Merkabah | Page 387 | INFJ Forum
Not too many UFO stories on this thread...I usually don’t post them unless they break out of the conspiracy circles.
Interesting no?
Enjoy!

Scientists say mysterious 'Oumuamua' object could be an alien spacecraft
Harvard researchers raise the possibility that it's a probe sent by an alien civilization.


171212-oumuamua-ac-621p_9d41cefd67beebc93c18a75244ead796.fit-2000w.jpg

Nov. 5, 2018 / 11:06 AM PST
By David Freeman

Maybe it's an alien spacecraft.

Scientists have been puzzling over Oumuamua ever since the mysterious space object was observed tumbling past the sun in late 2017.
Given its high speed and its unusual trajectory, the reddish, stadium-sized whatever-it-is had clearly come from outside our solar system.

But its flattened, elongated shape and the way it accelerated on its way through the solar system set it apart from conventional asteroids and comets.

Now a pair of Harvard researchers are raising the possibility that Oumuamua is an alien spacecraft.
As they say in a paper to be published Nov. 12 in The Astrophysical Journal Letters, the object "may be a fully operational probe sent intentionally to Earth vicinity by an alien civilization.”

The researchers aren't claiming outright that aliens sent Oumuamua.
But after a careful mathematical analysis of the way the interstellar object sped up as it shot past the sun, they say Oumuamua could be a spacecraft pushed through space by light falling on its surface — or, as they put it in the paper, a "lightsail of artificial origin.”

Who would have sent such a spacecraft our way — and why?

"It is impossible to guess the purpose behind Oumuamua without more data," Avi Loeb, chairman of Harvard's astronomy department and a co-author of the paper, told NBC News MACH in an email.

If Oumuamua is a lightsail, he added, one possibility is that it was floating in interstellar space when our solar system ran into it, "like a ship bumping into a buoy on the surface of the ocean."

Earthlings have launched simple solar-powered lightsails of our own, and Loeb is an adviser to Breakthrough Starshot, an initiative that plans to send a fleet of tiny laser-powered lightsail craft to the nearest star system.

But the technology is in its infancy — at least here on Earth.

181105-light-sail-al-1547_6eef9dc071dd857ebe1383bb221c5c5a.fit-560w.jpg

Loeb and his collaborator, Shmuel Bialy, a postdoctoral fellow at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, acknowledge that the alien spacecraft scenario is an "exotic" one.

And perhaps not surprisingly, other space scientists have strong doubts about it.

"It's certainly ingenious to show that an object the size of Oumuamua might be sent by aliens to another star system with nothing but a solar sail for power," Seth Shostak, a senior astronomer at the SETI Institute in Mountain View, California, said in an email.

"But one should not blindly accept this clever hypothesis when there is also a mundane (and a priori more likely) explanation for Oumuamua — namely that it's a comet or asteroid from afar."

Coryn Bailer-Jones, an astronomer at the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy in Heidelberg, Germany, voiced similar objections.
"In science," he said in an email, "we must ask ourselves, "Where is the evidence?, not "Where is the lack of evidence so that I can fit in any hypothesis that I like?”

Bailer-Jones, who earlier this year led a group of scientists who identified four dwarf stars as likely origin points for Oumuamua, raised questions in particular about the object's tumbling motion.

"Why send a spacecraft which is doing this?" he said. "If it were a spacecraft, this tumbling would make it impossible to keep any instruments pointed at the Earth. Of course, one could now say it was an accident, or the aliens did this to deceive us. One can always come up with increasingly implausible suggestions that have no evidence in order to maintain an idea."

But Loeb called the conjecture "purely scientific and evidence-based," adding, "I follow the maxim of Sherlock Holmes: When you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

The truth may be hard to establish, as Oumuamua has left the solar system and is no longer visible even with telescopes.
In any case, Loeb said, the fact that we've observed one interstellar object like Oumuama suggests that others may be out there — and astronomers should begin a search for them.

"A survey for lightsails as technosignatures [of extraterrestrial civilizations] in the solar system is warranted," he said, "irrespective of whether Oumuamua is one of them.”
 
I’ve posted the Carl Sagan dimension/tesseract video here before, and I really like his explanation.
Here however, is another good explanation of the 4th dimension with a slightly different perspective.
(If 4D casts a 3D shadow...hmmmm...shadow people explanation?)
Enjoy!!




 
Last edited:
An engaging and stimulating read.
Curious theory anyhow.
Enjoy!


Dead and Dreaming:
Persistence of the Unconscious After Death

“Ghosts seem to know as little about themselves as we do,
so that, if we are to discover anything,
we must make haste, before we become ghosts ourselves”
– Andrew Lang


dead_dreaming.jpg

I had the weirdest dream last night…


I’ve taken a break from ghost hunting shows.
Used to regard them as a guilty pleasure and watched them with my 10-year-old, who never failed to point out that for all the footage recorded they never seemed to actually catch anything on camera of any significance or record an electronic voice phenomenon that didn’t have to be subtitled.

Out of the mouths of babes.
One can still enjoy them for their sheer entertainment value, and as long as you aren’t expecting earth-shattering answers to existential questions, the breathless “ghost-bro” wandering around in a ruined asylum with the lights off and jumping at shadows makes for some solid unreality television, if that aesthetic appeals to you.

And despite the trademark smugness and air of intellectual superiority that surrounds the ever-so-modern, professional skeptic, the paranormal oeuvre remains surprisingly popular across a range of media.

Its not that I disagree with many skeptical observations about a wide range of anomalistic phenomena, or the state of the “science”, it simply seems disingenuous to denigrate others for “superstition”, when if you dig deep enough into any of our troubled psyches, there is maze of belief, ego, desire, and wishful thinking.

Skepticism idolizes science, and by extension scientists, many of whom would never go to the rhetorical extremes they are credited with, particularly when they recognize they are human (given a few don’t) and what they have in their arsenal is an effective methodology given a narrow set of circumstances in a largely mysterious universe.

Consequently, one of the favorite whipping boys of the skeptical and scientistic is the apparent mish-mash of theoretical perspectives routinely brought to bear by paranormal enthusiasts, particularly when it comes to explaining what a ghost is and why they are using all that fancy gadgetry, which you got to admit makes them look a little bit like the guys and gals from Ghostbusters, as if that wasn’t enough of a reason.

And I’m loathe to openly admit a skeptic has a point (it just encourages them), but you’ve got your demonologists, Stone Tape people, modern Spiritualists, psychics, electromagnetically-obsessed and a cast of numerous other theoretical camps that approach ghosts from a variety of technical (as in technique) perspectives based on their foundational theory or theories about what ghosts are.

Now, I like to try theories on for size, just like pants.
Does this theory make me look fat?

This lead me to explore a theory of ghosts that had it’s heyday in the late 1800’s, but isn’t talked about much anymore – that is, that ghosts (as well as a number of other paranormal phenomena), may just be “the dreams of the dead”.

Hold on cowpoke, you’re probably saying, that makes no sense whatsoever.
Bear with me.

While there are exceptions, most theories regarding ghosts are variations on the persistence of consciousness after death.
Personally, my consciousness barely persists while I’m alive, but what is life except convincing people otherwise.

Assuming the persistence of consciousness in some form after the mortal flesh has checked out, is pretty essential for most religions, and is equally important if you want to ascribe some sort of agency to our spectral friends.

And we need to assign agency to ghosts if we expect to talk to them, explain why they’re moving things about, interact, or chase them to the ends of the earth.

There is, as always, a logical fallacy here.
Why assume, if consciousness persists after death, that the manifestation of ghosts in the cheap seats of reality where we live, are actually representations of that consciousness.

Would it not be equally valid to assume that if consciousness persist, so to do dreams, or the unconscious.
Six thousand years of interactions with ghosts, which we’ve been recording ever since it turned out all you needed was a stick and clay and could thus grab a little piece of immortality, and the vast majority of such encounters have a dreamlike quality.

Striking terror in the hearts of mortal men might seem entertaining for a while, but should consciousness persist beyond death, there have got to more interesting things to do.

So, if we predicate our notion of ghosts with the idea that consciousness persists beyond death, why not assume that the unconscious similarly abides? Makes you wonder if there are ghost psychiatrists.

“Doc, I’m having trouble with this whole death thing…”. Poet Frederick William Henry Myers (1843-1901), and a founding member of the Society for Psychical Research, seems to have been the guy who really fleshed out this theory.

We are, indeed, always uncertain as to the degree of the deceased person’s active participation in post-mortem phantasms—as to the relation of such manifestations to the central current of his continuing individuality.

But it is in dealing with these persistent pictures of a bygone earth-scene that this perplexity reaches its climax.
They may, as I have already said, be the mere dreams of the dead—affording no true indication of the point which the deceased person’s knowledge or emotion has really reached (Myers, 1903, p384).


In short, Myers was suggesting, based on mountains of data collected under the august auspices of the Society for Psychical Research, that when examining any given haunting, it was exceedingly hard to determine how active the involvement of a conscious spirit might be, given the quality of said encounters, and often inchoate nature of ghostly behavior.

Furthermore, he maintained that often locality was more significant than personality when it came to the presence of a phantasm.

In Phantasms of the Living there were cases which suggested that during life, or at the hour of death, it was sometimes a local rather than a personal cause which induced or determined the apparition of the dying man.

And in post-mortem cases—as our evidence has shown—this feature is still more prominent.
To me it seems that it may well be only as an exceptional thing that any post-mortem phantom is recognized by any survivor.

If once it is admitted that phantasms may be in some way conditioned or attracted by that form of assemblage of influences which we term locality, it is plain that we transitory tenants of the earth’s surface can have no claim to appropriate all the memories which may act upon the departed.

If apparitions be the dreams of the dead, they will dream of affairs of their own in which we have no share.
And if (as both Mr. Podmore and I hold) these phantoms are to be regarded as the reflections of some external mind, then I maintain—in opposition to him—that they do at least prima facie resemble dreams of the dead rather than dreams of the living (Myers, 1890, p332-333).


Myer’s contemporaries were toying with the idea that there was some sort of telepathic externalization from the living that resulted in the manifestation of ghosts, a sort of “it’s all in your head, but your head can do some remarkable things” kind of theory.

Frank Podmore (1856-1910), whom Myers contrasted himself with was also a member of the Society for Psychical Research, but tended towards more naturalistic explanations for strange phenomena, and evinced some disdain towards the popular spiritualism of the time.

It must be admitted that the suggested extension of telepathic action goes somewhat beyond the facts already established.
To discern, however, in such narratives as these proofs of post-mortem agency involves two assumptions, for either of which we have even less scientific warrant: the survival after death of some form of consciousness, and the affection by this consciousness of the minds of persons still living.

Clearly we should not be justified in importing these assumptions to explain phenomena which are capable of another and less dubious interpretation.

For we know no reason why the dreams of the living should be less potent to inspire these vague and unsubstantial visions than the imagined dreams of the dead (Podmore, 1897, p334-335).


Other folks hopped on the “dead and dreaming” bandwagon, pointing out that dead people, should they still be conscious, were likely to be preoccupied with matters more important than loitering about the earth scaring people, but then started tacking on all sorts of fascinating, but dubious corollaries.

A study of these and similar incidents seems to confirm the view that hauntings are often the effects of intensive thinking—“dreams” we may call them—of past experiences: this would account for their intermittent character, as the normal consciousness of the departed is probably occupied with their present conditions.

But we see that this hypothesis alone is not a, sufficient explanation in all cases.
We have to admit the possibility of some local effect on space; some invasion by some element of the ego’s consciousness which may affect the meta-ethereal environment and be registered by the psychic organs of the percipients, or may cause some more physical effect, may, in short, produce a materialization (Dallas, 1922, p263-264).


The assumption that the dead have more to do than lurk in the shadows of your bedroom and answer stupid questions has fallen by the wayside these days, but it certainly would explain the surreal nature of how they interact with the living, akin to holding a conversation with someone who talks in their sleep.

It is probable, as was thought by Myers, that in such cases the agent is not present in anything like the fullness of his personality — is not aware of the effects which he is producing in our world.

It may be that these phenomena are the dreams of the dead, or are produced in a dream-like and unreasoning state, such as it is natural to expect would be a spirit’s condition after the wrench of death (Hill, 1911, p122-123).


If you’re going to examine a theory of ghosts, you’ve got to take it to its logical extreme.
If consciousness persists, why shouldn’t unconsciousness?

Unless you’re all into that enlightenment upon death thing.
Seems unlikely.

If you were dumb in life, why wouldn’t you be dumb in death?
Stands to reason that the dead dream of life, and perhaps it simply erupts into our existence as an afterthought, so to speak.

Maybe the dead are more like the living than we give them credit for.
As Jack Henry Abbott once said, “When they talk of ghosts of the dead who wander in the night with things still undone in life, they approximate my subjective experience of this life”.

References
Hill, John Arthur, 1872-. New Evidences In Psychical Research: a Record of Investigations, With Selected Examples of Recent S.P.R. Results. London: W. Rider & son, ltd., 1911.
Lang, Andrew, 1844-1912. Cock Lane and Common-sense. New ed. London: Longmans, Green, 1894.
Myers, Frederic William Henry, 1843-1901. Human Personality and Its Survival of Bodily Death. London: Longmans, Green, 1903.
Myers, Frederic William Henry, 1843-1901. “A Defence of Phantasms of the Dead”. Society for Psychical Research (Great Britain). Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research v6. London: Society for Psychical Research, 1890.
Podmore, Frank, 1856-1910. Studies in Psychical Research. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co., 1897.
Dallas, H.A. “A Study of Hauntings”. Occult Review: [a Monthly Magazine Devoted to the Investigation of Supernormal Phenomena and the Study of Psychological Problems] v35. London: W. Rider and son, limited, 1922.


 
(If 4D casts a 3D shadow...hmmmm...shadow people explanation?)


To further this idea.
We would not be able to see the source of the 3D shadow either...making it all the more spooky to us 3D folk.
Makes one wonder where the conditions are right for this to occur?
Could they be created?
 
To further this idea.
We would not be able to see the source of the 3D shadow either...making it all the more spooky to us 3D folk.
Makes one wonder where the conditions are right for this to occur?
Could they be created?

I’m laying claim to this theory!
It’s mine....all mine!
Nov. 6th, 2018...hehe.

shadow_men_by_agentfox-d4ytb52.jpg


Help me think of a good name and then I will write a real proposal.
I think it would make a damn good fully formed theory with some interesting ideas I’m already flipping around like - could the shadow of a 4D entity/thing have a physical interaction as a 3D shadow - just as our own shadows have physical effects on the environment by blocking the light and thus radiant heat...would that explain the classic “cold spot” that is felt in a paranormal situation?
Are people intuitively or on some other level sensing that a 4D entity is near when they feel another presence, but are just unable to see in that impossible direction for us in 3D (just as we somehow can sense being stared at when we aren’t looking)?
 
Last edited:
reality.jpg


cat.jpg


eye.jpg


mush.jpg


mystic lady.jpg





the visitors.jpg


unlearn.jpg


walk.jpg


wire.jpg


witch.jpg


 


One more...


star.jpg

 
It's also humorous to think about this in the context of like your cell phone or a Cheerio or anything smaller than you are, and how small that is in the universe lolol

Or that there are more stars in our universe than grains of sand on Earth.
It’s actually true...which is insane to think about.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________​

This question comes from Sheldon Grimshaw. “I’ve heard that there are more stars in our Universe than there are grains of sand on all the beaches on Earth. Is this possible?” Awesome question, and a great excuse to do some math.

As we learned in a previous video, there are 100 to 400 billion stars in the Milky Way and more than 100 billion galaxies in the Universe – maybe as many as 500 billion. If you multiply stars by galaxies, at the low end, you get 10 billion billion stars, or 10 sextillion stars in the Universe – a 1 followed by 22 zeros. At the high end, it’s 200 sextillion.

These are mind bogglingly huge numbers. How do they compare to the number of grains of sand on the collective beaches of an entire planet? This type of sand measures about a half millimeter across.

You could put 20 grains of sand packed in side-by-side to make a centimeter. 8000 grains in one cubic centimeter. If you took 10 sextillion grains of sand, put them into a ball, it would have a radius of 10.6 kilometers. And for the high end of our estimate, 200 sextillion, it would be 72 kilometers across. If we had a sphere bigger than the Earth, it would be an easy answer, but no such luck. This might be close.

So, is there that much sand on all the beaches, everywhere, on this planet? You’d need to estimate the average volume of a sandy beach and the average amount of the world’s coastlines which are beaches.

I’m going to follow the estimates and calculations made by Dr. Jason Marshall, aka, the Math Dude. According to Jason, there about 700 trillion cubic meters of beach of Earth, and that works out to around 5 sextillion grains of sand.

Jason reminds us that his math is a rough estimate, and he could be off by a factor of 2 either way. So it could be 2.5 sextillion or there could be 10 sextillion grains of sand on all the world’s beaches.

So, if the low end estimate for the number of stars matches the high end estimate for the number of grains of sand, it’s the same. But more likely, there are 5 to 10 times more stars than there are grains of sand on all the world’s beaches.

So, there’s your answer, Sheldon. For some “back of the napkin” math we can guess that there are more stars in our Universe than there are grains of sand on all the beaches of Earth.

Oh, one more thing. Instead of grains of sand, what about atoms? How big is 10 sextillion atoms? How huge would something with that massive quantity of anything be? Pretty gigantic. Well, relatively at least. 10 sextillion of anything does sound like a whole lot.

If you were to make a pile of that many atoms… guess how big it would be. It’d be about…. (gesture big then gesture small) 4 times smaller than a dust mite. Which means, a single grain of sand has more atoms than there are stars in the Universe.


 
Last edited:


44845522_2167981246791185_8813050682669006848_n.jpg


TELETAI

Learn to tame your serpent
By working with your furnace
Rewire your brains synapses
Detoxify your hypothalamus
Activate your DNA
Uncoil your inner naga snake
Awaken all your vertebrae
33 paths to help you guide your way

Knock on the door of the underworld
Third times a charm in the dream world
And if Hermes or Thoth hear you
Viracocha will let you in
To illuminate and liberate
Your dove spirit from within
Open Sesame is the key
To give your dreams lucidity
Vibration is the answer
To our immortality
Darkness hides all of the colors
So do two star-crossed lovers

As you start to transcend
Your Vision Quest will begin
As your dream time unfolds
You'll begin to be shown
Your own eternal Quetzalcoatl Soul

A place where galaxies exist
And time never ends
By raising your breath
You could cheat your own death
Like the Thrice-Greatest Hermes
Once died, but still lives

It's a paradox
A metaphor
Gold Elixir
Alchemy
The Chalice
Or a Labyrinth
The art of chastity

The initiate will progress
In the realm of degrees
If one learns to transmute
Their serpentine seed

~ Carrie Love


 




in.jpg

lol.jpg

 


44713507_2166417740280869_920374580583858176_n.jpg


Mere color, unspoiled by meaning, and unallied with definite form, can speak to the soul in a thousand different ways.

~ Oscar Wilde

 
lead_720_405.jpg


Fascinating stuff :hearteyecat:


Yes...string theory and M theory, etc. are very fascinating...especially when they get into multiple dimensions and universes!
Perhaps one day we will have the proper tools of measurement to prove some of these quantum theories...one can hope!
Thanks!
 
This looks really good...can’t wait to watch it!
Amazing really!


 
I have witnessed 'cheerio' die in the last twenty years in England. :unhappy:

In the 90s you would hear it a fair bit unironically, however today even older people only seem to use it as an ironic call back to some kind of mythical Englishness of a bygone age, and even that use is super rare.

Really? I didn't know 'cheerio' was almost completely unused in England; I presumed it was still being used today, that's really interesting and sad at the same time. :( What other words do you all no longer use anymore?

Here in America, there are so many variations of phrases still being used depending on the state/region you are living in, I honestly lost count.
 
Really? I didn't know 'cheerio' was almost completely unused in England; I presumed it was still being used today, that's really interesting and sad at the same time. :( What other words do you all no longer use anymore?

Here in America, there are so many variations of phrases still being used depending on the state/region you are living in, I honestly lost count.

It’s a sad, sad day if we lose “Cheerio!” altogether.
I agree...I need my British stereotypes to maintain the image for my ego, haha.
;)

@Deleted member 16771
I’m putting you in charge of reviving the word...I dub thee...keeper and protector of the “Cheerio”.

While you’re at it...try to bring back “hunky dory”, lol