|
Post by antmania on Jan 17, 2007 11:37:14 GMT
Well the answer is not obvious because although it is proven factualy that our energies must survive death, we don't know what these enrgies consist of. Jon thinks it is just heat, others think it is more than that. For example a good percentage of our bodies are made up of water so like the ice cube theory, this means that the water must exist is another form at some point when our bodies are nothing but dust,
Hypothetically speaking, rain drops could consist of the water left over from dead people as well as all other natural sources.
I think EVP is an interesting developement which needs to be studied more. This could be a link we are looking for to try and prove this.
|
|
|
Post by bone on Jan 17, 2007 11:59:10 GMT
Well we could make a fair assumption based on the available evidence.
Well we do lose energy in the form of heat when we die, its called radiation, this is how things go from hot to cold, no mystery here.
Yep correct, its called evaporation. Have you heard of the water cycle?
Nothing Hypothetical about it, water evaporated and returned to the system via the water cycle will at some time eventually fall as rain.
So far , unless someone can provide evidence other wise, EVP appears to be nothing more than random static that can be interpreted as a voice much like people see faces in random structures like clouds, the brain is an excellent tool for creating non random or familiar objects appear out of a sea of randomness.
|
|
|
Post by Me on Jan 17, 2007 18:12:50 GMT
I made a comment regarding stars not actually being there(the minority nor the majority) but we still are able to see them physically with our eyes...someone stated that they are there. Asked a friend of mine who is TOP dog on this subject and this is his reply rather than some just adding accepting what another states as fact as just that....I asked someone who does know there stuff! The reply...
"There could be any number of stars that are no longer there but we still see them because their light takes so long to reach us. If our Sun were to suddenly stop producing light we would not know it for 8 minutes and 20 seconds as that is the time its light takes to reach us. So consider stars light years away, for instance our closest stellar neighbour is Proxima Centauri which is 4.2 Light years away. If it exploded today and burnt itself up we would not notice that for 4.2 years when the last light from the star would have reached us. There could be any number of such stars that have died but which we still see as bright beacons in the night sky still. The further away they are the longer it would take to notice. I would not say this applies to the majority of stars though just a few of them (but how could we tell)"
|
|
|
Post by PILLSBURY on Jan 17, 2007 18:29:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by abcde on Jan 17, 2007 18:33:28 GMT
"There could be any number of stars that are no longer there but we still see them because their light takes so long to reach us. That's true - but it's not what you meant. We are not seeing light from stars that are not, or were not, there.
|
|
|
Post by lowrider on Jan 17, 2007 20:17:12 GMT
"There could be any number of stars that are no longer there but we still see them because their light takes so long to reach us. That's true - but it's not what you meant. We are not seeing light from stars that are not, or were not, there. That's true - but it's not what you meant. You KNOW what she meant? She said "see things now that are not there". Roughly. We are,seeing things today that may not still exist in the real time of the object. So she was correct.
|
|
|
Post by abcde on Jan 18, 2007 0:40:28 GMT
We are,seeing things today that may not still exist in the real time of the object. I agree. But, how does this provide proof or evidence of an afterlife?
|
|
|
Post by bone on Jan 18, 2007 9:28:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by lowrider on Jan 18, 2007 10:30:27 GMT
We are,seeing things today that may not still exist in the real time of the object. I agree. But, how does this provide proof or evidence of an afterlife? I didn't say it did. Merely pointing out an error. I think the whole point of the post was to prove nothing,but to stimulate debate and thought on how the same object can appear in differing forms. Some of which or eyes can see,one it cannot. The stars comment was simply a offshoot which again pointed out that what we see is not always the whole truth.
|
|
|
Post by Me on Jan 18, 2007 15:19:48 GMT
I agree. But, how does this provide proof or evidence of an afterlife? I didn't say it did. Merely pointing out an error. I think the whole point of the post was to prove nothing,but to stimulate debate and thought on how the same object can appear in differing forms. Some of which or eyes can see,one it cannot. The stars comment was simply a offshoot which again pointed out that what we see is not always the whole truth. Exactly
|
|