[36grit]

I just talked to a guy 14.5 billion years old. He told me a poem and called it: Thought:
Almost six thousand just looked at fourteen and half billion far across the sea of light
. . . Just to say hi. happy birthday Yea birthday

and I said to myself, what a strange and unusual thing. But then I started wondering, who taught Einstein?
and before this thread gets kicked down to speculations I'd like to add that
there galaxies similar to ours ten, twelve, and fourteen billion light years in the past. It's very probable that there was life and intelegent life in some measure of abundace inside of them. (Just judging from the abundance on earth) I think it's also statistically possible or at least probable that some of these beings are still around and evolving.
Perhaps into beings of nothing more than the energy of pure thought.
Scientist study, prove, and understand electro magnatism very well. Give a child a magnet and they understand that there is a field of force. Scientist over the years have broken down EM into a spectrum of heat, visable light, ulltra violet and you get my drift. The elements also have there fields of force. There just a little different. Some mix and some don't and they all have different weight and specific properties. So what I'm getting at is that life is an energy that can be studied. It has it's own bandwith here on earth ranging from plants and worms to birds, up to the infinite imagination of man. Brim and crickets go together, football and beer, and so on. I think all living things have a kind of force feild of space around them known as "personal space". Imagined or not, it is a real force. We've all felt it.

To deepen the idea I'd like to suggest that: We all know that a percentage of our thoughts are primal. frequencies along the lines of self preservation and don't touch that fire, and chocolate tastes pretty good. What I'd like to propose is that some percentage of our thoughts came/come from beings that have evolved into a pure energy of thought. A being from a race billions of years old would probably have learned to survive the rise and fall of verses and live for aeons? any thoughts or evidence to prove or disprove the theory?

This post has been edited by 36grit: 18 January 2012 - 02:49 AM

[Moontanman]

I think it's quite possible there might be civilizations millions of years old, maybeeee billions of years old but 14.5 millions would put them before the origin of the universe, doesn't make much sense, but for one individual being 14.5 billion years old... well i hope you didn't by any bridges from him...

[Ophiolite]

36grit, on 18 January 2012 - 02:43 AM, said:

But then I started wondering, who taught Einstein?

It seems quite adequate to say Newton, Lorentz, Maxwell, etc.Wherein do you find that inadequate?

36grit, on 18 January 2012 - 02:43 AM, said:

there galaxies similar to ours ten, twelve, and fourteen billion light years in the past. It's very probable that there was life and intelegent life in some measure of abundace inside of them. (Just judging from the abundance on earth)

Faulty logic. If you are using the Earth as an example then it seems it takes 4.5 billion years for intelligent life like humans to evolve. The universe is thought to be 13.5 billion years old, so the oldest intelligent life would be no more than none billiion years old, younger than what you have proposed. (There are further complications relating to the absence of metals in the early universe from which to form planets.)

36grit, on 18 January 2012 - 02:43 AM, said:

I think it's also statistically possible or at least probable that some of these beings are still around and evolving.
Perhaps into beings of nothing more than the energy of pure thought.

I am not aware of any thing such as the energy of pure thought. Please direct me to information about it.

36grit, on 18 January 2012 - 02:43 AM, said:

The elements also have there fields of force. There just a little different. Some mix and some don't and they all have different weight and specific properties. So what I'm getting at is that life is an energy that can be studied.

In lay terms this may be true, but it makes no sense in scientific terms. (Nor did your remarks about the differing fields of force of the elements.)

36grit, on 18 January 2012 - 02:43 AM, said:

I think all living things have a kind of force feild of space around them known as "personal space". Imagined or not, it is a real force. We've all felt it.

If it is imagined then how can it be a real force? Personal space is a consequence of the neurological and psychological character of humans. It has nothing to do with a kind of force field of space. If you wish to argue that it does please provide evidence.

36grit, on 18 January 2012 - 02:43 AM, said:

To deepen the idea I'd like to suggest that: We all know that a percentage of our thoughts are primal. frequencies along the lines of self preservation and don't touch that fire, and chocolate tastes pretty good. What I'd like to propose is that some percentage of our thoughts came/come from beings that have evolved into a pure energy of thought. A being from a race billions of years old would probably have learned to survive the rise and fall of verses and live for aeons? any thoughts or evidence to prove or disprove the theory?

You have it the wrong way round. Are there any thoughts or evidence to support the theory? Based on what you have presented so far the answer is a resounding no.

[Essay]

Ophiolite, on 18 January 2012 - 07:10 AM, said:

...how can it be a real force? Personal space is a consequence of the neurological and psychological character of humans. It has nothing to do with a kind of force field of space.

It has nothing to do with a kind of force field of space, but that "personal space" is the sum total of all the force fields of space, isn't it?

~ Happy Birthday!

[Ophiolite]

Essay, on 18 January 2012 - 07:56 AM, said:

It has nothing to do with a kind of force field of space, but that "personal space" is the sum total of all the force fields of space, isn't it?

No, it most definitely isn't. Why did you choose to post such a nonsensical statement? Too much alcohol?

[Essay]

Ophiolite, on 18 January 2012 - 08:19 AM, said:

No, it most definitely isn't. Why did you choose to post such a nonsensical statement? Too much alcohol?

No, I'm on antibiotics though.

But technically, every atom is contributing to the summation of all, including the atoms that make up our neurons; and so it seemed to me the statement was true.


~

[qsa]

Why a billions old guy create a race that spends most of its
time BSing with text messages and useless tweets is beyond me.

This post has been edited by qsa: 19 January 2012 - 09:23 AM

[Edtharan]

36grit, on 18 January 2012 - 02:43 AM, said:

I just talked to a guy 14.5 billion years old. He told me a poem and called it: Thought:
Almost six thousand just looked at fourteen and half billion far across the sea of light
. . . Just to say hi. happy birthday Yea birthday

Unless he can travel back through time, then he can not be telling the truth as the Universe is only 13.8 billion years old.

36grit, on 18 January 2012 - 02:43 AM, said:

and I said to myself, what a strange and unusual thing. But then I started wondering, who taught Einstein?

His school teachers of course...

36grit, on 18 January 2012 - 02:43 AM, said:

and before this thread gets kicked down to speculations I'd like to add that
there galaxies similar to ours ten, twelve, and fourteen billion light years in the past. It's very probable that there was life and intelegent life in some measure of abundace inside of them. (Just judging from the abundance on earth) I think it's also statistically possible or at least probable that some of these beings are still around and evolving.

The early universe consisted mostly of Hydrogen and some Helium (and a few traces of slightly heavier elements). We are made of carbon and oxygen (mainly). These elements didn't exist in the early universe. Life is a process, and for that it needs a certain level of complexity in its chemistry, which is not possible with Hydrogen (it can only attach itself to 1 other atom) or Helium (it doesn't really have any free attachment to other atoms).

The elements heavier than Helium need to be formed by fusing the lighter elements together, and this only occurs in stars. Thus for life to get going, enough stars need to form and then explode before there is enough heavier elements to form planets and eventually life.

36grit, on 18 January 2012 - 02:43 AM, said:

Perhaps into beings of nothing more than the energy of pure thought.

Thought is a process. Energy is not a process, so thought can not turn into pure energy and still remain thought.

This works great in sci-fi shows like Star Trek, but it is actually a physical impossibility.

36grit, on 18 January 2012 - 02:43 AM, said:

So what I'm getting at is that life is an energy that can be studied.

No it is a process. Energy is used by the process, but it is not, itself, energy.

Think of the analogy of a car engine. An engine uses fuel, but and engine is not, itself, fuel.

36grit, on 18 January 2012 - 02:43 AM, said:

It has it's own bandwith here on earth ranging from plants and worms to birds, up to the infinite imagination of man. Brim and crickets go together, football and beer, and so on. I think all living things have a kind of force feild of space around them known as "personal space". Imagined or not, it is a real force. We've all felt it.

This bit specifically: "Imagined or not, it is a real force."

Sorry, if it is an imagined force, then it is not real. That is the definition of "Imagined".

So, if it is an imagined force, then you not describing reality. If it is not, then it can be measured and detected.

Your argument here has been examined under the name of "Élan Vital". It used to be believed that living organisms had some kind of property (matter, energy or "force") that made them fundamentally different to non living things.

After a long (many hundreds of years) of searching for such an effect, they concluded that it didn't exist. So there is no evidence that such a field, substance, force or property that turns non living matter into living organisms.

Now, as I said above, if your "force" was real, then it should be able to be detected, and despite a long search for such a thing has not detected anything (and we have explanations for why it doesn't need to exist), we can conclude that such a field does not exist, and thus disproving your argument.

36grit, on 18 January 2012 - 02:43 AM, said:

To deepen the idea I'd like to suggest that: We all know that a percentage of our thoughts are primal. frequencies along the lines of self preservation and don't touch that fire, and chocolate tastes pretty good. What I'd like to propose is that some percentage of our thoughts came/come from beings that have evolved into a pure energy of thought. A being from a race billions of years old would probably have learned to survive the rise and fall of verses and live for aeons? any thoughts or evidence to prove or disprove the theory?

If there were being able to influence our thoughts, then they would have to have an effect on matter or energy that can cause a real measurable effect. If this was not the case, then they could not effect our thoughts (or at least our brains and that is what drives our bodies).

So, either they are detectable, or they don't have an effect (and thus the percentage of their effect is 0%). If they are detectable, then we could detect them (and should have done as this is exactly what SETI have been trying to do for a long time now). As no such detection has occurred, then the vast probability is that the influence is 0%.

But, what this means is that either the don't exist and your argument is just imagination (and thus they are not real), or they are not influencing us, and your argument is just imagination (and thus not valid).

So in either case, your argument is disproved.

[36grit]

I beg to differ, in fact I'd say that the entire universe started as a single thought and the expansion is due to the expansion of that thought. A billion years is al long time fellas. I'm sure in a couple million more years we'll have flying cars, and be able to travel interdimsionally.

I look inside and see an unlimited mind. I look outside and see unlimited potential, at which point I feel as if all things exist as way and a means for a higher consciesness to reproduce. Makes one wonder, how many more years are going to go by before we hit the canal.
Happy Brithday

This post has been edited by 36grit: 20 January 2012 - 04:09 AM

[Ophiolite]

36grit, on 20 January 2012 - 04:05 AM, said:

I beg to differ, in fact I'd say that the entire universe started as a single thought and the expansion is due to the expansion of that thought. A billion years is al long time fellas. I'm sure in a couple million more years we'll have flying cars, and be able to travel interdimsionally.

I look inside and see an unlimited mind. I look outside and see unlimited potential, at which point I feel as if all things exist as way and a means for a higher consciesness to reproduce. Makes one wonder, how many more years are going to go by before we hit the canal.
Happy Brithday

Do you have any plan to answer the questions, or address the comments I made in post #3?

[Edtharan]

36grit, on 20 January 2012 - 04:05 AM, said:

I beg to differ, in fact I'd say that the entire universe started as a single thought and the expansion is due to the expansion of that thought.

But the point I was making is there needs to be evidence. DO you have any evidence to support your idea? There is plenty to support the counter claim though...

36grit, on 20 January 2012 - 04:05 AM, said:

A billion years is al long time fellas. I'm sure in a couple million more years we'll have flying cars, and be able to travel interdimsionally.

Yes, and 13.8 billion is, well 13.8 times as much as 1 billion years...

In a million years, we might not even exist to invent flying cars. There are many things we could do to wipe us out, and there are many more things the universe can do to us as well.

Actually flying cars already exist (at lesat in a prototype stage anyway): http://en.wikipedia....ler_Skycar_M400

36grit, on 20 January 2012 - 04:05 AM, said:

I look inside and see an unlimited mind. I look outside and see unlimited potential, at which point I feel as if all things exist as way and a means for a higher consciesness to reproduce. Makes one wonder, how many more years are going to go by before we hit the canal.
Happy Brithday

One thing you must remember: Reality wins.

What I mean is that we can think and feel and believe what we want, but this has no impact on reality. If you are standing on train track and there is a freight train racing towards you, it doesn't matter how much you believe, of feel that the train won't hit you. If you don't move out of the way, the train will hit you.

Reality wins.

I can imagine the cup on my desk hold a miracle drink that will make me live for ever. But the reality is that it is just empty.

Reality wins.

So you might be able to imagine these things, but just because you can imagine them does not make them real. And, if they are real, then we can detect and measure them and so get evidence for them. Have you got any evidence for your claims?

[36grit]

Ophiolite, on 18 January 2012 - 07:10 AM, said:

It seems quite adequate to say Newton, Lorentz, Maxwell, etc.Wherein do you find that inadequate?

Good point. Maybe I should have said Edgar Casey, that guy was defintely visted by mind travelers from the future.

Ophiolite, on 18 January 2012 - 07:10 AM, said:

Faulty logic. If you are using the Earth as an example then it seems it takes 4.5 billion years for intelligent life like humans to evolve. The universe is thought to be 13.5 billion years old, so the oldest intelligent life would be no more than none billiion years old, younger than what you have proposed. (There are further complications relating to the absence of metals in the early universe from which to form planets.)

OK your right, if the whole 13.5 billion year theories play turn out to be correct.

Ophiolite, on 18 January 2012 - 07:10 AM, said:

I am not aware of any thing such as the energy of pure thought. Please direct me to information about it.

In lay terms this may be true, but it makes no sense in scientific terms. (Nor did your remarks about the differing fields of force of the elements.)

The energy of thought comes from the energy of life, but I guess most don't see it that away. For me it's easy to see and I'm sure there are formulas available for those who enjoy statistics and math.

Ophiolite, on 18 January 2012 - 07:10 AM, said:

If it is imagined then how can it be a real force? Personal space is a consequence of the neurological and psychological character of humans. It has nothing to do with a kind of force field of space. If you wish to argue that it does please provide evidence.


You have it the wrong way round. Are there any thoughts or evidence to support the theory? Based on what you have presented so far the answer is a resounding no.

Again, I think your right. Considering the fact that atoms, planets, quarks and stars also have a "personal space" That defines there gravitational influence according to the energy that surrounds them, I think personal space is a real force. Stange that we can manipulate our own personal space with our imagination and it fluctuates with the "heat" of our moods.

Edtharan, on 20 January 2012 - 01:48 PM, said:

But the point I was making is there needs to be evidence. DO you have any evidence to support your idea? There is plenty to support the counter claim though...


Yes, and 13.8 billion is, well 13.8 times as much as 1 billion years...

In a million years, we might not even exist to invent flying cars. There are many things we could do to wipe us out, and there are many more things the universe can do to us as well.

Actually flying cars already exist (at lesat in a prototype stage anyway): http://en.wikipedia....ler_Skycar_M400


One thing you must remember: Reality wins.

What I mean is that we can think and feel and believe what we want, but this has no impact on reality. If you are standing on train track and there is a freight train racing towards you, it doesn't matter how much you believe, of feel that the train won't hit you. If you don't move out of the way, the train will hit you.

Reality wins.

I can imagine the cup on my desk hold a miracle drink that will make me live for ever. But the reality is that it is just empty.

Reality wins.

So you might be able to imagine these things, but just because you can imagine them does not make them real. And, if they are real, then we can detect and measure them and so get evidence for them. Have you got any evidence for your claims?

Yep, your right, reality always wins. And our reality is getting more and more magical every day. The cell phone in my hand is sarting to look like a magic wand from a fairy tale well beyond Dick Tracy's wrist watch.
As far as beings of pure energy goes, all I can tell you is that, I see mind travelers all the time. The best you can do is to be a good host and entertain them.

This post has been edited by 36grit: 21 January 2012 - 02:48 AM

[Edtharan]

36grit, on 21 January 2012 - 02:46 AM, said:

OK your right, if the whole 13.5 billion year theories play turn out to be correct.

There is evidence that the Universe is only 13.8 billion years old.

Light travels at approximately 300,000 km/s (when doing the actual calculation they used a much more accurate figure).

Using various measuring techniques, they have managed to measure the distance to the furthest visible object. The distance is approximately 130,648,464,000,000,000,000,000km away. Light travelling at 300,000 km/s would take 13.8 billion years to cover that distance.

What this means is that when the universe formed, the light from this time has taken 13.8 billion years to reach us, meaning that the universe must be around that old.

So it is not so much a "Theory", but that is the age we have measured.

36grit, on 21 January 2012 - 02:46 AM, said:

The energy of thought comes from the energy of life, but I guess most don't see it that away. For me it's easy to see and I'm sure there are formulas available for those who enjoy statistics and math.

Remember: Reality Wins.

You might like to think that the universe is the way you believe it is, but without evidence to back up that claim (and with evidence against it), you can not claim what you are doing here.

I could just as well think that the ground is made of fruit cake, but that does not make it so. Of course, if I could dig up some ground and show that it is indeed fruit cake, then I might have some grounds to claim that the ground is indeed fruit cake.

Though, as I have said, is a process. There is evidence for this. Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging shows activity in the brain associated with thought. Detection methods have become so accurate with this now days that in carefully controlled situations, we can detect what image someone is imagining.

Electro Encephalographic technology is sophisticated enough for us to detect the difference in the pattern of activity in the brain to reliably (over 99% of the time) detect the thought of someone enough for it to be used as an input to control a computer (this technology is to the point where they are staring to make controller for computer games).

Although all these techniques detect energy, it is not the energy that they are looking at (just as your digital camera detects energy, but you are not taking a photo of energy). What they are detecting is the changes in the energy that is caused by the processes going on in the brain.

This means that thought is a process, not energy.

Life too is a process, it is chemical process and much of this process has been examined and recorded and is understood.

This means that someone who claims that life is energy, or that thought is energy has a mountain of evidence that directly contradicts the claim. And, because reality wins and the evidence comes from reality, then reality states that your claim of thought and life being energy is contrary to reality.

reality wins and your claims are thus proved wrong.

36grit, on 21 January 2012 - 02:46 AM, said:

Again, I think your right. Considering the fact that atoms, planets, quarks and stars also have a "personal space" That defines there gravitational influence according to the energy that surrounds them, I think personal space is a real force. Stange that we can manipulate our own personal space with our imagination and it fluctuates with the "heat" of our moods.

Personal space (in terms of people) is a psychological effect, not a force. If there was such a "force" that caused a repulsion between people, you could create a device that could detect it. No such force has ever been detected.

More over, if the effect is psychological, then one would expect us to be able to control it to some degree or other. If the effect was an actual force, then we should not be able to control it (just as a magnet can not control it own force). In other words, the evidence you present for your claim (that we can control it) actually disproves your claim.

36grit, on 21 January 2012 - 02:46 AM, said:

Yep, your right, reality always wins. And our reality is getting more and more magical every day. The cell phone in my hand is sarting to look like a magic wand from a fairy tale well beyond Dick Tracy's wrist watch.
As far as beings of pure energy goes, all I can tell you is that, I see mind travelers all the time. The best you can do is to be a good host and entertain them.

There is a big difference between magic and science/technology. The quote you are probably refereing to was about how to deal with technology in fiction stories. In that Arthur C Clark was making a point that an author should not overly dwell on how the science fiction technology they use in the fictional story works, but instead get on with the story.

Clark was not, in any way, when he made that quote, trying to say anything about reality, despite what some people would like to believe.

Just because you don't understand something does not make it magical. Magic is something that full fills wishes. It is not, therefore, subject to the laws of physics. Technology, on the other hand, is totally dependent on the laws of physics.

So while something you don't understand might "appear" as magic, if it is based on the laws of physics, then it is categorically not magical in any way. If, however, there is an invention that does not operate to the laws of physics, and can in fact break the known laws of physics, then that device would be magical. Mobile phones, wrist communicators (which do exist by the way) and all that are not magical, they work on known and well understood laws of physics and thus can not be magical.

If you lack the understanding of how they work and don't seek to understand how they work, then, because reality wins, you do not have any grounds to make any claim about them.

[36grit]

I guess I am the evidence. But now that's not very scientific is it?
But history is littered with people who have encoutered "ghosts"and/or "angels and demons" or "familiar spirits", and some even believed they talked to the original life form itself. Maybe Abraham was a complete psycho for all I know, but someting is going on. And because there is really no such thing as magic, it must be physics and a platform of science aching to be explored. If the thoughts heard by these people are not individual bodies of pure energy, then what are they? Just wild imagination fancied by the majority of the world? Maybe, just like Santa Clause.
I so I thought and pondered until a shy one came holding a prison.
and I perceived his suggestion, two more followed.

like clothes all bunched up and to tight.
I can assure you of this:
One does not travel fourteen and half billion light years
to free a bird content in his cage.
If a lonely fish jumps out of his bowl he will suffer and die and the glass will be recycled or discarded.
Probably doesn't mean to much to most but I hope someone somewhere will understand.
and for the bound, here is a key:

Avatar:
No life no wave; no wave no vacuum; no vacuum no energy to power the bodies of relativity in time.

[Edtharan]

36grit, on 27 January 2012 - 01:46 AM, said:

I guess I am the evidence. But now that's not very scientific is it?
But history is littered with people who have encoutered "ghosts"and/or "angels and demons" or "familiar spirits", and some even believed they talked to the original life form itself. Maybe Abraham was a complete psycho for all I know, but someting is going on. And because there is really no such thing as magic, it must be physics and a platform of science aching to be explored.

But there is another explanation: Psychology.

People for many centuries have taken drugs and have seen all sorts of things. We know now how these drugs effect the brain. They have been studied very carefully, and we know that these kinds of substances can cause hallucinations. That is the people see things that are not there, they are just the imaginations.

We also know that there are certain conditions that can cause similar effect. These are chemical imbalances, to genetic and neurological damage. All these things can cause people to see things that aren't there.

So yes, it is just science, and the science says that people can see things that aren't real and are just the effects of the brain.

36grit, on 27 January 2012 - 01:46 AM, said:

If the thoughts heard by these people are not individual bodies of pure energy, then what are they? Just wild imagination fancied by the majority of the world? Maybe, just like Santa Clause.

Yes. Based on all data collected by researchers, this is just what they are.

36grit, on 27 January 2012 - 01:46 AM, said:

I so I thought and pondered until a shy one came holding a prison.
and I perceived his suggestion, two more followed.

like clothes all bunched up and to tight.
I can assure you of this:
One does not travel fourteen and half billion light years
to free a bird content in his cage.
If a lonely fish jumps out of his bowl he will suffer and die and the glass will be recycled or discarded.
Probably doesn't mean to much to most but I hope someone somewhere will understand.
and for the bound, here is a key:

Avatar:
No life no wave; no wave no vacuum; no vacuum no energy to power the bodies of relativity in time.

Very poetic, and yes, there is meaning there. This meaning does not have to come from some alien or supernatural intelligence. In fact, the core message of this seems to be that if you place something in a situation it is not ready for (or capable of surviving in) then it will be harmed (or even killed).

And, actually, it is similar to many common sayings. So are you trying to tell us that an 14 billion year old alien or supernatural entity came all this way though time and space to tell us something we already know?

What a waste of its time (and ours).

Seriously, it couldn't tell us something of relevance, like how to marry quantum mechanics to general relativity? Or maybe how to organise a society so that it is fair, just and peaceful?

So instead, we get trite sayings of dubious relevance. One could argue that: "Without great risk there comes no great rewards." (not mine, I heard it in a movie somewhere - but can't remember which one). On this advice, we should "risk" a few to learn a lot, after all, this was what drove the people out of Africa into the rest of the world, and what drove the European explorers to settle many countries, and what drove people to explore space, and what drove people to land on the moon.

Without any of those risks they took, it is quite probable that you and I would not be here, and almost certain that the technology we have today that allows us to communicate in this form would not exist.

So, if we were to follow the advice of this 14 billion year old alien, then we would not exist. Maybe that is their intention after all, to wipe us out with our own ignorance from lack of curiosity about the word and being bottled up like some rare species of bird in a cage.

It is our curiosity and our willingness to risk to explore, our willingness to go "outside the cage", to risk being the "fish out of water", just so that we can learn something new and to push our knowledge and reach that bit further than the ones that came before us.

And, if the advice that you received is true, then they want us in the "prison".