Ouija Board Experiences

[Danny]

We should stick with zombies, hot chicks, horror films, and beer -- I think all of us here can agree on the merits of all four of these discussions. They are also usually less argumentative. j.p.

[C5NOTLD]

Cool, so sometimes people go insane - and blame the ouija board. They even speak Latin, a language they never studied, at 13 yrs of age.

[EvilNed]

They even speak Latin, a language they never studied, at 13 yrs of age. I'll be sure to believe that when I see it. Until then, oh really?

[Wyldwraith]

@EvilNed, Why do you insist on making parochial assumptions based solely on the certainties of what humans have already achieved as being "probable"? Scientists are already manipulating particles and anti-particles, even causing the controlled impact of two or more of these particles moving at absurd speeds from opposite directions. Pinpoint black holes are considered a feasible lab construct that can be used to define the properties that are prohibitively difficult to study in black holes a vast distance away. So while considering that, why would you consider it so vastly improbable that a civilization with even a mere 100 years more of determined scientific inquiry as a race couldn't easily be manipulating wormholes the way we manipulate atoms? Quantum theory even allows for the possible of a Quantum Event creating a stable, safely traversible wormhole with one of its ends inside a star system with planets. Yes, that's the most unlikely means of accessing a wormhole, but there are a variety of potential means of doing so. For instance, some theories if they turn out to be correct limit the maximum size of wormholes to the point that nothing larger than a single cell could safely traverse them. There are physicists right now working on theories of how we could still derive benefit from such tiny wormholes. One proposed idea is sending a single self-replicating nanite through, followed by a small stream of atoms to ensure the Prime Nanite would have the necessary raw materials to manufacture the first-generation nanites. From there the nanites could form more complex devices based on orders transmitted through the wormhole in simply binary pulses. The advantage for such a plan would be speed. A device a 1/10th the size of a human white blood cell, consisting of perhaps a thousand nanites, would have such low mass that it would take a negligible amount of energy to accelerate to .999 of light speed. That's just ONE viable theory related to non-conventional means of "working around" the "light barrier" in order to achieve interstellar travel. So, WHY is it reasonable to ASSUME, because that's what you're doing Ned, that anyone, our own species included that has the results of 100 years more scientific inquiry than we do today won't be actively working towards the manufacture and manipulation of wormholes in much the same way that the Large Hadron Collider is helping us iron out the unanswered questions in subatomic theory today? I don't believe it IS a reasonable assumption to make. The way you fashion your arguments reminds me of the naysayers that prognosticate about the "certain" failure of each major effort undertaken to expand Man's capability. Had you lived 110yrs ago Ned you probably would have been making your "Ass-Talking example" about the possibilities/probabilities of controlled flight. Had you been born 50-60yrs ago you would have been making these arguments in defense of the "unbreachable" sound barrier. Had you been around in the 1960s I'm nearly positive you would've been one of those adherents of the pseudo-scientific Van Allen Belt of radiation being 100% fatal to anyone traveling beyond the Earth's atmosphere. Do you get what I'm saying? NOTHING of any worth has EVER been achieved by consistently searching for reasons why something ISN'T possible. In the best case you turn out to be right, and what have you achieved? You now know one more thing that man will not be able to do. I won't argue that such a discovery has no value, but to me....it's a hollow sort of vindication. In the worst case, you're persuasive enough to convince someone who could have achieved what you consider to be vastly improbable otherwise. I don't know any clearer way to explain why Exclusionary Assumptions are dangerously counterproductive.

[EvilNed]

As I said: The number of improbable variables to actually fall in place for this theory of yours are just too many to be taken seriously. First off: Space is huge. I cannot stress that enough. Even if someone knew how to travel at .999 at the speed of light, it'd take us over 4 years to reach the outskirts of the nearest solar system. Exploration would not be a viable waste of resources (and resources it would cost). Add to that, these aliens would also be able to manipulate wormholes. Even creating their own, you say? Again, this might all be possible. But all of this together is so damn improbable that... I'm sorry. But as for breaching the soundbarrier... That's not a valid comparison in anyway, because that one deals with a technological achievement that was actually deemed possible at the time. Acceleration to the speed of light has been theorized impossible for decennia. Oh, and another thing... Space is huuuuuuuge!

[Wyldwraith]

What are you talking about? What # of variables? I put forward the possibility that another intelligent species might manipulate wormholes in the same way we manipulate subatomic particles. Just a product of a few decades more scientific inquiry than our species has done. A matter of degree. One possibility. Wormholes as viable conduits of practical faster-than-light travel. Two possibilities, the existence of another intelligent life form somewhere in the universe. The conjunction of 2 possibilities is too much for you to consider reasonable?

[EvilNed]

The variables are: - Intelligent life exists. - Intelligent life is more advanced than us. - Wormholes are a viable tunnel for faster-than-light travel. - Intelligent life can manipulate wormholes. - Intelligent life knows of us. - Intelligent life visits us. - Intelligent life spends years just trying to get to us.

[Wyldwraith]

@EvilNed, Why do you cherry-pick bits of someone's statement out of context to seemingly validate your point? For example, you locked onto ONLY my partial statement about the ease of accelerating an extremely low-mass nanite "swarm" to near the speed of light, while ignoring the fact that the rest of the statement was in regards to sending said nanites through a wormhole that most physicists agree high-energy wormholes can in theory vastly exceed the speed of light for all practical purposes. I THOUGHT the implications of how one would use a technology like that productively were obvious, but apparently not. So, I'll spell it out. If one were to create a wormhole, even one only a centimeter or less in diameter (if the theory that limits their size to such small dimensions turns out to be correct), one would obviously place the far end of such a wormhole somewhere useful. Like say, inside the star system you wish to explore in more depth. In THIS context. Ie: Nanites deposited inside the confines of a distant solar system, accelerating them to .9 of light-speed DOES have practical benefits. Instead of light-years to traverse, we're talking about "light-minutes" or even as little as 30-40 light-seconds. Of course .9 light speed is relatively useless for traversing the VAST distance between star systems. I never disagreed with this basic and obvious fact. Evilned: I have NO problem with you holding vastly different beliefs than my own, and I don't mind in the slightest that you consider many of the possibilities I endorse to lack merit. All I ask is that if we're going to debate, oppose the idea in its complete form, instead of cherry-picking portions that lack context on their own. Now, what do you think about the idea as a whole? Ie: The viability of creating and controlling a wormhole perhaps half a centimeter in diameter? Lastly, from the perspective of the Universe in its totality, I can think of no more extraordinary claim than to say bipedal primates who rose to prominence on their home planet much less than a 100,000 years ago on a planet in an unusual star system (single-star systems being in the vast minority compared to binary-star arrangements of various sorts), in a backwater arm of an unremarkable galaxy are the pinnacle of Universal Life. As an adherent of the Strong Anthropic Principle, I find it not only improbable but actually deranged to believe that in the vastness of our billions-of-years-old Universe, that intelligent life a) has emerged nowhere else in our Universe, let alone in the Local Group or our own Galaxy, and b) That at least ONE intelligent/self-aware species hasn't developed far earlier than we have, and that one of these Life-Forms/Species/Civilizations hasn't been pursuing *some form of* scientific inquiry for thousands, tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of years. Whatever else you believe, I feel one must admit that such a claim IS an Extraordinary one. I would be interested in the thoughts, opinions and information that those who believe this to in fact be the case as to what they believe substantiates the claim that Mankind is the most advanced self-aware and tool-using global civilization/population in the Universe. Since it's trendy, I believe it would be appropriate to point out that Einstein was convinced in the (seemingly) contradictory positions that the Light-Barrier is absolute and unbreachable, but that Man would develop a means of "practical conveyance" (as he described it) that would for all practical purposes permit non-relativistic travel orders of magnitude faster than light-speed (though the word Faster is misleading, and only used here as a relative term/descriptive. The potential "workarounds" of the light-barrier all share the common trait of having next to nothing to do with conventional movement). However, for the sake of intellectual honesty, I'll also mention that Einstein qualified these statements. Essentially saying it would only happen if we didn't destroy ourselves with weapons of mass destruction, and if we overcame the crisis he foresaw involving the waste heat our civilization continues to produce at a steadily rising rate. Einstein believed that the need to dissipate waste heat would be one of the first momentous hurdles any civilization would have to overcome or be destroyed. Some of his peers elaborated on this by speculating that the disposal of Waste-Heat would in all likelihood be the one means a less developed species could locate the worlds of a more advanced species that did not wish to be detected.

[mista_mo]

Do you mean "poof" as in you disappear in a magical smoke that makes people unsure of where you went? Do you mean "poof" in an offensive sense as in that I'm a homosexual (not actually offensive other then to the narrow minded folks) Or were you angered by the fact that I used my comments to express my personal discontent at the spiritual beliefs of people, those same people who have expressed their discontent with me using phrasing such as "You're going to hell!" and "Burn in hell you piece of shit!" Please answer, I'd be so interested to know. The first answer actually. Look pal, you made a shitty comment that added nothing to the discussion, even including KTHXBAI. It was a very very snide remark, and as JD said, I 'called you out on it'. When I saw that you had edited your post so that it actually included some content, I edited mine stating that you could now ignore the first part of my post.

[Chic Freak]

So Infrasound would account for both the mirrors breaking and both you and your friends uneasiness. Not saying this is definitely what happened...but this is a rational and completely feasible explanation for the events stated. I have no friends You have a fan though! An interesting scientific explanation that sounds much more feasible than ghosts or goblins or whatever.

[darth los]

The simplest explanation is normally the correct one.

[EvilNed]

@EvilNed, Why do you cherry-pick bits of someone's statement out of context to seemingly validate your point? They make up the whole, do they not? You cannot simplify something like this. Even if the wormhole theory of yours is possible, all the other factors have to fall into place. That's not cherry picking. That's breaking down your statement into what it really implies. Let's say the wormhole works. All those other factors still have to fall into place. Now, what do you think about the idea as a whole? Ie: The viability of creating and controlling a wormhole perhaps half a centimeter in diameter? That's not the idea as a whole. The idea as a whole is that some other intelligent life form knows about us, is visiting us and has developed the technology to create and control a wormhole. And I think the improbabilities are too many for that to hold any water as an argument. Lastly, from the perspective of the Universe in its totality, I can think of no more extraordinary claim than to say bipedal primates who rose to prominence on their home planet much less than a 100,000 years ago on a planet in an unusual star system (single-star systems being in the vast minority compared to binary-star arrangements of various sorts), in a backwater arm of an unremarkable galaxy are the pinnacle of Universal Life. Nobody's claimed that human life is the pinnacle of life. Nobody's claimed that there isn't intelligent life out there. But let's face it: We know only of one example of where life has evolved: Here on Earth. We have nothing to cross-reference it with. We might be alone. We might not be. We cannot make any statements about it whatsoever. You might find it hard to be believe that we are the smartest thing that's ever evolved in this universe. But for all we know, we are. But who knows, we might not be.

[Wyldwraith]

Might not be? I'm absolutely staggered that the lack of confirmation about what's contained in the visible universe we've examined less than 3% of is sufficient for you. May I make a suggestion EvilNed? Perhaps exploring a standard of fact-finding/inquiry beyond "we don't currently have 100% confirmation, so it's best to make an assertion of improbability, even when a body of credible evidence exists that strongly implies otherwise"? Military and commercial pilots rely on their judgment and perceptions being considered sound for their very livelihoods. These individuals have NOTHING to gain, and potentially everything to lose by going public or even filing an internal report about a UFO sighting. Many of these UFOs have been tracked by ground stations during intervals while said pilot(s) had the UFO under visual observation. Two of the most substantiated sightings are remarkable for two reasons. 1) The extensive body of evidence related to each sighting, and 2) The clearly non-natural maneuvers and documented speeds that preclude the old "experimental military aircraft" excuse. If sightings aren't your thing (there is something to be said for inherent flaws in eyewitness testimony), one can look to the Ancient Astronaut theories. Admittedly I don't personally buy a lot of what gets lumped into this area of inquiry, but I do find the commonalities of sudden development of advanced mathematic and astronomical measurements/observation by widely separated civilizations at the same time interesting. In any case, there's a lot more to credible inquiry than "we haven't confirmed it, so there's no point considering it."

[darth los]

I haven't answered in this thread not because it has strayed from the o.p.'s q, but because i can't define half the words you nerds are using.

[EvilNed]

Might not be? Who am I to question wether or not intelligent life exists or not? And who are you? As I said, we have nothing to cross-reference it with. It's just as probable as it is improbable. But it is a factor that would have to be true for your theory to work. And how can we know how probably or improbable this factor is? We have no idea. But what we do know is that this is but one factor in your theory. I'm absolutely staggered that the lack of confirmation about what's contained in the visible universe we've examined less than 3% of is sufficient for you. I won't doubt you when you say 3%, but I would like a source. No, I'm not being nitpicky, but if it really were 3% and that has been established, then that would be interesting to know. May I make a suggestion EvilNed? Perhaps exploring a standard of fact-finding/inquiry beyond "we don't currently have 100% confirmation, so it's best to make an assertion of improbability, even when a body of credible evidence exists that strongly implies otherwise"? You've misjudged this entire conversation. We're not talking about getting 100% confirmation on anything, and we haven't talked about a single phenomena that strongly implies that it is, infact, true. So what are you on about? Two of the most substantiated sightings are remarkable for two reasons. 1) The extensive body of evidence related to each sighting, and 2) The clearly non-natural maneuvers and documented speeds that preclude the old "experimental military aircraft" excuse. What evidence would that be? I am interested, and not trying to be a dick. But if there is evidence, I would like to know about it.