My experience with Astral Experimentation

More
27 Jul 2019 00:10 #340649 by Uzima Moto

Gisteron wrote: The question is not whether you were controlling or contacting a ghost or not, nor whether any such interaction would have been intentional. You reported sensing something and you identified the source of what ever that was as your aura. I'm asking how you ruled out it being anything else. No claim is made about the ease or difficulty of controlling a ghost. But you already admit you believe they exist and can interact with us. How do you know that what you felt was your aura and not any such interaction?


You know, if you understood any of these ideas just conceptually you wouldn't ask such silly questions.. as well as if you actually paid attention to the story.. because I was specific on what I was feeling, it's source, and it's movement. I also explained why it wouldn't be those other things.. precisely because of my control over the feeling. This actually stems from a well known meditation technique.. So if my explainations aren't satisfactory for you, that sounds like a personal issue..


Again, you are assuming I'm suggesting any kind of intentional interference. I'm not. I'm asking how you know auras exist and that you were sensing your own and not anything else. And now here we are, with even intentional will casting from third parties being not out of the question, just "unlikely" because there wasn't zero but only "near zero" individuals of whom you can say that they'd know and an unknown albeit probably small to zero amount of people who may well have had time to waste following you around. So how likely is it then, exactly, and how did you compute that likelihood, if you only ever performed the experiment this once and did nothing to store the data gathered? And what about all of the conceivable magical interferences, not just the intentional ones? How unlikely are they, and what did you do to estimate that likelihood before judging it negligible compared to the likelihood that you were sensing your aura instead? Just how likely is sensing an aura, anyway?


"Magical Interference" lmao what?! Like Magic Static or something?? Please, sir, you should read up on some of these things. I'm surprised you haven't by now since you combat them like some accursed adversary..


Yea, I remember you said you touched a door knob. I don't remember you saying how you measured how much static charge you or any other part of the experiment had afterwads, although I do remember asking "Did you make any attempt at confirming your static charge afterward?" But before we get bogged down with electrostatic forces here and neglect all others, just like earlier it looked like we were only looking at only the subset of intentional ghost and magical interferences rather than all: How much did your physical environmental qualities change during the course of the experiment, roughly? And how much would have been the minimal amount (again, no exact numbers needed, just give me some rough estimate if you can, please) to account for all the sensations in and outside of your body, in your opinion?


Nothing changed, this experiment wasn't very long. How much would you expect to change?


It's not that I actually hate to break it to you but... TV screens didn't just fall from the sky, you know. People built them. People before them invented them, and people yet before those discovered and mapped the natural effects that such technology exploits. TV screens are not witchcraft. The image doesn't just spawn out of some magic soup of reality to suddenly appear on it. You can hook up electrodes to any part of the device and actually measure the changes in voltage that accompany what ever changes on the screen itself.
You can't have it both ways. Either the "energy movement" is measurable well ahead of where the image appears (possibly even well ahead of the entire TV device) or no control over the image on the screen is exerted. I'm sorry, but physics just isn't this whimsical. If nature could arbitrarily choose to behave entirely unlike how she does at any moment, we wouldn't have any understanding of it at all, and nothing like that TV you keep portraying as a magic image box would even exist...


Lol, sure you could've measured any material changes. I was talking about the non-material movement of my energy though.. you would have no evidence of it until the supermaterial interaction had it's affect on the material plane.. Please, do try to keep up.. and what's with the gendering of Nature?? It is an it.. androgynous..

*sigh* You cannot "hold" an electromagnetic wave. You can get it pretty bloody near to a stop, all the while sacrificing any way a regular receiving antenna could capture it. Nor, for that matter, can you force the receiver to only read one section of your wave unless you keep sending it that segment.


You keep saying that, but no proof to back it. Why can't you hold it?..

Everything else depends on the specific electronics and segment involved. Does the signal contain hblank and vblank markers and does the receiver need/interpret or even construct any itself? What are the values transmitted during vblank and hblank times, if any are, and - again, does the receiver do anything with them before forwarding the end result to the display device? Does the display device require vblank and hblank markers, what values can it tolerate in those times and what happens if wrong ones are forwarded instead?
In a way I'm glad you ask what would happen, ill-equipped though I am to answer, seeing as I know almost nothing of electronics in general and less still about the specific devices you were using eight years ago. What confuses me is why you didn't ask them before setting out to toying with the equipment, or at any point since that day?


Either I didn't know them to ask, or were most likely irrelevant to the experiment or its results.. which I haven't even had the chance to talk about since you keep getting hung up on the easy parts..


What kind of experimental inquiry is it, where you go in learning nothing about the parts involved beforehand, jump to conclusions you held well before anyway, and based on spurious indication if any, never make any attempt to record the experiment for later review or to repeat it, and never make any attempt at learning what could have happened since, let alone what did happen (assuming you are being remotely honest and reliable in your recollection - an amount of charity I was evidently unworthy of when I asked about ghosts).


And we finally get to the root behind your attitude towards all this.. you probably assume I'm lying about the whole thing lol.. Well, idk if I could convince you otherwise. Maybe that's why you won't actually talk about the results..

However, it's like any other experiment. I inquired about some of the things pertaining to the experiment. Mainly, the nature of waves. Like I said before. I didn't set out to manipulate anything but my auras interaction with radiowaves. At the time, the kind of receiver was nearly irrelevant to this end. In fact, any receiver probably would've worked if the device it's housed in is small enough. However, due to spontaneity and the ensuing time constraint. I'm sure I was missing quite a few things for this bare bones experiment. However, nothing that would've changed the results.. I do like how you're trying to judge my life without knowing me though.. I mean, there couldn't possibly been anything in this world that could deter further testing on my part, because that equals verification in your mind, right?.. but I'm going no further down that path with you.. and it doesn't effect the validity of my experiment, nor it's results. You can repeat this for yourself.. or.. no.. you probably couldn't personally.. you'd have to get somebody more adept at the more advanced forms of meditation.. you don't even have a working knowledge to use them..

Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem
By the sword we seek peace, but peace only under liberty.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Gisteron

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
27 Jul 2019 10:01 - 27 Jul 2019 10:10 #340650 by Gisteron

Uzima Moto wrote: You know, if you understood any of these ideas just conceptually you wouldn't ask such silly questions.. as well as if you actually paid attention to the story.. because I was specific on what I was feeling, it's source, and it's movement. I also explained why it wouldn't be those other things.. precisely because of my control over the feeling. This actually stems from a well known meditation technique.. So if my explainations aren't satisfactory for you, that sounds like a personal issue..

No, you did not explain why it wouldn't be anything else. If my memory is any good at all, then what you said upon my inquiry was

This is serious now. Don't be facetious lol "ghosts".. such subtle changes in things like air temperature or pressure would be difficult to feel I imagine. Also, I wouldn't feel much from a tv either lol

and I do remember responding to it, too. The ghosts part you just dismissed as you are dismissing the entire query as "silly" now. I don't know why. After all, you do believe in ghosts and that we can interact with them, but somehow it's still impossible that that was what you were feeling. Why you bring up control is irrelevant. You did not go on to control your aura, you just sensed it. You controlled some unspecified kind of ethereal though non-material energy to do something to a radio signal and evidently made no attempt to understand what was going on since. I'll get to that, too, don't worry.


"Magical Interference" lmao what?! Like Magic Static or something?? Please, sir, you should read up on some of these things. I'm surprised you haven't by now since you combat them like some accursed adversary..

Please, sir, do try and explain how this is any kind of productive response to the question posed to you. My initial query was how you knew that it wasn't a ghost, sorcery from a third party or the universe itself, or some physical interaction you did not control for. While you tracked back now and admit that all of these things are possible albeit unlikely, now I'm curious just how unlikely they are and how likely your chosen explanation is, and how you computed those respective likelihoods. I'm not one to complain about rudeness in general, but I would rather you too could keep it civil, if you can help it. I for one am trying, but as this post continues, you're not making it easy, and it shows.


Yea, I remember you said you touched a door knob. I don't remember you saying how you measured how much static charge you or any other part of the experiment had afterwads, although I do remember asking "Did you make any attempt at confirming your static charge afterward?" But before we get bogged down with electrostatic forces here and neglect all others, just like earlier it looked like we were only looking at only the subset of intentional ghost and magical interferences rather than all: How much did your physical environmental qualities change during the course of the experiment, roughly? And how much would have been the minimal amount (again, no exact numbers needed, just give me some rough estimate if you can, please) to account for all the sensations in and outside of your body, in your opinion?


Nothing changed, this experiment wasn't very long. How much would you expect to change?

Well "nothing changed" is definitely false. Your presence alone would have an impact on the temperature, humidity and flow of the air in that room, your breathing would too, the local and total pressure would be changing and you didn't tell us that you set up anything to measure any such changes, or control them. Now, maybe these changes were too minute to affect the ethereal energy experiments you were performing. Forgive my lack of education on such matters if you can, please. You are however trying to argue that the material and non-material forms of ethereal energy can in fact interact, so - as my lay eyes see it - it is not an entirely senseless question to ask what material factors you made any effort to keep in check, or what the argument would be for why the magnitude of the changes that are sure to have ensued be insignificant to impact the results.


Lol, sure you could've measured any material changes. I was talking about the non-material movement of my energy though.. you would have no evidence of it until the supermaterial interaction had it's affect [sic] on the material plane.. Please, do try to keep up..

What ever supernatural interaction would have had it's "affect" on the material plane would have been measurable well, well ahead of the image appearing on the screen, because the image is a strict consequence of the action in the circuitry before it. You said specifically that the non-participant observer wouldn't be able to detect any trace of it until the image was there.


Either I didn't know them to ask, or were most likely irrelevant to the experiment or its results.. which I haven't even had the chance to talk about since you keep getting hung up on the easy parts..

Except when I ask just how likely or unlikely relevant they were, you keep dismissing the questions as silly.
The reason I'm not commenting on your "results" is because frankly until we can establish that the procedure would produce reliable ones, what results you got is fairly uninteresting. If someone sampled a fair six sided dice by two throws and concluded that therefore the dice only ever showed odd numbers, should anyone care about that result, let alone take it seriously? Procedure is important not because "The Book of How To Science" declares that it need be well, but because we must be reasonably sure the results are not tainted by sloppy experimentation before we can draw any grand conclusions from them. It's not just a formality.


And we finally get to the root behind your attitude towards all this.. you probably assume I'm lying about the whole thing lol.. Well, idk if I could convince you otherwise. Maybe that's why you won't actually talk about the results..

No, the reason I won't talk about the results is that I don't care about them, because by the looks of it, even if you are being entirely honest and accurate in your recollection, it looks like your methods were sloppy and your conclusions premature. However, about the lying part... well, this is where things get interesting. On the one hand you go on to say

However, it's like any other experiment. I inquired about some of the things pertaining to the experiment. Mainly, the nature of waves.

But then at the same time you ask

You cannot "hold" an electromagnetic wave.

You keep saying that, but no proof to back it. Why can't you hold it?..

Call me cynical if you must, but to me it sounds like you really don't know at all what a wave in general or an electromagnetic wave in particular are. Now, if I was less kind today, I could leave it at that, and just say that your incredulity stems from a fundamental lack of understanding and refuse to answer your question. After all, this is what you do, too, when ever I have a legitimate question about your woo-woo. I suppose the only difference is that the nature of waves is something you can look up within minutes for free on the internet, with full mathematical derivations in educational articles or dedicated forums, even countless educational videos on the subject - because waves are real and there has been a consistent model of them for several centuries - but I couldn't do the same for your brand of ethereal gobbledygook because there is barely two sources out there that wouldn't contradict each other, and that's charitably assuming that they don't each contradict themselves as well...
But no, I shall not treat you as you treat me.
Without further ado and all the ranting out of the way, on to some wave mechanics:

A wave, to keep things broad and simple, is by definition any solution u(x,t) to the wave equation

For multiple spatial dimensions replace the second spatial derivative by the respective Laplacian operator, of course.

Electromagnetic waves then are forms of the electric field E and magnetic field B as functions of space and time, that each satisfy this equation. As you can see, however, the equation only governs second derivatives. Nevertheless c is not a meaningless constant, but indeed the wave speed. Given any initial condition E(x,0) you will find that as any amount of time t has passed, the new value the function adopts at a point x will equal to the value of the initial condition at x-ct. The equation forces any function that satisfies it to keep "propagating" and in three dimensions both E and B will have vector values and keep moving in a direction perpendicular to both with the speed c. The wave speed needn't of course be the speed of light in a vacuum. After all, the equation is just as descriptive of pressure waves, mechanical waves in strings and fabric, even gravitational waves. The wave speed in optically dense media can by all means be arbitrarily small, but once we say it is zero we are no longer talking about any kind of wave any longer, because that wouldn't be the wave equation any longer and the space of solutions to that new equation is altogether different at that point, too.
I could now go on to remember our past interactions, and expect that as per usual you would just dismiss this as being way too "material" and not at all about the sort of non-material ethereal-electro ethereal-magnetic ethereal-radio wave, or possibly just not respond to it at all. and assert that I'm being silly, unreasonable, dismissive, ignorant, or some other kind of uncharitable a few pages down the line. But that is for you to decide. I was responding to the things you said as and when you did, and if you move the goal post soon and it turns out this wasn't about electromagnetic waves after all, so be it, silly me. And you can blame me for making empty assertions, backing none of them up or ignoring your queries and criticisms, too. So long as you have no means of editing my posts, everybody can read what each of us said and I stand by it, for now, for better or for worse.


I do like how you're trying to judge my life without knowing me though.. I mean, there couldn't possibly been anything in this world that could deter further testing on my part, because that equals verification in your mind, right?..

I'm entirely comfortable leaving this to the judgement of our readers. Is this anything like something I had said at any point in the course of this thread? I'm not judging your life. It's not my place, nor my interest. In fact, I have been emphasizing at many a point that I am not in your shoes and cannot definitively judge what happened or what didn't beyond what you make public here, and aside from outright... let's call them "honest mistakes" for the sake of generosity... like you looking up what waves are and somehow ending up not knowing the first thing about them, or the sort of image manipulations that are pretty much impossible the way you describe them, most of my responses have been questions for elaborations and clarification rather than judgements. You on the other hand came down with my "privilege" in the very first post you made in response.

And no, I'm not saying there couldn't have been anything in this world to deter further testing on your part. But if you are happy to hear judgements, I for one find that rather sad. If your life is in such turmoil and poverty that you couldn't spare a few hours' worth and perhap's another two hours' worth of minimum wage salary during the course of eight years to repeat your very own and - if your description is to be trusted - simple experiment at least once to note down any record of it outside of your own eight year old memory, then where do you find the time and resources to even waste on meditation (let alone magical experimentation of any sort) in the first place? I'm not saying nothing could have held you back, I'm saying I have yet to hear of anything that might have other than just a vague and ominous "circumstances" that kept pursuing you relentlessly for eight years, no doubt.

If I am to judge anything here, I'm judging you having zero curiosity. You already have perfect knowledge of what happened between you and that TV setup all those years ago. You had this perfect knowledge before you did the experiment, too. If you were actually surprised by anything that happened, the least thing you could have done is save an hour's worth of meditation time in eight years and spend it instead reading up on how TVs work or what a wave is. But you were not surprised, you got exactly what you knew you were going to, you kept it to yourself, and not even to personal notes at that, and you did nothing to expand on that research yourself or to have anyone else do it who might have resources at their disposal unavailable to you. This woo-woo nonsense is important to you to where you feel insulted and get personal if faced with any challenge at all, but not important enough to light the dimmest spark of intellectual rigor or curiosity on your own part, neither before, nor since.

I'm not saying there is anything objectively wrong about that, but that is a core difference between us, if little more. I do not think of myself as infallible. I always want to keep learning, and never to quite think I learned it all. And you don't. That's all there is to it.

Last edit: 27 Jul 2019 10:10 by Gisteron.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Rex

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
29 Jul 2019 00:37 #340668 by Leah Starspectre
In my experience, I've had this kind of thing happened to me during sensory deprivation. When my body ceases to exist (which is what float tanks feel like), my mind does amazing things.

I've done to sensory deprivation chambers several times. Each time was different, but each exposed me to a spiritual experience.

In one, I spontaneously visualized being in the primordial soup, being part of the beginning of everything, and so, being connected to everything.

In another, I was in the presence of, and spoke to, Aphrodite and Pan, two aspects of love: noble love, and feral passion.

I truly believe that this kind of experience is possible and beneficial, but only if you're in the right environment and frame of mind.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Carlos.Martinez3, Uzima Moto

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
29 Jul 2019 05:29 - 29 Jul 2019 05:37 #340672 by Uzima Moto

Gisteron wrote: No, you did not explain why it wouldn't be anything else. If my memory is any good at all, then what you said upon my inquiry was,

This is serious now. Don't be facetious lol "ghosts".. such subtle changes in things like air temperature or pressure would be difficult to feel I imagine. Also, I wouldn't feel much from a tv either lol


and I do remember responding to it, too. The ghosts part you just dismissed as you are dismissing the entire query as "silly" now. I don't know why. After all, you do believe in ghosts and that we can interact with them, but somehow it's still impossible that that was what you were feeling. Why you bring up control is irrelevant. You did not go on to control your aura, you just sensed it. You controlled some unspecified kind of ethereal though non-material energy to do something to a radio signal and evidently made no attempt to understand what was going on since. I'll get to that, too, don't worry.


You forgot,

Lol I just didn't take your ghost comment seriously, that's all. That's not why it wouldn't have been that, or any of the other factors you mentioned, that I would've mistaken for the feeling of my energy.

For starters, from what I knew then and know now, typically a disembodied soul cannot be controlled in the way I was attempting to exert it.. not without some ritual that I'm not aware of.. contacting a ghost is much easier, BY FAR. Even cleansing them would still be easier than trying to take control IMO.. If it is possible, it's not a simple feat..

where I gave an explanation for a couple things. Most importantly, to clarify, the sensations were intentional. I initiated them through a quick meditative breathing exercise. That is the process I described in the experiment. It was a completely controlled process, just with varying degrees of intensity. According to what I knew then, as well as now, you cannot "summon and control" a disembodied soul in such ways.

As for the silliness of your comment. I took it as you being facetious, and was dismissive at first. Though, when you persisted I gave you an explanation that you just couldn't except.. or didn't fully understand.


Please, sir, do try and explain how this is any kind of productive response to the question posed to you. My initial query was how you knew that it wasn't a ghost, sorcery from a third party or the universe itself, or some physical interaction you did not control for. While you tracked back now and admit that all of these things are possible albeit unlikely, now I'm curious just how unlikely they are and how likely your chosen explanation is, and how you computed those respective likelihoods. I'm not one to complain about rudeness in general, but I would rather you too could keep it civil, if you can help it. I for one am trying, but as this post continues, you're not making it easy, and it shows.


Well, as long as you're going to maintain that condescending attitude that you've had since you first called my motivations selfish. I'm going to be "rude" by not taking you seriously. Though that doesn't mean any scientific evidence you may bring to the discussion is invalid. However relevant it may, or may not be..

Your lack of understanding of these concepts you dismiss as "woo" have you asking questions that aren't necessarily relevant to the experiment. Your questions of material sources of interference are understandable, though. However, there was little need, time, or resources to account for miniscule changes to factors, in a completely still environment, that didn't affect my constants nor my variable. Now, a completely controlled environment is preferred. Still, I had to worked with what I had and made sure the core factors in the experiment were as unaffected as humanly possible.


Now, maybe these changes were too minute to affect the ethereal energy experiments you were performing. Forgive my lack of education on such matters if you can, please. You are however trying to argue that the material and non-material forms of ethereal energy can in fact interact, so - as my lay eyes see it - it is not an entirely senseless question to ask what material factors you made any effort to keep in check, or what the argument would be for why the magnitude of the changes that are sure to have ensued be insignificant to impact the results.


This is why I say to at least go and have a conceptual idea of these things if you're going to either support or rebut them. As I continued to study after these events. My understanding of them has changed. At one point, as well as during this experiment. I thought as you described. However, I did mention that that had changed.. I even have a picture to describe the difference in simple terms.

Fig.1


The red lines are how I thought at the time of the experiment. However, upon further learning. Those conclusions were wrong. The black lines are how these things interact. Though separated for demonstration. Keep in mind, the enthereal/astral bodies of each fruit respectively are superimposed as one of the many qualities of them both. Much like weight, color, or mass. However, these bodies are materially exclusive as being extensions of a specific object or element. They will not "crossover" to interact directly with the physical and atomic aspects of another object or element. This principle can also be observed ironically with reported ghost attacks. When scratched by a disembodied soul. It's said to feel like a burning sensation instead of a tearing of the flesh. This is because they cannot touch you physically, only on the etheric level. Yet, as they scratch the etheric bodies of your cells. Their atomic structure is affected as well. This is what I meant by,

The question isn't "what is it?" Truthfully, it's better to ask what is it not.. because essentially everything is ethereal. Even matter is Ethereal.. or better to say Ethereal takes on a form, of many, we call matter.. so regular, or "not regular", it's all Ethereal. You can't necessarily directly measure the movement and interaction of energy beyond the material frequency with material instruments.. but you can measure the impact of their movement on the material level..

Learning this and more changed my perspective on what exactly I was doing that day. I set out to manipulate my energy with that experiment. Due to my intent, I do not think I manipulated my own conductivity. However, I didn't affect the wave directly either. What happened was an interaction beyond the material frequency. My etheric energy affected the etheric energy of the carrier wave without distorting the imprint on the wave itself. To the nonparticipant observer there would have been no measurable evidence of energy movement until he observed my control over the image on the screen.


Sure, any movement or distortion of any physical energy would've been detectable. However, there would've been no evidence of the interaction on the etheric level aside from those, and other resulting outcomes. I was specific about this. Meaning that aside from putting a secondary reader between my hand and the primary receiver.. Which seems redundant.. there would've been little to no physical evidence of any Ethereal movement.



Either I didn't know them to ask, or were most likely irrelevant to the experiment or its results.. which I haven't even had the chance to talk about since you keep getting hung up on the easy parts..

Except when I ask just how likely or unlikely relevant they were, you keep dismissing the questions as silly.
The reason I'm not commenting on your "results" is because frankly until we can establish that the procedure would produce reliable ones, what results you got is fairly uninteresting. If someone sampled a fair six sided dice by two throws and concluded that therefore the dice only ever showed odd numbers, should anyone care about that result, let alone take it seriously? Procedure is important not because "The Book of How To Science" declares that it need be well, but because we must be reasonably sure the results are not tainted by sloppy experimentation before we can draw any grand conclusions from them. It's not just a formality.


As I have demonstrated, procedure was highly important to me. You're using things that were irrelevant to the experiment in the first place to set up some strawman making me look as if I was.. unintentionally negligent.. when conducting my experiment. Thereby invalidating my conclusions off top?? However, if I'm studying for reasons behind recent volcanic activity in a particular area. I'm not going to take the atmospheric composition of that area into much account. It has no bearing on the study at hand.. logical reasoning of the situation let me conclude that anything that wouldn't have directly altered any aspect of my experiment was just as irrelevant. Like the temperature of a open glass of water in the room..


No, the reason I won't talk about the results is that I don't care about them, because by the looks of it, even if you are being entirely honest and accurate in your recollection, it looks like your methods were sloppy and your conclusions premature. However, about the lying part... well, this is where things get interesting. On the one hand you go on to say

However, it's like any other experiment. I inquired about some of the things pertaining to the experiment. Mainly, the nature of waves.

But then at the same time you ask

You cannot "hold" an electromagnetic wave.

You keep saying that, but no proof to back it. Why can't you hold it?..


Call me cynical if you must, but to me it sounds like you really don't know at all what a wave in general or an electromagnetic wave in particular are. Now, if I was less kind today, I could leave it at that, and just say that your incredulity stems from a fundamental lack of understanding and refuse to answer your question. After all, this is what you do, too, when ever I have a legitimate question about your woo-woo. I suppose the only difference is that the nature of waves is something you can look up within minutes for free on the internet, with full mathematical derivations in educational articles or dedicated forums, even countless educational videos on the subject - because waves are real and there has been a consistent model of them for several centuries - but I couldn't do the same for your brand of ethereal gobbledygook because there is barely two sources out there that wouldn't contradict each other, and that's charitably assuming that they don't each contradict themselves as well...
But no, I shall not treat you as you treat me.
Without further ado and all the ranting out of the way, on to some wave mechanics:

Warning: Spoiler! [ Click to expand ]


The equation forces any function that satisfies it to keep "propagating" and in three dimensions both E and B will have vector values and keep moving in a direction perpendicular to both with the speed c. The wave speed needn't of course be the speed of light in a vacuum. After all, the equation is just as descriptive of pressure waves, mechanical waves in strings and fabric, even gravitational waves. The wave speed in optically dense media can by all means be arbitrarily small, but once we say it is zero we are no longer talking about any kind of wave any longer, because that wouldn't be the wave equation any longer and the space of solutions to that new equation is altogether different at that point, too.
I could now go on to remember our past interactions, and expect that as per usual you would just dismiss this as being way too "material" and not at all about the sort of non-material ethereal-electro ethereal-magnetic ethereal-radio wave, or possibly just not respond to it at all. and assert that I'm being silly, unreasonable, dismissive, ignorant, or some other kind of uncharitable a few pages down the line. But that is for you to decide. I was responding to the things you said as and when you did, and if you move the goal post soon and it turns out this wasn't about electromagnetic waves after all, so be it, silly me. And you can blame me for making empty assertions, backing none of them up or ignoring your queries and criticisms, too. So long as you have no means of editing my posts, everybody can read what each of us said and I stand by it, for now, for better or for worse.


I don't need to edit your responses. I haven't up unto this point.. You do a good enough job pumping up your position. I don't need to alter anything to show how it's still irrelevant and a misunderstanding of the issue at hand.. and I've given explanations for how that is so.. I've never moved goal posts. Nor is it necessary. I've been adamant about explaining my positions and ideas on what happened. Only being dismissive of non constructive criticism.. unsubstantiated accusations won't be taken seriously.. because other than this point here, you gave little in constructive information. What you did give, you used to try and set the precedent that my results don't matter because my whole experiment was completely faulty.. which is demonstrably false.. as much as you try to say it's just due to an undying curiosity that hasn't seen you even attempt to understand ANY of the concepts you derogatorily refer to.. that just seems like a veiled insult..

To reiterate how your "information" has been mostly irrelevant. Electromagnetism comes from charged particles. However, radiowaves, as all EM energy, are made of photons. Seeing as they can actually stop a photon in a supercooled medium. Allowing them to create superphotons, and eventually photonic structures. I see no reason I couldn't suspend a group of them, in their radio form, as they make their motion through space. Capturing them simultaneously in whatever part of space they're occupying at that very moment.. again, I didn't set out to change the wave itself. Just manipulate its direction..



I'm entirely comfortable leaving this to the judgement of our readers. Is this anything like something I had said at any point in the course of this thread? I'm not judging your life. It's not my place, nor my interest. In fact, I have been emphasizing at many a point that I am not in your shoes and cannot definitively judge what happened or what didn't beyond what you make public here, and aside from outright... let's call them "honest mistakes" for the sake of generosity... like you looking up what waves are and somehow ending up not knowing the first thing about them, or the sort of image manipulations that are pretty much impossible the way you describe them, most of my responses have been questions for elaborations and clarification rather than judgements. You on the other hand came down with my "privilege" in the very first post you made in response.


"For the sake of generosity" huh? Well, thanks, but no thanks. Any comments I've made can stand on their own. Whatever "mistakes" you think I've made about waves. They're actually ideas rooted in the fact that you've seemingly never tried to understand any of what I've explained. You've been dismissive this entire exchange. I've even describe the wave as not perfectly still when it was held. Which you agreed. So it seems I understood them enough at the time. Admittedly, I needed a refresher to make sure.. but it's a simple thing to do..

You've literally been judging me from your first response. At first it was positive, then it got progressively worse. Even though it's veiled, it isn't hard to see. Once you threw in that slick "ghost" comment. I just went downhill from there. Eventually, you ended saying that me wanting to keep it here at the Temple was "profoundly selfish" without any opportunity to explain my motivations. Because, what you attribute to "incompetence" I attribute to plausible deniability. Which, a number of them will claim incompetency, like you. It's human nature to want to give the benefit of the doubt. That sentiment is used against us.. there's evil in the world, "deep and abiding evil".. and I will not underestimate it.



And no, I'm not saying there couldn't have been anything in this world to deter further testing on your part. But if you are happy to hear judgements, I for one find that rather sad. If your life is in such turmoil and poverty that you couldn't spare a few hours' worth and perhap's another two hours' worth of minimum wage salary during the course of eight years to repeat your very own and - if your description is to be trusted - simple experiment at least once to note down any record of it outside of your own eight year old memory, then where do you find the time and resources to even waste on meditation (let alone magical experimentation of any sort) in the first place? I'm not saying nothing could have held you back, I'm saying I have yet to hear of anything that might have other than just a vague and ominous "circumstances" that kept pursuing you relentlessly for eight years, no doubt.


Actually, by that time I had fell out of my meditation routine already. Though I still was somewhat sharp. After all these years, my blade is rusty. I doubt I could actually do it now. I WAS the variable, after all. So, if that's any indication. I don't believe I need to explain any further..



If I am to judge anything here, I'm judging you having zero curiosity. You already have perfect knowledge of what happened between you and that TV setup all those years ago. You had this perfect knowledge before you did the experiment, too. If you were actually surprised by anything that happened, the least thing you could have done is save an hour's worth of meditation time in eight years and spend it instead reading up on how TVs work or what a wave is. But you were not surprised, you got exactly what you knew you were going to, you kept it to yourself, and not even to personal notes at that, and you did nothing to expand on that research yourself or to have anyone else do it who might have resources at their disposal unavailable to you. This woo-woo nonsense is important to you to where you feel insulted and get personal if faced with any challenge at all, but not important enough to light the dimmest spark of intellectual rigor or curiosity on your own part, neither before, nor since.


There you go again with, "this woo-woo nonsense". You've had that bias from the moment you read my OP.. and it shows.. HARD.. at least to me.. you literally made a joke of it from your first comment. Seemed surprised when I didn't take it serious, and then even more so when I did lol.. dismissing all my explanations as if they were irrelevant. Yet, if you made any real attempt to understand those concepts. You would've never even asked the question. At the least, you would've understood my statements.. if you called any of what you've been doing a challenge. It's a weak challenge. If anything, it accomplished getting me annoyed for a moment lol I try to be slow to anger though..

As for the question of curiosity. It seems you don't have enough to do just the minimal amount of research into these things just for knowledge basis. Yet you say you can definitively call them "nonsense"? How, when you have no sense of what they are in the first place?? I'm sure you've at least known about these ideas. My curiosity set me out to explore them. As I stated before, I didn't get what I expected. Neither is my current understanding of what I did the same as it was at that time. (refer back to figure 1) due to continuous study.. I've at least been able to do that much lol.. but yours, is kept chained by skepticism. They don't work hand in hand as they should.. I never claimed to have perfect knowledge. Just a workable theory. Which is what you test with an experiment. There you go, like your buddy Kyrin, with the strawmen again..



I'm not saying there is anything objectively wrong about that, but that is a core difference between us, if little more. I do not think of myself as infallible. I always want to keep learning, and never to quite think I learned it all. And you don't. That's all there is to it.


Blind to your own judgemental ways. Your blind judgement completely missed the mark..

I'm always learning..

Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem
By the sword we seek peace, but peace only under liberty.
Attachments:
Last edit: 29 Jul 2019 05:37 by Uzima Moto.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
29 Jul 2019 07:53 - 29 Jul 2019 07:54 #340678 by Gisteron

Uzima Moto wrote: You're using things that were irrelevant to the experiment in the first place to set up some strawman making me look as if I was.. unintentionally negligent.. when conducting my experiment. Thereby invalidating my conclusions off top??

No, I didn't say your conclusions are or would be invalid. I only call them uninteresting until we can be reasonably certain that things of imporance were not grossly overlooked.


However, if I'm studying for reasons behind recent volcanic activity in a particular area. I'm not going to take the atmospheric composition of that area into much account. It has no bearing on the study at hand..

It would actually surprise me if it really didn't, but I shall consult with a geologist before returning to this point. Be that as it may, "logical reasoning" is not how any student of volcanic activity knows the relevancy of local atmospheric composition. Evidence is. No thorough inquisitor should dismiss factors based on a primal hunch. Of course, after a fair amount of experimentation - or data gathering as would be the case for the study of volcanic activity - one can compute correlations between the outcome of experiments (or events) with some environmental factor, and if after a reasonably large sample there is no statistically significant indication of correlation, then one can, tentatively, presume that the factor in question may be of miniscule relevance or of none at all. Often enough the factor is controlled and changed on purpose, to show that the experiment's outcome does not noticeably depend on it. One doesn't need to keep checking the factor in subsequent experiments of course, until anomalies arise that may call its relevancy into question again. But to deem it irrelevant before commencing even the first experiment, and with no further attempts at either the experiment itself or at evaluating the relevancy of factors unaccounted for, is indeed premature. Now, fair enough, it may not be practical to check for everything, but what you do if you cannot or will not is say that these factors may have some unknown impact, not that they couldn't have any. By computing correlations with variables you did control for you can estimate an upper bound of that impact, too, but I haven't seen a mention of that calculation either.


To reiterate how your "information" has been mostly irrelevant. Electromagnetism comes from charged particles.

That really depends on what you mean by "comes from". I would argue that since the photon is the carrier boson of electromagnetism, electromagnetic interaction, i.e. electromagnetism is something that only really exists because photons are around to transmit it. They are in a sense, electromagnetism, or at the very least the one and only manifestation of it, as far as we know.


However, radiowaves, as all EM energy, are made of photons. Seeing as they can actually stop a photon in a supercooled medium. Allowing them to create superphotons, and eventually photonic structures. I see no reason I couldn't suspend a group of them, in their radio form, as they make their motion through space.

Well, I do see a reason, though maybe that's because you left out the supercooled medium you had with you that day, and in which you could safely submerge the receiver whilst it was still somehow functional. But I did say that much. You can slow light down, allegedly even to a halt (in which case the wave nature, if any is retained, would be dramatically different from the wave equation solving waves of classical electrodynamics), but not by the means you described, and not with the effect you described. You don't get slow motion video by changing the video transmission signal's wave speed or frequency. You don't get a still image in the limit case as wave speed approaches zero either. The static part is the only remotely realistic effect of those you described that you can actually get, if I had to pick one. Even then you'd have to somehow overwhelm the receiver with a noisy signal at the same or sufficiently close carrier frequency, which would have heated your body up to boiling...

I'm not trying to be a nuisance here, it's just that huge and essential chunks of the story sound misremembered at best, and made up at worst. Unless of course you did actually somehow temporarily or locally disable all of physics and survive to tell the tale years later.

Last edit: 29 Jul 2019 07:54 by Gisteron.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
29 Jul 2019 11:25 #340679 by Gisteron
Quick correction:

Gisteron wrote: The static part is the only remotely realistic effect of those you described that you can actually get, if I had to pick one. Even then you'd have to somehow overwhelm the receiver with a noisy signal at the same or sufficiently close carrier frequency, which would have heated your body up to boiling.

The boiling part in particular is not accurate. All you need is a sufficiently strong jamming signal. This would likely (pretty much definitely) boil your body, if that is what is made to emit the signal, but if it is generated externally, you'd be pretty much safe... Unless it happens to be strong and in the microwave range, that is...

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
30 Jul 2019 04:43 #340721 by Rex
I'd be genuinely interested in seeing a philosophy of "good" science and Gist demo-ing the methodology and results for this vague question.

IP Team Lead
TM: Carlos Martinez
ὁ δὲ ἀμυχηδόν νεξέταστος βίος γίγνομαι βιωτὸς ἀνθρώπῳ
The following user(s) said Thank You: Gisteron, Carlos.Martinez3, Uzima Moto

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
01 Aug 2019 14:34 #340780 by Uzima Moto

Gisteron wrote: No, I didn't say your conclusions are or would be invalid. I only call them uninteresting until we can be reasonably certain that things of imporance were not grossly overlooked.


Well, due to circumstances, I did what I could to account for what was necessary. Which is why I bring it up here. So it can be further explored. If it's nothing, then let it be nothing. However, without the chance to properly test it. We'll never know equivocally..

I want to retest this experiment. That's how the truth is ascertained..


It would actually surprise me if it really didn't, but I shall consult with a geologist before returning to this point. Be that as it may, "logical reasoning" is not how any student of volcanic activity knows the relevancy of local atmospheric composition. Evidence is. No thorough inquisitor should dismiss factors based on a primal hunch. Of course, after a fair amount of experimentation - or data gathering as would be the case for the study of volcanic activity - one can compute correlations between the outcome of experiments (or events) with some environmental factor, and if after a reasonably large sample there is no statistically significant indication of correlation, then one can, tentatively, presume that the factor in question may be of miniscule relevance or of none at all. Often enough the factor is controlled and changed on purpose, to show that the experiment's outcome does not noticeably depend on it. One doesn't need to keep checking the factor in subsequent experiments of course, until anomalies arise that may call its relevancy into question again. But to deem it irrelevant before commencing even the first experiment, and with no further attempts at either the experiment itself or at evaluating the relevancy of factors unaccounted for, is indeed premature. Now, fair enough, it may not be practical to check for everything, but what you do if you cannot or will not is say that these factors may have some unknown impact, not that they couldn't have any. By computing correlations with variables you did control for you can estimate an upper bound of that impact, too, but I haven't seen a mention of that calculation either.


Yeah, I saw it as I read back over it. Probably not the best example lol.. but you get my drift. It was reasonable for me to believe, based on what I've studied and the methods I used during the experiment as well as the nature of said experiment, certain factors were non-factors.. or at least marginally influential on the test at hand.


To reiterate how your "information" has been mostly irrelevant. Electromagnetism comes from charged particles.

That really depends on what you mean by "comes from". I would argue that since the photon is the carrier boson of electromagnetism, electromagnetic interaction, i.e. electromagnetism is something that only really exists because photons are around to transmit it. They are in a sense, electromagnetism, or at the very least the one and only manifestation of it, as far as we know.


Exactly my point, it was the photons that were manipulated. Not in nature or function. Just movement.


Well, I do see a reason, though maybe that's because you left out the supercooled medium you had with you that day, and in which you could safely submerge the receiver whilst it was still somehow functional. But I did say that much. You can slow light down, allegedly even to a halt (in which case the wave nature, if any is retained, would be dramatically different from the wave equation solving waves of classical electrodynamics), but not by the means you described, and not with the effect you described. You don't get slow motion video by changing the video transmission signal's wave speed or frequency. You don't get a still image in the limit case as wave speed approaches zero either. The static part is the only remotely realistic effect of those you described that you can actually get, if I had to pick one. Even then you'd have to somehow overwhelm the receiver with a noisy signal at the same or sufficiently close carrier frequency, which would have heated your body up to boiling...

I'm not trying to be a nuisance here, it's just that huge and essential chunks of the story sound misremembered at best, and made up at worst. Unless of course you did actually somehow temporarily or locally disable all of physics and survive to tell the tale years later.


The picture froze, it wasn't in slow motion. You mentioned that part. As I said before, I wasn't trying to manipulate or change the nature of the wave. Only focus or weaken its ability to reach the receiver. Just like any other material element that might obstruct it.. it was just superior physics, I guess lol.. please refer back to figure 1 and meditate on it.. When I say wave, I mean in its tangibleness. Not its functionality..

The astral/etheric frequency (layer) was the medium. At that point you're somewhat bypassing material/physical physics.. so a supercooled material medium is unnecessary. Using one etheric body to effect another of a different object. You essentially cause the material bodies to be influenced as well.. You're not applying etheric energy to material energy directly. What happens is that the material bodies follows the etheric. So when the etheric moves, so do they..

Simply put, if I use my etheric energy to move the etheric body of an apple. The apple itself will move with it..

Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem
By the sword we seek peace, but peace only under liberty.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
01 Aug 2019 17:42 - 01 Aug 2019 17:59 #340789 by Gisteron

Uzima Moto wrote:

Gisteron wrote: I would argue that since the photon is the carrier boson of electromagnetism, electromagnetic interaction, i.e. electromagnetism is something that only really exists because photons are around to transmit it. They are in a sense, electromagnetism, or at the very least the one and only manifestation of it, as far as we know.


Exactly my point, it was the photons that were manipulated. Not in nature or function. Just movement.

Oh, my apologies then. I thought you meant that my explanation for why you couldn't "hold" a radio signal because as a wave it behaves like a wave and cannot thus be held was irrelevant, because you said that it was irrelevant. And the reason you named for why it was irrelevant was that apparently I was speaking of electromagnetism as "comes from" charged particles (I didn't know I was, but fair enough) but you were instead dealing with photons which are different because... of reasons, I guess. But really, your point was that photons are really what electromagnetism is and because they behave in accord with the wave equation all the same, I was really completely right about that they couldn't be held all along, except that they were here somehow... Alright then. Sorry I misunderstood, then.


The picture froze, it wasn't in slow motion. You mentioned that part. As I said before, I wasn't trying to manipulate or change the nature of the wave. Only focus or weaken its ability to reach the receiver.

Oh, alright, I guess this was another misunderstanding then. See, I thought that when you said "Making that wavelength pass through at a rate so slow it was nearly in stasis." you meant that the wave, or at any rate that wavelength component of it would be slowed down, nearly to a stop, but what you really meant was that it would be mostly absorbed. That still would not have caused the image to freeze, it would just get more static into the frame as the receiver would eventually struggle to tell the signal apart from background noise, but still, I guess weeding out misunderstandings is progress of some sort, too.


When I say wave, I mean in its tangibleness. Not its functionality..

Ah, well, thanks for clearing that up at last. I thought you meant radio waves when you said "radiowaves". Silly me... So what do you mean by "tangibleness"?


The astral/etheric frequency (layer) was the medium. At that point you're somewhat bypassing material/physical physics..

Hey, remember when I said:

Gisteron wrote: ... expect that as per usual you would just dismiss this as being way too "material" and not at all about the sort of non-material ethereal-electro ethereal-magnetic ethereal-radio wave... and if you move the goal post soon and it turns out this wasn't about electromagnetic waves after all, so be it, silly me.


As little as you say I know you, I am getting sort of not entirely inept at predicting you. Who knows, maybe this is can grow into some kind of a friendship yet. :)

Last edit: 01 Aug 2019 17:59 by Gisteron.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
02 Aug 2019 12:51 #340813 by Uzima Moto

Gisteron wrote: Oh, my apologies then. I thought you meant that my explanation for why you couldn't "hold" a radio signal because as a wave it behaves like a wave and cannot thus be held was irrelevant, because you said that it was irrelevant. And the reason you named for why it was irrelevant was that apparently I was speaking of electromagnetism as "comes from" charged particles (I didn't know I was, but fair enough) but you were instead dealing with photons which are different because... of reasons, I guess. But really, your point was that photons are really what electromagnetism is and because they behave in accord with the wave equation all the same, I was really completely right about that they couldn't be held all along, except that they were here somehow... Alright then. Sorry I misunderstood, then.


Not that EM waves come from photons, but that they are the EM waves.. my point was, as always, about the disrupting the radiowaves on this level. Not changing their frequency. It would be like having a wave tank filled with water. Then when you generated the wave, you flash froze all the water instantaneously. Its molecules frozen in place, the wave wouldn't collapse until you unfroze it. Now, that might've actually happened when I released it, I'm not sure. Just for a moment, though, the wave was held in one place.


Oh, alright, I guess this was another misunderstanding then. See, I thought that when you said "Making that wavelength pass through at a rate so slow it was nearly in stasis." you meant that the wave, or at any rate that wavelength component of it would be slowed down, nearly to a stop, but what you really meant was that it would be mostly absorbed. That still would not have caused the image to freeze, it would just get more static into the frame as the receiver would eventually struggle to tell the signal apart from background noise, but still, I guess weeding out misunderstandings is progress of some sort, too.


Absorbed? No, where did you get that? Why do you keep putting words in my mouth? Lol..

"Near stop" is correct. Almost like it was vibrating in the etheric field around my hand. There was a good amount of resistance.


When I say wave, I mean in its tangibleness. Not its functionality..

Ah, well, thanks for clearing that up at last. I thought you meant radio waves when you said "radiowaves". Silly me... So what do you mean by "tangibleness"?[/quote]

As in the photons that make the wave. Not the way they're operating. This is that hard..



The astral/etheric frequency (layer) was the medium. At that point you're somewhat bypassing material/physical physics..

Hey, remember when I said:

Gisteron wrote: ... expect that as per usual you would just dismiss this as being way too "material" and not at all about the sort of non-material ethereal-electro ethereal-magnetic ethereal-radio wave... and if you move the goal post soon and it turns out this wasn't about electromagnetic waves after all, so be it, silly me.


As little as you say I know you, I am getting sort of not entirely inept at predicting you. Who knows, maybe this is can grow into some kind of a friendship yet. :)


You haven't predicted me at all. You're attempting to make it look that way by misconstruing my words..

I've always maintained the same goalposts. Like how I've already given you an explanation for things you said I dismissed. Like what you just quoted.. "please, refer to figure 1".. was the visual aid to help get my point across after multiple explanations hadn't..

You've been using one point in the experiment to twist my purpose for it. It was never about changing the waves themselves..

Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem
By the sword we seek peace, but peace only under liberty.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.