IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Entropy means
that one form is converted into another. Are you trying to say that matter and energy can be destroyed? That the information can be lost?

[link|http://library.thinkquest.org/3659/energy/law_of_conservation_of_matter.html|http://library.think...on_of_matter.html]


When a piece of copper metal is heated in air, it comes together with oxygen in the air. Then if it is weighed, it is found to have a greater mass that the original piece of metal. If however the mass of the oxygen of the air that combines with the metal is taken into consideration, it can be shown that the mass of the product is within the limits of accuracy of any weighing instrument, equal to the sum of the masses of the copper and oxygen that combine. This behavior of matter is in accord with what is called the Law of Conservation of Matter: During an ordinary chemical change, there is no detectable increase or decrease in the quantity of matter.
Conversion of one type of matter into another are always accompanied by the conversion of one form of energy into another. Usually heat is leveled or absorbed, but sometimes the conversion involves light or electrical energy instead of, or in addition to heat. Many transformations of energy, of course, do not involve chemical changes. Electrical energy can be changed into either mechanical, light, heat or potential energy without chemical changes. Mechanical energy is converted into electrical energy in a generator. Potential and kinetic energy can be converted into one another. Many other conversions are possible, but all of the energy involved in any change always appears in some form after the change is completed.
[b]The Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can change its form.
The total quantity of matter and energy available in the universe is a fixed amount and never any more or less.[/b]


Are you saying the law of conservation is rubbish?

So you disagree with the very basics of the Laws of Physics?

Remember I said that nature might recycle that energy, that is where entropy comes in. If it still exists, it is in some different form or the information is scrambled. We don't yet have the technology or science to change it back or descramble it or even know what it is or how it works.



"It is of interest to note that while some dolphins are reported to have learned English -- up to fifty words used in correct context -- no human being has been reported to have learned dolphinese."
Carl Sagan (1934 - 1996)




[link|http://district268.xormad.com|I am from District 268].
New The part you seem to have missed
Entropy means
that one form is converted into another. Are you trying to say that matter and energy can be destroyed? That the information can be lost?

What you seem to have missed is that information is not energy or matter. Information is the pattern of the energy or matter. Information is lost all the time, exactly because the energy or matter that stored that information was changed into something else.

Conservation of matter and energy only plays into information in that any change of information requires some energy. You need energy both to create and destroy information.

Jay
New Then quantum mechanics breaks down reversibility?
[link|http://www.rdrop.com/users/green/school/informat.htm|http://www.rdrop.com...hool/informat.htm]


The Information Paradox was caused by a possible conflict between the general theory of relativity and quantum mechanics after Professor Stephan Hawking announced that black holes consume information (Susskind 53)

This theory was otherwise known as the notion that "black holes have no hair". In other words, the size and shape of a black hole depends not on the body that collapsed to form it, but just the mass and rotation (Hawking 120). Professor Hawking provides that since the only thing that is left to measure is the mass and rotation much of the information that falls into a black hole is lost.

[b]However, Professor Gerard 't Hooft of Utrecht University claims that if such information was lost, then quantum mechanics breaks down one of the important principles of quantum mechanics is reversiblity. This is the idea that regardless of what happens to particles, they can always be restored by reversing time and therefore recovering lost information. Otherwise, energy can be created or destroyed and that is a contradiction of one of the fundamental rules of quantum mechanics, which is the conservation of energy. (Susskind 53-54)[/b]

Finally, the Hawking Radiation that escapes from the boundry of the event horizon emits particles and therefore the black hole suffers a loss to both mass and energy. If this is true, Susskind and 't Hooft postulates that information can be carried out in the Hawking Radiation (Susskind 56).

However, physicists have yet to agree whether or not information can escape a black hole although it may pose a paradox if it couldn't. Cosmic string theory and a special new theory of relativity may help to answer this paradox yet.


You do understand the Information Paradox that Hawking proposed and other scientists were upset over? I understand that it is beyond basic Physics, and you might think that quantum mechanics is wrong?



"It is of interest to note that while some dolphins are reported to have learned English -- up to fifty words used in correct context -- no human being has been reported to have learned dolphinese."
Carl Sagan (1934 - 1996)




[link|http://district268.xormad.com|I am from District 268].
New Re: Then quantum mechanics breaks down reversibility?
You do understand the Information Paradox that Hawking proposed and other scientists were upset over? I understand that it is beyond basic Physics, and you might think that quantum mechanics is wrong?

I know about the Information paradox, though some of the math involved is beyond me. Current theory says there is no violation. But the fix is pure conjecture, of course, the problem is also pure conjecture. It is not like we have any black holes to try these things.

As for quantum mechanics being wrong? In general no, it is too well tested for those things that happen on the Earth. For corner cases that don't happen here, it is not only possible but very likely. Both QM and general relativity are incomplete and are sure to be so until they can be merged, and that merger will probably involve some alterations of the way things work.

This really has nothing to do with life on our scale though. In a quantum sense information can not be destroyed, but only because you might be able to reverse time and work backwards to recreate it. This is roughly like saying if I take a sledge hammer to a watermelon, the watermelon is still there because all the parts are there and I could put it back together.

Jay
New Re: Then quantum mechanics breaks down reversibility?
Well like I said it is beyond our science and technology to bring the dead back to life or even learn how a spirit works or how to encode or decode one. If we manage to figure out how to reverse time, it could be possible, though I doubt that would happen in our lifetimes.

In truth there is a lot about life and death that we do not fully understand yet. We can only speculate. When it comes to these sorts of things, we are still living in caves technology and science wise. I liken it to a Neanderthal who cannot figure out how to put a puzzle back together, but millions of years later and farther down the evolutionary path, one of his future relatives figures it out and solves the puzzle. Millions of years from now, who knows, maybe farther down the evolutionary path and one of our future relatives figures out how to put dead people back together?



"It is of interest to note that while some dolphins are reported to have learned English -- up to fifty words used in correct context -- no human being has been reported to have learned dolphinese."
Carl Sagan (1934 - 1996)




[link|http://district268.xormad.com|I am from District 268].
New Maybe not.
There are some interesting paradoxes that occur around black holes if they're allowed to radiate and evaporate over time.

[link|http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week207.html|John Baez]:

The bet went like this:

Whereas Stephen Hawking and Kip Thorne firmly believe that information swallowed by a black hole is forever hidden from the outside universe, and can never be revealed even as the black hole evaporates and completely disappears,

And whereas John Preskill firmly believes that a mechanism for the information to be released by the evaporating black hole must and will be found in the correct theory of quantum gravity,

Therefore Preskill offers, and Hawking/Thorne accept, a wager that:

When an initial pure quantum state undergoes gravitational collapse to form a black hole, the final state at the end of black hole evaporation will always be a pure quantum state.

The loser(s) will reward the winner(s) with an encyclopedia of the winner's choice, from which information can be recovered at will.

Stephen W. Hawking, Kip S. Thorne, John P. Preskill
Pasadena, California, 6 February 1997


It's signed by Thorne and Preskill, with a thumbprint of Hawking's.

After a bit of joking around and an explanation of how the question session would work, Hawking began his talk. Since it's fairly short and not too easy to summarize, I think I'll just quote the whole transcript which I believe Sean Carroll got from the New York Times science reporter Dennis Overbye. I've made a few small corrections.

[...]



Hawking conceded that he lost the bet, but argues that both sides were really right.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Re: Maybe not.
Yes thank you. A black hole is the ultimate in scrambling information, if information can be recovered from a black hole as a possibility, then information can possibly be recovered from a dead person.

Even if not, that information exists in a scrambled state and perhaps becomes part of a new life form with possibly no memories of being alive before. If ghosts do in fact exist, their mind, wills, and emotions would exist in a scrambled state sort of like brain damage and might not even resemble a human being any more. What we think of as a ghost might actually be part of the dead person being recycled by nature as a pattern of energy into a new form. It might show Buddhists correct that if a person dies, they come back as another life form as their pattern of energy is changed and recycled by nature into something else. I doubt they will keep their memories though. Even the carbon and water in the dead person's body is recycled into the environment to become part of something else.

While I admit it does not exactly prove any religion right or wrong, it does possibly explain what a ghost might be in theory. Though I could be wrong, as I only have a bachelors of science and a basic understanding of these natural science theories.



"It is of interest to note that while some dolphins are reported to have learned English -- up to fifty words used in correct context -- no human being has been reported to have learned dolphinese."
Carl Sagan (1934 - 1996)




[link|http://district268.xormad.com|I am from District 268].
New This requires reversing time
The reversability of Quantum physics means an original state can be restored by reversing time. A ghost can be created by reversing time in the ever-growing section of the Universe, which would recreate the original body, not a ghost. Sadly, time flows in one direction for us, so information of the dead is not coming back on its own.

Of course, this still allows a copy of a neural net that is slowly degrading. This still suffers problems of what could sustain such a copy, degarding or not, and how could it get it out of a skull? It'll have to a really neat, natural process that can read most of vast numbers of synapse states and physical connections and sustain it. It would have to be made from solids, not gases nor liquids, to prevent Brownian motion rapidly wiping out the information. Ghosts don't seem to be solid.
Matthew Greet


Choose Life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big television, choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players and electrical tin openers. Choose good health, low cholesterol, and dental insurance. Choose fixed interest mortgage repayments. Choose a starter home. Choose your friends. Choose leisurewear and matching luggage. Choose DIY and wondering who the fuck you are on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing, spirit-crushing game shows, stuffing fucking junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pishing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked up brats you spawned to replace yourself. Choose your future. Choose life... But why would I want to do a thing like that? I chose not to choose life. I chose somethin' else. And the reasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when you've got heroin?
- Mark Renton, Trainspotting.
New wrong idea
the damn car is junk, you cannt start it and the battery is dead. You get out and look for another vehicle. Hopefully your ashkashic credits will allow an upgrade, with my credit I think I will be driving a snail next time.
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep

reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
New It just doesn't make sense to me.
If one believes that we continues as a being (of some sort) after death, then why don't we believe that we existed as a being before we were born? And if we do believe that we existed before we were born, then let's consider the implications of that when the population increases exponentially over time. Wouldn't it be cruel for a God to create billions of souls and keep them in storage, slowly letting them out over time to match the increase in population?

On the other hand, if the soul were created at conception, then why would it be horrible for it to be natually destroyed at death?

[link|http://hinduwebsite.com/reincarnation.asp|Hinduism] tries to solve this problem.

I don't believe in ghosts.

FWIW.

Cheers,
Scott.
(Who envisions Box coming back as something a bit more flamboyant than a snail. Maybe a [link|http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/camo/|cuttlefish]. ;-)
New Individual souls . . .
. . are expressions of a composite entity. They are created and absorbed back similarly to how your body (a composite entity) creates cells and absorbs them back. In this way the composite entity gains experience and capability.

To some ways of thinking this composite entity is your personal God - but not likely the ultimate God.

It is not, of course, possible for us to comprehend the nature or purpose of the composite entity or the reality in which it exists. It probably has just as much trouble comprehending those as we have comprehending our own, and as our individual cells have dealing with their own environment.

It is also impossible to know to what degree our existence may continue after absorption, or whether fragments of our existence may be incorporated within subsequently generated souls - but reincarnationists say some of it is.

[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
New but I do believe I existed before birth
on the population thing, think of recycling.
thanx,
bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep

reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
New I agree
We are eternal beings in physical form. When the physical body dies the consciousness continues to exist, just as it always has. We aren't separate from "God". We are simply an extension. We exist in the physical world to create.
New I wish it were so
while we exist to create, there are some who would rather destroy instead.

I suppose you can call people who would rather destroy as negative people, and people who would rather create as positive people.

I think recently on the Job and Open forums, I got a taste of a few negative people, and I am sorry they did it on one of your threads. I was only trying to tell you that you had positive people you worked with, and working for negative people like I did had caused me a lot of stress and destroy a lot of who I used to be. When I worked with positive people I could create wonderful things. When I worked with negative people my creation ability was dampened and it became harder to create and even work under conditions like that and it led to my many physical and mental illnesses. My successful relationships have been with positive people, and my unsuccessful relationships have been with negative people. I try myself not to be negative and be positive instead, and I am helping out a lot of friends and family members.

If we are all extensions of god, I think the negative people exist to test us, but are also jealous of our creative abilities that they seem to lack as they can only destroy. I think that negative people suffer a lot because of that, and take it out on the rest of us. Some negative people not even knowing what they are doing. I think that positive people are more likely to believe in god and perhaps be religious. Though in some cases positive people might not believe in god or be religious. Yet there are negative people who believe in god and are religious, there are also negative people who do not believe in god and are not religious.

Changing from a negative person into a positive one is a lot of hard work, but it is possible to do so. Yet through suffering at the hands of negative people one might change from positive to negative. Such might be my case, as I try to work back into being positive and start to create things again to regain my lost abilities.



"It is of interest to note that while some dolphins are reported to have learned English -- up to fifty words used in correct context -- no human being has been reported to have learned dolphinese."
Carl Sagan (1934 - 1996)




[link|http://district268.xormad.com|I am from District 268].
New It absolutely is so
We create our own reality, whether we like it or not.
New Re: It absolutely is so
If we do, I hope I can create a better reality for myself in that I can improve and make changes needed. Thanks.



"It is of interest to note that while some dolphins are reported to have learned English -- up to fifty words used in correct context -- no human being has been reported to have learned dolphinese."
Carl Sagan (1934 - 1996)




[link|http://district268.xormad.com|I am from District 268].
New You can.
Stop being a weapons-grade cock-end, for a start.


Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
[link|http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?pwhysall|A better terminal emulator]
[image|http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/pwhysall/Misc/saveus.png|0|Darwinia||]
New What it could be
is that after death the spirit gets fragmented into shards. Each shard becomes part of a new person but is scrambled and the new person does not have the memories of the person the shard came from.

Let's say for example, I die, and my spirit is fragmented into seven shards. Each shard forms with new materials to form a new spirit and a new person. All seven people have no memory of being me, save many some cases of deja-vu or something, and all seven are spread out throughout the globe.

Yet the question is does any of the seven people have any memories or ideas that they used to be me?

In this way the population can grow and the spirits just keep splitting up after death.

There are no new spirits being made, just shards of the old spirits being split up into several or maybe hundreds of spirits and people with no memory of past lives.

I seem to recall in the Bible that Jesus heard musicians playing music and said they could have only gotten that way by thousands of years of playing. I forget the chapter and verse, but it might be possible that one time Christianity had a reincarnation idea like the Hindus have. If true, something survives the reincarnation or else the musicians being reborn wouldn't remember the music they played in their former life. There is also that being reborn thing that Jesus said and Christians take it figuratively as being reborn spiritually, and others thought it meant being reborn literally like physically. It depends on the interpretations though.



"It is of interest to note that while some dolphins are reported to have learned English -- up to fifty words used in correct context -- no human being has been reported to have learned dolphinese."
Carl Sagan (1934 - 1996)




[link|http://district268.xormad.com|I am from District 268].
New Interesting idea
I like your idea. The spirit tries to seek out a new body as the old one no longer works. Yet due to it being damaged from death, it has difficulty doing so. If it does end up in a newly born body, it might not have the memories of a past life anymore.



"It is of interest to note that while some dolphins are reported to have learned English -- up to fifty words used in correct context -- no human being has been reported to have learned dolphinese."
Carl Sagan (1934 - 1996)




[link|http://district268.xormad.com|I am from District 268].
New From what I heard
cases of "ghosts" usually happen when the person suffers a violent death. Otherwise there seems to be no cases of ghosts at all when someone dies.

Perhaps the violent death causes damage and allows a copy of the neural net to leak out? The witnesses who claim to see ghosts, actually end up with part of the neural net trying to bond with their brain and it causes them to see things temporally. But it does not work out and eventually the neural net breaks down and they stop seeing things. It is not a ghost they see, but an hallucination. Which explains why others cannot see it, and some can.



"It is of interest to note that while some dolphins are reported to have learned English -- up to fifty words used in correct context -- no human being has been reported to have learned dolphinese."
Carl Sagan (1934 - 1996)




[link|http://district268.xormad.com|I am from District 268].
New Why are there no ghosts at traffic accident blackspots?


Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
[link|http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?pwhysall|A better terminal emulator]
[image|http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/pwhysall/Misc/saveus.png|0|Darwinia||]
New Re: Why are there no ghosts at traffic accident blackspots?
Hauntings seem to be mostly at houses. Perhaps the open space like a road is a factor in a "ghost" not forming? The neural net leaks out and is recycled faster in an open space? Wind?



"It is of interest to note that while some dolphins are reported to have learned English -- up to fifty words used in correct context -- no human being has been reported to have learned dolphinese."
Carl Sagan (1934 - 1996)




[link|http://district268.xormad.com|I am from District 268].
New What "neural net"? "Recycled" how?


Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
[link|http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?pwhysall|A better terminal emulator]
[image|http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/pwhysall/Misc/saveus.png|0|Darwinia||]
New Neural net in air?
A copy of a human neural net without explanation of what sustains it, why they're not detected nor how it affects anything but is degraded by wind and not Brownian motion. This is outside physics and into somewhere else.
Matthew Greet


Choose Life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big television, choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players and electrical tin openers. Choose good health, low cholesterol, and dental insurance. Choose fixed interest mortgage repayments. Choose a starter home. Choose your friends. Choose leisurewear and matching luggage. Choose DIY and wondering who the fuck you are on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing, spirit-crushing game shows, stuffing fucking junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pishing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked up brats you spawned to replace yourself. Choose your future. Choose life... But why would I want to do a thing like that? I chose not to choose life. I chose somethin' else. And the reasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when you've got heroin?
- Mark Renton, Trainspotting.
     Why do you believe in ghosts? - (pwhysall) - (86)
         Of course all those proofs or disproofs would fail. - (Andrew Grygus) - (2)
             Sort of like proving Photography to a Blind person! -NT - (folkert)
             It's not "non-physical", though, is it? - (pwhysall)
         I grew up in a haunted house. - (imric) - (28)
             Naturally, the answer is "ghosts". - (pwhysall) - (27)
                 ROFL - (imric) - (24)
                     Re: ROFL - (pwhysall) - (15)
                         *shrug* whatever. - (imric) - (2)
                             You have no evidence. - (pwhysall) - (1)
                                 Uh huh. Whatever. Don't blow a fuse. -NT - (imric)
                         Ah, your faith is touching . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (11)
                             Will it? - (pwhysall) - (10)
                                 Oh, you'll know. - (Andrew Grygus) - (9)
                                     Faith is belief in the absence of evidence. - (pwhysall) - (8)
                                         you have as much faith as the rest of us by yer standard -NT - (boxley) - (1)
                                             That's quite right. - (pwhysall)
                                         Every logical argument . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (4)
                                             However. - (mmoffitt)
                                             <homer> - (pwhysall) - (1)
                                                 And, you do :) -NT - (Andrew Grygus)
                                             Sure. - (Another Scott)
                                         You also have no evidence. - (jb4)
                     sorry, thats anecdotal evidence :-) -NT - (boxley)
                     Could have been infrasound, perhaps. - (Another Scott) - (6)
                         It could have been - (imric) - (5)
                             I'm not doubting what you saw. - (Another Scott) - (4)
                                 Oh, I applaud skepticism. - (imric) - (3)
                                     might have been electronic field fluctuations - (boxley) - (2)
                                         That's EXACTLY what I was thinking! -NT - (bionerd)
                                         Heheh. - (imric)
                 Oh ye of little nonfaithlessness.. - (Ashton) - (1)
                     You're right. There is no out there - (bionerd)
         No. - (warmachine) - (4)
             nit - (boxley) - (3)
                 How so? -NT - (pwhysall) - (2)
                     start with this link - (boxley) - (1)
                         From advanced geometry to Star Trek. - (pwhysall)
         I don't know why some people do - (Seamus)
         Whadda ya mean science doesnt support "Ghosts"? - (bionerd) - (10)
             Become one with the universe - (JayMehaffey) - (4)
                 care to prove that? - (boxley)
                 Re: Become one with the universe - (bionerd) - (2)
                     Not bad, Grasshopper - (Ashton) - (1)
                         Thanks. I'm getting there. -NT - (bionerd)
             You're falling prey to the woo-woos. - (pwhysall) - (1)
                 I dont have to prove anything - (bionerd)
             The energy dissipates as heat - (warmachine) - (2)
                 what absolute rubbish - (boxley) - (1)
                     The Mac is NOT a PC... - (pwhysall)
         pope chimes in - (boxley) - (5)
             He needs to get out more. - (Another Scott)
             And how many former popes are burning brightly there? -NT - (Andrew Grygus)
             Like he knows anything -NT - (tuberculosis) - (2)
                 he is a licensed exorcist - (boxley) - (1)
                     Those need psychiatry, not hocus pocus -NT - (tuberculosis)
         Define ghost - (orion) - (25)
             Go and investigate what entropy is... - (pwhysall) - (24)
                 Entropy means - (orion) - (23)
                     The part you seem to have missed - (JayMehaffey) - (22)
                         Then quantum mechanics breaks down reversibility? - (orion) - (2)
                             Re: Then quantum mechanics breaks down reversibility? - (JayMehaffey) - (1)
                                 Re: Then quantum mechanics breaks down reversibility? - (orion)
                         Maybe not. - (Another Scott) - (18)
                             Re: Maybe not. - (orion) - (17)
                                 This requires reversing time - (warmachine) - (16)
                                     wrong idea - (boxley) - (10)
                                         It just doesn't make sense to me. - (Another Scott) - (8)
                                             Individual souls . . . - (Andrew Grygus)
                                             but I do believe I existed before birth - (boxley) - (5)
                                                 I agree - (Lily) - (4)
                                                     I wish it were so - (orion) - (3)
                                                         It absolutely is so - (Lily) - (2)
                                                             Re: It absolutely is so - (orion) - (1)
                                                                 You can. - (pwhysall)
                                             What it could be - (orion)
                                         Interesting idea - (orion)
                                     From what I heard - (orion) - (4)
                                         Why are there no ghosts at traffic accident blackspots? -NT - (pwhysall) - (3)
                                             Re: Why are there no ghosts at traffic accident blackspots? - (orion) - (2)
                                                 What "neural net"? "Recycled" how? -NT - (pwhysall)
                                                 Neural net in air? - (warmachine)
         what does Peter and Malaysian Muslims have in common? - (boxley) - (4)
             I suppose that means the're not all bad! :) - (a6l6e6x) - (1)
                 Every Humanist I've heard of agrees - (JayMehaffey)
             Still banging the "science is a religion" drum, eh? - (pwhysall) - (1)
                 Im not claiming that, heh, its an measured observation -NT - (boxley)

I'm paraphrasing, because it's easier than research.
337 ms