₦airaland Forum

triplechoice:
I don't see anything terrifying in the experience the doctor had with the patient when she was battling to stay alive that could have led to PTD

Such incidents are not uncommon for a medical doctor to experience

Hallucination?

Well , hallucinatory experiences have no basis in reality or no connection at all. But in the above story there appears to be a strong connection between what happened in the emergency ward and the dead woman later appearing to him .

At the ward, she pleaded not to be allowed to die and later appeared at the window after death, to ask him, why did you allow me to die? This is not how hallucination goes. Or is the story not true? It doesn't appear so.

A medical should be in a better position to know if it was hallucination or not. And besides, I dont think PTD would ust disappear without any form of therapy

Trauma isn't always about terror nor are hallucinations always abstract. I have recurring auditory hallucinations of my dad calling my name. This began when I was a kid and he was still alive, now that he is dead, I still have them the exact same way.

His description of the events show that he was quite distrssed by the circumstances of the lady's death. This is the trauma. Look up the meaning of trauma, its not about terror primarily but distressing or disturbing events.

Like I said this isn't PTSD rather a post traumatic stress event. Hopefully it is singular and not recurring.

Dtruthspeaker:
As I said, people who do not have Eternal Life do not play with their only lives, but I just can't wait to meet God!

SO, NO ROAD AS USUAL AND AS ALWAYS!

Oh you certainly can wait and will wait, you are not in any hurry. LMFAO!

Nothingserious:
Idiot I thought you wanted to read the full text?

Fuckwit the question again is, what part of "proved the theory" is giving your brain seizure? It is right there in the article you quoted or have you gone blind now?

Nothingserious:
Then you have short memory span.

The main argument was on how science is strictly objective and empirical as against religion and philosophy that uses subjective methods.

I added that even scientific laws have not been scientifically proven.

Please go read all the conversation again.

Truthfully, no scientific law has been scientifically proven.

Truthfully elements of subjectivity and arbitrariness are involved in scientific data.

You are the one with a delusion factory for a brain, go quote where I said anything about empiricism or subjectivity.

Nothingserious:
Foolish boy, the text below is subjective with human arbitrariness written over it.

“There is also another way to read the Nobel caveat. Could it have been that the committee was leaving the door open for a second Nobel prize in the future, once relativity had been more rigorously tested? We will never know. As Einstein's fame spread, so he alienated himself from the physics community by refusing to accept quantum theory. A Nobel prize for relativity was never awarded.”

The situation reached crisis point in 1921 when, paralysed by indecision, the Nobel Committee decided it was better not to award a prize at all than to give it to relativity. The arguments raged for another year until a compromise was reached.

At the suggestion of Carl Wilhelm Oseen, Einstein would receive the deferred 1921 prize, but not for relativity. He would be given it for his explanation of the photoelectric effect, a phenomenon in which electrons are emitted from a metal sheet only under certain illuminations. The work had been published back in 1905.

It has been argued that this work, which introduced the concept of photons, has had more impact than relativity. I'm not sure. With relativity, Einstein gave us a way to understand the Universe as a whole. It was a staggering leap forward in our intellectual capability.

The Nobel citation reads that Einstein is honoured for "services to theoretical physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect". At first glance, the reference to theoretical physics could have been a back door through which the committee acknowledged relativity. However, there was a caveat stating that the award was presented "without taking into account the value that will be accorded your relativity and gravitation theories after these are confirmed in the future".

Fuckwit, what part of "proved the theory" is giving your brain seizure?

Nothingserious:
So you concede there are elements and levels of subjectivity in scientific researches, outcomes and final decisions?

It was never the question in discussion. You claimed and are still claiming, even when the very evidence you provided is against you, that scientists have not proof of scientific laws. Never for once did I argue anything about empiricism or subjectivity with you.

Nothingserious:
You have just been cursing up and down but failed repeatedly to make any sense.

You failed to take up the challenge on scientific proof for scientific laws but kept lazily asking for 5 scientists. Should it be hard for you to simply point out a single scientific law that has been scientifically tested?

Dummy the very article you quoted has already proved you're a dumbass.

To many, and to Einstein himself, this felt like a slap in the face. Hadn't Eddington proved the theory? Yes, but the trouble was Eddington's observations had not been perfect and he had discarded data he considered poor from his final analysis. To some, as related in Jeffrey Crelinsten's Einstein's Jury, this smacked of cooking the books in Einstein's favour. In reality it was just good scientific practice.

The magnitude of your dumbassery is outstanding.

hupernikao:
So we can conclude, that your personal opinion is what you hold but not Bible view.

Final.

Your personal opinion is to not hold your god responsible, you are very much welcome to that. However it won’t erase what is clearly written, your god uses deception for his own ends.

triplechoice:
@ Lordreed, what's your take on the above?

My personal opinion is visual and auditory hallucination by reason of post traumatic stress. This kind of scenario was highlighted by the PTSD Vietnam war vets suffered in the aftermath of their participation. Of course this is isn't PTSD yet but if he continues having those audio-visual hallucinations then he probably has PTSD.

Hismasterpiece:
LordReed I wonder what you'll say about this one now.

Once again how am I supposed to arrive at a conclusion with scant facts?

One question that springs to mind is how have they eliminated the activities of body parts harvesters or even the mortuary attendants themselves?

Nothingserious:
I will continue to torment you with facts while you played around with mockery!

Facts that don't support your assertion that all scientists say there is no proof of scientific law. Even the article you quoted stated that Einstein's General Relativity had been proved by Haddington but your fuckwit brain didn't see that. What a dunce.

Meanwhile, you have mentioned Einstein, Bohr and other scientists several times but are yet to show a single place where any of them said anything about science not having proof of scientific laws. You are such a fuckwit.

Nothingserious:
Your guys claim science is strictly empirical as against religion and philosophy that has elements of subjectivity.

Produce where such a claim was made by me.

Nothingserious:
I will continue to torment you with facts while you played around with mockery!

Why Einstein never received a Nobel prize for relativity

Nobel prizes often attract controversy, but usually after they have been awarded. Albert Einstein's physics prize was the subject of argument for years before it was even a reality

There was a lot riding on Einstein winning a Nobel prize. Beyond his academic reputation, and that of the Nobel Institute for recognising greatness, the wellbeing of his former wife and their two sons depended upon it.

In the aftermath of the first world war, defeated Germany was being consumed by hyper-inflation. The government was printing more money to pay the war reparations and, as a result, the mark went into freefall against foreign currencies. Living in Berlin, Einstein was naturally affected by the crisis.

He had divorced Mileva in 1919, several years after she had returned to Switzerland with the boys, Hans-Albert and Eduard. As part of the settlement, Einstein pledged any eventual Nobel prize money to her for their upkeep. As the hyper-inflation bit ever deeper, so he needed that cash.

By this time, Einstein had a decade's worth of Nobel nominations behind him. Yet each year, to mounting criticism, the committee decided against his work on the grounds that relativity was unproven. In 1919, that changed. Cambridge astrophysicist Arthur Eddington famously used a total eclipse to measure the deflection of stars' positions near the Sun. The size of the deflection was exactly as Einstein had predicted from relativity in 1915. The prize should have been his, but the committee snubbed him again.

Why? Because now dark forces were at work.

Antisemitism was on the rise in Germany; Jews were being scapegoated for the country's defeat in the war. As both Jew and pacifist, Einstein was an obvious target. The complexity of relativity did not help either. Opponents such as Ernst Gehrcke and Philipp Lenard found it easy to cast doubt upon its labyrinthine mathematics.

The situation reached crisis point in 1921 when, paralysed by indecision, the Nobel Committee decided it was better not to award a prize at all than to give it to relativity. The arguments raged for another year until a compromise was reached.

At the suggestion of Carl Wilhelm Oseen, Einstein would receive the deferred 1921 prize, but not for relativity. He would be given it for his explanation of the photoelectric effect, a phenomenon in which electrons are emitted from a metal sheet only under certain illuminations. The work had been published back in 1905.

It has been argued that this work, which introduced the concept of photons, has had more impact than relativity. I'm not sure. With relativity, Einstein gave us a way to understand the Universe as a whole. It was a staggering leap forward in our intellectual capability.

The Nobel citation reads that Einstein is honoured for "services to theoretical physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect". At first glance, the reference to theoretical physics could have been a back door through which the committee acknowledged relativity. However, there was a caveat stating that the award was presented "without taking into account the value that will be accorded your relativity and gravitation theories after these are confirmed in the future".

To many, and to Einstein himself, this felt like a slap in the face. Hadn't Eddington proved the theory? Yes, but the trouble was Eddington's observations had not been perfect and he had discarded data he considered poor from his final analysis. To some, as related in Jeffrey Crelinsten's Einstein's Jury, this smacked of cooking the books in Einstein's favour. In reality it was just good scientific practice.

There is also another way to read the Nobel caveat. Could it have been that the committee was leaving the door open for a second Nobel prize in the future, once relativity had been more rigorously tested? We will never know. As Einstein's fame spread, so he alienated himself from the physics community by refusing to accept quantum theory. A Nobel prize for relativity was never awarded.

The final twist in this story is that Einstein did not attend his prize giving. Despite being informed that he was about to receive the prize, he chose to continue with a lecture tour of Japan. Partly, this was because he no longer valued the prize and partly it was because he needed to disappear.

German foreign minister Walther Rathenau had been murdered by anti-Semites. In the subsequent investigation, the police had found Einstein's name on a list of targets. In the face of such a death treat, leaving Germany to spend months in the Far East, rather than a few days in Stockholm, must have seemed prudent.

In the end, perhaps the best thing that came out of Einstein's Nobel prize was the money. It went towards keeping Mileva and the boys secure, and became essential when Eduard developed schizophrenia as a young adult and needed to be hospitalised.

The 2012 Nobel Prize in Physics is awarded on Tuesday. This week's prize schedule is here. You can watch each announcement live in the viewer below.
[b][/b]-
Stuart Clark is the author of forthcoming Einstein novel, The Day Without Yesterday (Polygon)

https://www.theguardian.com/science/across-the-universe/2012/oct/08/einstein-nobel-prize-relativity

You're a bumbling loquacious fuckwit. What has this got to do with the discussion?

My Minolta dslr camera. Still hurts.

Dtruthspeaker:
people who do not have Eternal Life do not play with this their only life, even you fled at the thought of using your own only life to see the soul.

SO, NO ROAD AS USUAL AND AS ALWAYS!

Yes this is the only life which is why you are afraid. LoLz

ersonleads:
I'm presently working with a reputable company. I met a girl I really flow with. She's matured & understanding. She's in her 400level in school & I said within myself never to let her pass me by. We've come to a compromise that she should finish before I take her to the alter. Want to do so when She's 22yrs of age. I'm 11yrs older than her.

Please I need your Advice if I'm doing the right thing?

I think it's fair but be certain she really wants anything to do with you, in my experience people between the ages of 18-24 are not yet certain what they want romantically and so are easily swayed one way or another in issues of relationship.

Dtruthspeaker:
Because I already have my Commands and Instructions. ;

NO ROAD! AS USUAL AND AS ALWAYS:

No you're afraid, no need for forming. LoLz

Crystyano:
How can something without a scientific proof be a scientific law in the first place?

Something isn't right somewhere......

Are you minding the dolt.

Hismasterpiece:
But processes don't start themselves. have you ever seen anything that started itself in your life? so who started the process?

What do you mean by don't start themselves? No being is seen starting rain so clarify what you mean.

Hismasterpiece:
so you're saying her testimony isn't worth anything?

It will form the basis for investigation but is not enough to form conclusions on. There are many unanswered questions that she would have to provide information for.

Dtruthspeaker:
And the Romans are also gentiles, Satan's son.

NO ROAD!

So why do you need a specific command to go to Sambisa? LMFAO!

Hismasterpiece:
The same question i was about to ask LordReed. If these things don't work then why do people still do them? Why haven't they stopped after all these years?

Hope, the same reason you still pray even though not all your prayers seem to be answered.

Hismasterpiece:
ok. but you said atheism isn't based on the big bang theory or evolution. so what truth us atheism based on?

Atheism is a rejection of the proposition gods exist or can be regarded as a lack of belief in gods. Neither of these require a true proposition to be held nor does it require any other foundational theory.

Hismasterpiece:
The big bang theory and evolution from Christians? I don't believe you. Show me proof

Charles Darwin, originator of the theory of evolution by natural selection.

Hismasterpiece:
The big bang theory and evolution from Christians? I don't believe you. Show me proof

Big bang theory originator.

Nothingserious:
I am just amazed at your tomfoolery!
You didn’t read those things right?
Na waoooo

Fucktàrd you're a loquacious fraud, your pathetic schemes won't help you.

Nothingserious:
This foolish boy is misbehaving online.
Did you really understand what we have been discussing?
Strict empiricism in scientific data and influence of subjective decisions from possible outcomes.
It’s all written all over my posts but I don’t expect a narcissist kid like you to follow and grasp.

Keep clutching at straws and strawmanning yourself.

It pained you so much that I challenged you to show a single scientific law with scientific proof.
You have wasted many days dancing around 5 scientists even after I said ALL scientists know.

I had thought you would have dropped various links here showing I was wrong. I had also thought you would have shared statements made by your own scientists on it. Why is it so hard for you? I tell you that the book in your hand isn’t a book. Instead of you showing me it’s a book, you are asking me to bring 5 people who also said it’s not a book. Why won’t you show me why it’s a book? Or call your witnesses to help you think I may be crazy?

You are a disillusioned proud fool.

Bwahahahahaha! Fucktàrd I will drop them when you meet the conditions of my challenge to you and your sky daddy.

Nothingserious:
These things are beyond you. You read your things upside down.
Please let reasonable humans look at the objectivity of scientific methods and the influence of personal preferences and philosophy in choice from possible outcomes.

A fool like you shouldn’t be disgracing himself online always. Again I am not responsible for your scholarship.

LoL look at this dunderhead. You claimed there is no scientific proof for scientific laws, you claimed that 2 scientists were award prizes for opposing views in the same year but you've been shown to be nothing but a loquacious fraud with little to no understanding of the material you looking at with your own eyes so now instead you shift the goalpost. Fuckarse. LMFAO!

Hismasterpiece:
The big bang theory, evolution, to name a few...

LoL. Do you even know what a fairytale is?

BTW atheism is not based on those things you mentioned. There are many Christians who hold those things as correct. In fact these 2 you mentioned originated from Christians. So try again. Bwahahahahaha!

Hismasterpiece:
But from what the nurse and other nurses said it is spiritual not natural. The patient had the power to turn on the thickness and turn it off at will.

Without further details all I can do is speculate. I don't arrive at conclusions without cogent facts.

Hismasterpiece:
And who started those natural physical processes?

What evidence is there for those things?

No who has been shown to have started any of it. What has been shown is possibly another natural process but the real answer is we don't know.

Start with the cosmic microwave background.

Nothingserious:
Stop acting like a kid. No point is scored for playing tomfoolery!


The 1927 conference on quantum mechanics was held to discuss how the many seemingly contradictory observations could be reconciled. Schrödinger and de Broglie showed up with their ideas. But the eight-hundred pound gorilla was Bohr. In what later came to be called the Copenhagen interpretation, Bohr proposed that wave equations described where entities like electrons could be, but, the entities didn't actually exist as particles until someone went looking for them. The act of observation caused existence. In Bohr's own words, the entities in question had no "independent reality in the ordinary physical sense."

Einstein wouldn't have any of it. An electron was an electron, and just because someone wasn't looking at it, it was still there — wherever "there" happened to be. Late in the conference, Einstein rose to challenge Bohr's views. But that was only the beginning. Until Einstein's death some three decades later, Bohr and Einstein entered into spirited debates — in print and face to face. The debates were gentlemanly. Bohr and Einstein were friends and had great respect for one another. But they were also stubborn.

"It is wrong to think the task of physics is to find out how nature is," said Bohr. Einstein disagreed. "What we call science," he said, "has the sole purpose of determining what is."

Through all its strangeness, Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation remains one of the most widely accepted worldviews of quantum mechanics.

Other common interpretations are seemingly even more bizarre. But they all point to one, simple fact. Our universe, as any physicist will tell you, is a mysterious place. It teases us with unimaginable facts then leaves us to make sense of them. Perhaps someday, we will. But until then, we'll just have to savor the great mysteries that surround us.

https://www.uh.edu/engines/epi2627.htm

Dummy what has a the 1927 conference got to do with the 1921 and 1922 Nobel prizes for physics?