Guest Cervelo Posted April 10, 2011 Posted April 10, 2011 Near Death Experiences, usually documented when someone is having surgery, but it has been reported to happen at the scene of accidents also. I actually changed my donor status until some conclusive research states when dead is definitely dead. There seems to be some debate these days but the legal definition remains the same. Huh, How odd I will pm you later with some info you will find interesting!
gigantor Posted April 10, 2011 Admin Posted April 10, 2011 (edited) Let me try to help out the proponents of an invisible BF. If I were to believe in invisible BFs, and I do not; I would propose something along the lines of a known and accepted physical process to explain it. One such phenomena is called negative refraction. Theoretically, a material can be created which will bend light around itself, thus making it "invisible". Scientists have already created invisibility cloaks using metamaterials, but only for a single frequency. The video shows a cloak using cameras to film what's behind the cloak and then project it in front of the cloak. I would think that if man was able to develop materials with a negative refraction index, so would nature. Following this line of reasoning, maybe BF's hair, which doesn't have a medula, has evolved a negative refraction index... each color might bend a different frequency of light and so on. Edited April 10, 2011 by gigantor
Guest Posted April 10, 2011 Posted April 10, 2011 Really interesting idea G. This could actually take hair testing to another level. One that "might" isolate possible BF hair samples from all others. I'm wildly theorizing of course! :D
Guest RayG Posted April 10, 2011 Posted April 10, 2011 No, molecules can't initiate motion according to Newton's laws but there may be degrees of exerting force that would not necessarily result in an explosion. Supposedly, in the Vedic philosophy this is possible if you know how to ask. Philosophy ponders how things 'might' work. Please explain how this 'would' work in the scientific sense. It has something to do with the ancient languages being used eons ago. The gist, according to their history, is that the sound of the syllables together mirrored the vibration of the molecular structure of the object you were trying to manipulate therefore it could be changed by changing tones. I suppose this is where the concept came from for magicians and saying spells. Another more modern version of this idea can be found in the Dune series by Frank Herbert where the Bene Gessirit's had command of the voice which was used to manipulate other people. It's probably just a legend, but when you look at what the vibrations of some noise levels can do to structures, and what affects infrasound can cause, maybe it is not so far out after all. Mixing science-fiction and legend doesn't make something factual. I know that cartoons are a stretch, Ray, I linked the cartoon because that's how bilocation by the saints was explained. You are just stretching your yourself to be in two places at once, much like the Road Runner's legs look. Maybe a better analogy would have been a rubber band. At any rate, when you snap back to one location you seem to disappear in location two. It has to do with certain theories of mind and how far can consciousness stretch, which I happened to come across when reading research on NDE's. A stretch indeed. I've yet to see any claims of bilocation or NDE supported by anything other than anecdotal evidence. RayG
Guest Posted April 11, 2011 Posted April 11, 2011 (edited) Philosophy ponders how things 'might' work. Please explain how this 'would' work in the scientific sense. I think I did explain it, but I'm not techy enough to explain it any better than that. I'm assuming if we knew what frequencies to use we would already be doing it but I've never read where anyone has put any money into the research other than using infrasound as a weapon. Mixing science-fiction and legend doesn't make something factual. Never said it was, but I believe that there is some kernel of truth in old legends, we just forgot what they really mean so it turns into "magic" for lack of a better description. A stretch indeed. I've yet to see any claims of bilocation or NDE supported by anything other than anecdotal evidence. No definite conclusions have been reached regarding NDE's for sure, but it has raised ethical questions regarding where and what the cut off line is for death. Thus leading into other theories of mind/ consciousness that apply. I don't think you will ever find a research project that will prove what people think they see in an NDE,if that is what you are thinking about, but we maybe able to establish whether consciousness can exist outside of the body some day. There is peer reviewed research out there on the net available for locus of consciousness if you are interested in digging. Bilocation is very much supported by science in the wave/particle theory, but no research has been done to figure out how a person could do it, thus the stories of saints remain stories. Anyway, I tend to agree that a simpler explanation probably exists for bigfoot's abilities. I've been mentioning reflective hair on here since the start of the thread. It makes more sense to me that he would have a built in camouflage feature regarding his hair rather than something more esoteric. Edited April 11, 2011 by HRPuffnstuff to repair fractured quote tags for clarity
Guest RayG Posted April 11, 2011 Posted April 11, 2011 I think I did explain it, but I'm not techy enough to explain it any better than that. I'm assuming if we knew what frequencies to use we would already be doing it but I've never read where anyone has put any money into the research other than using infrasound as a weapon. I think we've headed down different paths. My comments were addressing moving/splitting molecules at the atomic level, not infrasound. We know lots about infrasound, but I've yet to see an adequate explanation for shape-shifting/teleportation of a human-sized subject. Well, I've seen adequate explanations for why it's NOT possible, but none yet for how or why it IS possible. Bilocation is very much supported by science in the wave/particle theory, but no research has been done to figure out how a person could do it, thus the stories of saints remain stories. At the quantum level yes, at the macroscopic level, no. Anyway, I tend to agree that a simpler explanation probably exists for bigfoot's abilities. I've been mentioning reflective hair on here since the start of the thread. It makes more sense to me that he would have a built in camouflage feature regarding his hair rather than something more esoteric. Some sort of reflective/camouflaged hair pattern certainly makes more scientific sense than atom-spitting sasquatches. RayG
gigantor Posted April 11, 2011 Admin Posted April 11, 2011 (edited) Bilocation is very much supported by science in the wave/particle theory, but no research has been done to figure out how a person could do it, thus the stories of saints remain stories. I think I see where you are getting confused... In Quantum mechanics (the study of the very, very small), the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states that you cannot know every property of a particle at the same time. The classic example is speed and position. You can conduct an experiment and figure out the speed of a particle, but your knowledge of it's exact position will be diminished. Or you can figure out it's exact position, but then your knowledge of speed will be diminished. So take an electron's spin for example. It could be spinning up or down. You conduct an experiment to measure it's spin and... To make a long story short, the key is: Until you measure the particle, it exists in a superposition. It is spinning both UP and DOWN. The act of measuring it, forces the particle to "make a choice", sort of. This superposition I think is being mis-interpreted in some circles as "bilocation". It doesn't mean something is in two different locations at the same time, it means that a particle is in an unmeasured state, so we don't know where it is, how fast it's going or which way it is spinning. Once we measure it, we will find out, but NOT all of the variables at the same time, only one with certainty. Anyway, quantum mechanics deals with subatomic particles. Electrons, protons, neutrons, etc. IT DOES NOT APPLY TO MULTI-PARTICLE OBJECTS, i.e. Bigfoot. Hope this helps... Edited April 11, 2011 by gigantor
Guest Posted April 11, 2011 Posted April 11, 2011 I think I see where you are getting confused... In Quantum mechanics (the study of the very, very small), the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states that you cannot know every property of a particle at the same time. The classic example is speed and position. You can conduct an experiment and figure out the speed of a particle, but your knowledge of it's exact position will be diminished. Or you can figure out it's exact position, but then your knowledge of speed will be diminished. So take an electron's spin for example. It could be spinning up or down. You conduct an experiment to measure it's spin and... To make a long story short, the key is: Until you measure the particle, it exists in a superposition. It is spinning both UP and DOWN. The act of measuring it, forces the particle to "make a choice", sort of. This superposition I think is being mis-interpreted in some circles as "bilocation". It doesn't mean something is in two different locations at the same time, it means that a particle is in an unmeasured state, so we don't know where it is, how fast it's going or which way it is spinning. Once we measure it, we will find out, but NOT all of the variables at the same time, only one with certainty. Anyway, quantum mechanics deals with subatomic particles. Electrons, protons, neutrons, etc. IT DOES NOT APPLY TO MULTI-PARTICLE OBJECTS, i.e. Bigfoot. Hope this helps... It did and thanks, Gigantor. So bilocation wouldn't be similar to superposition? I mean you are either here or there, right? Why would quantum mechanics apply to just one subatomic particle at a time instead of a group of subatomic particles? Aren't we all just one big soup of subatomic particles with no differentiation when you break it down to that level? You will never have just one subatomic particle floating around with no influence from another one, right? (Of course, I will tie this to bigfoot in some kind of way just to stay on topic, but I was curious)
Guest RayG Posted April 11, 2011 Posted April 11, 2011 Aren't we all just one big soup of subatomic particles with no differentiation when you break it down to that level? You will never have just one subatomic particle floating around with no influence from another one, right? (Of course, I will tie this to bigfoot in some kind of way just to stay on topic, but I was curious) Think of it this way... pretend a penny is a single atom. You can hold that penny in your hand, toss it in the air and easily catch it. Now, consider that the human body is comprised of about 7*1027 atoms, (7 followed by 27 zeros). How easily could you toss and catch 7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 pennies? That's seven billion, billion, billion pennies. You couldn't catch them even if you had a dump truck. You couldn't find a storage place anywhere on earth that could hold that many pennies. You'd have more pennies than there are stars in the universe. The atomic level (one penny) is far different from the macroscopic level (7 billion billion billion pennies). In short, size matters. RayG
gigantor Posted April 11, 2011 Admin Posted April 11, 2011 Why would quantum mechanics apply to just one subatomic particle at a time instead of a group of subatomic particles? Because of the size of the particles. An electron for example, orbits the atom at very high speeds, in very a small space and has no mass. So it is almost impossible to measure any of it's properties like speed or position. Subatomic particles acting together in a system, i.e. the atom, behave differently. So it's all about scale, when you get to the very, very small, the rules change. Why? because they are influenced more strongly by "weak" forces. So I can precisely measure a BFs speed and position (if it were to exist), but I cannot do the same with an electron, it's just too small. I could at best measure one or the other.
gigantor Posted April 11, 2011 Admin Posted April 11, 2011 (edited) So bilocation wouldn't be similar to superposition? I think "bilocation" is the mis-interpreted "macro scale" equivalent of superposition. If a collection of atoms (BF) could be in a state of superposition, one of its states would be "bilocation". It would represent the uncertainty of its location because we haven't measured it yet, per the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Unfortunately, a group of atoms cannot be in a state of superposition, because we can exactly measure both it's position and speed at the same time. In other words, "bilocation" does not exist. Edited April 11, 2011 by gigantor
Guest Cervelo Posted April 11, 2011 Posted April 11, 2011 Think of it this way... pretend a penny is a single atom. You can hold that penny in your hand, toss it in the air and easily catch it. Now, consider that the human body is comprised of about 7*1027 atoms, (7 followed by 27 zeros). How easily could you toss and catch 7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 pennies? That's seven billion, billion, billion pennies. You couldn't catch them even if you had a dump truck. You couldn't find a storage place anywhere on earth that could hold that many pennies. You'd have more pennies than there are stars in the universe. The atomic level (one penny) is far different from the macroscopic level (7 billion billion billion pennies). In short, size matters. RayG Ray, Thanks for explaing that in a way even I could understand! Beam me up Capt. Biggie!
Guest Posted April 11, 2011 Posted April 11, 2011 I'm not too keen on *invisibility qualities* associated with BF myself. Just stretches into realms in which my mind won't go, or allow me to believe. I know that stories relating such are replete in NA lore, and I'm a huge fan of NA lore related to the subject of BF. But, I don't see it as anything but a flesh & blood creature if it in fact exists. I tend to think it does. But my mind just can't grasp invisibility, dimensional changes, or shapeshifting. In fact, suggestions of such raises my skeptical lenses. I don't often agree with Drew personally, but there is some irony in someone seeing something invisible. Keep it within the norm for known attributes associated with animals and I'm cool with its existence. But, that is just me and everyone is free to draw their own conclusions.
Recommended Posts