Are Viruses Demons?

originally posted by: cooperton

Can you explain to my why it is not?

Great. Here's your homework assignment.

Get a calculator, look up the average mass of a bacteriophage, and see how many joules of energy are involved in that when it's converted to energy. Then how many lumen-seconds that is in UV.

See if it looks to you as if that much light in the UV would be hard to miss. If it would be subtle. Or is it an amount that would be unmistakable?

We'll leave off the other bits like how it ends up only in the UV, or how the teleporting virus manages to squirt all the energy in one direction, or how it reconstitutes itself in the original structure from the energy, which are all also show stoppers. But I'm pretty sure just 'how much light IS that' will leave you with no self delusions.

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
a reply to: cooperton

It is not that viruses are demons. It is that devils are spirits and some spirits can only interact with this world in the form of information. Information travels via acoustic/electromagnetic signal.

Those signals require vehicles for us to perceive them. Read that line carefully.

Viruses are zombies. They are dead, yet they reproduce from the living. A devil has no foothold where there is salvation. Though an army attacks and there are wounded, the battle may still be won. This is faith.

There are those who perform their research and derive their conclusions based strictly upon physical manifestation. This is a good thing.

But there are those who perform their research and derive conclusions AND intent AND meaning. There is a poster in this thread that I admire. That is the one who resigned from this thread.

For the scientist to discard intent and meaning from the equation is proof the scientist is not. Discover empirically and without bias the physical reality, but do not forego afterwards to discern the point of the reality.

Further, for those who say that matter is not energy condensed, don't reveal your ignorance so easily. You use your eyes, but neglect your minds. You assume the Big Bang and its extreme flaws. How can an infinitely dense object exist as a point within an infinite expanse? This is an obvious lie to anyone possessing reason. Anything infinitely dense must therefore possess the whole space, and yet, if the space is infinite, it cannot at the same time. This is an anomaly. Einstein was correct in desiring a finite space-time because that is what is true. His fault was in believing flawed mathematics instead of reality. The logical conclusion is that space-time is a finite object within an indiscernible matrix. Consider a fabric which is infinite and yet is somehow bent by matter. That is obviously false. A fabric that is infinite would not bend because it has no pressure points.

This all to reveal a little. A part of me hopes that you get it now, but somehow I realize I need to break it down further lest anyone manipulates their self with poor vision.

Spirit is energy. Most accurately, it is potential energy. Potential energy possesses intent. Intent becomes kinetic. Kinetic moves matter. We observe matter and its patterns. We define matter by its patterns, but that is false. That is like defining a car by its mileage alone without considering the driver. One old Honda may be utterly destroyed at 150,000 miles, and another go on to 400,000 miles.

Unfortunately for us, we still judge the driver by the vehicle. Therefore, we explain away our results and create niches of science which are literally pseudo-science, while that which reveals reality is called by the same name.

Tesla didn't get everything right, by any means. He was a champ, in a way, though. But he did mention something worth noting, despite his misunderstanding. I don't remember his statement very well, but to me, I interpret it: "Those who are attached to merely their own limited understanding of the physical reality will never understand reality."

Looking it up, it reads like this: “The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.”

But we know that the People will continue to follow bias.

interesting input thank you. I think I'm on the same page as you, it is a spiritual entity, but its vehicle of perception is a "virus" as we know it scientifically. That's what I was getting at in the OP.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: cooperton

Can you explain to my why it is not?

Great. Here's your homework assignment.

Get a calculator, look up the average mass of a bacteriophage, and see how many joules of energy are involved in that when it's converted to energy. Then how many lumen-seconds that is in UV.

See if it looks to you as if that much light in the UV would be hard to miss. If it would be subtle. Or is it an amount that would be unmistakable?

We'll leave off the other bits like how it ends up only in the UV, or how the teleporting virus manages to squirt all the energy in one direction, or how it reconstitutes itself in the original structure from the energy, which are all also show stoppers. But I'm pretty sure just 'how much light IS that' will leave you with no self delusions.

I asked for you to explain to me why mass is not condensed energy. I understand you are extrapolating that to the virus example, but let's take it one step at a time. You, and a few others (who I think were piggy-backing off your statement, because they didn't explain why either), said I was mistaken when I said mass is condensed energy, can you explain to me why this is not true?

originally posted by: cooperton
I asked for you to explain to me why mass is not condensed energy. I understand you are extrapolating that to the virus example, but let's take it one step at a time. You, and a few others (who I think were piggy-backing off your statement, because they didn't explain why either), said I was mistaken when I said mass is condensed energy, can you explain to me why this is not true?

Well, primarily because it's NOT.

There IS no such thing as "condensed energy", short maybe of a kugelblitz, but I'm sure that's not what you're talking about.

First, you are trying to claim that matter is somehow condensed electromagnetic energy, right? In this case, UV light?

Of many issues, you have to deal with the sad sad fact that EM propagates at the speed of light in an unaltered vacuum. So if matter was "condensed energy", it would be sailing away at c.

Second, EM has no rest mass. So you'd have to figure out how to explain that one as well.

What E=mc^2 tells you is, if I convert mass to energy, how much energy do I get for how much mass? Or conversely, how much energy would it take to instantiate that much mass? What it ISN'T saying is that mass IS energy, just that they're exchangeable.

As I said before, I can have a dollar. That has a penny equivalence of 100. It has a nickel equivalence of 20. If I cut the dollar up and shake it, pennies and nickels won't fall out. They're not in there. A dollar isn't pennies. But it has a penny equivalence. If I subject the dollar to a "purchase interaction", it will convert to merchandise and possibly change. Conversely, I can return the merchandise and the change and get a dollar back. But the merchandise didn't have dollar fragments in them. It requires a conversion step to exchange the two. The penny equivalence rule is a handy way of knowing how much it takes to convert to paper money, or from paper money to change, but what it DOESN'T mean is that it is a literal truth.

There's many another issue - photons can't carry charge, yet matter can be charged, on and on. The reason there are so many issues with the "condensed energy" thing is that it's not true.

How they kill, eat, and rape living organisms like they were.

And being invisible enemy from within too.

Close...

a reply to: cooperton

Can you explain to my why it is not?

Indeed I can, but I don't need to. See below.

Although I would like to correct "matter" to specifically mean "mass".

This is where you err. Apparently you think mass is identical to matter. It is not; mass and energy alike are properties of matter.

Or are you just hurling insults without actually participating in conversation here?

What insults? Quote them.

You should be thanking me for taking the time and trouble to teach you, not moaning that you've been insulted.

a reply to: cooperton

Hi cooperton.

The virus is a favored vessel indeed. It's not the only vessel, of course. But the vessel will determine how the spirit drives. I wouldn't be very successful attempting to drive a cruise ship on a highway. Therefore, it is the landscape which determines which vessel is necessary for the driver...

It sounds so obvious putting it that way.

originally posted by: Astyanax

You should be thanking me for taking the time and trouble to teach you, not moaning that you've been insulted.

Almighty teacher, teach me the ways of chauvinism! I feedest on thou wisdom....

originally posted by: Bedlam

There IS no such thing as "condensed energy"

I always thought the atom bomb(s) was(were) a lie.

As I said before, I can have a dollar. That has a penny equivalence of 100. It has a nickel equivalence of 20. If I cut the dollar up and shake it, pennies and nickels won't fall out. They're not in there. A dollar isn't pennies.

So you're saying my hypothetical bank account of 5 dollars does not have 500 pennies? If I ask the hypothetical bank teller for 500 pennies in my savings account of 5 dollars she will say "wtf are pennies"? Or will she understand the equivalence of 100 pennies for a dollar and give me 100 pennies for each dollar I have in my bank account?

There's many another issue - photons can't carry charge, yet matter can be charged, on and on. The reason there are so many issues with the "condensed energy" thing is that it's not true.

So where is the energy-mass equivalence truth coming from? The fact that multiple (countless) experimental investigations have demonstrated time and time again that E = mc^2... are they mistaken when they record that energy is laying dormant in mass?

My dearest Bedlam, have you found the missing link that transcends this physical truth and connects all disconnected links in physics???

What E=mc^2 tells you is, if I convert mass to energy, how much energy do I get for how much mass? Or conversely, how much energy would it take to instantiate that much mass? What it ISN'T saying is that mass IS energy, just that they're exchangeable.

so E = mc2 is not saying that mass is energy? Ask any child on the street for a definition of the = (equal) sign. is 1 + 1 = 2 not saying that 1 and another 1 added together is 2? Let's not complicate things any more than we have to.

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
a reply to: cooperton

Therefore, it is the landscape which determines which vessel is necessary for the driver...

It sounds so obvious putting it that way.

Truly. Thank you for the breath of fresh air... a much too volatile state for any demon to reside

originally posted by: Specimen
How they kill, eat, and rape living organisms like they were.

And being invisible enemy from within too.

Close...

I love it when someone else gets it...

originally posted by: cooperton

So you're saying my hypothetical bank account of 5 dollars does not have 500 pennies?

Actually, it doesn't. There's not a sack with your name on it that says "this one is cooperton's".

Your pennies are virtual until they're instantiated at the teller's booth.

So where is the energy-mass equivalence truth coming from? The fact that multiple (countless) experimental investigations have demonstrated time and time again that E = mc^2... are they mistaken when they record that energy is laying dormant in mass?

You keep missing the fact that there's a conversion required. That dollar doesn't sit there and flip back and forth between spare change and a dollar bill.

so E = mc2 is not saying that mass is energy? Ask any child on the street for a definition of the = (equal) sign. is 1 + 1 = 2 not saying that 1 and another 1 added together is 2? Let's not complicate things any more than we have to.

I think what you mean is, don't bring up any reasons why my speculation is incorrect. Have you calculated the amount of light that virus would turn into on its magical way from one petri dish to another yet? Or is the algebra a bit much for you?

originally posted by: cooperton

So where is the energy-mass equivalence truth coming from?

A misunderstanding of what that equation's telling you.

This guy's a lot more eloquent about it than I am...I tend to interchange "mass" and "matter" in writing because I'm sloppy. You want more rigor, here you go.

Matter and Energy really aren’t in the same class and shouldn’t be paired in one’s mind.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: cooperton

So where is the energy-mass equivalence truth coming from?

A misunderstanding of what that equation's telling you.

This guy's a lot more eloquent about it than I am...I tend to interchange "mass" and "matter" in writing because I'm sloppy. You want more rigor, here you go.

Matter and Energy really aren’t in the same class and shouldn’t be paired in one’s mind.

He says energy is to matter like an apple is to an orangutan. I wouldn't sell yourself short, your example of 1 dollar = 1 pennies (x100) is much more analogous than the example he gave. When you have 100 pennies do you have a dollar bill? not physically, you just have an inconveniently large amount of pennies, but, you DO have a dollars worth of currency.

In my opinion, its a matter of opinion at this point. Googling "matter is condensed energy" gives plenty of results of physicists backing this notion. The fact that we're trying to make E = mc^2 more complicated than it needs to be has Einstein rolling in his grave.

I think what you mean is, don't bring up any reasons why my speculation is incorrect. Have you calculated the amount of light that virus would turn into on its magical way from one petri dish to another yet? Or is the algebra a bit much for you?

Abrasive. It was not the whole virus though, all that is required is its DNA. Luc Montagnier found that it was the DNA of viruses that was being transmitted electromagnetically:

arxiv.org...

Wish I could put that^ in the OP

a reply to: cooperton

Almighty teacher, teach me the ways of chauvinism!

That's your department. Mine are literature and science.

I feedest on thou wisdom.

'Feedest' is a second-person singular form.

'Thou' is a pronoun, not an adjective.

'I feed upon thy wisdom' is the grammatically accurate form of that sentence.

But if you wish to use 'thou' and 'feedest' in a sentence, the proper usage would go something like this:

Alas, good sir, thou feedest me crow, and withal I grow fond of its taste.

Open wide...

a reply to: cooperton

No, they are no demons, please do not try to exorcise your diseases because is not going to work.

originally posted by: cooperton
Abrasive. It was not the whole virus though, all that is required is its DNA. Luc Montagnier found that it was the DNA of viruses that was being transmitted electromagnetically:

arxiv.org...

Wish I could put that^ in the OP

IMHO, Montagnier has lost it. But the challenge remains - how much light do you get if you transform an average bacteriophage's DNA (or RNA) into UV? Is it the sort of thing you'd have trouble instrumenting in a standard way?

eta: no, old Luc is claiming that DNA emits low frequency RF, which is what I remember him having written about. Nowhere in this paper does he state that DNA is being transmitted physically by EM signals. Because that's not going to work. If you disagree, point out the part you think states this.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: cooperton
Abrasive. It was not the whole virus though, all that is required is its DNA. Luc Montagnier found that it was the DNA of viruses that was being transmitted electromagnetically:

arxiv.org...

Wish I could put that^ in the OP

IMHO, Montagnier has lost it. But the challenge remains - how much light do you get if you transform an average bacteriophage's DNA (or RNA) into UV? Is it the sort of thing you'd have trouble instrumenting in a standard way?

eta: no, old Luc is claiming that DNA emits low frequency RF, which is what I remember him having written about. Nowhere in this paper does he state that DNA is being transmitted physically by EM signals. Because that's not going to work. If you disagree, point out the part you think states this.

"It was shown clearly that the water nanostructures and their electromagnetic resonance can faithfully perpetuate DNA information"

I guess water is necessary for the EM signal to be transmitted. But all living tissue has water so that seems to be consistent with the claims in this thread. The mechanism does not involve mass-to-EM equivalence, otherwise Montagnier would have noticed this, like you said. It may work somewhat like a mirror. I can see my image in the mirror, that does not mean 70kg of mass travelled into the mirror, yet the copy of me is still there.

originally posted by: cooperton
"It was shown clearly that the water nanostructures and their electromagnetic resonance can faithfully perpetuate DNA information"

A problem is that "water nanostructures" don't endure more than a few picoseconds. Which is a reason why he's not taken all that seriously anymore. Also a "nanostructure" wouldn't have low frequency EM resonances, which is sort of an issue, since that's what he claims to be observing.

The mechanism does not involve mass-to-EM equivalence, otherwise Montagnier would have noticed this, like you said.

Righty-right! It CAN'T be that viruses et al are physically beaming themselves. There are lots and lots of problems with this that take it right out of play, unless there's some really tricky physics going on that I'm quite sure a virus can't manage on its own.

I'm also very much less than convinced by Montagnier's experimental setup and resulting hypotheses.

Which leaves the question, did Kaznacheyev actually see something, is it repeatable, and what is it if so? Scraping away the woo-ier parts, to be sure.

Personally, it's on my list to try but it's been there about 8 years now, and it's at the bottom of a pile of other, less arcane things to screw around with. If you're going to do it right, you need a lot of glass work done and I'm not that good a lab glass blower.

a reply to: cooperton

One day science and spirituality will unite, it is just a matter of matching the terminology in both fields.

Nice thread.... but what really got me was that closing statement. The reason it got to me was because i have come to this conclusion about 7 months ago, and since then i have been going on about it repeatedly to people in my daily life.

This is the first time i have heard another person say this (online or in person), and i am perplexed that this is not more widely recognized as fact.

We humans are physically, emotionally even mentally limited beings. Therefore our thoughts are more likely to be involved in the things we do within our limiting nature. The words we use to convey those thoughts.
How do we convey something that is not as limited as a human being?

Science does this, but so does spirituality. Or at least they try...

The terminology is the key. Without it, we are no better than apes. We have no way of pinpointing, defining and limiting a certain concept, that we can comprehend, to an identifiable sound in the physical dimension (a word).
This can maybe lead to a conclusion that certain things are beyond limited human comprehension and we need more than a word to truly convey it as such.

But sorry about the rant.... im just excited to finally meet someone (albeit online) that has caught on to this highly overlooked problem in civilization.

originally posted by: combatmaster
a reply to: cooperton

One day science and spirituality will unite, it is just a matter of matching the terminology in both fields.

Nice thread.... but what really got me was that closing statement. The reason it got to me was because i have come to this conclusion about 7 months ago, and since then i have been going on about it repeatedly to people in my daily life.

A very important conclusion, that very same conclusion is what rejuvenated my spirit and began the search for truth.

The terminology is the key. Without it, we are no better than apes.

Yes, great for communication. Recently though, I have began observing natural objects, such as trees, for what they actually ARE, and stripping them of their respective terminologies. Also women too, something magical to them, and terminology only acts as a fog on their true essence.

originally posted by: Bedlam

Righty-right! It CAN'T be that viruses et al are physically beaming themselves. There are lots and lots of problems with this that take it right out of play, unless there's some really tricky physics going on that I'm quite sure a virus can't manage on its own.

That's what is exciting... from the results of these experiments, there is some sort of mechanism that we are missing out on. The light has amazed us before with the way it behaves, so perhaps this type of research is on the verge of a great finding.

Hear me out... Montagnier said that specific viruses emitted consistently specific EM frequencies. So, Let's put some nucleotides in water, and expose it to the same EM frequencies that Montagnier attributed to a certain virus, and see if that specific virus is generated... Franken-viruses??? Electromagnetic coding.

a reply to: Astyanax

A star for your latest post and a flag for the thread.