5 linear line. When x goes to infinite then f(x) goes to infinite.
    On the other hand f(x) = 1/2x for example is a different story coz f(x) goes to 0 when x goes to infinite. There is a connection between space , universe, materia and life. Thinking with probability the bigger the space gets the bigger the other elements get too.

  34. #34 Chris
    May 2, 2012

    No. You should also learn some basic trigonometry. Cosine is periodic, it only has values between -1 and 1.

    There is no reason to discuss anything with someone if they refuse to learn the basics.

  35. #35 Dolton
    May 2, 2012

    Chriss sincerely thx for your time and for trying to answer my question. I appreciate your references and is really interesting working on the concept more.I know i have to learn a lot for sure . The more i know the more i learn that i don’t know.
    My sincere question was about imagining an endless space and universe really and physically in your imagination.
    Now talking about Cosine that is periodic and trigonometry.
    Well you know about the trigonometry circle ….let me remind you…it is a circle(limited space)….no matter that you give to an angle an infinite value you are just biting around this circle with radius 1. Of course you would get values between -1 and 1. I don’t claim to have any functions between space and the other elements so i agree i judged by probability but i would never bet on a cosine function .
    You had to go to zebra muscles to define what alien means as a word lol and yet you understood perfectly what i meant, i can see you don’t have time to waste.
    Don’t get me wrong Chris i value your opinions but sometimes don’t jump to the conclusions too fast.

  36. #36 Chris
    May 2, 2012

    You can start by learning high school algebra. The take some geometry, then the advanced high school algebra, followed by trigonometry, then pre-calculus subjects, followed by calculus, including infinite series.

    Once you have finished those in about four years, we can continue this discussion.

  37. #37 Dolton
    May 3, 2012

    Ok Chriss 🙂 as you say. I am not here to show off or anything and once again i had a honest question. By the way i used to be really strong in maths , not because i studied a lot but just coz i could get it fast.I have to say that is quite a while i don’t practice maths though.I give it to you about one thing… you didn’t fall for the ” zebra muscles” so you had to come and define what ” mussels” word means and how is spelled:).That was a “huck” to try and understand if you were a periodic person and a mediocre one that comes to the same point now and again :). And you are not.
    As i said before i value your knowledge. I hate to say this but i think you didn’t really get deeply my original post.
    I wasn’t even “biting around the bush” or ” went to silly tangents” when i said space is imagination in architecture.
    I was talking about perception. I think humans have a very limited perception.I am not arguing about the numbers you have given me example “how many atoms has an universe”.Can you realize that’s like how many millimeters a meter has said in basic terms?Who has really measured the universe?Who really knows what infinity of cosmos ( let me use this phrase better) has. We can study it to a point based on our limited abilities and then we have to use our imagination.I wasn’t trying to talk about just physics and maths as i said ” i am not a physician” … i was talking about perception.Once again don’t make statements about my education level and let me give a reference to you ( The more i know the more i learn that i don’t know).Try and get out of the box Chriss.

  38. #38 Lucas
    May 10, 2012

    The style of debate by some folks here is appalling, to say the least. Megalomaniac, is the word I have in mind. No one knows everything. If anyone thinks they are so smart why not make money from that “smartness” invent something, come up with HIV cure that the best brains have struggled with for over three decades. Find a unifying theory of the universe, instead of debating on other peoples concepts.

  39. #39 Kelly M Bray
    May 10, 2012

    “No one knows everything.” well you made your own point, at least in your case. Sometimes being “smart” is simply warning someone not to step in front of an oncoming car, instead of building a car proof suit.

New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.