"Greg Neill" <gneill at netcom.REMOVE.ca> wrote in message
news:3Eke6.2731$d76.12947 at wagner.videotron.net...
>> Ashish Ranpura <aranpura at mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:7skj7t0utv9igq9cj4ikckaruvjj6m1cvu at 4ax.com...> >
> > Ok, not to jump in on the telepathy argument which was nicely squashed
> > earlier, but regarding this interesting calculation on conservation of
> > neural energy...
> >
> > If a person smiles, the communicative power of the gesture travels
> > undiminished for a long distance without the smiler's face burning up.
> > Why? Because intrapersonal communication does not rely on traditional
> > point-to-point transfers of energy.
>> Actually, it relies on an external source of energy, namely light,
> which encodes the information via absorption/reflection from the
> face. At that point it's an inverse-square magnitude versus
> distance for signal power. But the resolution probably drops
> faster than that due to the finite resolution of the receiving
> apparatus, the eye, which is good to about an arcsecond.
>> Imagine if we had to internally generate the light to carry our
> image to others. How long can you hold a 100 watt lightbulb?
> How about 500W?
>But telepathy simply taps into the Universal Energy Field which
we already know is concentrated by pyramids and crystals.
(Sorry, I just couldn't help myself. Now this thread will go on
for another eight rounds about whether the "universal energy
field" is inverse-square or not!)
\
