beon-cpt.com

Jonathan Ainsley Bain wrote:Yes, I have seen a bit of the programs. I keep missing it,
but I am very familiar with Erich Von Daniken's writings,
where in places he seems to see a bit more evidence than
is required. Although, in other places his evidence is very good.

I have always found abiogenesis preposterous, the best argument
against it (there are many such arguments) is one from statistics.

Even if one accepts abiogenesis as a premise, for the sake of the argument,
given the number of stars in existence, the odds of Earth being the first
world on which this more-than-miracle occurred is so unlikely that
the odds of it occurring here are virtually beyond computation.

Then there is other notion of other universes...

Jonathan,

Of course I share your distaste for abiogenesis.  I have the same high regard for Darwinian theory, having done the basic calculations for the probability of Darwinian mutation.  Michael Behe's points are not refutable without complete disregard for both science and logic, a characteristic of Darwinists and other religionists.  

Multiverse theory was invented to explain the Big Bang, as cosmologists finally figured out that physical singularities are signposts marking scientific incompetence.  A multiverse merely pushes the same problem back so far that explaining it is impossible, so the nitwit cosmologists no longer feel obligated to deal with it.  They've become religionists, inventing their own version of an omnipotent God who can do anything, but whom we cannot possibly understand.  

You might take a full look at Beon Theory someday, which has (IMO anyway) an understandable and discoverable explanation for the beginnings.  If you do it before I die, I'll be able to answer questions and you'll be able to contribute to the theory.

Yes, I have seen a bit of the programs. I keep missing it,
but I am very familiar with Erich Von Daniken's writings,
where in places he seems to see a bit more evidence than
is required. Although, in other places his evidence is very good.

I have always found abiogenesis preposterous, the best argument
against it (there are many such arguments) is one from statistics.

Even if one accepts abiogenesis as a premise, for the sake of the argument,
given the number of stars in existence, the odds of Earth being the first
world on which this more-than-miracle occurred is so unlikely that
the odds of it occurring here are virtually beyond computation.

Then there is other notion of other universes...

Jonathan Ainsley Bain wrote:

About 13.7 years ago the micropea spontaneously exploded.

Inspired by the typo:

I couldn't help but speculate as to where I was 13.7 years ago when the
universe supposedly began.

Strangely I was one of only four visitors to the pyramids of Giza. It was
not long after 9/11 so only three South Africans and a young Spaniard were
brave enough to venture into such a place.

The tour-guide, got bored and left us alone at the bottom of the pyramid -
said to be the tomb of Cheops. Well I had to take the plunge. I ducked
beneath the rope and climbed into the burial pit. I felt around with my hand
and picked up 10 little stones.

A curious feeling came upon me, that I would now be cursed by an Egyptian
deity, but it was up to me to decide which deity would haunt me. I did not
hesitate. It had to be Thoth, the God of math.

As it turns out, I indeed do seem to have been cursed. I have since lost the
10 little stones, so I cannot return them and lift the curse that was placed on
me when the micropea spontaneously exploded.

But I noticed something else about the pyramid. The tunnel leading down to
the tomb was so low that even my five foot high companion had to crouch
whilst walking the entire route to the bottom of the pyramid.

Why would the builders of the pyramid make the entrance tunnel so very
awkwardly?

They must have been pygmies, or perhaps, midgets?
Curiouser and Curiouser...

Jonathan,

I finally figured out my typo-- the omission of "billion" after 13.7.  Thanks for being persistent.  Moreover, by doing it the hard way you tell a good story and offer a tidbit of personal insight.  Thanks!

Here in the states the satellite TV systems often offer a series of programs called "Ancient Aliens," on the History Channel I think.  The program correlates many fascinating items of apparently legitimate information with speculations about the possible role of visitors from distant solar systems in the historical affairs of mankind.  Little green men would fit nicely into the shaft you mentioned.  

A famous architect, Frank Lloyd Wright, designed a lot of houses into which normal-height people did not fit comfortably.  Wright was short.  

I think you would appreciate those Alien programs, and I'd not be surprised if you were already familiar with them.

About 13.7 years ago the micropea spontaneously exploded.

Inspired by the typo:

I couldn't help but speculate as to where I was 13.7 years ago when the
universe supposedly began.

Strangely I was one of only four visitors to the pyramids of Giza. It was
not long after 9/11 so only three South Africans and a young Spaniard were
brave enough to venture into such a place.

The tour-guide, got bored and left us alone at the bottom of the pyramid -
said to be the tomb of Cheops. Well I had to take the plunge. I ducked
beneath the rope and climbed into the burial pit. I felt around with my hand
and picked up 10 little stones.

A curious feeling came upon me, that I would now be cursed by an Egyptian
deity, but it was up to me to decide which deity would haunt me. I did not
hesitate. It had to be Thoth, the God of math.

As it turns out, I indeed do seem to have been cursed. I have since lost the
10 little stones, so I cannot return them and lift the curse that was placed on
me when the micropea spontaneously exploded.

But I noticed something else about the pyramid. The tunnel leading down to
the tomb was so low that even my five foot high companion had to crouch
whilst walking the entire route to the bottom of the pyramid.

Why would the builders of the pyramid make the entrance tunnel so very
awkwardly?

They must have been pygmies, or perhaps, midgets?
Curiouser and Curiouser...

greylorn, your section is created and ready, and you are it's moderator. If anyone else wishes their own section and to have moderating capacities in them, all they need to do is ask.

Mayflow wrote:I could create a user group like that, but if you prefer I can just create a section for it and make you a moderator of that section. If you want that let me know what you want to name it.

Mayflow,

Your proposal is agreeable, so I'll go with it.  

I'd like the section title to be, simply: Beon Theory.

I have an opening statement, a description of the section which I'd like to be the section's first Topic.  I'll PM a copy of that to you for your approval.  I can post it myself when you create the section, or you can include it yourself as the first topic, titled "Purpose and restrictions."  

How do I learn how to operate as moderator for this section?  

Thank you!

I could create a user group like that, but if you prefer I can just create a section for it and make you a moderator of that section. If you want that let me know what you want to name it.

Mayflow wrote:

Jonathan Ainsley Bain wrote:So if a 'lower energy photon' has less energy than
a 'higher energy photon' - is it possible to turn one into the other?

This is an interesting question to me. The electron we think gains energy by absorbing a photon and loses that same energy when emitting a  photon, but what about the energy level of the photon? This actually fosters quite a few questions in me. The frequency of the waves should change the energy of the waves or wavelets (higher frequency=higher energy), but does it change the energy of an individual photon? In the wave or wavelets are there many many photons?  

There are none. A photon is the product of a collapsed wavelet. The commonly used phrase, 'emitting a photon,' is technically incorrect.

Jonathan Ainsley Bain wrote:So if a 'lower energy photon' has less energy than
a 'higher energy photon' - is it possible to turn one into the other?

The universe would not function otherwise.  Various methods are known for exciting atoms, thereby bumping up the energy levels of their electrons.  Heating, as in the famous Black Box experiment resolved by Max Planck's quantization theory, is the most universal.  Incoming photons do this in practically all materials, and are noted for their effect on light-sensitive detectors such as those in your retina.

Mayflow wrote:I don't recall what you may have asked about a users group. I should be able to create one if I know what you want.

I'd like a User's Group dedicated exclusively to the exploration and development of Beon Theory, open only to those who pretty well understand the theory.  It is explained in the book Digital Universe -- Analog Soul, and in my freely available website.  The first dozen pages on the site are rewrites of the book's first twelve chapters.  Although the site is free, navigating it will probably require assistance, which I'll provide to anyone who appears to have mastered the previous material.  

The UG won't work if random users, or those with their own agenda, are allowed to participate.  I'd prefer to be the judge of who gets to participate, because I'm the only one who fully and completely understands the theory.  I don't care if a potential participant dislikes the theory, provided he fully understands it and is willing to articulate his complaints graciously.  

A quick synopsis: Beon Theory is primarily about the beginnings of all things to which a beginning can be attributed.  It differs from all other such theories at the most fundamental levels.  This is a difference not of degree, but of kind.  Its foundation is simple classical physics.  Beon Theory explains dark energy and consciousness, and touches all related topics such as human purpose, psychology, paranormal phenomena, the potential continuation of consciousness, etc.  

Participants are invited to contribute to the theory according to their abilities and inclination.  I believe it has tremendous potential, realizable via the wisdom and insights of others than its originator.  Realizing this potential is to be the focus of the User's Group. In effect, its ideal participants will be contributors to the best Theory of Everything yet devised.

Jonathan Ainsley Bain wrote:So if a 'lower energy photon' has less energy than
a 'higher energy photon' - is it possible to turn one into the other?

This is an interesting question to me. The electron we think gains energy by absorbing a photon and loses that same energy when emitting a photon, but what about the energy level of the photon? This actually fosters quite a few questions in me. The frequency of the waves should change the energy of the waves or wavelets (higher frequency=higher energy), but does it change the energy of an individual photon? In the wave or wavelets are there many many photons?

So if a 'lower energy photon' has less energy than
a 'higher energy photon' - is it possible to turn one into the other?

Jonathan Ainsley Bain wrote:A question about photons:

When light impacts on any surface,
some of it is reflected, but some of it
also turns into heat.

What happens to the photon that
turns into heat?

I would guess that it smashes to pieces
and becomes radiation.

Jonathan,

Given your formulation of this problem I'd be inclined to look at it from the perspective of individual photons, each of which might have different experiences.  

Some will be absorbed by atoms that comprise the surface.  Depending upon the properties of the surface different things might happen.  Most often, photons will add to the thermal energy of the atoms that absorb them, so the atoms wiggle around a little more and add heat to the medium containing them.  Some of this is emitted as infrared radiation (by newly generated lower-energy photons), great for folks with IR detectors/cameras, and helpful to rattlesnakes, which can detect tiny variations in IR.  

Many photons get rejected by the surface atoms and bounce back.  This enables us to see them.  Very helpful, especially with respect to oncoming locomotives.  

Photons do not smash into little pieces.  They are elemental units of energy containment and transfer, without pieces.   Photons don't really exist until they are measured.  Their original nature is that of an e/m wavelet which will traverse the aether until it gets bounced or absorbed.

A question about photons:

When light impacts on any surface,
some of it is reflected, but some of it
also turns into heat.

What happens to the photon that
turns into heat?

I would guess that it smashes to pieces
and becomes radiation.

I don't recall what you may have asked about a users group. I should be able to create one if I know what you want.

Mayflow wrote:I hope you like your work. I really love mine. I get paid to experiment in electronics and RF energy detection! Electronics is kind of more easily testable and reliant on pure logic, and measurements, but RF energy is sometimes a rather wild beast to understand! I actually have a question for you greylorn as I read all the stuff on the forum. When and or why do what you call wavelets turn into photons? And, does this have to do with measurement devices and observations?

Mayflow,

Years ago I took an EE course, Lines, waves, and antennas, and managed a B in it.  Also came away with enhanced respect for those who understand and manage the vagaries of RF energy.  This is a fine combination of science and art.  Congratulations!

I once got paid for writing code to control the first space telescope, the first echelle spectrometer attached to the end of a telescope, the first completely automatic ground telescope, and the first peptide synthesizer.  Fun.  Now I put beans and beer on the table with my own software business.  Boring.  

E/m radiation is transmitted in waves, light included.  Photons are what happens when a light wave collapses, when it is "detected."  The detection may occur in a photomultiplier or CCD array, in which case is can be called a measurement.  If lots of detections occur in a retina, they produce sensory information.  A photon striking the side of a black locomotive is often detected by whatever atom happens to absorb it, but without producing much by way of information.  

We know from physics experimentation that light is transmitted through space as a wave.  (Polarization effects, etc.)  We know that the light wave is generated by an atom's electron moving from a higher shell to one of lower energy, thus releasing the excess energy as a wave.  This brief transition cannot generate anything more than a single cycle of e/m radiation, repeating as it moves through space.  This is not a full wave as commonly envisioned.  Therefore I call it a wavelet, a lump of energy stabilized for transmission through the aether or other medium until its collapse.  Truly a magical phenomenon!  

I find e/m peculiar because, although the e/m wavelet has a magnetic component, its motion seems unaffected by magnetic fields.  Likewise the electric component/electric fields.  At least I've not learned of an experiment to that effect.  Perhaps Maxwell understood this.  

Does that help?  

By the way, what have you decided about my proposed User's Group?  Please say okay.  Thanks!

I hope you like your work. I really love mine. I get paid to experiment in electronics and RF energy detection! Electronics is kind of more easily testable and reliant on pure logic, and measurements, but RF energy is sometimes a rather wild beast to understand! I actually have a question for you greylorn as I read all the stuff on the forum. When and or why do what you call wavelets turn into photons? And, does this have to do with measurement devices and observations?

Jonathan Ainsley Bain wrote:If biologists create life from matter,
then they would technically have created life from thought.

Jonathan,

Not "from thought" per se (which would be equivalent to the religionist perspective), but from the application of physical forces to arrange specific chemicals and subject them to well-chosen environments, entirely a matter of force directed by thought.

It is interesting to note that success would not validate Darwinism or any known abiogenesis theory.  Success would prove only that it is entirely possible for teams of intelligent beings to create biological life, as I've long since proposed.

Mayflow wrote:My own thought is that the Universes are created by thoughts, and that there is not just one and only one Universe. I am not Buddhist, but much of their thoughts seem to reflect mine and mine theirs.

And maybe (I will have to research this further) Bertrand Russell's.

http://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/297.htm

You'll see my take on this if you peruse the site further.

I have a lot of work this week and will review the links you've offered later, probably next weekend.

Jonathan Ainsley Bain wrote:http://beon-cpt.com/

Nice stuff,
sorry to point out a typo

About 13.7 years ago the micropea spontaneously exploded.

Jonathan,

Thank you. I appreciate people who point out typos, grammatical glitches, false facts, and shitty logic. How else to get such things corrected?

"Micropea" is my own made-up word, from a conversation with astronomers in the early 1970's. I should have mentioned that.

If biologists create life from matter,
then they would technically have created life from thought.

My own thought is that the Universes are created by thoughts, and that there is not just one and only one Universe. I am not Buddhist, but much of their thoughts seem to reflect mine and mine theirs.

And maybe (I will have to research this further) Bertrand Russell's.

http://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/297.htm

Have a look at the 'Big Unwind'

http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/big-unwind.htm

http://beon-cpt.com/

Nice stuff,
sorry to point out a typo

About 13.7 years ago the micropea spontaneously exploded.