<div>Thank you for the insight, when I wrote this I had been learning about</div> <div>Psionics and tried to incorporate the two. I thought everything in the universe</div> <div>has energy and mass (humans) and that interaction with other humans</div> <div>(not on an emotional level but on an energy level) could simply be that</div> <div>gravity could somehow be involved, that's why you meet specific people</div> <div>at a certain time. I used radiation as an example to show that if your not</div> <div>aware of the energy field between two people, that your association may</div> <div>be contamination (warmful, useless ect..). I was making an assumption</div> <div>that all humans have their own energy force and if interaction between </div> <div>humans is all about the energy then like Einstein's theory, a ray of light </div> <div>(and other forms of energy) could in fact change a human's own energy </div> <div>level or chemical reactions.</div>
<div> </div> <div>But my mother always told me I have a wild imagination:)</div> <div>Thanks Jef for taking your time.</div> <div>Anna</div> <div><BR><BR><B><I>Jef Allbright <jef@jefallbright.net></I></B> wrote:</div> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">On 3/7/06, Anne-Marie Taylor <FEMMECHAKRA@YAHOO.CA>wrote:<BR>><BR>> >I've been trying to explain to mother (who is a diosis with the Protestant<BR>> >Church) about science. (Forget about evolution, that's going to take a<BR>> >lot more convincing)<BR>><BR>> >I may be completely off, but i'm just trying to explain to her (she is<BR>> very, very<BR>> >old school, pray, be nice and don't think too much:) in easy terms,<BR>> >the concept of e=mc2 using humans as the example.<BR><BR>Anne, humans inhabit a world in-between the very large and the very<BR>small. In fact, we are roughly in the middle of the scale, with
the<BR>very large, cosmic structures like galaxies at one end, and the very<BR>small sub-atomic particles at the the other end.<BR><BR>Einstein's equation e=mc^2 was discovered only recently, in the early<BR>20th century, because its effects aren't normally noticeable and<BR>hardly apply at the human scale.<BR><BR><BR>><BR>> >Please let me know that i'm way off before I approach her with my idea:)<BR>> >(And by the way, smileys are cute!)<BR><BR><SMILE>:-) Yes, I think you are way off on this. :-) <SMILE><BR><BR>><BR>> >If I quoted Albert Einstein with: (She likes him, thinks his smart:)<BR>> >"The body's surface layer is penetrated by energy<BR>> >quanta whose energy is converted at least partially<BR>> >into kinetic energy of the electrons. The simplest<BR>> >conception is that a light quamtum transfers ! it's<BR>> >entire energy to a single electron..)"<BR><BR>Usually photons transfer all of their energy to an atom at once,
but<BR>sometimes they give up their energy gradually by interaction with the<BR>coulomb field of the atom, and there are various types of scattering<BR>which can cause the photon's energy to gradually dissipate over<BR>multiple steps within the body. How much interaction and the types of<BR>interactions depend on factors such as the energy and angle of the<BR>arriving photon, and the nature of the material.<BR><BR>But I don't think this has anything to do with interactions between<BR>humans at the human scale.<BR><BR><BR>><BR>> Then I will say:<BR>> >If we are all energy that equals mass, to be attracted<BR>> >to someone, you would need gravity.<BR><BR>All bodies are subject to gravitational force in relation to their<BR>mass, and scientists have demonstrated that even photons are subject<BR>to gravitational attraction, but this is nothing like the emotional<BR>attraction that people feel for each other.<BR><BR>><BR>> >Then, If energy equals mass times the
speed of light, then<BR>> >at certain times people meet for a specific reason. (Or if they<BR>> >meet and exchange energy with someone that may be causing radiation,<BR>> >they too may become contaminated.)<BR><BR>This paragraph suggests to me that you may want to take a basic<BR>conceptual physics class so you will understand the scientific meaning<BR>of "energy", "mass", "radiation", and so on. Your statement just<BR>doesn't make any sense in scientific terms.<BR><BR>><BR>> >And if e=mc2, then couldn't it mean that their are<BR>> >other energies that effect humans that may cause<BR>> >electromagnetic fields based on the time.<BR>> >(if you haven't already became radiation.)<BR><BR>Electromagnetic fields and radiation are all around us, and all bodies<BR>emit, absorb, and reflect radiation in various ways that are quite<BR>well understood. This doesn't normally have much to do with e=mc2,<BR>however, at the level at which it is practiced
by engineers and<BR>scientists.<BR><BR>> >Which in turn would lead to the need to understand<BR>> >awareness in humans? (Knowing the right time)<BR><BR>This is so disjointed I don't know what I could say to help here.<BR>On a completely different tangent, I think understanding awareness is<BR>extremely important to humans and human society, since increasing<BR>awareness tends to lead to better decision-making. I also think it is<BR>important to understand what we mean by both subjective and objective<BR>awareness.<BR><BR>> >Which Buddha describes: To becoming a full conscious human being.!<BR>> >(I won't tell her it was Buddha)<BR><BR>To become "fully conscious" as the Buddha teaches is about quieting<BR>the mind and becoming more aware of the inner chatter, mental filters<BR>and preconceptions that interfere with seeing things more clearly.<BR><BR>> >And just out of curiosity, have scientists measured awareness?<BR><BR>Awareness can be tested and
measured in specific terms under specific<BR>conditions, but some philosophers continue to argue about what<BR>"awareness" really means.<BR><BR><BR>><BR>> >Any comments or suggestions are always welcome,<BR>> >it makes me smarter<BR>> >Thanks Anna<BR><BR><BR>I would comment that there is much we already know and understand<BR>about the world we live in. There is even more that we don't yet know<BR>and understand. A scientific approach is the best approach we<BR>currently have toward refining what we think we already know and<BR>uncovering further mysteries and new questions we can ask.<BR><BR>I wish you a delightful and rewarding journey along whichever path you follow.<BR><BR>- Jef<BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>extropy-chat mailing list<BR>extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org<BR>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><p>
<hr size=1>Make Yahoo! Canada your Homepage <a href="http://ca.yahoo.com/bin/set"><b>Yahoo! Canada Homepage</b></a>