Connecting Singles^® Forums100% Free Online Dating

Ah if you look into it you'll be surprised! Apart from people that appear to have "past lives" (and i'm not talking about the i was the King Of Siam or Egyptian preist ones we hear about on daytime tv).

I cannot remember the doctors name who films the death moment but its even been caught on camera when something leaves the body.It's even surmised that a gland in the brain is the repository for "The Soul".

I've been present when someone has passed away and i can certainly tell at the moment they expire.

That said there's far too much emphasis longevity, when quality of life is what matters.

Perhaps if every turned Buddist overnight the world would be a better place, pretty much i'd guarentee it.

I don't consider these things true empirical evidence. I wish that there was life after death, reincarnation, etc., it would be cool, but there is no evidence....I'm a cynic.

Divine intervention.lol See what i mean Portiea?

I KNEW he didn't like me!!!!

You are you young to be a cynic.Save that for the old people.lol

Look in on services some Sunday, who isn't filling all the pews? I'm waiting until I get old and close to the final moments, then I'll believe...

Oops...I mean the churches are filled with old people....that's who's filling the pews...

These threads never go anywhere.They float around like"free spirits".
Which reminds me of the 1960's.

[quote=britainynicole08]

Einstein stated that if we observe a body which gives off a certain amount of energy (L) in the form of light it shows this formula that the luminous body's mass reduces with L/C2, in which C still is the speed of light. Einstein reasoned that a body's mass (M) and energy (E) corresponds to each other. Between those two there is could be a simple form of transformation, which has the value of C2.
Einstein used atom energy as an analogy as to how the energy in our bodies never dies. He simply stated that it was a matter of transformation of mass to energy.
E=mc2 shows that matter is just a form of energy and that energy cannot be destroyed, only transformed into another state. Our consciousness, which is energy, is indestructible. Everything has energy, and that energy never dies....just transforms. Take an ice cube out of the freezer, and that solid energy of matter transforms to water because of it's frequency.

That's cool. Different views we have and I still love ya portia....I am not here to change you.

[quote=StressFree]

I think he was referring to Marilyn Monroe

As if you, or anybody, could

I still stand by my theory:
" mass–energy equivalence is the concept that any mass has an associated energy and vice versa. In special relativity this relationship is expressed using the mass–energy equivalence formula

E = mc^2 \,

where

* E = energy,
* m = mass,
* c = the speed of light in a vacuum (celeritas),
* and the superscript 2 indicates the squaring of c.

Two definitions of mass in special relativity may be validly used with this formula. If the mass in the formula is the rest mass, the energy in the formula is called the rest energy. If the mass is the relativistic mass, then the energy is the total energy."

This is better and explains my last post better. I had a paper in which I did in a Theology course here in Sweden, in which I used science to prove reincarnation.

I just went ahead and pulled this up from wiki cause my paper was done in Swedish, and it just took too much time to translate properly and coherently.

Mass–energy equivalence says that when a body has a mass, it has a certain energy, even when it isn't moving. In Newtonian mechanics, a massive body at rest has no kinetic energy, and it may or may not have other (relatively small) amounts of internal stored energy such as chemical energy or thermal energy, in addition to any potential energy it may have from its position in a field of force. In Newtonian mechanics, none of these energies contributes to the mass.

In relativity, all the energy which moves along with the body adds up to the rest energy of the body, which is proportional to the rest mass of the body. Even a single photon traveling in empty space has a relativistic mass, which is its energy divided by c2. If a box of mirrors contains light, the mass of the box is increased by the energy of the light, since the total energy of the box is its mass.

Although a photon is never "at rest", it still has a rest mass, which is zero. If an observer chases a photon faster and faster, the observed energy of the photon approaches zero as the observer approaches the speed of light. This is why photons are massless. They have zero rest mass even though they have varying amounts of energy and relativistic mass. But, systems of two or more photons moving in different directions (as for example from an electron–positron annihilation) may have zero momentum over all. Their energy E then adds up to an invariant mass m = E/c2, when they are considered as a system.

This formula also gives the amount of mass lost from a body when energy is removed. In a chemical or nuclear reaction, when heat and light are removed, the mass is decreased. So the E in the formula is the energy released or removed, corresponding to a mass m which is lost. In those cases, the energy released and removed is equal in quantity to the mass lost, times c2. Similarly, when energy of any kind is added to a resting body, the increase in the mass is equal to the energy added, divided by c2.

sure......hell and heaven with ur hands....make it

It's just theory...

I figured it out all by myself...

There IS scientific evidence. San Diego a few years back now, ( mid 90's ), there was a woman with a brain-stem tumour, ( at that time inoperable without killing her in the process).

She had at best a few days to live, but some doctors put it to her that they would try surgery but would have to kill her to do it. This was not the stop-the-heart kind of killing, it was stop all brain activity too-kind of dead. (The official criteria for calling a death). Zarah might be able to confirm this for me.

Anyway, the woman consented, ( since she didn't exactly have anything to lose except a few days at best), and they put her in a hypothermic state first, then stopped her heart, (no life support machines ), then put some kind of electrodes in her ears, (which made a beeping noise by the way), to record brain activity, and stopped that too. So officially, by all the tests we have here, the woman was dead. They did the surgery, still monitoring her lack of vital signs. It took 5 and a half hours. (A bit long to be dead huh?). When they warmed her up and restarted all her bodily functions, and when they talked to her afterwards, she was able to recount every thing that happened in the operation, including all the conversations the doctors and nurses had and little funny incidences that happened like someone dropping equipment on the floor and someone else talking about a love affair they were in.

They also had cameras in there and recorded everything that happened before , during, and after the operation.

Needless to say it made the news and a documentary was made about this, interviewing all the people involved including the woman, who made a full recovery, and everything was verified as being true and proveable.

The offshoot from this is that now scientists are doing experiments at sub-atomic levels to try to see how long the conciousness (or soul, if you prefer), can live outside the body.

The scientific proof is there, though, that it CAN.........

Fascinating....there is so much to learn on this subject. Great post gingerb....and I believe it this to be true. I am just wondering if she stuck around for a while to watch the procedure outside of her body and yet still present in the operating room and observing....or maybe something else that we cannot understand yet.

Well, it's interesting, yes, but I don't consider this conclusive evidence. She wasn't dead, for one thing. I actually do believe that we are capable of depths of sensory perception we, humans, have not yet found out how to use. Something happened here, I agree, but it is not, to me, evidence of life after death.