The BIBLE and SCIENCE

whowhere · February 5, 2010

Um, the higher the frequency, the greater the energy required. I think anyone broadcasting at the frequency you just referenced would probably be putting holes through planets.

WRONG! I suggest you research that.

ToadBrother · February 5, 2010

WRONG! I suggest you research that.

Well your right on that. The freqency you asserted most likely could not exist at all, seeing as the wavelength would be well below the Planck distance.

GostHacked · February 5, 2010

Yes! Of course they do. But now, think of 'our scale' as one of the layers in a stacked model similar to something like the OSI model where the bottom layer - the furthest we can breakdown the physical world (i.e. as described by quantum mechanics) corresponds to the physical layer of the OSI. It isn't a perfect model, but it might be illustrative. Then, if you can see what I am getting at, we can look at how a communication path between two nodes of that model might have implications at the quantum level.

This seems to fly in the face of CRs take on it. I mean if we can devise an OSI type model for QM and how our senses work, then you still have a communications 'network' in which the path of the information can be traced. CR seems to be talking about a thought transfer that just is and does not use any form of network to communicate. It's direct from one to another.

CR already stated he/she is not interested in communication or the path it takes. This kind of leaves our OSI model interpretation at the curb.

Even if you fancy the notion that the though leaves our space/time and renters time/space direct into another brain, there would still be a path in which the information travels.

But we seem to run into a problem where the 'where does thought come from', or 'where does an idea come from'. CR hints at the ideas are just out there in the electron soup. Ethereal. These random 'thoughts' and 'ideas' just enter ones brain. I think this is where we are stuck at the moment.

whowhere · February 5, 2010

Well your right on that. The freqency you asserted most likely could not exist at all, seeing as the wavelength would be well below the Planck distance.

Just because it can't be detected by modern science does not mean it doesn't exist. Also frequencies bounce off of objects and get redirected until absorbed or detected. There is no limit on the scale of frequencies. The limitation is on the means to detect the transmitted frequencies.

ToadBrother · February 5, 2010

Just because it can't be detected by modern science does not mean it doesn't exist. Also frequencies bounce off of objects and get redirected until absorbed or detected. There is no limit on the scale of frequencies. The limitation is on the means to detect the transmitted frequencies.

Well yes, pink unicorns could exist, they just haven't been spotted yet.

If the Planck distance is the small distance in the universe, a frequency whose waveform ends being smaller than that distance is impossible.

whowhere · February 5, 2010

This seems to fly in the face of CRs take on it. I mean if we can devise an OSI type model for QM and how our senses work, then you still have a communications 'network' in which the path of the information can be traced. CR seems to be talking about a thought transfer that just is and does not use any form of network to communicate. It's direct from one to another.

And by that you show you do not understand how information is transmitted. As I have just posted an information signal is imposed on a carrier Frequency. Unless you have a way to extract the information off of a carrier signal you will be left clueless. There is no natural limit on the speed of a carrier signal it is only limited by the transmitter and a receiver's ability to detect and decode that signal.

ToadBrother · February 5, 2010

And by that you show you do not understand how information is transmitted. As I have just posted an information signal is imposed on a carrier Frequency. Unless you have a way to extract the information off of a carrier signal you will be left clueless. There is no natural limit on the speed of a carrier signal it is only limited by the transmitter and a receiver's ability to detect and decode that signal.

Of course there is a limit. Wavelength can't be smaller than the lowest physical constant of distance.

whowhere · February 5, 2010

Of course there is a limit. Wavelength can't be smaller than the lowest physical constant of distance.

e=mc^2 you may heard of that formula?

ToadBrother · February 5, 2010

e=mc^2 you may heard of that formula?

Uh yes. Your point being...? It certainly does not permit infinitely shrinking wavelengths.

Is this some sort of attempt to baffle me with bullshit?

whowhere · February 5, 2010

Uh yes. Your point being...? It certainly does not permit infinitely shrinking wavelengths.

Is this some sort of attempt to baffle me with bullshit?

I guess you are smarter than Einstein.

Edited February 5, 2010 by whowhere

ToadBrother · February 5, 2010

I guess you are smarter than Einstein.

Ah, so you were going to try baffling me with bullshit, but now that I've called you on it, you'll just petulant instead.

whowhere · February 5, 2010

Ah, so you were going to try baffling me with bullshit, but now that I've called you on it, you'll just petulant instead.

Called me on what? You claimed some physical limitation when everything is mass X the speed of light squared. If you say this fact of science is BS, it is you, who is full of it. My point, there is no such thing as a "physical" limiter you declared to exist. Deal with it.

Edited February 5, 2010 by whowhere

ToadBrother · February 5, 2010

Called me on what? You claimed some physical limitation when everything is mass X the speed of light squared. If you say this fact of science is BS, it is you, who is full of it. My point, there is no such thing as a "physical" limiter you declared to exist. Deal with it.

Are you in some sort of competition with C.R. to make the most moronic and absurd statements? Do you even know what the Planck distance is?

You have no idea what you're talking about. Not one little bit. You don't even know what the mass/energy calculations are for. Please stop embarrassing yourself.

whowhere · February 5, 2010

Are you in some sort of competition with C.R. to make the most moronic and absurd statements? Do you even know what the Planck distance is?

You have no idea what you're talking about. Not one little bit. You don't even know what the mass/energy calculations are for. Please stop embarrassing yourself.

I never claimed to and really it doesn't matter.

Salient fact, communication is tranmitted on Carrier frequencies. If you remove matter from E=mc^2 you are left with nothing and it doesn't exist. The body emits 100 watts of power, the brain is a storm of brainwaves. Someone else has stated science has only scratched the surface in understanding the human brain. Of the waves emitted by the brain how many are undetectable by modern measuring instruments. Even an MRI only takes a picture, not a recording of the brain activity. If anyone is embarassing themselves is you who claims knowledge over an area when there is no way of backing it up except with your convulated word salad and cr's electron soup. At least what I have said, is in the realm of real world application and not from the aliens enquirer.

ToadBrother · February 5, 2010

I never claimed to and really it doesn't matter.

Of courses it matters. You're saying moronic things and then trying to prop them up with mass/energy equations, which you don't understand either.

Salient fact, communication is tranmitted on Carrier frequencies. If you remove matter from E=mc^2 you are left with nothing and it doesn't exist.

The first and second sentence have nothing directly to do with each other. Again, you're just trying to baffle with bullshit.

The body emits 100 watts of power, the brain is a storm of brainwaves. Someone else has stated science has only scratched the surface in understanding the human brain. Of the waves emitted by the brain how many are undetectable by modern measuring instruments. Even an MRI only takes a picture, not a recording of the brain activity. If anyone is embarassing themselves is you who claims knowledge over an area when there is no way of backing it up except with your convulated word salad and cr's electron soup. At least what I have said, is in the realm of real world application and not from the aliens enquirer.

You don't even understand basic physics, and you're talking about "brainwaves" and "e=mc2". I mean, do you actually think you're going to fool me?

GostHacked · February 5, 2010

And by that you show you do not understand how information is transmitted. As I have just posted an information signal is imposed on a carrier Frequency.

In my job, it is KEY to understand how information is transmitted. I'd be out of a job if I didn't.

[unless you have a way to extract the information off of a carrier signal you will be left clueless.

Maybe you missed what CR was trying to say then. And that seems to be the basis for the past few pages. I agree you need a sender/receiver device to access the signal. Even if we eventually are able to detect and pick up those signals, there will still be a path and a set of communications devices/protocols to transmit the signal.

Theoretically the signal is there and carries information regardless of us not being able to detect it yet. So there is still some kind of path.

There is no natural limit on the speed of a carrier signal it is only limited by the transmitter and a receiver's ability to detect and decode that signal.

The natural limit here is the speed of light. This is why TB threw out the E=MC2 If you want to transmit faster than that you are using unnatural means.

charter.rights · February 5, 2010

This seems to fly in the face of CRs take on it. I mean if we can devise an OSI type model for QM and how our senses work, then you still have a communications 'network' in which the path of the information can be traced. CR seems to be talking about a thought transfer that just is and does not use any form of network to communicate. It's direct from one to another.

CR already stated he/she is not interested in communication or the path it takes. This kind of leaves our OSI model interpretation at the curb.

Even if you fancy the notion that the though leaves our space/time and renters time/space direct into another brain, there would still be a path in which the information travels.

But we seem to run into a problem where the 'where does thought come from', or 'where does an idea come from'. CR hints at the ideas are just out there in the electron soup. Ethereal. These random 'thoughts' and 'ideas' just enter ones brain. I think this is where we are stuck at the moment.

When we recognize that everything is "the Is" then communication is irrelevant. There is absolutely no need to communicate at that level because there is no separation of thought.

charter.rights · February 5, 2010

You don't even understand basic physics, and you're talking about "brainwaves" and "e=mc2". I mean, do you actually think you're going to fool me?

You fool yourself quite nicely.

I suggest that to get on the same page you have a lot of catching up to do. I have provide a number of cites. Shwa has provided a whole lot more. Go back and read them and then come back to the discussion. We'll accept your apology graciously....

ToadBrother · February 5, 2010

You fool yourself quite nicely.

I suggest that to get on the same page you have a lot of catching up to do. I have provide a number of cites. Shwa has provided a whole lot more. Go back and read them and then come back to the discussion. We'll accept your apology graciously....

And you too? I mean do any of you guys for the briefest moment imagine that I actually believe that you know what you're talking about, Mr. "Electron Soup".

GostHacked · February 5, 2010

When we recognize that everything is "the Is" then communication is irrelevant. There is absolutely no need to communicate at that level because there is no separation of thought.

I'd argue that there is no thought on that level. Our understanding of what a thought is does not work on the QM level.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought

Thought and thinking are mental forms and processes, respectively ("thought" is both). Thinking allows beings to model the world and to represent it according to their objectives, plans, ends and desires. Words referring to similar concepts and processes include cognition, sentience, consciousness, idea, and imagination.[1]

Granted you must be talking about a different kind of thought altogether.

whowhere · February 5, 2010

Maybe you missed what CR was trying to say then. And that seems to be the basis for the past few pages. I agree you need a sender/receiver device to access the signal. Even if we eventually are able to detect and pick up those signals, there will still be a path and a set of communications devices/protocols to transmit the signal.

Theoretically the signal is there and carries information regardless of us not being able to detect it yet. So there is still some kind of path.

The higher the frequency the greater success of tranmission. Your path argument is accurate because of cloud cover and obstacles. The higher the frequency the greater the distance able to be transmitted and the less power required to transmit the signal. Is there a scientific device capable of measuring a thought wave? I doubt it. The instruments record brainwave activity, not thought activity. Is it possible your brain is emitting waves undetectable by modern instruments? absolutely! However, it would be pointless to send out signals of any kind if there is no device/or GOD to interpret them :lol: .

Mr CR aka electron soup is out in left field and makes no sense and he his butchering the semantics of the words he is using. What mr Electron soup is not getting is the gasoline in my car is not the same as the gasoline in his car. Yes its gasoline, but when I drive what happens to that gasoline? When I am out of Gasoline what do I do then? Where do I get more Gasoline?

That't the problem with CR, and his reduction of everything to singularity, it becomes meaningless and incomprehensible.

charter.rights · February 5, 2010

The higher the frequency the greater success of tranmission. Your path argument is accurate because of cloud cover and obstacles. The higher the frequency the greater the distance able to be transmitted and the less power required to transmit the signal. Is there a scientific device capable of measuring a thought wave? I doubt it. The instruments record brainwave activity, not thought activity. Is it possible your brain is emitting waves undetectable by modern instruments? absolutely! However, it would be pointless to send out signals of any kind if there is no device/or GOD to interpret them .

Mr CR aka electron soup is out in left field and makes no sense and he his butchering the semantics of the words he is using. What mr Electron soup is not getting is the gasoline in my car is not the same as the gasoline in his car. Yes its gasoline, but when I drive what happens to that gasoline? When I am out of Gasoline what do I do then? Where do I get more Gasoline?

That't the problem with CR, and his reduction of everything to singularity, it becomes meaningless and incomprehensible.

There are different levels of intelligence on this forum and I can unequivocally state you are not one of them.

You're not missing anything because you haven't even touch the entry level of this discussion. Better go repent your sins. You're due.

whowhere · February 5, 2010

There are different levels of intelligence on this forum and I can unequivocally state you are not one of them.

You're not missing anything because you haven't even touch the entry level of this discussion. Better go repent your sins. You're due.

Mr Electron Soup you are clueless and truly lost in space. Not to worry, the universe abhors a vacuum and it will categorize and stream you out accordingly. As for the level of discussion, what I have said syncs up on a level beyond you. What I have put forward is in the realm of proven scientific application and is consistent with evolving technology. You are on cloud nine.

You are certainly some new age something or other.

jbg · February 5, 2010

Go cuddle with a Toad and read a science book. It my evolve into you getting some if the Toad wants warts and all.....

Are you making fun of Toad Brother and Kimmy since they're the only sane ones left on this thread? Oh, you left out Ghost Hacked as well. Edited February 5, 2010 by jbg