PsiPog.net

Science is EvolvingHomeArticlesQ&AArchiveMediaLinksSearch

View topic - My First Official Theory

PsiPog.net Forum Index » Telepathy and Empathy » My First Official Theory

Goto page 1, 2  Next

My First Official Theory
Author Message
My First Official Theory on Thu Sep 28, 2006 4:27 pm

Niushirra

Joined: 17 Jan 2006
Posts: 299

Some of you may know about my theories I posted in the Precog. department totally debunking precog. as supernatural and now it's time for me to make a formal arguement against the psiness of telepathy.

I've been thinking a lot and have finally paired telepathy with the same method that is used for RV and precog. The pre-chaos theories state that everything is connected in intricate complicated ways. You know like the butterfly flapping its wings and causing hurricanes. This leads to the theory that if you took a snapshot of the universe and took a look at every particle (taking into account that everything is made of particles)and recorded where every particle was and what it was doing (like moving in a certain direction with a certain speed) you could let a supercomputer calculate all the interactions between all particles for the rest of time and literally predict the future. Of course some things could be totally random in the universe or controlled by something else not accounted in this universe model like human thoughts. Let's just believe now that everything is ordered like this though. I won't argue the randomness of human thoughts here.

Our minds are pretty much like supercomputers, at least the subconscious part. The conscious part uses only a peice of our brain power and uses the subconscious for the rest. We already know that psi is intrisically controlled by the subconscious and we move from a conscious thought with a will to do something to the subconscious which carries it out. I believe that the subconscious can in fact use a lot of different factors we get from everyday life to make a mini supercomputer that predicts the universe's future. It does what the supercomputer would do with the information about all the particles in the universe except it's much smaller scale and thus dosen't work as well. Your subconscious is always taking information for it's predictions and always computing them together. Then those who have a "more powerful" subconscious and communicate with it better will sometimes receive it's best predictions. That is why we do not have constant precog. Your sub. can only predict so much with the given information. Remeber this information is very subtle or very large. Like it seeing Sally walking east might not be able to help the predicting much but a fly flying by your ear making a very quiet noise may help your sub. more. These can be so small as a photon hitting a protein and warping it thus making the future completely different.

RV is the same thing except the sub. makes a guess about the present based on subtle clues.

Telepathy I have now discovered is the same mechanism. Taking into account that every human has a subconscious that can do this think about this. What if when someone does telepathy the thoughts that their subconscious think in relation to the cue thoughts of "send this to so and so" cause a chain reaction that leaves the brain and travels through the air to the other person's mind who's sub. translates it and sends it to the conscious as the original thought. It's kinda like making a very small sound with your brain that is so complex it relays a complete thought when translated. The method the sub. uses to pick up the thought from the chain reaction is the same as the precog. method. The sub. picks up those slight cues from the chain reaction and relates them back to the sender and the initial thought. I am starting to believe most of psi is just complex neural activity that uses the surrounding enviroment as part of the brain and body.
Back to top
Posted on Thu Sep 28, 2006 6:57 pm

Woodpecker

Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 218

How would such a 'chain of events' be executed? If you consider it is done via moving particles, then the further away the recipient was, the fainter the signal would be. We know distance is not a factor. We also know roughly how long it takes for a message to be received via tp, both of these assuming such a thing is real of course. Smile
Back to top
Posted on Fri Sep 29, 2006 9:06 pm

Tankdown

Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 688

Well I can see you used the basis of classical physics that some of states if you know where everything is, your know where everything will end up. Also nice to know you toke into remark the randomness of human thought. But what I don't really agree with is the whole supercomputer deal. I can't really think of anything to go agasint up to it for this moment, but while I think of this I can't help but wonder that even the neocortex of the brain would have to be more active to motior all the signs of the universe in the surrending area. When I think of holding in information, I think of useing much more energy then the energy of what you want to scan. It must take so much more energy to record every little detail around us. Sure the information can be shared among others in the "wisdom of the uncounious, but every human is surrended by tons and tons of flowing information.

Also wouldnt there be certain signs in the brain activitly that would show this? If so what do you think is where the brian recives and calucaldes this information? I guess tons of information can be solved then you must have erase most of the memory...that would mean only such a few evidence....Its a interesting theory, I think other people thought of it once, I think I mite have but I don't want to go there.

Care to share more thoughts on it?
Back to top
Posted on Sun Oct 01, 2006 5:07 pm

Niushirra

Joined: 17 Jan 2006
Posts: 299

Tankdown wrote:
Well I can see you used the basis of classical physics that some of states if you know where everything is, your know where everything will end up. Also nice to know you toke into remark the randomness of human thought. But what I don't really agree with is the whole supercomputer deal. I can't really think of anything to go agasint up to it for this moment, but while I think of this I can't help but wonder that even the neocortex of the brain would have to be more active to motior all the signs of the universe in the surrending area. When I think of holding in information, I think of useing much more energy then the energy of what you want to scan. It must take so much more energy to record every little detail around us. Sure the information can be shared among others in the "wisdom of the uncounious, but every human is surrended by tons and tons of flowing information.

Also wouldnt there be certain signs in the brain activitly that would show this? If so what do you think is where the brian recives and calucaldes this information? I guess tons of information can be solved then you must have erase most of the memory...that would mean only such a few evidence....Its a interesting theory, I think other people thought of it once, I think I mite have but I don't want to go there.

Care to share more thoughts on it?
Maybe there's more to the brain then we think.

Woodpecker it would be very fast because all the particles are already there they just need to ram into each other. It's like that thing with the five balls on strings and you swing one then the force goes through the 3 and the 5th ball pops up and swings down to do it again. The small chemical processes in the brain start this reaction just like the ball. This process still would be slower far away then in close range and we do know that small distances are not a factor. It might be something else the brain spits out to make the waves through the particles. I wanna send someone far out into space, far enough so that radiowaves take a while to get back to earth, and have them use telepathy. If something unexpected dosen't happen then we'll know my theory is dead.
Back to top
Posted on Sun Oct 01, 2006 6:52 pm

derricktheone

Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 356

I don't really understand what you mean when talking about sending the messeges. Are you saying our thoughts are made of particles or our thoughts are sent through the particles to the destination. I also disagree with the super-comp. deal. But the rest is kind of what I believe as well. Our sub c. is always taking in all the information and sights we see everyday. It's why most people never forget a face even when they have never met the person before, and they just pass by them in a crowd.(There was some kind of studies done on this but I have no idea where I read them at. It was a viable source though.) I believe all our sub c. are already connected and telepathy is just learning how to use the connection better. I think everybody's sub c. stores info in an ocean of thoughts that's open for everyone to access, consciously knowing it or not.
They've done experiments verifying this idea by putting a large group of people in a secluded laboratory, completely cut off to the outside world, and having them do the weekly newspaper crossword puzzles and after many weeks, they secretly gave them a week old crossword puzzle and all their scores were drastically increased. 20%-30%!...It's like once the answers are out there, you just unintentionally pick up all, or at least some, of this info some how. (My ocean of information theory mabye Wink ) It also explains why somehow one person in europe will figure out some big problem ( i.e computer breakthrough, special talent, etc. something like that) and almost simultaneously a few other people in completely different regions of the world figure out the same thing. These stories may sound familiar to some of you if you've watched the movie "Waking life". Great movie for anyone who likes to think about those "impossible", or "un-answerable" questions of the world Very Happy ...mabye I'll go into detail about my theory sometime..
Back to top
Posted on Sun Oct 01, 2006 8:01 pm

Lleu

Joined: 29 Apr 2006
Posts: 153

First off, this is a hypothesis, not a theory. It is a mere guess. You have done no experiments, have recorded no data, and have no sources.

Second, have you heard of the uncertainty principle? It says that you can not know the speed and location of an electron at the same time, thus voiding your 'theory'.
Back to top
Posted on Sun Oct 01, 2006 8:27 pm

Niushirra

Joined: 17 Jan 2006
Posts: 299

Lleu wrote:
First off, this is a hypothesis, not a theory. It is a mere guess. You have done no experiments, have recorded no data, and have no sources.

Second, have you heard of the uncertainty principle? It says that you can not know the speed and location of an electron at the same time, thus voiding your 'theory'.
I never talked about electrons and I know it's just a guess but arguing what it is is just stupid.

Derrick, I meant that when people think anything, the chemical reactions in the nerves start a chain of events that leaves the brain and body and enters the surrounding particles (air and earth and water). Since every thought has a different set of chemical processes throughout the nerves, every thought has a different complex "imprint" on the surrounding enviroment. I'm saying that a person's brain can trace this "imprint" back to the brain and thus translate the original thought. That's what goes on in scanning and when sending it's like amplifing the "imprint" and directing it to go somewhere thus forcing someone to pick it up and translate it. Hacking would be a complex form of both of those and also having the "imprint" chain reaction go into the brain and mess around with things. This is seeming to complicated to me now so I think Tankdown could be right. There should be more evidence of these high power processes going on in the brain. Of course we have no comparison for the brain so it could do a lot more than we think.
Back to top
Posted on Sun Oct 01, 2006 8:49 pm

Lleu

Joined: 29 Apr 2006
Posts: 153

That is true, but if given the definition of particle "one of the extremely small constituents of matter, as an atom or nucleus", it follows that an electron is a particle, and thus that to know the speed and location of every particle in the universe involves knowing the speed an location of an electron, which, due to the Uncertainty Principle, is impossible.

But, how do you define a particle?
Back to top
Posted on Mon Oct 02, 2006 7:50 pm

Tankdown

Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 688

Lleu wrote:
That is true, but if given the definition of particle "one of the extremely small constituents of matter, as an atom or nucleus", it follows that an electron is a particle, and thus that to know the speed and location of every particle in the universe involves knowing the speed an location of an electron, which, due to the Uncertainty Principle, is impossible.

But, how do you define a particle?


The Uncertaintly Principle only means to messure the particle in general there for changing its details. Also a electron donest exactly act like a particle, there was a man in the 1900s that predicted it to be a wave. Like the photon it tends to act like both. But then again anything with a electric charge tends to do that. If thought is a particle it has to have a charge to give off ribbles of energy to flow around. Perhaps that way people are able to sense much more easiler.

I don't exactly agree with everything with classical physics, I can see that you don't either due to the Uncertainty Principle. But if I think if you look closer it details that we can't tell what the particle is, but it donest say anything of what the particle itself is sending...The particle itself could be information flowing around, the Unvertainity principle donest resrict that.

As for me being right of there being evidence, just stay clear I could be wrong. The mind is a wonderful device, or better yet the body. I remember my brother telling me there was reseach to find a "tiny" brain near the heart to help control emotions. But I never bothered to look it up. But he also told me that he believed everyone was psychic, just some stronger then others. That I do agree with some level (I havent told him of this website yet, not been good in touch)

Let us be clear that the information traveling around may not be a particle at all...but could be something totaly different.
Back to top
Posted on Mon Oct 02, 2006 10:19 pm

derricktheone

Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 356

Tankdown wrote:
Lleu wrote:
That is true, but if given the definition of particle "one of the extremely small constituents of matter, as an atom or nucleus", it follows that an electron is a particle, and thus that to know the speed and location of every particle in the universe involves knowing the speed an location of an electron, which, due to the Uncertainty Principle, is impossible.

But, how do you define a particle?


The Uncertaintly Principle only means to messure the particle in general there for changing its details. Also a electron donest exactly act like a particle, there was a man in the 1900s that predicted it to be a wave. Like the photon it tends to act like both. But then again anything with a electric charge tends to do that. If thought is a particle it has to have a charge to give off ribbles of energy to flow around. Perhaps that way people are able to sense much more easiler.

I don't exactly agree with everything with classical physics, I can see that you don't either due to the Uncertainty Principle. But if I think if you look closer it details that we can't tell what the particle is, but it donest say anything of what the particle itself is sending...The particle itself could be information flowing around, the Unvertainity principle donest resrict that.

As for me being right of there being evidence, just stay clear I could be wrong. The mind is a wonderful device, or better yet the body. I remember my brother telling me there was reseach to find a "tiny" brain near the heart to help control emotions. But I never bothered to look it up. But he also told me that he believed everyone was psychic, just some stronger then others. That I do agree with some level (I havent told him of this website yet, not been good in touch)

Let us be clear that the information traveling around may not be a particle at all...but could be something totaly different.


That's true tankdown. It's now proven an electron isn't a particle at all. It changes from being something like a sphere (not so defined though), into just something like a wave....no real shape to it. Just thought I'd like to add that Very Happy
Back to top
Posted on Mon Oct 02, 2006 10:30 pm

Tankdown

Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 688

Well its sort of is...but at the same time it sort of donest. You must remember that the charge it gives off also effects everything alround it. People do see a electron as a particle, but its charge effects things around it at the same time. Trying to think of a example, here is one but its not a good one, like throwing a rock into a pond. The ribbles simply waves away from the hit, or the source of the electorn. I do think its a particle but what I was trying to add is that it stills hits everything else in some other way.

But I don't think psinoics are electrons, but I'm open to that idea of it affecting electrons.

The man who predicted it was at the same era of trying to prove if atoms even exist... Today we all think atoms exist, but there are few educated people who question that. We are all taunt it as fact in school, even it is as well as a theory. But a theory is better then nothing no?
Back to top
Posted on Thu Oct 05, 2006 12:50 am

Tankdown

Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 688

Weird I was suspecting a reply to my last perious post........ I must be loseing my touch....
Back to top
Posted on Thu Oct 05, 2006 12:10 pm

derricktheone

Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 356

Tankdown wrote:
Weird I was suspecting a reply to my last perious post........ I must be loseing my touch....


I didn't reply because I wanted to check if all my info was right. (which I haven't done) but anyways, I'm sure about the electron thing. They aren't particles at all. They're in a whole class of their own.

This is the part I'm not sure is right but, haven't they proven that atoms exist? I'm pretty sure that's fact not theory. What else would everything be made of? They can acually see molecules with powerful microscopes can't they?
Back to top
Posted on Thu Oct 05, 2006 4:33 pm

Niushirra

Joined: 17 Jan 2006
Posts: 299

derricktheone wrote:
Tankdown wrote:
Weird I was suspecting a reply to my last perious post........ I must be loseing my touch....


I didn't reply because I wanted to check if all my info was right. (which I haven't done) but anyways, I'm sure about the electron thing. They aren't particles at all. They're in a whole class of their own.

This is the part I'm not sure is right but, haven't they proven that atoms exist? I'm pretty sure that's fact not theory. What else would everything be made of? They can acually see molecules with powerful microscopes can't they?
There's a lot of substantial evidence for atoms that when added up can almost only equal that. Electrons are in fact particles though. Photons are the thing in the class of their own.
Back to top
Posted on Fri Oct 06, 2006 5:38 pm

derricktheone

Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 356

Niushirra wrote:
derricktheone wrote:
Tankdown wrote:
Weird I was suspecting a reply to my last perious post........ I must be loseing my touch....


I didn't reply because I wanted to check if all my info was right. (which I haven't done) but anyways, I'm sure about the electron thing. They aren't particles at all. They're in a whole class of their own.

This is the part I'm not sure is right but, haven't they proven that atoms exist? I'm pretty sure that's fact not theory. What else would everything be made of? They can acually see molecules with powerful microscopes can't they?
There's a lot of substantial evidence for atoms that when added up can almost only equal that. Electrons are in fact particles though. Photons are the thing in the class of their own.


"Another discovery physicists made is that an electron can manifest as either a particle or a wave. If you shoot an electron at the screen of a television that has been turned off, a tiny point of light will appear when it strikes the phosphorescent chemicals that coat the glass. The single point of impact the electron leaves on the screen clearly reveals the particle side of it's nature.
But this is not the only form an electron can assume. It can also dissolve into a blurry cloud of energy and behave as if it were a wave spread out over space. When an electron manifests as a wave it can do things no particle can. If it is fired at a barrier in which 2 slits have been cut, it can go through both slits simultaneously. When wavelike electrons collide with each other they even create interface patterns. The electron, like some shapeshifter out of folklore, can manifest as either a particle or a wave.
This chameleonlike ability is common to all subatomic particles. It is also common to all things once thought to manifest exclusively as waves. Light, gamma rays, radio waves, x rays-all can change from waves to particles and back again. Today physicists believe that subatomic phenomena should not be classified soley as either waves or particles, but as a single category of somethings that are always somehow both. These somethings are called quanta, and physicits believe they are the basic stuff from which the entire universe is made."

These facts are from "The Holographic Universe". Do your research before commenting next time.
Back to top

Goto page 1, 2  Next

PsiPog.net Forum Index » Telepathy and Empathy » My First Official Theory