LOGICAL PECULIARITIES OF LIFE AFTER DEATH
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Fast Lorentz transforms: was Why is the square of the universal speed limit the amount of energy?
Next: -*MARK*- meet George Re: LOGICAL PECULIARITIES OF LIFE AFTER DEATH
From: Darrell Stec on 2 May 2010 20:12 Androcles wrote: > "Darrell Stec" <darstec(a)neo.rr.com> wrote in message > news:846aotF4vhU2(a)mid.individual.net... >> George Hammond wrote: >> > > *plonk* It is an honor to be plonked by your sort. Thanks. -- Later, Darrell
From: bigfletch8 on 2 May 2010 22:53 On May 3, 5:01 am, George Hammond <Nowhe...(a)notspam.com> wrote: > LOGICAL PECULIARITIES OF LIFE AFTER DEATH Consider the following: Your biological structure is constantly dying and reforming. There is not one single cell in your body that is more than ten years old, the oldest being your skeletal cells. The structural rules to which you refer apply, funnily enough, to the "structure". Life creates structure, but is 'of itself' structureless. It is also timeless and space less, so what you are doing, is trying to define life from a structural and spacial perspective. Absolutely impossible to explain, but inevitable to understand (to become conscious of). What is the difference between Hammond now and Hammond ten years ago? The body is new, (although it is still 'following orders' from the genetic code). The only difference is the level of consciousness, which is the timeless reality you are inadvertently making reference to. Some people appear to remain static in such states. You dont normally find them in such arenas as this. Apply the ref. you make regarding meeting people 'in heaven', to meeting yourself many years ago. You would recognise your past self, but not the reverse. This is the basics to all interaction 'supposidely' with others (and why there is an ever growing disenchantment with the 'romantic' world. It is NEVER about the other person, we are simply mirrors to others) It gets confusing, particularly when some research departments in places like Harvard are starting to recognise genes which do effect the psyche. This is because, although psychosomatic connection is well established (they are actually discovering the biological link.... one of the first conjectures was 'the criminal gene') that link is rather like the modem linking your comp. to the internet. We each have the capacity to develop a state of consciousness which transcends the psychosomatic. One of the reasons that the term 'forgiveness' shows up in many mystical schools (distorted by religious states of consciousness), is to complete the psychosomatic balance within. (Nothing whatever to do with another), to allow the 'timeless' state of consciousness to unfold, so when you do 'see' you past states, you can see your earlier state with love and understanding. If not, you take on that past state once more. I get the strong impression you are 'knocking on the door'. It may surprise you to know, but I actually admire you more than most on these groups. You have the courage of your own convictions, and are sincere and genuine in your efforts. BOfL
From: Olrik on 2 May 2010 23:47 Le 2010-05-02 19:33, Mark Edwards a �crit : > No cluons were harmed when Olrik wrote: >> I like cookies! > > I made you a cookie but I eated it. I hope you liked it! > Mark Edwards
From: George Hammond on 3 May 2010 00:19 On Sun, 2 May 2010 19:53:38 -0700 (PDT), "bigfletch8(a)gmail.com" <bigfletch8(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On May 3, 5:01�am, George Hammond <Nowhe...(a)notspam.com> wrote: >> LOGICAL PECULIARITIES OF LIFE AFTER DEATH > > >Consider the following: > >Your biological structure is constantly dying and reforming. > >There is not one single cell in your body that is more than ten years >old, the oldest being your skeletal cells. > >The structural rules to which you refer apply, funnily enough, to the >"structure". > >Life creates structure, but is 'of itself' structureless. It is also >timeless and space less, so what you are doing, is trying to define >life from a structural and spacial perspective. Absolutely impossible >to explain, but inevitable to understand (to become conscious of). > > [Hammond] Come down to earth BOfL. I realize you have a PhD in theoretical physics. Frankly, that means you are OVERQUALIFIED to undertake a scientific investigation of God. You have simply got to allow a second rank scientist with only a master's degree in theoretical physics undertake the problem. Your expertise is sorely needed elsewhere for more challenging scientific problems. In the first place there is absolutely NO NEED to scientifically explain what "life" is in order to scientifically explain what God is. Let me give an example: classical Relativity does not need to scientifically explain what space and time actually are in order to prove that classical gravity is explained as a Curvature of (OBJECTIVE) space-time. LIKEWISE science does not need to explain what "life" is in order to prove that the classical God of history is a curvature of (SUBJECTIVE) space-time. THEREFORE your entire introductory argument is ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT ! >What is the difference between Hammond now and Hammond ten years ago? >The body is new, (although it is still 'following orders' from the >genetic code). The only difference is the level of consciousness, >which is the timeless reality you are inadvertently making reference >to. Some people appear to remain static in such states. You dont >normally find them in such arenas as this. > >Apply the ref. you make regarding meeting people 'in heaven', to >meeting yourself many years ago. You would recognise your past self, >but not the reverse. This is the basics to all interaction >'supposidely' with others (and why there is an ever growing >disenchantment with the 'romantic' world. It is NEVER about the other >person, we are simply mirrors to others) > > [Hammond] I don't know where you're going here but you are certainly off on a tangent. Childhood memories can last for 75 to 100 years. The cells of your body may change, but the memory remains unchanged! Therefore the changing of the cells in your body is again, an irrelevant non sequitur to the scientific proof and explanation of the phenomenon of "God". >It gets confusing, particularly when some research departments in >places like Harvard are starting to recognise genes which do effect >the psyche. > > > [Hammond] You have simply failed to recognize that all of these microbiology details are absolutely IRRELEVANT to the scientific explanation and proof of the existence of the classical God of history (e.g. the God of the Bible). The God of the Bible is caused by the secular trend growth deficit of the human body particularly the brain. This brain growth deficit slows down our mental speed and makes the world bigger and faster than it actually is. Analysis shows that this is a classic space time Curvature. We only see a "curved" version of reality compared to what a theoretically full-grown person would see. That nonexistent legendary and mythical "full-grown" person being called "God". Obviously such a gross classical relativistic phenomenon has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the cells of our body are replaced every 10 years..... nothing whatsoever! Two first-order, the Hammond of 10 years ago is the same as the Hammond of today. All other effects such as aging, hair loss, and having read another 200 books are only the second order effects by comparison and have absolutely nothing to do with the scientific explanation and proof of the God of the Bible. Finally, your reaction is absolutely typical of a first-class scientific mind which is overqualified to deal with what is essentially nothing but a psychological problem.... even though it turns out to be described mathematically by the theory of General Relativity. >This is because, although psychosomatic connection is well established >(they are actually discovering the biological link.... one of the >first conjectures was 'the criminal gene') that link is rather like >the modem linking your comp. to the internet. > >We each have the capacity to develop a state of consciousness which >transcends the psychosomatic. One of the reasons that the term >'forgiveness' shows up in many mystical schools (distorted by >religious states of consciousness), is to complete the psychosomatic >balance within. (Nothing whatever to do with another), to allow the >'timeless' state of consciousness to unfold, so when you do 'see' you >past states, you can see your earlier state with love and >understanding. >If not, you take on that past state once more. > > > [Hammond] Whoa professor! The reason we are able to experience "mystical" or "altered states of consciousness" is simply that due to the brain growth deficit and the phenomenon of "repression" which is an artificial brain growth deficit, the "apparent curvature" of our own personal subjective space time is in fact VARIABLE. As this "curvature of reality" fluctuates say plus or minus 5% due to stress, meditation, drugs, unusual experience, shock, love, ecstasy, depression etc. etc. what happens is that your "reality" is "transcendentally modulated" and we call these "altered states of consciousness". This is nothing but a CLASSICAL RELATIVISTIC CURVATURE modulation of reality, and this effect is commonly known as GOD. God is not as complicated as particle physics and quantum field theory by a long shot..... actually it's no more complicated than plain vanilla General Relativity! So put away the cannons, physics only needs a peashooter to solve this one..... thanks to Einstein who has already done the heavy lifting. GOD IS SIMPLY AN APPLIED GENERAL RELATIVITY PROBLEM! >I get the strong impression you are 'knocking on the door'. > > [Hammond] Look again BOfL... I've already kicked in the door ! In my recent post I am discussing a possible phenomenon of life after death. Again theory is a simple classical physics theory. Hameroff and Penrose have shown that the microtubule system of the brain routinely handles the same kind of high-level information that the neuronal system handles. Furthermore it is now generally believed that the microtubule system is the long sought for "Engram" of the human memory system. The point is that it is KNOWN that the microtubule system of the brain survives human death by at least 30 minutes. And it is known that information flows in the microtubule system and microwave frequencies ( Froehlich's frequency 10^11 Hz) this is 100 million times higher frequency than the neuronal firing frequency in the brain. This means that a pre-recorded "death dream" stored in the microtubule memory could be read out in a fraction of a second after death but would be subjectively experienced in real proper time. Hence the bedside observer would see a person die in a fraction of a second but according to the dearly departed he would live on for say a year in a cyber paradise (aka Heaven). Now we already know that God is a classic relativistic time dilation, therefore it should come as no surprise that life after death so-called is actually nothing but a time dilated afterlife "microtubule virtual-reality". And since the microtubule system exists in every single cell of the body and is completely interconnected, it is actually the "real body" it is going to experience this life after death! Now I submit, but that is a very simple theory, that does not require vast philosophical analysis, nor does it require the higher reaches of theoretical physics to understand. The upshot is, that I am firmly of the opinion that a plausible scientific theory of the possibility of life after death has been found. Whether or not it's true of course is something that only the future can tell. >It may surprise you to know, but I actually admire you more than most >on these groups. You have the courage of your own convictions, and are >sincere and genuine in your efforts. > >BOfL > > [Hammond] Yeah, that's what they said at Caesar's funeral too! ======================================== GEORGE HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE Primary site http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond Mirror site http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com HAMMOND FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3 =======================================
From: Benj on 3 May 2010 03:37
On May 2, 5:01 pm, George Hammond <Nowhe...(a)notspam.com> wrote: > LOGICAL PECULIARITIES OF LIFE AFTER DEATH > > Copyright George Hammond 2010 > > Note: "LAD" = "Life After Death" > > Note: Please point out any logical inconsistencies > > It occurs to me that there must be certain structural > rules as to what can or cannot occur in life after death > (LAD). If we assume that LAD is basically a revisitation of > Earthly life, then the first thing we deduce is that it > cannot be possible for you to return to Earth at a date > later your date of death. The reason for this is simple; it > would be possible for you to meet someone who had attended > your funeral or read your obituary and knew that you were > already dead. This would present an illogical paradox which > cannot be allowed in our scientific view of LAD. > > So the first structural rule must be that you can never > observe a calendar day which postdates the date of your > death. Likewise, you apparently cannot meet people who are > already dead in Heaven at a date later than the date of > their death either, because other people still alive would > likewise notice them also! [Portion of copyrighted nonsense speculations used under "fair use" for purposes of review] (idiot) If you are going to speculate on life after death you had better get some definitions as to what you are talking about straight in your head first. What is "life" and What is "death"? According to various revealed religions the theory is that "life" consists of self-aware beings capable of actions. Defining life is a very difficult task, but the salient point here is that under religious theory, life is multidimensional. Life consists of the three usual dimensions as well as time of which we and animals (and most likely plants etc. too) are aware. But life also consists of additional unseen dimensions (it is no physical stretch that additional dimensions are unseen) as well. These additional dimensions have been termed in various words including "soul", "Spirit", "astral", "etheric", and so on. Some revealed religions suggest that there are quite a few of these additional dimensions. Life (such as you) exists in at least some of these additional dimensions. Death under the religious theory consists of the loss of the three lower dimensions. Death as viewed by Social Darwinists (such as Uncle rect-Al) is said to consist of the loss of ALL dimensions (and usually any higher dimensions are denied) Under Social Darwinism death constitutes the end of all life activities including self-awareness, thought, mind, memory, etc. Evidence, however, is with the revealed theory. Hints include existence of ghost phenomena, near death experiences, necromancy, etc. The suggestion is that mind and memory are not simply functions of 3-D brains but find origin in higher dimensions and do not terminate at so-called "death". For this reason your theory is total logical bullshit. Mind and memory continue unhindered after death. Hints of such phenomena occur in ghosts apparently not knowing they are dead or in near death experiences where a "person" [obviously NOT the "body"] floats to the ceiling while watching doctors working feverishly to save the 3-D body. So, if one marks as "death" the point where the higher dimensional body leaves the 3-D body, then clearly your theory that nobody can "see" anything that occurs after "death" is simply wrong. And why should it not be wrong? If mind and memory are functions of higher dimensions and unchanged in death then their function continues after death unmodified. However, the USUAL phenomena is that your continued higher dimensional functions is no longer able to communicate with those left attached to the 3-D world (in other words still alive). Evidence is that while certainly "you", which is to say your mind and higher dimensional part can attend your own funeral, you can't usually tell anybody you were there! There appear to be a few exceptions to this rule but only a few which means that nobody actually believes it when it occurs. Most people are not real scientists and (like Uncle Al) are unable to tell the difference between reality and fraud and hence regard rare or even unrepeatable events as fraud or delusion. On the other hand if one takes the Social Darwinist theory as valid, then at death ALL activity ceases so there can be no "life after death" and hence no possibility of any such existence or communication. The idea of any communication with a dead brain is nonsense and idiocy (as AL notes). So based upon EITHER theory, your theory is total bunk. And even though copyrighted it is poorly conceived and worthless. I suggest you take some holy books back to your cave, contemplate your navel and come back when you have it all worked out. (idiot) |