Producing a hierarchy of human life .

[Klaynos]

15 hours ago, Area54 said:

A reason that has been investigated by science from the standpoint of biochemistry,psychology and ethology, to name but three, The phenomenon has been measured, quantified, described, documented, analysed, disected and modelled. . . . by science.

Science has also investigated isolationism and solo behaviour, in the same meticulous detail, and those investigations continue because science does not jump to conclusions; science does not take a "what if" and turn it into a "must be"; science works from a "why" list, not a wish list.

Pie in the sky when you die. /dripping sarcasm and intellectual disgust

I'm just going to quote the reply from the last time Mike posted the same stuff. 

Mike, have you noticed the frustration in people's replies? Are you reading the replies or just carrying on posting what you want? 

[Area54]

Mike, I notice you have now edited your earlier post to include a reference to the Rohl quote you used. It would have been normal etiquette for you to note you had been prompted by me. That way my following post, written before you did the edit, would not have looked so out of place. Strike one for rudeness.

I notice you failed to address my dismissal of your post. Strike two for failing to address the issues.

I see in your preceding post you have included material bearing no relationship to the subject of the thread. Strike three for irrelevance.

Three strikes and I am out.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

20 minutes ago, Manticore said:

Mike, now ........, where would you like us to bury the festering corpus of your intellect?

At SIDMOUTH in those lovely , millions and millions of year old , red sandstone coastal cliffs at SIDMOUTH !

Watching the joy on people's faces , particularly the Tap dancer with his feet 2 inches in the air off the dancing board ! 

Mike 

18 minutes ago, Klaynos said:

I'm just going to quote the reply from the last time Mike posted the same stuff. 

....... Are you reading the replies or just carrying on posting what you want? 

I promise you ," I read all the replies many times over " think about them , and try and make a response . At the same time as trying to keep the thread , on the track of the whole Thread ( OP ) . 

Mike 

[Area54]

14 minutes ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

At SIDMOUTH in those lovely , millions and millions of year old , red sandstone coastal cliffs at SIDMOUTH !

Watching the joy on people's faces , particularly the Tap dancer with his feet 2 inches in the air off the dancing board ! 

Mike 

I promise you ," I read all the replies many times over " think about them , and try and make a response . At the same time as trying to keep the thread , on the track of the whole Thread ( OP ) . 

Mike 

It would be polite and within forum rules if you were to respond to criticisms of your ideas rather than simply repeating them. Klaynos has repeated my observations about your "crowding" thesis. Any chance you could begin by addressing that?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

47 minutes ago, Area54 said:

Mike, I notice you have now edited your earlier post to include a reference to the Rohl quote you used. It would have been normal etiquette for you to note you had been prompted by me. That way my following post, written before you did the edit, would not have looked so out of place. Strike one for rudeness.

I notice you failed to address my dismissal of your post. Strike two for failing to address the issues.

I see in your preceding post you have included material bearing no relationship to the subject of the thread. Strike three for irrelevance.

Three strikes and I am out.

Yes , I did notice that ( I was in the midst of trying to find the page number , found it , included it , then came across your post , crossing over with mine . ) 

Sorry for confusion , and I do acknowledge your speedy attention to those details . 

Ask for your forebearance ? 

I am not sure what you want me to do about your detailed  

comments about crowding 

quote  by Area 54 " 

A reason that has been investigated by science from the standpoint of biochemistry,psychology and ethology, to name but three, The phenomenon has been measured, quantified, described, documented, analysed, disected and modelled. . . . by science.

Science has also investigated isolationism and solo behaviour, in the same meticulous detail, and those investigations continue because science does not jump to conclusions; science does not take a "what if" and turn it into a "must be"; science works from a "why" list, not a wish list.

Pie in the sky when you die. /dripping sarcasm and intellectual disgust

 " Unquote 

Well I am not surprised  that there has been a  lot of research done on crowds . I am sure it is a fascinating subject . At this juncture , it would take me some time to divert to investigating just crowd behaviour. In fact it sounds quite interesting . 

I was just skimming a couple of obvious , thoughts , that might help me with the core of my personal, yet shared investigation , namely ' does it help in any possible way to the theme of the thread , namely is there a transfer across the HEIRACHY  boundary ' upward ' , namely does crowd phenomenon have a place in the ' Spiritual or Angelic realm ' ? 

 

Mike 

Edited September 2, 2017 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

7 hours ago, Area54 said:

......... your "crowding" thesis. Any chance you could begin by addressing that?

Well the three arenas for this crowding principle , in the context of this Thread namely  ( investigating a Human  HEIRACHY  ) are :- 

1) the Goldfish domain in the pool  , ( how and why do they crowd ?) 

2) the Human  domain on earth   , ( how and why do they crowd ?  ) 

3 ) God/Angels  domain in the Spirit realm.( how and why do they crowd ?)

A line of analytical comparison , about crowding, through all three would surely produce the skeleton of a Human HEIRACHY. 

 

mike 

Edited September 2, 2017 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Area54]

Please re-read my post, consider its implications and try again, please. If, after careful reading of my post you are at a loss as to what I think is lacking in your reply, ask.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

3 hours ago, Area54 said:

Please re-read my post, consider its implications and try again, please. If, after careful reading of my post you are at a loss as to what I think is lacking in your reply, ask.

I'm afraid I have got a bit lost after the last day or two , with several contributors , coming at me from different directions . 

I am not sure WHICH of your various posts , you would like me to re read , and talk with you about,  what I do not understand. Happy to have a go . ( which one ) ? 

Could you possibly Re quote it to me in your next post , so I am not answering , or attempting to understand the wrong post . 

Mike 

[Area54]

 

On 01/09/2017 at 5:08 PM, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

Clearly,  the tighter crowd is there for a reason . Protection from enemies, comfort, wellbeing . We notice this born out in , clubs, families, gatherings, marriage, friends, 

to which I replied "A reason that has been investigated by science from the standpoint of biochemistry,psychology and ethology, to name but three, The phenomenon has been measured, quantified, described, documented, analysed, disected and modelled. . . . by science.

Science has also investigated isolationism and solo behaviour, in the same meticulous detail, and those investigations continue because science does not jump to conclusions; science does not take a "what if" and turn it into a "must be"; science works from a "why" list, not a wish list."

Klaynos even went to the trouble of repeating my post, when you repeated the same material about crowding without acknowledging that this had been addressed. Your latest response, from my perspective failed in two ways:

• Once more, for the umpteenth time,  you reintroduced the top level of your hierachy concept without argument or evidence to support it. At this stage the top level is irrelevant.
• The relevant portion (the part dealing with goldfish and humans) contained only a trivial remark about the questions we might wish to ask about the crowding.

Mike, those questions have been asked and answered (often in considerable detail). What is expected by me is that you summarise, or provide examples of, those answers then show how they support, or provide a foundation for your thesis. If you cannot do this then you all you have to offer is endless repetition of your unsupported thesis.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

1 hour ago, Area54 said:

 

..........  What   is expected by me is that you summarise, or provide examples of, those answers then show how they support, or provide a foundation for your thesis.........

 

O.k. Well the summarise examples that act as a foundation and are relevant to my ' thesis are :- 

firstly a quote from Wikipedia shows a similar set of observation that I have experienced and brought attention to it in this Thread .   ...Here

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_goldfish

secondly I bring , or have previously brought examples of my experience with my goldfish , in my pond . Endorsing much of what The Wikipedia quote says . 

Thirdly , I would say that anyone who keeps a tank or garden pond , with goldfish in , would support the two samples of goldfish behaviours , mentioned above . 

The relevent section from Wikipedia is quoted here :-

"

 If transferred into a tank of other goldfish, a common goldfish would normally try to communicate and familiarize itself with its new tank mates by rubbing up against the body of other fish. The most common introductory gesture would be by swimming side by side with another goldfish with its head facing forward, or by swimming side by side with another goldfish........

" 

The above example is just a very small part of current observations by the writer , and seems to be corroborated by the Wikipedia quotation .

It has the effect of making any pond setting , looking like the gold fish , by nature appear to undertake

a " CROWD " formation as a norm . 

We will examine a similar structure of setting , for the case of Humans in public areas . 

It is the purpose of these observations , to support my Thesis :- 

" That animal life ( in this case Goldfish and Humans ) follow a similar style of " Crowding " when finding themselves for prolonged time in open spaces . 

Mike 

 

 

Edited September 2, 2017 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Area54]

You have to state what those observations are, provide the link to the wikipedia article here, then detail in what way those observations provide support for your thesis.

 

[tar]

On ‎7‎/‎9‎/‎2017 at 4:28 PM, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

.

I am quite capable in testing if some potential ( voltage ) is between 6.05 volt and 6.08 volts if necessary . While dealing with gold fish and ' above human ' beings , I know of no value to measure them by.( either the fish would not stay still long enough before it died of shock . And having never seen an ' above human being' . All I can report is the SYRENDIPODOS action . In other words they are able to slightly change some natural phenomenon. ( without affecting the course of human history ) . Concerned as I was this afternoon that perhaps "should I carry on conducting this simple questioning "

. I sat by the river this afternoon . Asked the question three times .

 

Said , LEFT is NO STOP , Right is YES CARRY ON . MIDDLE is ambiguous .

 

I sat for a moment wondering what could happen with the trees in front of me and the river. ( to make a right , left or centre )

 

The dog suddenly leapt out of a large grass tuft , to my RIGHT . Nearly fell off the bank .

 

Now the deviation of the dogs path is well within the sphere of interference of a free animal , without changing the course of human history .

 

Perhaps we have got so rigorous with 3.2056 volts that we think a " dog leaping out of grass tuft " is not rigorous .

 

Mike

 

Ps I won't embarrass him , but a colleague of ours , on the science forum asked a question about Orthogonality ( right angles ) a year or two back . We both got up at the same time across the globe. He went into a dense Forrest . At the same time he asked his question . When he turned around to look at the path he was on . There appeared to be fallen trees that were not there when he set out. When he returned to look they had fallen over a rock that had two quartz lines that were ar right angles. Sirendipodously .

Thread, 

I am only half way through page 5 of this thread, but Mike alluded to the experiment we ran together using his questioning technique, and the results can be found in a post I made on May 29th 2014 in a thread entitled "Is there evidence of cleverness in Nature and its processes?"  

From that post:

"

I was walking in the woods on Sunday, performing an experiment that Mike suggested in another thread. We coordinated it, so that we were both asking the universe to answer our question, at the same time, so that we could compare our results in an objective, peer reviewed fashion. Initial results were exciting and seemed magical, but I reviewed pictures I took and realized something I thought had happened "magically" had been there prior the experiment. In fact the "answer" I got to my question of the universe, was also there before I asked the question.

 

I had defined the diamond infront of me as the area in which anything subtantial and notable happening would designate a "maybe" answer from the "observers". Anything to the right and up a yes, and to the left and up a no.

 

I asked "Is there a direction orthogonal from here and now, that one can experience?" Nothing happened of note in any of the designated areas. After a minute or two, a moth or bug or something fluttered my left ear, but that was not too notable. I thought the experiment a bust and continued down the path. About 15 feet down the path, right at the base of the diamond I designated to my right, I saw a very interesting "answer".

 

It is the rock, who's picture I have attached.

 

Mike also had an interesting maybe answer to his question.

 

We talked about our experiences and decided there was no magic, no observers, but our minds were not isolated from the universe, and used the universe to think. Left us both in a rather "its all good" state of mind.

 

Its OK to think it not an accident. Its perfectly OK.

 

Regards, TAR"

 

I have since lost the picture, but it is still here on scienceforum, so I copied it here.

Edited May 29, 2014 by tar

0

Not sure where pages 5 through 16 have taken this thread, but responding to the OP and some earlier comments about ETs I do have some evidence that there are visitors to Earth, or visitors from other than known civilizations on Earth.  When I was 18 in PA we experienced some lights with no sound hovering over a high tension line about a mile from our farm. A crowd of us (we had a party that night) gathered watching the lights, maybe 4 or 5 or 6 lights, I don't clearly remember, the half dozen or more of us sending good vibes toward the lights, as they appeared to be visitors of some sort.  After a time, maybe 10 minutes or so, they one by one flew off in a manner undoable by any technology we knew of at the time.  That is, one started to move up and then whizzed off and up in an incredibly rapid fashion.  We could not think of any government that had such technology and could only imagine that the craft were from another planet, or from a hidden civilization here on Earth.   My thoughts in retrospect, pertinent to the OP were that these craft were fueling up, off the power lines, and possibly thought of us as unimportant inhabitants of the place.  Not required to even interact with us.  Like a human might stoop down at a clear mountain creek to get a drink and disregard the minnows swimming in the eddy.

Edited September 3, 2017 by tar

[Endy0816]

EM field?

On 9/2/2017 at 7:48 PM, tar said:

Not sure where pages 5 through 16 have taken this thread, but responding to the OP and some earlier comments about ETs I do have some evidence that there are visitors to Earth, or visitors from other than known civilizations on Earth.  When I was 18 in PA we experienced some lights with no sound hovering over a high tension line about a mile from our farm. A crowd of us (we had a party that night) gathered watching the lights, maybe 4 or 5 or 6 lights, I don't clearly remember, the half dozen or more of us sending good vibes toward the lights, as they appeared to be visitors of some sort.  After a time, maybe 10 minutes or so, they one by one flew off in a manner undoable by any technology we knew of at the time.  That is, one started to move up and then whizzed off and up in an incredibly rapid fashion.  We could not think of any government that had such technology and could only imagine that the craft were from another planet, or from a hidden civilization here on Earth.   My thoughts in retrospect, pertinent to the OP were that these craft were fueling up, off the power lines, and possibly thought of us as unimportant inhabitants of the place.  Not required to even interact with us.  Like a human might stoop down at a clear mountain creek to get a drink and disregard the minnows swimming in the eddy.

 

Is there anything naturally occurring that might be attracted/repulsed by a large electromagnetic field like that of the high tension lines?

 

[tar]

6 minutes ago, Endy0816 said:

EM field?

 

Is there anything naturally occurring that might be attracted/repulsed by a large electromagnetic field like that of the high tension lines?

 

Endy0816,

I don't recall all the timing and movements and colors and size and shape and so forth, as I am 63 and was 18 at the time.  I more remember the memory than re?member the situation, but for certain frames, and certain feelings.  But at the time there was no explanation anyone there could come up with but that they were guided crafts.  Where they came from, we could only speculate, but Outer Space, the Soviet Union, a secret U.S. aircraft program or Atlantis, were the only realistic options we could arrive at.  I don't think it was atmospheric or electrical, though it could have been.  I lived on that farm for several years through similar nights and never experienced that before or after.

You have any ideas/posibilities I could try against what I remember of the situation?

Regards, TAR

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

Tar , I appreciate your contribution ,of the last couple of Posts. It has reminded me of the good old days , when we used to bounce ideas off each other. 

Digression : ----------------

I still have fond ideas that there is an " above mankinds existance" realm , which is so sufficiently removed from our science , that we have the temptation to dismiss it , because it does not fit well in current science ( if at all ) . This is almost on a par with this " ORTHODONAL DIMENSION " that we discussed , and you played around with. 

Maybe there really is such an " ORTHODONAL UNIVERSE" running right along side ours . We just need to find the " way in " . 

" Maybe we need to , take the maths ( e to the j  pi = -1)  and do a transform on it . " 

joking ! 

---------------------------------

Do you have any suggestions on my Three  teer HEIRACHY, being a possible way to get an insight into the next teer up from mankind . 

Namely    

A.) layer  1  being ... My Goldfish ( domain in the water in my pool and anyone else's pool 

( mainly because I am able to examine their behaviour very closely . 

 

B ) Layer 2 being .....Human (   domain  in the Air , on the surface of the whole Earth) 

( mainly because I am One , and am able to examine , making fIrly understble , well known  observations of this domain . And possible able to make predictions on :- 

 

 C) Layer 3 being ..... A proposed  ' Domain , above humankind , yet in some way, little known about , yet far more advanced  in life forms and intelligence, than Earthlings . 

 

Each layer up  , has similar behaviour , yet increased scope and intensity .  That makes for interesting predictions for C ) Layer 3 

 

mike 

 

 

 

Edited September 5, 2017 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Area54]

Mike, since you are happier talking with someone who is less critical of your ideas and doesn't seek to help you formalise them, then I'm out again. I'll try to stay out this time and avoid the temptation to return. Perhaps, each time your repost the same unevidenced assertions you can just imagine me providing my objections and dismay.

Good luck.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Area54 . You do not have to go . I am not sure where this discussion can go . 

Because there is a clear majority that are very , unfavourably , when the realm of the supernatural, spirits , Gods , and people from outer space are mentioned. ( those are likely the ones awarding me -1 , over and over . ) A little cowardly , they could at least say who they are and why they are awarding the -1 .  Because of this it makes it difficult to have an argument , almost pressurises one to , ' say what THEY want to hear ' rather than have a two sided debate, where one can try to win the arguement by reason and debate and evidence. ALSO it can put a fatal dampener on what could otherwise develope into a very interesting debate ? 

My point , that I was trying to find evidence for   .was . If there is this tendency to crowd , and it gets more intense OR  otherwise OR has a different style the further up the HEIRACHY we go . 

WE COULD JUST GET Some INDICATIONS , as to what some of the behaviour , is , and whether it should even exist , and to a possible increased ,or decreased Intensity ? 

These slight , evidential examples , could endorse , or show it is worth pursuing investigation . 

Mike 

.

Edited September 5, 2017 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Area54]

34 minutes ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

My point , that I was trying to find evidence for   .was . If there is this tendency to crowd , and it gets more intense OR  otherwise OR has a different style the further up the HEIRACHY we go .

Point 1: You still haven't defined your hierarchy. (Fish, Men, Angels, God is not a meaningful definition).

Point 2: Once it is defined then two or three days of internet searching should provide you with a "back of the envelope" estimate to validate or refute your hypothesis. You have had considerably more than three days to do this. Don't you think its time you got of your ass and actually did some work on it rather than pontificating?

[tar]

Mike,

I have not read past page 5 1/2 so I don't know about your crowding idea, so I can not yet comment.

As for the hierarchy I am not feeling it, due to the inclusion of angels and  god.  I am of the opinion that angels and god are human constructs, and as such they could not be watching over us literally, only figuratively.

As to us being fishes to a Mike of greater capability and reach, I am thinking that is possible, but not likely in the guardian way you are framing it.  I am thinking the place is way too big to get personal attention like that.   For instance, consider that there is a conscious entity on a dust particle on your printer. And you became aware of this entity through the use of some technology.  Its life would probably be shorter than ours and very quickly lived, to where you could not have a reasonable conversation about anything with the entity.  Your voice would probably shake him off his particle and you don't have the fine tools and control to actually do anything useful for him, being you are on such a different scale.  And the big issue is that there is dust in the basement and some entity on a particle down there, would not get your attention.

I do enjoy conversing with you Mike, but I have not for a while, because when we get together someone like area54 comes along and tries to teach us how to think, and ridicules us and neg reps us, and it is just annoying.  Little do they know, we have been around, have half a brain, and have experienced a great deal, and enjoy sharing insights and enjoy ideas and the place for the sake of exploration and play and to gain further insights.

Regards, TAR

 

[Klaynos]

Mike, you're probably getting negative reputation for the same reasons I suggested earlier in this thread. Repeating the same stuff, no evidence and mostly (although I see you've made a bit more of an effort on this one in one or two posts) ignoring the responses of others. 

[Area54]

11 hours ago, tar said:

I do enjoy conversing with you Mike, but I have not for a while, because when we get together someone like area54 comes along and tries to teach us how to think, and ridicules us and neg reps us, and it is just annoying.

Feel free to critique me for pointing out illogic in your thought processes. However, while you complain about that, please don't let it stop you pointing out the illogic in my thought processes. Unlike you I welcome such criticism.

Feel free to ridicule any silly ideas I post. Silly ideas deserve ridicule. Ridiculing silly ideas is not the same as ridiculing the author of the ideas. That would be ridiculous.

Feel free to give me an unreserved apology for implicilty accusing me of giving you or Mike negative rep. I have never given you negative rep and in this thread I have upmarked so many of Mike's downvoted posts that he made the leaderboard for reputation one day last week.

 

[Airbrush]

Mike, what exactly do you mean by "producing a hierarchy of human life"?  That sounds like a white supremacist concept, on the face of it.   I'm sure you are a nice guy and not a white supremacist.

[tar]

Area54,

So I guess you are that higher intelligence/lifeform that is looking out for Mike.

Hierarchy proved.

Regards, TAR

[Manticore]

On 05/09/2017 at 7:59 PM, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

This is almost on a par with this " ORTHODONAL DIMENSION " that we discussed , and you played around with. 

Maybe there really is such an " ORTHODONAL UNIVERSE" running right along side ours . We just need to find the " way in " . 

Do you mean "orthogonal" or "orthodontal"

[DrP]

On ‎05‎/‎09‎/‎2017 at 5:59 PM, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

 

Do you have any suggestions on my Three  teer HEIRACHY, being a possible way to get an insight into the next teer up from mankind . 

A.) layer  1  being ... My Goldfish ( domain in the water in my pool and anyone else's pool 

( mainly because I am able to examine their behaviour very closely . 

B ) Layer 2 being .....Human (   domain  in the Air , on the surface of the whole Earth) 

( mainly because I am One , and am able to examine , making fIrly understble , well known  observations of this domain . And possible able to make predictions on :- 

 C) Layer 3 being ..... A proposed  ' Domain , above humankind , yet in some way, little known about , yet far more advanced  in life forms and intelligence, than Earthlings . 

Each layer up  , has similar behaviour , yet increased scope and intensity .  That makes for interesting predictions for C ) Layer 3 

It still isn't agreed that you are higher up than your gold fish...  when they are in your pool, maybe. When you are in the middle of the Atlantic, drowning, they will feed off you and your superiority is not so obvious. They have evolved to fit their niche and they do it better than you do.  Also - there is no evidence suggesting anything at all 'further up' your heirachy. Just stating it doesn't make it true...  we are going round in circles...  which is probably why you are getting neg rep. It wasn't me, but it could be....  in fact - I think I might because you complained about it and moaned that it was cowardly. BS - it is anonymous for a reason.

On ‎05‎/‎09‎/‎2017 at 11:10 PM, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

Because there is a clear majority that are very , unfavourably , when the realm of the supernatural, spirits , Gods , and people from outer space are mentioned. ( those are likely the ones awarding me -1 , over and over . ) A little cowardly , .

Or lepricorns or unicorns or any other such myths - yes - if you start saying they are real without any proof of them then of course you will get neg rep on a science site...  or a suggestion that you see a shrink.

 

On ‎05‎/‎09‎/‎2017 at 11:10 PM, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

My point , that I was trying to find evidence for   .was . If there is this tendency to crowd , and it gets more intense OR  otherwise OR has a different style the further up the HEIRACHY we go . 

WE COULD JUST GET Some INDICATIONS , as to what some of the behaviour , is , and whether it should even exist , and to a possible increased ,or decreased Intensity ? 

These slight , evidential examples , could endorse , or show it is worth pursuing investigation . .

But there are no examples of it because it doesn't exist. Some animals are better than others at certain tasks but not in other areas. You are better than a fish on land but a shark will eat you in the water  - horses for courses - NO heirachy as you are suggesting it.

I won't comment anymore unless you direct something at me personally - I'll let Tar humour you so the pair of you can go round in circles getting nowhere talking rubbish about a heirachy that clearly doesn't exist. Waste your time all you like on another 16 pages of nonsense....  or go to the doctor and tell him you used to be a physics teacher and then show him this thread and your centrifugal force thread and see if HE can help you.  ;-)  Sorry if that sounds harsh...  I could sit in silence and watch you continue with your drivel or I can try to help by stating straight away that you are barking up the wrong tree. Barking being the point I am making here and thus the suggestion of a doctor.

Edited September 7, 2017 by DrP