How to activate kit double Videos

+Alessio Gaudino BOMBER? Non lo sapevo.

+Antonio Di Carlo Grazie.

Prego Sergio, la notizia sempre al primo posto.

+Formicatossica ahaahhaahahahahahah mi sono confessato a Pasqua

No, they only exist because the Primary Consciousness (God) chooses to make them so. Then they manifest how we choose to receive them - they are a phenomena of waves or particles by how we choose to register them. They are aware of being observed, and can travel in 3-D time. Read Transcendental Physics by Dr. Edward R. Close. It explains it better than me, and it is awesome! Plus he has all the math of the Calculus of Distinctions. Way cool!

+Shannah B Godfrey so in other words, matter, space and time only exists because we choose to make it so ?

When physicists refer to an "observer", it's a bit of a misnomer. What they're really saying is that interacting with it causes the wave function to collapse. In order to observe something, we need to bounce electrons or photons or something else off of it, which causes the wave function to collapse.

+Cory Rhymal My astronomy TA once suggested to me that the actual device physically changes/interacts with what is going on, although she's the only one I've ever heard say this. It does indeed sound as if JUST the act of observing changes the outcome of the experiment.

+Jay Han You said I was christian not me... 

I'm agnostic actually, I don't know why you assume everybody who asks for proof of God to be atheist... But I'm really curious. Do you just believe in the Christian God yet nothing the bible teaches? Or do you just like coming off as a douchebag online cause you're safe behind a computer? I really am curious. Anyways, have a nice life kid. It must be nice knowing there's a god out there who can still love a clown like you unconditionally lol.

+Jay Han What part of your ass did you pull that out of...lolThe fact that the best and brightest are by a large majority shows well enough that atheism isn't scientific and theism rests quite well with science.. Get over it asshole.. Atheism is just as faith based as anything else dipshit..."Nuttin Duh-nnit!!" lol

+Alfalfa Henry That proves nothing...The only way that would actually mean something is if all of them won a Nobel prize in astrophysics and all of them won them within a decade of each other when advances and new discoveries were being made and shared. THEN you could say, "look at all these brilliant minded people in the 21st century with all the progress and technology to further our research, they still believe that a god is responsible for all of this." Btw the vast majority of them were Jewish, not Christians.But that's not the case is it? Hardly any of them studied astrophysics, which is basically studying the universe and how it came to be. I highly suggest you listen to some of Steven Hawkings, Neil Degrasse Tyson, Carl Sagan, Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkings (all on youtube) rather than uneducated pastors who basically preach the same message a hundred times over since the moment you arrive at a church. Once you're free from the shackles of a "god" you can open your eyes and mind to the wonders and beauty of life and how insignificant we truly are in this amazing universe. That being said, I won't be responding to anymore of your replies until you've actually read something other than things that promote your own beliefs. When you truly want to learn the truth, you look at both sides of the equation and arguments and remove any prejudice, biases and emotions before delving into the research and facts.Also FYI, only reason I'm taking this 10 minutes of my time to reply is because I was once a blind believer. I was raised Christian for 18 years of my life, and ever since I was a child I noticed the inconsistencies of Christianity and all other religions for that matter. Unless you take a step back and away from those who only reaffirm your own beliefs, then you'll always be stuck in ignorance and the next time you can't explain something, you'll end up saying, "oh it must be the work of god." What else could it be when you resign yourself to a higher power when you lack the understanding of the mechanisms that are truly at work.Religion teaches us morals, but it does nothing to prove that a god exists. It teaches us many rights from wrongs but it doesn't teach us everything that life has to offer.

+Jay Han Tell that to all the Nobel Laureates.

I'm glad you enjoy being stuck in your illogical world of Christianity.

+Jay Han I really could care less what pains an atheist.Fact the Christian God best fits all the criteria for such an event. Atheism is a faith position and nothing more.

+Alfalfa Henry It pains me to see another "We don't fully know how the universe started, but according to science, something cannot come from nothing and therefore... THERE MUST BE A GOD!!!" Please stop being so closed minded. Even the most brilliant people this world has ever known assumed there was a "god" just because they came across something they couldn't figure out at the time. Only to be discovered later on, in fact, wasn't "god" who was responsible...

+Gnomefro I am not evening opening and bothering with 213 lines of atheist incredulity... lolol

+Alfalfa Henry "Information is known to be transcendent of normative physicality because it isn't bound by space-time limitations, and it changes the properties of a system under analysis just by being present in the observation method (as per delayed-choice & quantum eraser experiments)."Nah. That's an absurd conclusion when you're always employing physical things to do the observation."We know that this information is directly tied to observers. Quantum systems compute virtually infinite potential outcomes, but they do not collapse into physicality until observed (and how they are observed), and it has been demonstrated by experiment that this collapse into what we call physical reality is not bound by space or time; it can retroactively alter historical properties (quantum eraser)."What we call "physical reality" is everything that interacts with the observable world in some way."These scientific experiments unequivocally disprove materialism as any more valid than, say, Classical Physics; it's okay as a useful tool in many applications, but as a philosophical worldview, it's simply false; as false as any superstition based upon limited capacity to investigate the nature of reality."No. It's just that you have a laughable view of what materialism is. Materialism is a monist account of reality. It labels the stuff that existence is made of "matter" and explains everything that happens in terms of matter's interaction with itself. Everything that interacts with matter will of course also be called "matter" under this view, because causal interaction is one of the major ways substances are defined philosophically. This is why we got concepts like "dark matter" and "dark energy" even though we know nothing about them except that they interact with matter."While things may apparently operate in a cause and effect, material sequence manner for the most part, science has revealed that without the observer, there simply is no such thing as apparent local realism - there is only nearly infinite information potential that has yet to coalesce into any particular arrangement."That has not been demonstrated scientifically, no. Also, local realism in 3 or 4 space is not a requirement of materialism at all, so I don't know why you'd bring it up."IOW, classical cause-and-effect materialism that claims mind to be generated by matter is proven to be a myth just like Apollo pulling the sun through the sky."Yet, this view is the backbone of the research front in the cognitive sciences. I guess people forgot to tell them that it was impossible to reverse engineer the circuitry of the brain before they actually did it in the many parts that are functionally understood."Science has essentially proven that there must have been a sentient first cause (as observer), or must be a sentient sufficient cause (as observer or observers) in a non-physical, superluminal and non-temporal state in order for what we call the "reality" of cause-and-effect physicality to exist."Just. No."Free will, soul, mind, god, whatever you want to call it as creator of the physical universe has been demonstrated by experiment to necessarily exist, and exist in a non-material, non-local state, or else there wouldn't be a universe, only information and potential."HAHAHA!!! /wipes a tear"The question is: when will materialist atheists simply admit they are wrong, when their own preferred methodology - science - has disproven their worldview as much as it has disproven other myths and superstitions that were based on a lack of information?"Well, clown, here's the thing. We reserve the right to define our own positions. If materialism was as stupid as what you suggest, then frankly people could claim it was refuted simply by the presence of, say, "invisible" things like air, because "invisible things aren't matter like wood and stone". It's a retarded wordgame that has nothing to do with how materialism is understood philosophically. Ultimately, reality could easily have thousands of dimensions through matter could interact with itself through causal mechanisms and things like the quantum eraser experiments are well within the realm of what you could create materialist models of.(Because the "observer" is of course not a conscious entity. It's the interaction with a physical measuring apparatus and something to be measured and such interaction of course has the potential to cause unknown material effects. We don't just abandon materialism whenever we encounter new phenomena in the world)"God as the immaterial sentient observer that is necessary (as sufficient or first cause) in order for classical reality to exist, yes."You have to exist before you can be a cause of anything. Nobody has ever demonstrated the existence of gods."The "how" is explained above. If God is not the sentient observer-cause of the universe (at least as the "supermind" of which all other minds are parts of), then we are left with each sentient mind collapsing their own reality into nothing more than actual solipsism (refer to: Boltzmann Brains)."Either that, or the whole model you are presenting is bullshit. How would you explain, for example, that we can get different results from quantum eraser experiments despite the fact that you have physicists in the room observing the thing the entire time? Clearly this is because the "observer" has jack to do with consciousness."We are either in a shared reality that is created (collapsed) by a god-like mind, or we are individual, solipsist Boltzmann Brains each creating our own reality."No."Those are your evidenced, scientific choices according to the current state of quantum experimentation."No. Absolutely not."Local realism - materialism - is no longer a philosophical option and consciousness must be taken as a fundamental quality of reality, not something a material reality produces."Local realism in the sense you are talking about here is not a requirement of materialism in any sense. Materialism could be true just fine even if all atoms in the universe were interconnected via a large number of unknown dimensions.However, ultimately the issue boils down to this: There exists no scientific model that can make any useful prediction that goes beyond materialistic models. All we have here are religious zealots like yourself who have an a priori commitment to dualism or idealism, yet can't demonstrate anything. At the same time, materialist models of the brain show us computational circuitry that interprets reality, which is exactly what you'd need under materialism to produce a coherent internal cognitive model. However, it's completely incomprehensible under idealism. In fact, idealists are forced to backtrack to the point where they have to suggest that the computational circuitry is the idea-manifestation of the cognitive processes, turning their hypothesis into a violation of Occam's razor relative to materialism as they're clearly introducing ad-hoc properties to save their religious worldview.

+Alfalfa Henry "Information is known to be transcendent of normative physicality because it isn't bound by space-time limitations, and it changes the properties of a system under analysis just by being present in the observation method (as per delayed-choice & quantum eraser experiments)."Nah. That's an absurd conclusion when you're always employing physical things to do the observation."We know that this information is directly tied to observers. Quantum systems compute virtually infinite potential outcomes, but they do not collapse into physicality until observed (and how they are observed), and it has been demonstrated by experiment that this collapse into what we call physical reality is not bound by space or time; it can retroactively alter historical properties (quantum eraser)."What we call "physical reality" is everything that interacts with the observable world in some way."These scientific experiments unequivocally disprove materialism as any more valid than, say, Classical Physics; it's okay as a useful tool in many applications, but as a philosophical worldview, it's simply false; as false as any superstition based upon limited capacity to investigate the nature of reality."No. It's just that you have a laughable view of what materialism is. Materialism is a monist account of reality. It labels the stuff that existence is made of "matter" and explains everything that happens in terms of matter's interaction with itself. Everything that interacts with matter will of course also be called "matter" under this view, because causal interaction is one of the major ways substances are defined philosophically. This is why we got concepts like "dark matter" and "dark energy" even though we know nothing about them except that they interact with matter."While things may apparently operate in a cause and effect, material sequence manner for the most part, science has revealed that without the observer, there simply is no such thing as apparent local realism - there is only nearly infinite information potential that has yet to coalesce into any particular arrangement."That has not been demonstrated scientifically, no. Also, local realism in 3 or 4 space is not a requirement of materialism at all, so I don't know why you'd bring it up."IOW, classical cause-and-effect materialism that claims mind to be generated by matter is proven to be a myth just like Apollo pulling the sun through the sky."Yet, this view is the backbone of the research front in the cognitive sciences. I guess people forgot to tell them that it was impossible to reverse engineer the circuitry of the brain before they actually did it in the many parts that are functionally understood."Science has essentially proven that there must have been a sentient first cause (as observer), or must be a sentient sufficient cause (as observer or observers) in a non-physical, superluminal and non-temporal state in order for what we call the "reality" of cause-and-effect physicality to exist."Just. No."Free will, soul, mind, god, whatever you want to call it as creator of the physical universe has been demonstrated by experiment to necessarily exist, and exist in a non-material, non-local state, or else there wouldn't be a universe, only information and potential."HAHAHA!!! /wipes a tear"The question is: when will materialist atheists simply admit they are wrong, when their own preferred methodology - science - has disproven their worldview as much as it has disproven other myths and superstitions that were based on a lack of information?"Well, clown, here's the thing. We reserve the right to define our own positions. If materialism was as stupid as what you suggest, then frankly people could claim it was refuted simply by the presence of, say, "invisible" things like air, because "invisible things aren't matter like wood and stone". It's a retarded wordgame that has nothing to do with how materialism is understood philosophically. Ultimately, reality could easily have thousands of dimensions through matter could interact with itself through causal mechanisms and things like the quantum eraser experiments are well within the realm of what you could create materialist models of.(Because the "observer" is of course not a conscious entity. It's the interaction with a physical measuring apparatus and something to be measured and such interaction of course has the potential to cause unknown material effects. We don't just abandon materialism whenever we encounter new phenomena in the world)"God as the immaterial sentient observer that is necessary (as sufficient or first cause) in order for classical reality to exist, yes."You have to exist before you can be a cause of anything. Nobody has ever demonstrated the existence of gods."The "how" is explained above. If God is not the sentient observer-cause of the universe (at least as the "supermind" of which all other minds are parts of), then we are left with each sentient mind collapsing their own reality into nothing more than actual solipsism (refer to: Boltzmann Brains)."Either that, or the whole model you are presenting is bullshit. How would you explain, for example, that we can get different results from quantum eraser experiments despite the fact that you have physicists in the room observing the thing the entire time? Clearly this is because the "observer" has jack to do with consciousness."We are either in a shared reality that is created (collapsed) by a god-like mind, or we are individual, solipsist Boltzmann Brains each creating our own reality."No."Those are your evidenced, scientific choices according to the current state of quantum experimentation."No. Absolutely not."Local realism - materialism - is no longer a philosophical option and consciousness must be taken as a fundamental quality of reality, not something a material reality produces."Local realism in the sense you are talking about here is not a requirement of materialism in any sense. Materialism could be true just fine even if all atoms in the universe were interconnected via a large number of unknown dimensions.However, ultimately the issue boils down to this: There exists no scientific model that can make any useful prediction that goes beyond materialistic models. All we have here are religious zealots like yourself who have an a priori commitment to dualism or idealism, yet can't demonstrate anything. At the same time, materialist models of the brain show us computational circuitry that interprets reality, which is exactly what you'd need under materialism to produce a coherent internal cognitive model. However, it's completely incomprehensible under idealism. In fact, idealists are forced to backtrack to the point where they have to suggest that the computational circuitry is the idea-manifestation of the cognitive processes, turning their hypothesis into a violation of Occam's razor relative to materialism as they're clearly introducing ad-hoc properties to save their religious worldview.

Aura!!Aura!!!!!oh my fucking god!!!!

+Johnny Cumlover Bugs No you don't have to wonder. The simulated universe is the same as the Boltzman brain argument, and the argument is based on reductio ad absurdum.//www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2008/01/14/boltzmanns-universe/"The point about Boltzmann’s Brains is not that they are a fascinating prediction of an exciting new picture of the multiverse. On the contrary, the point is that they constitute a reductio ad absurdum that is meant to show the silliness of a certain kind of cosmology — one in which the low-entropy universe we see is a statistical fluctuation around an equilibrium state of maximal entropy. According to this argument, in such a universe you would see every kind of statistical fluctuation, and small fluctuations in entropy would be enormously more frequent than large fluctuations. Our universe is a very large fluctuation (see previous post!) but a single brain would only require a relatively small fluctuation. In the set of all such fluctuations, some brains would be embedded in universes like ours, but an enormously larger number would be all by themselves. This theory, therefore, predicts that a typical conscious observer is overwhelmingly likely to be such a brain. But we (or at least I, not sure about you) are not individual Boltzmann brains. So the prediction has been falsified, and that kind of theory is not true. (For arguments along these lines, see papers by Dyson, Kleban, and Susskind, or Albrecht and Sorbo.)"

Yes, or a matrix model, but then techniqually we aren't real then, so its a whole different concept. But what I think is even scarier, I think our universe is just an atom to some higher universe and so on, and that the atoms we see are universes of there own if you can shrink at the lowest of the smallest possible particle, and you would see perhaps someone observing and trying to look at us. Perhaps we are god to them, but we would be nothing compared to the higher world we would be a particle to some bigger universe which would be a smaller particle to some bigger universe, going on forever infintely in both the small scale and the big!

+BossAman BarrageI wonder how they fit with the possibility that we are all just living in a simulated Universe? Guess as you suggested I'll just have to "wonder on"!

+ExperienceCounts2 Yessir, its not even a theory, its a hypothesis. Would be impossible to prove any level. Whether level 1 2 3 4 or all of them exist simaltaneously. We can only speculate.

+BossAman Barrage Note what is says on his page. In each case he's talking about predictions (consequences) of a multiverse that come from theories about the nature of the universe. They are not theories themselves. Level I: A generic prediction of cosmological inflation is an infinite ergodic universe, which contains Hubble volumes realizing all initial conditions - including an identical copy of you about 101029 meters away. Level II: In many models, inflation can produce multiple Level I multiverses that have different effective physical constants, dimensionality and particle content. Level III: In unitary quantum mechanics, other branches of the wavefunction add nothing qualitatively new, which is ironic given that this quantum parallel universes have historically been the most controversial. Level IV: Other mathematical structures give different fundamental equations of physics. So from cosmological inflation, from "many models", from unitary quantum mechanics and from miscellaneous other theories. Again, if you follow the mathematics too literally you end up believing that things like singularities exist just because the theory doesn't say they cannot - that doesn't mean nature allows them.Tegmark is even mentioned by name here for his "over the top" speculations//physics.stackexchange.com/questions/3892/do-singularities-have-a-real-as-opposed-to-mathematical-or-idealized-existence

No problem man, Wonder on ❇.

+BossAman BarrageThanks again,the other site was confusing but also very informative.

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=//m.dummies.com/how-to/content/the-theory-of-parallel-universes.html&ved=0ahUKEwib28Tf0d3JAhWMdz4KHabxD2UQFghXMBA&usg=AFQjCNGEJ_ZuYOBKKEpgcsgJhjsf2piPOA&sig2=OgJ0X03W_t0IX88lu_V5XAHeres one better and easier to understand, other site was confusing. Have a good day.

+BossAman BarrageCheers,I'll give it a go!

+Johnny Cumlover Bugs Nooo that is the type 3 multiverse idea. Heres a link on the 4 different multiverse ideas! its crazy please read it all it will blow you away.https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=//space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/crazy.html&ved=0ahUKEwitp7aDt93JAhVIrD4KHWLDAlgQFggiMAE&usg=AFQjCNG6AXuPYrb41KGeU8JXLDaSs_Rp2Q&sig2=RqBFKjoThkAdJzN_YrP6xg

+ExperienceCounts2Thanks for that.

+Johnny Cumlover Bugs It doesn't. There is no such thing as a "multiverse theory"The multiverse is a potential consequence of some theories about the fundamental nature of the universe. It's not a theory of its own. The multiverse may be like singularities or a white hole (the inverse of a black hole), wormholes, or a Tipler cylinder or any of dozens of other bizarre ideas that result from taking the mathematics too literally/seriously. They're not disallowed by the equations or theories, but that doesn't mean they're real. As Lawrence Krauss points out, if we discover a theory that explains why there are three families of particles, and accurately predicts the specific masses of the particles, and if that theory also happens to predict the existence of the multiverse, then there would be no reason to doubt that the multiverse exists.

It's faster to downshift two gears in a DSG than to shift in a manual (in most cases). The PDK can skip multiple gears and uses no torque converter. The GT3's PDK can also go into neutral by simply pulling both paddles. Allows for amazing burn outs apparently.

I don't think it's just a matter of programming since Acura put a torque converter back in the dct as well.

+Lars Dennert That's just a matter of programming. Acura has the tech built into their DCT's (as demonstrated in my ILX review) to skip a gear just like your example of going from 4th to 2nd. Quickly double tap the downshift paddle and you skip over 3rd.

+Jthumper Manual transmission with a huge motorcycle clutch pack for a torque converter.

+Lynx Star Automotive (Gabe V)  pretty much a huge motorcycle clutch pack?

+Angad Anand Thanks!

+Matthew samson exact same reason people use manuals. I rarely use auto mode on my DSG.

+Matthew samson With a paddle shifter the driver can still determine when the gear change happens.

So then what's the point of paddle shifters if it's controlled by the computer? Seems pointless if that governs your shifting more often than not.

+Matthew samson Some cars allow it, depends on the programming. I know the Acura ILX has something where if you hit the downshift paddle twice quickly it completely skips the gear between.

I meant hydroelectric... my brain's fried.

+GeekyRocket thank you very much :)

+captainglory merci

+Hamilkar Barkas I see, I have no clue which one came first however

+Hawkeyehayden Gaming lindberg loved to rebox stuff, but i also think they had their own development.

+MR. DAN thanks

+mrbordmechaniker danke :)

+Magnus Malmgren i made a lot of matchbox kits aswell when i started the hobby as an 8 year old child, a shop in the neighbourhood which sold all sorts of things had a big pile of these old kits, they must have been there 20 years already waiting for me to buy them lol.

+Enric Cacho thanks :)

Can anybody tell when is this available or any similar kit like this? Pls reply thanks...

Excellent instructions. Now I just have to figure out to adapt to a sig sauer x-five.

Is this still available ? Can't find it on your website thanks

Hi Saul, is it available here in US ?

When will it be in stock

good for you

+NinjagoFanLloyd so true

die sind aber nicht, aber auch die anderen, weil sie ja auch nicht mehr so lange gedauert

+Brick Builder youre awesome!!!!!!!!

+Brick Builder Your best youtuber ever

+Birsen Harma Thank you :)

+Dang Khoi Le​ ?

+Саша Лищишин yes ooooooooooo

+Brick Builder I have present for You,It's ... SUBSCRIBE

+Gamecade Thanks dude :)

Why do u know that ???