₦airaland Forum

MrBrownJay1:
Here is a clue: many great men of the bible had baby mamas, mistresses and concubines (which they were NOT married to), and they were not viewed as sinners by god (check Abraham, king David, King Solomon etc)...

So it is very simple: so long as the babe is NOT married to another man, it is NOT a sin.

"They were not viewed as sinners by God' how the hell do you know that. You must be a hell of a casanova to make such a strong claim.Who told you King David wasn't punished for his trangressions.I guess you think being considered by God as dear places you on a pedestal.Every sin you commit has consequences.Indirectly or directly. Do you want your offsprings to bear the brunt of your sins. Ofcourse nobody wants that. Stop deceiving yourself bros, and stop making up excuses for your transgressions.What do you think "sexual immorality" mean ?The bible says explicitly flee from sexual immorality.Dont even look on and think you are strong enough to withstand it.No No No,if you see,fly self.

[quote author=VIPERVENOM post=56272692][/quote]men, that your meme too much.hehehehhe

PapiSmith:
I have been sending you DM since last year but you were forming because one guy promised you marriage.

Now you are looking for man

hehehehehe,she wan marry ready made man now.You still dey factory, dem no fix your parts finish.

I am here to clear the air, i dont expect you to agree with my assertions though.I hail the ignorance of Nigerians.Someone said earlier on that, practices by members of celestial church are syncretic-a combination of traditional and christian doctrines. A lot of things have gone awry over the years,and thats because members of the church have departed from unique mode of worship in the church as directed by the holy spirit.Most of us youths of the church are beginning to realize that some peculiar practices during services have been changed subtly over the years.It is difficult realizing the changes,until you are told.I found that out myself by listening to people who listened to or consulted with the SBJ oschoffa,while he was alive. First of all note the basis of the establishment of the church was worship.I could sing over half of the hymns as at the age 13, but you know what i never realized the weight until i began reading. Warnings of what would happen(as ongoing) if we failed to heed to tenets(ilana in yoruba) are stated. Now this hymns were not composed by 1 learned or musically gifted persons.Most of them were sung by strange people(mad people,e.t.c).The founder himself was not educated.I am telling you categorically that, some of the changes made to our modes of worship after the demise Oscoffa, were by the so called elites in the church,all in the name of modernization.I have realized that members of other denominations criticizing the place of the church in christiandom do not understand the bible deeply. Or perhaps, we believe other interpretations of the bible are inferior to ours. First of all on the issue of syncretism, what is the the distinction between idol worshiping and traditions?Now some one would say they are the same, but they are not, while idol worshiping can be part of tradition, the reverse is not true.You can have traditions that do not directly involve you in the act of worship. the jews in the bible had their traditions, which they tried to impose on everyone, they assumed that a violation of these traditions is a sin.But jesus cautioned them in mark 7, why do you trangress the commandment of God by your traditions.So if my practise does not transgress the commandment of God, it cannot be denoted as idolatry, no matter how old that practise is. I will state categorically the bible does not speak against any of our practices.If anyone does anything that violates the commandments of God, find out the origin of that practice.It is not part of the tenets laid down. Though i am concerned myself that members are overly attached to materials-candles e.t.c during prayers, nonetheless it violates nothing. The establishment of celestial church was a covenant,just as the establishment of the people of Isreal was. Every covenant has dictates peculiar to it,thats why it is called a covenant.The coming of Jesus did not nullify the law in any way. Read romans 7 to better understand the clause 'we are no longer under the law' You are freed from the law does not mean you cannot abide by the law if you chose to.colossians 2 16: says Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days.The key word is let no man.However god can judge you if he so desires.Under the the dispensation of celestial church, we were given certain ordinances.As far as you are under this covenant you are bound by this ordinances,modes of worship,services. if you want to be free, thats your choice.You are not obliged to listen only to your pastors.This book of the lord shall not depart from your mouth,meditate on it day and night.I repeat woe betides anyone who does contrary to the dictates of the word of truth knowingly.But the presence of false worshippers is just what the bible tells US.Matthew 13 vs 30 says let both the plant and the tares grow together, until the day of harvest.I used knowingly because, there so many things that members of the church are not doing right, however they are ignorant of this fact. It is the duty of the elders to socialize the youths though.Again i am not forcing you to read this long boring writing.Nonetheless, study to show thyself approved. I rest my case.

samincredible44:
let's not be quick to judge he might be watching his weight

you dey take style dey laugh your president be dat ooo

corpersforum:
Getting married as a Virgin has been laced with so many lies and fictions. Unfortunately many bought into these lies and became confused when things are not working as they ought for them.

1. GETTING MARRIED AS A VIRGIN DOES NOT MEAN YOU ARE SEXUALLY PURE.
The bible talk of purity of the body, the soul and the spirit , the body can be touched without tell tale marks, the soul can be so corrupted with evil imagination and the spirit not connected to God. Sexual purity goes beyond an intact hymen...what about the hymen of your mind?

2. GETTING MARRIED AS A VIRGIN DOES NOT MEAN YOUR MARRIAGE WILL LAST
The longevity of a marriage is a function of many things that your virginity has no say about. Death, Divorce, Diseases, Disorder, Even the character of your spouse and yours has a say in how long your marriage will be.

3. GETTING MARRIED AS A VIRGIN DOES NOT MEAN YOU WON'T BE BARREN
fruitfulness is a fuction of you and your spouse reproductive capacities and even beyond that, barrenness has many root causes that goes beyond the couple's control.

4. GETTING MARRIED AS A VIRGIN DOES NOT MEAN YOUR HUSBAND WON'T CHEAT ON YOU
If a man is not disciplined, he will cheat on you regardless of your virginity status before marriage. Your virginity can't correct covetousness and lust in a man's life.

5. GETTING MARRIED AS A VIRGIN DOES NOT MEAN YOUR HUSBAND WILL LOVE YOU.
It takes more than your virginity to be loved, you have your own part to play and he has his. Besides, if a man is not trained or working on loving you, your virginity won't help out. A Man will love you if he choose to and the basis on which he makes that choice is beyond the fact that he met you as a Virgin.

6. GETTING MARRIED AS A VIRGIN DOES NOT MEAN GOD WILL ANSWER YOUR PRAYERS IN MARRIAGE
God answers our prayers on the basis of his goodness not ours. Your virginity is not a bargaining chip before God, he answers prayers according to his will not according to your virginity.

7. GETTING MARRIED AS A VIRGIN DOES NOT MEAN YOU WILL HAVE PEACE IN YOUR HOME
Peace in your home is a function of how you and your husband choose to respond and resolve conflict, it's a function of how much you and your spouse want the prince of peace to reign. It's a fuction of your triumph over the spirit of strife or the devil over your home.

8. GETTING MARRIED AS A VIRGIN DOES NOT GUARANTEE YOU WILL GIVE BIRTH TO GODLY CHILDREN
godly children are a product of training, discipline, prayers, hardwork and God's favour. Your children can't be godly just because you as their father or mother is got married as a Virgin. Your lifestyle in marriage is as an important factor in determining the kind of kids you will raise. Besides, many good people are raised by parents who are not virgin when they got married.

9. GETTING MARRIED AS A VIRGIN DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY ATTRACTS GOD FAVOUR
God's favour is recieved on the basis of his goodness, our preparation ànd wisdom. It has nothing to with wether we are Virgin or not when we got married. Mary was not the only pure Virgin in Israel at her time but God decided to choose her, Rahab was a prostitute with a well known office yet she was in Jesus' genealogy, so it is on the basis of his sovereignty

10. As much as I canvass for sexual purity among young people, I cannot but mention the fact that God loves those who are not virgin, he wants them to live their lives according to his Dictate and he loves them just as if they have never lost their virginity.
He is not pleased with those who look down on them for by so doing they make themselves righteous by their own doing.

BY ALL MEANS ABSTAIN FROM SEXUAL SIN

DEVELOP YOUR CHARACTER OR ELSE YOUR VIRGINITY WON'T COUNT FOR ANYTHING TANGIBLE.

REMAIN A VIRGIN FOR PREMARITAL SEX CARRIES ONLY RISK AND REGRETS

STOP RUBBING YOUR VIRGINITY ON OUR FACE.....there are other virtues a man and woman must have, have them and don't be foolish to think being a virgin is all that God wants from you, he wants you to surrender all your being to him let him have a say on your life.

Don't be like the foolish virgins be a wise one that has the EXTRA OIL (something beyond the virginity)

[Source: http://www.corpersforum.com/sexuality/what-getting-married-as-a-virgin-does-not-guarantee/]

So what is the purpose of your post,how does this contribute to progress or involve us in educative discussions.Talk about issues that matter or engage yourself in profitable ventures.I am surprised someone will even conceive, write and post such a discourse.

Amberon:
Islam has always been synonymous with poverty. This isn't news. Stay woke.

Modified: Only about 4 or 5 Islamic countries are doing well over about 30 or more. 4/30 is F9 so stop quoting me.

Bros , the factlessness of your post attests to your subjectivity-a chronic disease that has relegated us to our status quo, regarding the issue.How can you say islam is synonymous with poverty.How many countries in the world are predominantly moslem? not exceeding 50, but there are 195 countries in total.Most of the predominantly christian countries are poor too, including Nigeria.It is baseless to judge countries bounded by a religion based on that religion.So many elements factor into defining poverty.Even our innovations contribute to poverty.Meanwhile if you want to judge countries, judge them individually.Not as a group, cos they might have just a few things in common. Also irrespective of your religion we all have the tendency to be corrupt, we all have the tendency to enrich ourselves at the expense of others, indirectly or directly.I rest my case

highrise07:
By Soni Daniel, Northern Region Editor


http://www.vanguardngr.com/2017/04/breaking-efcc-detains-ex-gov-babangida-aliyu-n2b-ecological-fund/

When i first sight ''Babangida" I think say na IBB oooo, when EFCC go carry IBB,OBJ and co

tiwaz:
Ekiti State Governor Ayodele Fayose turns DJ. Lol!..

See photos below..

Source: http://www.ngyab.com/2017/04/governor-fayose-turns-dj-photosvideo/


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40ltHKpjE7g

My Fayose was thinking "If i no sabi rule well,at least i fit DJ, i beg make i enjoy myself jo,oh tht reminds me he don tey wey i share rice ooo"

dainformant:
This is quite shameful. A video which is currently trending online shows how a Nigerian woman fought a man (also a Nigerian), in the streets of Italy over 'her money'. In the trending footage, the lady can be heard shouting at the man to give her her money or kill her as she held and dragged his clothes in public.

The man who can be heard saying that he didn't rape her -told her that he wasn't going to touch her no matter what she does.. The enraged woman even almost attacked the person who was filming the fight...

No one really knows how the man came to be in possession of her money..

Source; http://www.nationalhelm.net/2017/04/you-must-give-me-my-money-nigerian-lady.html

Watch Video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inNPjZE7qKI

Na u carry come italy, part 1

hikmojj:
640

Look closely, 6 is impossible because it makes hints 1 and 2 invalid

042

shadeyinka:
Duality or Trinity as the case may be doesn't refer to different identities but the same identity in TWO/THREE morphs.

I assume you are a Muslim therefore, I will ask you this question (according to Islamic theology)

When a person dies, two Angels will ask him three questions as to
1. Who was his Lord while on earth:
2. What was his religion: AND
3. Who was his prophet
The answer he gives will determine whether the Angels will make the grave comfortable for him or not.

Now, my question is:
Suppose as an infidel, I command my people not to bury me but put me in a glass case and put a 24/7 video surveilence: would the Angels still ask me those questions?

If they do, are they referring to my Physical Body or the invisible me inside ME?

Can't you see Duality playing out not to talk about trinity. That invisible me is the real me while my body is also the real me.

A human being is a Trinity just as God is a Trinity!

Bros, how does your example lend credence to trinity.You compare the duality of two different forms to the trinity of the same form.Now you claimed the angels must have been referring to the spirit being of the dead.So your body at moment is at best insignificant.However the components of trinity are significant in unison.There is no point where any of these components loses its significance.

pappy4real:
Oko kehin ti de, Kristi npe elese. Awon oniye meji, won yo gunle sebute ofo. Halleluya *7

oso kole woko na,won yo gunle sebute ofo,aje ko lewoko na, woyo gunle sebute ofo.But sincerely bros, we are not worshiping as directed or layed down, so there are witches are wizards worshipping with us.Satani nkiri fun itiju.Oro oluwa kosin yin lati oke orun wa, emura ke gbo ipe na, keleri ogo re. Kawa file segun emi esu(that we may overcome the spirit of darkenss) ka sise pelu ife mimo.Our love towards each other has grown wax over the years,hence the spirit of darkness is consolidatin its hold in the church.May the lord save us.

DirewolfofStark:
If indeed he was truly a Christian (which I actually doubt) then the fact that he was a polygamist already made him unsuited for playing any sort of ministerial role. How could a man with 34 wives stand on a pulpit before a congregation and honestly expect to command respect? It is obvious that from the life he led he lacked the discipline to control his sexual libido. This is one of the big problems causing scandals in the Church today. Some men who are slaves to what is in between their legs have taken it upon themselves to be called Men of God, and it is discrediting Christianity.

Obviously we differ in our idea of "unsuited","the fact that he was a polygamist makes him unsuitable for a ministerial role", what do you mean by that bros, the quoted only implies that ministers impose themselves on their congregation.Go and read 1st timothy 3 vs 1-7(its what everyone quotes in favour of 1 wife).Read between the lines, that biblical quote, began by saying, "whoever desires", so this implies some desire to be bishops or ministers,others are called to be ministers.You are dramatizing polygamy more than it actually is or perhaps you consider some sins or failings greater than others,you are wrong.Now compare polygamy to the persecution of christians as carried out by saul before he became paul, would you call his animosity towards christians a minor misdemeanour, before he was called.Or did that prevent God from calling him.No it did not.If it was within my power to call anybody, saul would not qualify at the very least,but i am not God, samuel teaches us that God sees through the soul.Now to david, king david commited adultery and murder, if we were in the law court thts 2 counts,in the best case scenarion,its life improsonment.Was he punished?,yes he was and did it change what God feels about him, no, because, if it did, then God is not omnipotent.God was aware of his failings.Now in the bible there were distinctions between royalty and priesthood.David(he was not a king then) and his people ate consecrated bread offered by priest ahimeleck, the bread was solely meant for the levites, even if they had not been with women for 3 days.Ahimeleck should have been punished for doing this, so should david and his people.Some people will argue tht they were famished,so their intentions were innocentNow look at the death of Uzzah, he attempted to hold the ark, when the oxen stumbled, but what happened to him, he was struck.Now what would say"maybe he was struck because he had bad intentions".How do you know that, his intentions might have been innocent, but regardless, he violated a principle.Moses killed an egyptian, it was not even self defence, he saw an egyptian fighting with an isrealite, and he felt the urge to kill the egyptian.I will call that premeditated murder.But he was still called by God anyways.Peter denied christ 3 times, what do i call that bad followership, if i want to judge that, he would be in hell.The temptation might have been intense, but he failed anyway.So many guys consider judas a villain, but in my opinion,peter was equally a villain.Rules were made for men to obey, God can circumvent these laws however he pleases without question.The laws apply until God says otherwise.So i beseech thee, once again "study to show thyself approved".

DirewolfofStark:
No offence, but the founder of your "church" never had the moral qualities to be considered a true man of God.

Moral qualities, i beg to differ, you dont understand what morality means, and you seem to be a reckless judge, he was a polygamist before he was called, you probably would prefer he divorce all his wives except 1.You got to open minded bro."Study to show thyself approved".The quoted clause does not oblige you to pass a judgement based on a cursory reading or biased contextual extraction

numericalguy:
Lol.. Your olusho don scam you be that. Maybe na your olusho go use dark and evil means to make an otherwise good girl turn bad just to prove to gulible guys like you that olusho is always right. That way olusho turns you into a zombie and keeps you under his leash forever.

You already have predetermined notion abt the church, you never thought of any other reason for which the shepherd had a premonition other than being a scam, you never even considered the possibility that, he is a true prophet.I hail your superior judgement.

2shur:
U white garment ritualistss
Who throw food to birds as sacrifice
Amd worship a useless god of money
Hypnotize ppls wives
Dupe them
Fuc them
Impregnate them
Cast a spell on them
And change ppls destinys.
Fuc u guys.
If i have any of u guys as neighbours im gonna beat the juju out of u.
Fucking ritualists
Who use special soap
Special cream
Special mirror
Fuking ritualists.
Avoid these hell bound ppl.
They use ogunmeh always.
Avoid them.
Dirty ass ppl
They church is always located close to dist bins
Or dirty places.
Spit on u ugly ass tribal marks bastards men

Bros take am easy now, why the unnecessary vexation, cele prophet collect your girlfriend?

unclezuma:
You know your logo is similar to an LGBTQ parade banner, no insults intended.

https://i.imgur.com/3naq45B.jpg

you are funny bro, the logo has always been, you should rather say that the LGBTQ logo looks like CCC's

Redomi:
Pls I need an ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION …....... FROM you PLS.... Let's Assume You Saw A Laptop Of 97K. You Didn't Have The Cash, So You Borrowed 50K From Ur Mom And 50K From Ur Dad = 100K. You Bought The Laptop Which Left You With 3K Change. You Gave Ur Dad 1K And Ur Mum 1K And Kept The Other 1K To Yourself. Now You Owe Your Mum 49K And Ur Dad 49K. Now 49K+49K = 98K + Ur 1K Kept = 99K.Where Is The Missing 1K?I Know You Are Intelligent. solve It And Tell Me

Basic maths,total amount borrowed=amount paid back + amount still yet to be paid.So if you are yet to pay 98 back, then amount paid back =2K.Now by your question you are trying to trick your audience by playing with numbers.the 1K you retained is out of the 98K you still owed, the laptop goes for 97K, because, there is no other transaction external to this system, you should have paid back the remaining 3K to your creditors, so you owe just the amount you bought the laptop, but this time you owe an amount greater than the cost of the laptop, so you are keeping the deficit.Or perhaps, we can look at this from another perspective.If you did give your creditors back 2K,then we can conclude that, in all you borrowed 98K from them.you paid 97K for the laptop, thus you keep the remaining 1K.The latter explanation better explains how the 1K retained comes out of the 98K you owe.good morning.

dyshow:
I want to believe that there are real mathematicians in
this group. So I wanna share my recent exam questions with
them nd see who can solve it!!!

your questions are not clear

Pointblank09:
There are many indices:
1. there should be foreign students in a university (Do you have any foreign students Nija University?)
2. Basic infrastructures;
3. Students/Lectures ratio etc.

I beg jo, no 1 is not really a criteria for measuring the quality of education offered at a uni.How do you mean by basic infrastructures.If na power, then its not really a university issue, its a national issue. With regards to basic education, there is not much ug can offer, yes they have the noguchi memorial institute which is actually thriving, but university of ghana is better known for humanities than science and technology.They began offering education in the sciences not too long ago.The faculty of Engineering buildings looks pretty nice, but it has close to no required tech talkless of advanced tech.In 2013, they overadmitted students into the faculty of Engineering,over 350 students. I guess they realized it and admitted less students in the year 2014.You can have over 10 students sharing a set of apparatus during experiments,sometimes 1 apparatus for a multitude of students.For ghana's premier university, you should expect a well planned newly developed faculty, but tht cannot be said of UG. But there is 1 advantage though, there are no strikes, which is characteristic of Nigerians uni, and if any occurs, it usually takes a short time to be addressed.I can vouch for the stability, and i know thts what most of my Nigerian folks think.But there is no reason dramatizing the quality of education unis in Ghana offer. There are not so many unis in Ghana,and there are fewer unis(about 5 major unis), so the government should be up to task to manage them,this is the reason why the admission criteria is high for public schools(the best students attend the public schools-both secondary and tertiary),there are some private schools though on par or even better than the public schools,just with less internaitonal reputation..I dont understand the high influx of Nigerian students into unis in Ghana,i can understand KNUST and Uni of Ghana, but zenith college and co,i dont know what to say.I am not condemning any skul here, i am only stating the fact of quality,Nigerians are so in love with Ghanaian schools, that they would rather get into one, even if its just an aggregate of buildings. May God help us all, but i just want to clear the air, University of ghana is not better than Nigerian federal universities, and mind you i am more wound in the Ghanaian fabric than you can think of.I attended Uni of Ghana as a domestic student(Engineering) before i left,and i resided at commonwealth hall(VANDAL CITY) so i know exactly what is happening there. Their system is as ineffective as ours these days, the system should understand the needs of the people and integrate it where and when suitable,but the system decided that no other time was better for Engineering program at ghana's premier university than the 21st century.I guess the system was sleeping through the 20th century.The tuition fee for international students is far too much for its worth in my opinion.All ghana uni hopefuls i wish you all the best.

SonOfEl:
They being underfunded does not mean they don't still engage into research. Its rather the low budget ones. Despite these, they still prove their mettle. There is a difference between "underfunded" and "unfunded". Really, are there people that think like you? Too bad.

the funds made available makes a lot of difference bros.

Statsocial:
RG score is distributed in order of quantity of research. For example Harvard has a higher RG score than Caltech but Caltech is currently the best on THE.
Young universities tend to have lower RG score or quantity of research. You hv to understand that UI has a whole lot of research papers from the 1900s which CU can never have because It was created in 2002. However, the good news for CU is that most Ranking experts only regard publication scores from the past five years because with each year going by some research papers become obsolete. E.g a research work on "digital storage media" would probably be a ground breaking research in d 70s but would be completely irrelevant in 2017.

There are different rankings , top university offers quite a good ranking system too(i wont recommend shanghai ranking, because it over relies on end results(awards)), but, when you get to the graduate level, the choice of school becomes based on department, rather than the school in its entirety.Each school has its strengths.On some rankings, harvard bests caltech for the overall ranking, likewise for some subject rankings including physics.Different rankings use different methologies, for instance top universities uses number of citations/paper and h-index as indices.Mind you the indices span the last 5 years.So the issue of whcih university predates which does not matter.Even for THE though caltech is higher overall, in the specifics:citations and research,the results are fairly similar for both top university THE, harvard bests caltech in both.I rest my case for that.The RG scores does not only consist of the quantity, but it constitutes the quality as well:the number of researchers your paper has impacted.But regarding RG scores,you might be partially right abt covenant coming in a mould, CU has a higher RG/publication than the others, but most top universities have low RG/publication as well. However UI has a better international outlook(more papers being read by foreign researchers).I guess in this regard time will tell.

TheVictorious:
1. Endeavor to read carefully. I did mention Elsavier Scopus and Research Gate
2. TRUE before they moved to an institution that has better facilities and working environment for their academic work and pursuit
3. Read again; I didn't say that. I used a hyperbolic expression
4. They make you like to. It is called influence. Majority of new students find it disturbing anyway. No I haven't you'll do well to tell about them.
5.Sure
6. Kindly explain what you mean by overall experience and how it affect substantial indicators university ratings
7. I will appreciate if you provide more areas that are verifiable. The PRESSID has 3 editions making the assertions I made statistically correct until you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that if that PRESSID event or a similar one to it holds again OAU and UI will beat CU.

But on researchgate, UI has the highest RG scores of the 3,meanwhile RG scores is in the decreasing order UI>OAU>CU

Pointblank09:
Churches ALWAYS built near river. Can someone tell me why.

Always!! No

judey1992:
Pls can someone open up on the Colour meanings

It differs from one church to another, i dont know much about c and s, but the garment and loin colours are hierarchical, also while c and s permit red coloured garments, ccc prohibits such colours.Also garments in ccc are more harmonious , majority of members of different ranks wear white garments,though the loins may vary,likewise,some garments have capes. only the topmost ranked members put on additional robes, nd they are usually sitted at the altar.The colors vary from green to yellow,to purple.Some top ranked members are usually adorned in full regalia during occasions.Usually they wear white garments, in the catholic father-like fashion,some with the cape(the very topmost) others without the cape.Nonetheless some robes are for honourables, these are members who are not full-time workers in God's vineyard, but who contribute significantly to the growth of the church, similar to honorary degrees.In a typical ccc parish, you will see the harmonious variation of garments, all members in the main auditorium are always in white, while those with extra regalia sit in the altar section.The choristers are situated on the right in a barricade closest to the altar section with their white garments and a blue cape(yellowish neck and base region) around their necks(the choir masters usually wear robes, usually of the same colour, but reaching the knees)

Exciton:
This is why I said benji93 was right. I didn't bother to read his post that I used to create my reply. I only wanted to point out the diff between Q.tunneling and superposition.

Now, I go add my summary on their argument:

Akin was definitely wrong when he claimed a state consisting of a particle existing in 2 places at once has been experimentally verified. According to QM, such states exist but they can't be measured directly because of wavefunction collapse upon measurement. While QT is basically a phenomenon whereby the particle has a non-zero probability of crossing a finite potential barrier when it's energy is less than the said barrier. That has been experimentally verified... in fact, it's the basis of modern electronics. Akin was clearly right about this. But Akin was wrong to claim that a particle can tunnel through an infinite potential barrier. That's not possible, the probability is zero.

Benji93 doesn't agree with the probabilistic nature of measurement in QM. That's okay. Some people don't agree with the Copenhagen interpretation. They think QM isn't a complete theory. But Benji doesn't disagree for the same reasons that they do. His hypothesis is very wrong. Benji doesn't understand these concepts clearly I think.

Now the rest, Akin is obviously right. Didn't bother about these cos you don't even need a brain cell to find the answers on google. Benji93's statements on these are wrong and shows he doesn't understand these as well.

1. Only moving charges can experience a magnetic force.

2. Only accelerating charges can radiate EM waves.

3. Basically everything Benji93 wrote isn't correct. Apart from the experimental proof part.

obviously, u didnt understand what i wrote,i never claimed moving force, my claim was moving charges produce electromagnetic fields, akin claims otherwise,he opines that only accelerated charges produce electromagnetic field.He implies that,an electromagnetic field implies an electromagnetic wave, and vise versal, which is not true, while an electromagnetic wave implies an electromagnetic field, the reverse is not true, or in order words an electromagnetic wave is a subset of an electromagnetic field.
2.I am not disbuting hte fact that accelerated charges radiate EM waves.Obviously you didnt read my posts in details, or you didnt understnad my point.
3.You were right about my believe in the deterministic nature of measurement in QM.Obviously i do nto believe i nthe copenhagen interpretation, which implies that by measurement(as applied to the double slit) we force nature to make a decision,informally, electrons know when we are watching.I believe that the measuring instrument interferes with the pattern to be created by electrons.My point in this regard stems from the properties of the measuring system, the question is how does the instrument measure which slit the electrons pass through,does it not produce electromagnetic radiations or Electromagnetic field in the process?thts my general opinion on that point.
4.The other thing i disagree with is the conclusion of a section of the experiment.The interference pattern created by electrons passing through the double slit, made scientists suggest that probably,the pattern could have been due to collisions between electrons(thts even very unlikely, there would be chaos, hence, we should not have the fine interference pattern created).So they setup a control-allowing the electrons through 1 after the other,believing that in this case, there should be no interference. By performing this experiment,2 strips where initially formed, which is reminiscent of the particle nature, but after a considerable period of time(1 hr), the interference pattern forms again.My misgiving concerning this is that,after a period of time, you will likely have a cloud of electrons in the set up,so you can still have an interference pattern.

Exciton:
I'll wade in on this. I don't care about the rest, I'm sure you guys can resolve that.

Actually, benji93 is right on this. But he got the name wrong. The phenomenon of a multitude of possible states existing at the same time isn't quantum tunneling but it's a quantum superposition of states.

Since any physical measurement necessarily decoheres a quantum superposed state thereby yielding any of its components depending on their respective probability amplitudes (i.e wavefunction collapse upon measurement), it's impossible to observe a quantum superposed state e. g observing a state where Schrödinger's cat is simultaneously dead and alive.

That is exactly the reason why the existence of quantum superposed states is among the postulates of quantum mechanics. Keyword: postulate.

So, it can't be directly proven but including it in the formalism of QM is very necessary for QM to work.

But QM works really well, so it seems they might really exist but it can't be proven... maybe until someone finds a way of avoiding wavefunction collapse. The reality we will be able to see will be utterly stupefying!

Or someone finds a way of formulating QM without the need for superposed states, leading to the death of probability and the resurgence of determinism. The world will become sad and boring!

There's a nice new sci-fi novel (Dark Matter) that explores the idea of being able to avoid the collapse of a wavefunction and then picking any one of the available states thatake up a quantum superposed state... a novel about human choices and possibilities!

I hope this clears your misunderstanding on this issue.

seriously, that guy is damn condescending, but no wahala, meanwhile, you defined the existence of more than 1 possible state, as the quantum superposition of states, tht goes witht saying, i was not really commenting on tht, our friend said in a previous post in quantum physics an electron can occupy two positions at the same time. and he called it quantum tunnelling,thts incoherent, he also claims tht only accelerated electrons produce electromagnetic fields, do u believe that, he even further to stipulated tht the wave function is only position dependent, the wave function is represented by the differential equation d^2y/dx^2=(1/v^2)d^2y^2/d^t2(d is partial) which has a general solution y=f(x+-vt), where v =velocity, the differential eqn is directly derivable from analysing the dynamics of a travelling wave(e.g an oscillating rope).thts for that,bro.

AkinPhysicist:
Once again you show an abject lack of knowledge of the fundamentals of quantum physics. The ONLY way the particle in the box can have a non-zero probability of existing outside the box is through quantum tunneling. Because the wall of the box represents 'infinite potential' there is no classical way the particle can surmount this 'obstacle' hence quantum tunneling. You have described quantum tunneling but yet you believe its something else. Simultaneous? Of course - the wave function is always represented as a snapshot in time. Go and review your undergraduate particle in the box notes and you will see the wave function is represented as a function of position NOT time. What you have described is quantum tunneling which has been confirmed experimentally decades ago. Your lack of understanding is confusing you.

you miscontrued the point, i used the word "both", the electron has a non-zero probability of being outside the box after time t,no argument about that , but this statement does not mean an electron can exist both in the box and out of the box at the same time, it only means the electron either exists in the box or out of the box, with each likely occurrence having its probability.In other words i mean the probability of it existing both in the box and out of the box is 0.and stop repeating the statement,"it has been proven experimentally decades ago", i am not disputing the phenomenon "quantum tunnelling",it exists, anyone can check that out on google.

AkinPhysicist:
You have a long way to go in understanding basic physics let alone quantum physics. The charge of an electron is intrinsic. The idea of 'charging' an electron is nonsensical. You are confusing static electric field of a charge with EM generated by an accelerated charge. Now, if I grant your ridiculous claim that static electric field is the solution to explain the wave nature of subatomic particles then, how do you explain the wave behavior of a neutral subatomic particle like the neutron?. Your 'theory' fails because it doesn't even pass a cursory logical test. This is because you don't understand physics.

you didnt understand "can" in the context, i meant "an electron is charged or has a charge", and i never suggested that accelerated electrons do not produce electromagnetic fields, they do, but you suggested in an earlier post that, only accelerated electrons produce magnetic fields which is false. you should read landau lifshitz volume 2(classical theory of fields), it probably provides the most indepth knowledge on the subject.

AkinPhysicist:
Another evidence of lack of basic understanding. The equation you wrote says a particle of charge q and velocity v INSIDE a magnetic field of strength B will experience a force F. This force is the force the magnetic field EXERTS on the charge. This is different from the charge itself GENERATING an EM field due to its vibrational (accelerating motion). You are showing a lack of understanding of basic concepts. You need to calm down and think.

A charge does not have to accelerate to produce an electromagnetic field,but ur statement(bolded) only implies that.However, conversely a charge has to accelerate to be able to produce electromagnetic radiations.electromagnetic radiations are oscillating electromagnetic fields or stem from changing components of an electromagnetic field(but the resultant energy of the electromagnetic field is constant though). Refer to Landau lifshitz volume 2, page 103-105

AkinPhysicist:
The same way a car moving with constant velocity experiences a force when it is rear-ended by a tipper -what don't you get?
You are confused because you don't know basics. The field of a charge does not affect the charge itself but other charges around it. This is high school physics 101 - go an review it.

what do you mean by The field of a charge does not affect the charge itself but other charges around it?the word itself does not mean exerting a force on itself, it means the force is mutual, a magnetic force is exerted on an electron in the magnetic field becos it exerts the same magnitude of magnetic force.Simple.

AkinPhysicist:
Long epistle but still does not explain the wave behavior of a neutral subatomic particle - this is why your 'theory' fails. If your 'theory' only applies to charged particles then it is of no value.

my theory is not fully fledged, i am still developing,infact i only talked about it here because, this is an informal platform.You will agree with me that a neutron has an intrinsic magnetic moment,but is electrically neutral when stationary. an electric field can be generated by a change in magnetic field, the motion of a neutron causes a change in magnetic field, hence electric field is produced,so u see, a neutron produces an electromagnetic field when it is in motion.

AkinPhysicist:
Your formula is incorrect. F is NOT magnetic field produced by the electron. F is magnetic force exerted on the electron. Please go and learn basics. The formula you want is (is the cross product formula): B = constant qv X rhat/r^2. This is the magnetic field produced by a charge.
Trivial - physics 101
Trivial - physics 101

oh my oh my, you dont get it bro,i didnt need B = constant qv X rhat/r^2 to prove my point,the equation F=Bqvsin(theta) is just good enough to prove my point, a magnetic field precludes a magnetic force,an electron with a velocity v, experiences a magnetic force in an external magnetic field becos it exerts the same magnitude of magnetic force, i expected u to understood,the significance of each symbol,i can always get any equation and definition of symbols by googling it,so u see, u re being condescending,my formula wasn't wrong, i only didn't define the symbols. you seem to eager to show that you know a lot of equations, nd thts fine.I am happy you brought this equation up,based on ur proposed equation B = constant qv X rhat/r^2 ,it is logical to say that an electron moving at a constant velocity produces a magnetic field ,irrespective of the state of motion of the electron. The electron produces an electric field too .what do you call a field consisting of both a magnetic and an electric field component? i would call it electromagnetic.so it is only logical to say that an electron moving at constant velocity, v produces an electromagnetic field,if you agree with this logical input, then it is not logical to say that only accelerated electrons produce electromagnetic fields like u suggested in an earlier post,but because by virtue of your equation and the gauss law, an electron moving at a constant velocity should produce an electromagnetic field, but you can suppose that an electromagnetic wave(by definition-photons). Even an electron stationary but spinning produces an electromagnetic field.Perhaps you should explain what you understand by an electromagnetic field or what you call a field that consists of both an electric component and a magnnetic component?You keep saying 101, i dont know where you studied physics, but i can only suppose phys 101 is the 1st physics, nd as far as i am concerned its newtonian mechanics.