Can the Mind Unlock the Secrets of Time Travel?

[mikesvenson]

that is pure ignorance.

Yes it is, just like the absolute belief in the literal meanings of a book that controls an organized religion. A book that has been re-written many times with political influence. The belief that a particular organized religion is superior and right over all the others. This by far is one of the most ignorant things I have ever heard of. It fits in the same category with the belief that all races are not equal due to differences in skin color, etc. If a wrong card at the bottom of a stack is the cause of a mass dissorder in a system, then you are clearly not playing with a full deck. HAHA. I am totally dissing you.

ps. I had not until just recently decided to put in a few words about the subject, since I don't usually like to argue, but you are the epitome of self-contradiction.

 

[hello3719]

So plants have a spirit by your definition. But you said that the spirit is connected with brains. But plants don't have brains, do they ? So there is a contradiction.

 

[christian_dude_27]

hello, ther is no contradiction tehre, a plant does not have th same cell structure as we do, its brain is not our "brain". get the point? mike, the bible says all people are equal, you yourself are self-contradicting. try to understand what you say before you open your mouth. if a robot could get that advanced, is it truly a robot anymore? or is it a living creation, just like us? technichly, we are robots as well. our body is "programed" to do certain things under certain conditions, and to act a certain way. a flaw in this program, which is normal among everyone, because we are not perfect, would be our ability to have self will.

 

[hello3719]

So decide yourself, do plants have a spirit?

 

[christian_dude_27]

yes, but not as advanced as ours, they are very low intelligence, we are high level.

 

[hello3719]

oh so now there exist different level of spirits?

So what is a spirit then?
Personnality is not due to what you call spirits but rather a reaction to the world in which we live and how we are influenced.Everything is due to action-reactions phenomena.

 

[arildno]

yes, but not as advanced as ours, they are very low intelligence, we are high level.

I'm high-level, you are not

 

[ram2048]

what the people are trying to break to you is that science and religion are for the most part mutually exclusive.

science is based upon finding provable rational answers for unexplained phenomena.

religion is based around explaining phenomena in terms of God, proof or no proof

as a scientist, you cannot allow yourself to accept things without a reasonable amount of proof. the "Book" is not proof, but theory, so to speak. many people believe in the theory, and they all have their reasons. most of them include fear, indoctrination, peer-pressure, gullibility, and weakness.

the day that God comes down to Earth and television broadcasts worldwide that "hey, man. you know this Earth thing? i made that! like whoa!" THEN we'll have proof. Until then we need science.

 

[christian_dude_27]

well, the facts are here, accept them or dont, your choice. i could give you facts al day long, but until you accept them, they are worthless to you. no need to continue this post unless someone can accept the facts.

 

[ram2048]

a fact is something that is backed by evidence

by itself it is not factual

you don't accept something because it is a fact, you accept it because it is supported by overwhelming evidence.

if some random person comes to your house and says "hey, they're giving out free money at the courthouse today. go get yours" do you believe them? no

you question their motives, examine their demeanor (do they seem like the lying scamming type?), and maybe phone a few friends, turn on the news, and check the internet.

if all the above check out then it's highly likely that this is a fact.

on the other hand if the president of the United States comes on TV and says massive additional tax refund, visit nearest courthouse to claim, you can almost certainly accept that as a fact right away.

the difference is credibility. something which christianity has trouble with considering the myriad of fairy tales and stories in "the book". all of them claiming to be truthful accounts, but none with any proof or evidence.

but I'm not here to debate that with you. come back with evidence that you can time travel and i'll be right there with you.

i want to buy some microsoft stock

 

[hello3719]

yes, but not as advanced as ours, they are very low intelligence, we are high level.

Are you trying to say that intelligence is directly proportionnal to "the level of our spirit" ? Meaning that intelligence is what influences our spirit. How do you mesure the intelligence of a plant? What it is responsible for its "intelligence" ?

 

[christian_dude_27]

a fact is something that is backed by evidence

true, but you miss the conception that there IS overwhelming evidence that proves god is real. but until you can accept that evidence as real evidence and not a fake, then you will never realize it. and by the way..in case you didn't know this, the bible is even talked about in our history boks, jesus is even talked about. obviously that is real. the first three books of the bible are the history of the jews, and is proven by history records itself to be true.

 

[christian_dude_27]

hello,

um, not exactly, no. a spitit is a spirit, they are all "worth" the same. but we, because of our high intelligence, would never realize that a plant, without hardly the same intelligence as we, also has a spirit. if it is living, it has a spirit. simple enough.

 

[hello3719]

so what you said before isn't valid since you said the spirit of the plant "isn't as advanced as ours" and now you say that they are worth the same. You still didn't define what a spirit is without falling into contradictions.

 

[ram2048]

and by the way..in case you didn't know this, the bible is even talked about in our history boks, jesus is even talked about. obviously that is real. the first three books of the bible are the history of the jews, and is proven by history records itself to be true.

tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time. with the blood of patriots and tyrants...

and by the same token, every generation must have its own "evidence".

take the word "research" which is "re" - to do again. "search" - to seek out or look for.

say those accounts fortold thousands of years ago are true. where are all the miracles of god today? if god wants us to believe in him, it is WELL within his power to manifest to us and say "hey guys, have some loaves and fishes"

that he doesn't do so is either A> proof that he doesn't exist or B> doesn't care whether you believe in him or not

 

[hello3719]

hello,

um, not exactly, no. a spitit is a spirit, they are all "worth" the same. but we, because of our high intelligence, would never realize that a plant, without hardly the same intelligence as we, also has a spirit. if it is living, it has a spirit. simple enough.

yea... a spirit is a spirit , this defines well spirit.

I can say that everything that is living has a uiuopsdfhjhjks, but does it mean something useful?

 

[Antonio Lao]

Placing a touch of scientific terminology into the supernaturalism of the word 'spirit,' this is analogous to a magnetic field. Magnetic field are everywhere. In the smallest things such as a neutrino. In the vacuum. In stars, in galaxies, in quasars, in black holes. Still the unit (magnetic monopole) of magnetism cannot be isolated but magnetic field do exist. Magnetic field is moving. Yet nobody knows, for sure, how fast it is moving but all we can assume is that it must be moving at the speed of light in vacuum since this speed is the maximum allowable by the theory of special relativity.
The property of spin in elementary particles is intimately related to magnetism. Since there are two poles (cannot be separated) in magnetism, the N-pole and the S-pole, we can make the analogy that there is also a good 'spirit' and a bad 'spirit.' And this good and bad spirit cannot be separated. But a good spirit will know it is good and a bad spirit will know it is bad. One can identify the other but cannot exist without the other.

 

[christian_dude_27]

antonio, at least one person can understand without asking stupid questions to make themselves look like complete idots by not reading the posts i have posted. they already kow what a spirit is, why ak me? it's quite obviouse...take a second to think about this guys, what do you think a spirit is? um, probably the same thing you've heard all your life. personally, i can't think of myself as being a finite being. we are infinite. god is eternal. the difference in teh three are: eternal- not a beginning, not an end; infinite-having a beginning, not an end; finite- having both a beginning and an end. we are not finite, we are infinite. no, not much proof for that, considering we have ghost reports out our butt holes, we have strange phenomena that can oly be explained through thought that there is a spirit, and then we have other phenomena that can only be explained with a power other than our physical body, if it was only our physical body, it would die before we could do hardly anything close to what we do.

ok people, don't bother posting ANYTHING else on this post unless it is purely based on my theory, the fact of what a spirit is or what it isn't is not part of the topic, so leave it out of the picture. if another post is posted on any other topic here other than what was provided of the theory i will have no choice but to report it to the moderator. please keep to the topic.

 

[hello3719]

Those questions are to make you think more deeply about what you are talking about. We already know that your theory is flawed since the word "spirit" doesn't have a universal definition. In order to validate a theory it MUST BE CONSISTENT with the definition of every objects it affects. If you can't give a consistent definition of a "spirit" and just give what you think and thought during all your life it was, we can't judge your theory from a rationnal point of view. (Isn't that what you want?)

And , do you really think that defining spirit is off-topic? . Your theory concerns it directly.

 

[hello3719]

oops double posting..

 

[Gokul43201]

..in case you didn't know this, the bible is even talked about in our history boks

That only proves that the Bible is a real thing - I accept this, as I've seen, touched, even read it. It does not mean that the Bible is necessarily filled with truisms.

... jesus is even talked about. obviously that is real.

I think most people accept that Jesus too existed. But that still doesn't prove anything.

the first three books of the bible are the history of the jews, and is proven by history records itself to be true.

Whoa...hang on there...Book I, Genesis talks about how God made Earth and the Sun (and made the Sun go around the Earth) and light and trees and animals and Adam and Eve. Then the descendents of Adam and Eve were traced for several generations. There is historical evidence for the existence of most of the later people in this tree, like Moses, David, Solomon, Jesus, etc. However, there is no independent evidence of the existence of Adam or Eve or Abel or any of the early folks.

Still, what does all this prove ? How does this PROVE that the Bible only speaks the truth ? How ? How ? How ?

Since everyone here (save perhaps, arildno) has shown immense patience, so shall I.

And if you want to speak from faith...please try not to present it under the guise of science.

 

[christian_dude_27]

that i will do, but can allow myself to make a pact with everyone here in thwe forums? i know you guys, as well as myself, am getting quite tired of repeating ourselves and making quite stupid remarks towards each other. how about i try to fix my theory, put some paragraph in it, define a spirit, and, if you guys like, point out a few other mistakes in it that i can fix without violating my religion, and i can subtract the religion standpoint from the theory, other than the spirit part. would that make it better and could that perhaps leave us to talk solely about the theory in scientific terms and leave my religion out of it. i know i know, i probably was the one who brought it up in the first place, but i am the one who is ending it as well.

is this an agreeable term for everyone?

 

[arildno]

A much better, and humbler, approach, christian dude!
If you show the ability to separate clearly between cogent, logical arguments based on facts/clearly defined quantities amenable for rigourous calculations, and, on the other hand, philosophical/religious perspectives on the human condition, then you, your religion and your ideas deserve as much respect as anyone else/'s.
In your case, you would then belong to the group of Christians which also includes luminaries like Sir Isaac Newton and Georg Cantor (not too bad a company, or what? )
In general, I pursue a zero-tolerance line against anyone unable to draw this fundamental distinction.
Your previous posts were strong indications that you did not possesses this ability; I am eagerly awaiting you proving me wrong (for which your last post is a good indication).

 

[kokain]

This theory is not worth fixing anyway. I think you should stop smoking the gange. And the first part of Genesis has come to be accepted as folk lore, for example, God created everything twice. They tell one story, then tell it again differently. The storys are intended only to inspire us.

 

[hello3719]

very good decision.

 

[christian_dude_27]

well, thanks for being so kind, all but kokain that is. kokain needs to stop with the cocain anyhow. my theory basically has very little proof, probably because first of all, i am 17 years old, kinda hard to get money to fun experiments, and for another, i wouldn't know how to fun those experiments, seeing this is a new theory and little is understood in its field for any experiments to undergo. but i'll work on making it more readable, and defining things better. hows that for a start until i can get some experiments started?

 

[hello3719]

very good start, trying to define things in a clear and non-confusing way, always leads to something new and interesting,
I'm 17 also , and i see what you mean about experiments and all that stuff.

hehe still, thinking is becoming much more fun than experiments.

 

[christian_dude_27]

lol, true, and plus, its all I've done all my life. yes, i have had a very hard life. my dad abandoned me when i was 11, my mom is in prison, I'm living with an ausive gandfather, my grandmother (different sets of grandparents here) beat me, and once my dad left me, i had a mental bredakdown. only thing i could do was think and learn about other people. i know a lot more than most people put past me. one rule in life: NEVER SHOW YOUR TRUE STRENGTH..learn that folks, you will need it one day.

yea, i had a pretty tough life, and it hasn't stopped, and neither have i. I'm still breathin correctly and living correctly. hope you guys all do the same.

 

[kokain]

This forum is for physics, not whining.

 

[christian_dude_27]

has anyone ever told you you're an ass? and no, that's not in cursing context, it's basically telling you that you're a stubborn jerk.

 

[mikesvenson]

HA!, this is entertaining! Remember to remove your earings before you get into a cat fight!

I can't believe you are argueing over the internet! How pathetic is this?!?
very very very very very very very very very very very very ! hahahahahahahaha!

 

[Växan]

it's impossible to have an understanding of physics without understanding maths
physics is about mathematical models

i recommend starting from the beginning, with a good foundation in maths
( esp. algebra )

in any case, this topic should be moved to philosophy or religion

 

[arildno]

in any case, this topic should be moved to philosophy or religion

Nope, it's an archetypal TD thread.

 

[christian_dude_27]

hey guys, may i ask what those warnig are about? i just noticed them today, i wonder why they are there.

anyways, i have just about stopped al ties with this forum, since it's full of little bitty mean green people. I'm going to a diferent forum now. so, see you guys later!

 

[arildno]

Have a nice life, cd27

 

[12345]

hey guys, may i ask what those warnig are about? i just noticed them today, i wonder why they are there.

anyways, i have just about stopped al ties with this forum, since it's full of little bitty mean green people. I'm going to a diferent forum now. so, see you guys later!

not everyone's like that. it is that your theory involves religion and
the 'spiritual dimension'. scientists barely make a mistake of involving religion.

anyway, you have to support your theory with mathamatical evidence.

 

[Alkatran]

So, I started reading through your post again. You know what this sounds like? It sounds like some old philosopher talking, not having done any real testing or checked anything out. He's just saying what seems to make sense to HIM.

You say that there's "no way" an electron could move fast enough to escape the electrical attraction of the proton. Then, you say that your invented (whatever it was) holds it there and that a negative charge ALWAYS repels (meaning a positive doesn't attract a negative? It sounds like you want negative to push positive and positive to pull negative, but this violates Newton's laws. Wouldn't this mean charge didn't matter to start with as well?!)

Your theory needs a little work.

 

[amrit]

time travel no possible

Beyond The Concept Of Linear Time

Amrit Sorli, SpaceLife Institute,
Podere Petraiole, 53012 Chiusdino (SI), Italy
www.directscientificexperience.com[/URL]
[email]spacelife@libero.it[/email]


In the universe one can observe irreversible stream of change. Change A transforms into change B, B transforms into C and so on. When change B is in existence change A does not exist anymore, when change C is in existence change B does not exist anymore. On the base of elementary perception (sight) one can conclude that change run in the physical space only, there is no evidence of physical time. The “liner time that runs independently through the whole universal space” is only a concept created by Newton and do not exist as a physical reality. Ernst Mach says: "It is utterly beyond our power to measure the changes of things by time. Quite the contrary, time is an abstraction at which we arrive by means of the changes of things". (1) It seems that Einstein was aware that Newton’s time is only a concept but at the beginning of the last century was to early for such an idea. By creating the mathematical model of space-time he linked time to space knowing that one day complete fusion will happen. Here time is an integral part of the physical space. Einstein’s idea of space-time was newer well accepted. In today science and also daily life we still experience reality through Newton’s concept of linear time.
Here the question arises: What we measure with clocks? A clock is running in the physical space only and not in time. By observing a clock we have an impression that time is running, because we experience it through the linear concept of time. Clocks are mechanisms with a constant speed of change and are a references for the speed of all change. According to General Relativity the speed of change is slower where gravitation is stronger. The experiment with high precision clocks confirm relation between speed of change and gravitation: the clocks run slower at seaside than on the top of the high mountain.
Change are irreversible, they have no duration. When experienced through the linear concept of time it seems that they have a duration. For example: we walked five kilometres and we experienced that we walked about an hour. Comparing it with the clock we experience that we walked about an hour. We give our walk the sense of duration when we experience it through the linear concept of time. We are getting older in physical space only and not in space-time. In the physical space there is no “before”, “now” and “after”, they exist only as a parts of the linear concept of time.
As in the universe time does not exist, there is also no “arrow of time”. The stream of change has no direction, it is constantly running in the physical space. Arrow of time belongs to the linear concept of time. That why we experience the past was before the present and the future will arrive after the present. Becoming aware that time exists only in the mind we jump directly into “timeless experience” of the world and ourselves.
Science can not function without a linear concept of time. By accepting that change have no duration all different measurements would have no sense. To maintain scientific analytical approach we can say that time exists only as a stream of irreversible change and that with clocks we measure duration of change. (2)
Because of the concept of past, present and future in diagrams time is mostly represented with horizontal coordinate. Here time is understood as a irreversible change and it would be more correct to represented it with a vertical coordinate. Let see diagram for one hour of walking.



Time here means only duration of movement. Entering into timeless experience we see that the duration of movement has sense only when seen through the linear concept of time. Timeless experience is far deeper than common scientific experience. It brings knowledge about the real nature of the universe and of the man itself. To search beyond the linear concept of time awakening of consciousness is needed. Consciousness has capacity to watch the way mind functions. (3) Watching the mind brings awareness that linear time is only a concept of the mind. Physicist Julian Barbour as well as all different mystic schools say that time is an illusion.
In timeless experience we discover that the inner space in which thoughts float and the outer space in which stars float are the same physical space. We enter into deep Oneness with the whole universe. This Oneness is the source for the great scientific discoveries and the most beautiful peaces of art.

References:

1. Ernst Mach, Timelessness,
[PLAIN]http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/timeless.html
2. Sorli A. (2004). Time Is Change. Episteme, Perugia, Italy, Number 8
http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/ep8/ep8.htm
3. Sorli A., Sorli I. K. (2004). The Scientific Basis For The Development Of Human Consciousness.
Episteme, Perrugia, Italy, Number 8, http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/ep8/ep8-sorli2.htm

Amrit Sorli

 

[christian_dude_27]

alkatran,

no no no! read more carefully, i think that i did mention in there that other things can attract negatives, just negative can't attract by itself. in other words, a proton can attract it, if it has an attraction towards negtives, it will attract, but the attraction power would be cut in half, because the negative is not attracting too. it still has some attractions, just not all of it. everything else still applies, EVERYTHING, the only thing i changed with that is that negatives ONLY do not attract and only repel. so, if yo got a proton attracting, and a negative always repelling, then the balne is equal, it will stay in balance.

 

[christian_dude_27]

wow, there are quite a few people viewing this thread, so i guess i'll stay here, seeing as though I've been banned from the other forum site. lol. fun fun, yea, but hey, anyone wish to talk on this theory, give it a shot, i'd be more than ahppy to explain it and answer questions.

 

[ram2048]

u sure you don't want to leave? the mean people get meaner every day

 

[geistkiesel]

future seeing? Sure, if current constants remain invariant over time.

One can predict the future with pinpoint accuracy. I do this regulalry on a daily basis. I am only in error when all the factors, constants etc that are significant in guaranteeing the future event do not cooperate from the instance of prediciton, or seeing the future, or having traveled to the future, up to the visited event, which hardly ever happens. Some seers turn out true, some turn out false, some are ambiguously intriguing, what's the point? You aren't going to throw Revelation at us as your scientific proof are you?

What about Mickey Rooney's prediction that is offered as a universal statement of the truth, past, present and future, that "Life is Too Short".

 

[christian_dude_27]

life i short, but time is not., but no, I've never heard of that one

 

[Eula]

mmm...?

My friend gave me this link to have a quick read, and I haven't got my head round it, so I decided to have an input into this.

Firstly please please please learn to type a little better its a long process to re-read what you wrote again to make sense of your introductory piece.

Secondly, science and religion do not and should not be mixed, its very difficult for you to not contradicted yourself if you attempt to get both parties involved.

Im a firm believer in a powerful thing/being that created all of us but I believe also that a book such as the Bible was brought to control the peoples of Europe and other areas of the world by the church, and this was happening in the medieval times.

I might be a little late on this matter seing it has gradually progressed but CD27 is really coming out with a highly ridiculous theory that the spirit controls the physical body.

The brain stays alive for 10 seconds because that's the amount of time the oxygen to the brain cells can supply them for.

I suggest studying some science before entering the world of philsophy and coming up with your own theories.

 

[christian_dude_27]

i have, and wouldn't it be logical that the oxygen would also account for the electrical pulses in the brain? and if your head gets cut off, and you lose your oxygen, as said by my theory, wouldn't that cause you to "die" as well? not just your cells dieing, but the electrical pulses stopping as well. it has been proven, through many years of research and experiments, that the electrical pulses in your brain and along your nervouse system is how infomation is sent from one spot in your body to the enxt. that iks a proven fact, now, if the pulses were to stop, you brain could not function anymore. it would "die". that has been proven as well, i am not the first to state that. but i am the first to state that there is something more to it.

but i do thank you on your reply. i will try and work more on tryping a little bit better. and, i really don't kow if i can take god out of my theory, that's also why i went to a christian forum, ithinki can tlak it out there as well. with much better success. but i wanted a range of peolpe to comment on my theory, seems to do best here.

 

[12345]

My friend gave me this link to have a quick read, and I haven't got my head round it, so I decided to have an input into this.
Secondly, science and religion do not and should not be mixed, its very difficult for you to not contradicted yourself if you attempt to get both parties involved.
I might be a little late on this matter seing it has gradually progressed but CD27 is really coming out with a highly ridiculous theory that the spirit controls the physical body.
I suggest studying some science before entering the world of philsophy and coming up with your own theories.

True never get science and religion mixed up. it is a risk in the science world.

The brain stays alive for 10 seconds because that's the amount of time the oxygen to the brain cells can supply them for.

I would say the brain is your 'spirit'.

 

[christian_dude_27]

i think otherwise, i don't know why,. it's just that gut feeling. you know? you ever had a gut feeling that that? that you know you're right, you can feel it, and no matter what anyone says to try and disprove you,you know that there has to be a way. and I'm trying to find it. this theory is not fdone yet, in fact, i posted an even better explanation of it in anotehr thread, it is called the Inol theory. it doesn't really go very deep into time travel, but it gives the rest of my theory. here, i will give a link so that you can read it as well.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=30887

i hope you enjoy that one mosre than you enjoyed this one. it does still mix religion with science, but just read what i wrote at the very end of it, and please PLEASE follow it if it bothers you in any way, ok?

 

[12345]

i think otherwise, i don't know why,. it's just that gut feeling. you know? you ever had a gut feeling that that? that you know you're right, you can feel it, and no matter what anyone says to try and disprove you,you know that there has to be a way. and I'm trying to find it. this theory is not fdone yet, in fact, i posted an even better explanation of it in anotehr thread, it is called the Inol theory. it doesn't really go very deep into time travel, but it gives the rest of my theory. here, i will give a link so that you can read it as well.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=30887

i hope you enjoy that one mosre than you enjoyed this one. it does still mix religion with science, but just read what i wrote at the very end of it, and please PLEASE follow it if it bothers you in any way, ok?

If you have a gut feeling about this theory, then follow it. don't let us discourage you. it is good to be determined, but don't stress too hard, because if you are proven wrong then.....gut feeling's gone.

 

[christian_dude_27]

not necessarily, my gut feeling isn't like any other. and i don't think anything like any of you do, i think. i believe in teh power of the mind, completely. i believe that our mind shapes the universe to be what it is. my description of unified dimensions completely goes against the idea of parallel dimensions, but it doesn't mean either of hem are wrong. in fact, they could be both correct. and i don't mean that by saying a part of one is correct and a part of the otehr is correct, i mean both of them literally are correct. how is that possible? i'll tell you how. if you truly and subconsously believe that the dimensions are parallel, then tehy will be parallel, for you and who ever else around you subconcously beleives the same exact thing. but if one single person in that group beleives that dimensions are unified and not parallel, then that one person will not have experienced what you and the other people have. yet that person will experience something completely different. both ideas work perfectly, but with different consequences.a parallel dimension syestem only limits what we can learn from dimensions, but a unified dimension system opens up a new range which has never been seen before. both are correct, and both are very diferent, but both are just as good as each other. a unified dimensions could possibly show to how instantaneous travel could be done with even today's technology, parallel dimension system shows how black holes work. my uified dimensions system...i don't know if it shows how a black hole works, basically what I'm saying is that both ideas are right, and it is only a differnt view of loking at the same thing.

that is why my gut feelign will never leave me. becuse i believe that no matter how much evidence you have for one thing, i can also have the same amount of evidence for what i believe and ye tthey both be right. do you see whart I'm saying? what you subconsously believe in shapes the universe.it's all mind over matter. i say the stove is hot, but you say the stove is cold. it's a matter of how one's senses percives the information. to you, when you touch the stove, it amy really seem cold, to me, it may really seem hot. both ideas are right. both seness are correct. but it's just another way of loking at it.yea, hard to believe that a hot stove is really cold isn't it? no, not really. the reason it would be hard is probably because you've been told all your life that it is. you've probably even done your own experiements, god help you, but that never means that someone else's ideas could perceve the information sent to them sa cold and not hot. even your ideas could change from hot to cold. this is good. if you ever get too cold, you can perceve the information you are sensing to be warmer. and it could really work that way, you can really shape it to be warmer. not just a trigger to make YOU seem like it's warmer, but to really make it warmer. you have to subconsously believe it for it to work. so do you see how i think? i don't think like everyone else does. to me, everything is right, no amtter how much evidence you have. and everything is wrong. no matter how much evidence you have, they both work. just in a diferent light.

think on that for a little while.