Conference hydra::dejavu

	First for the background info.   since this is such a wild and
unsubstantiated theory anyway, I won't get caught up in footnoting
and such.....    Although I just *might* be serious about some of this,
I do hope you all realize how deeply buried my tongue is into my cheek
when wrote this;     :^P    ;^}


	An "Indian" tribe in south America was noted to have a ritual
that involved removing the hat at sunrise or sunset, while on the
top of a cliff.   The sun's rays were said to enter the top of the
head, to enlighten the person.   (light = enlighten ?)

	Some Native Americans laugh at white men who are afraid to
look at the sun, believing that it will blind them.   These Native
Americans have certain rituals that involve looking at the sun,
and they KNOW they don't go blind.  (are there genetic differences ?)

	The pineal (same as pituitary?) gland is believed by some
to be the fabled "third eye".   According to some descriptions I
have read, this organ sees electromagnetic rays in the UV (ultraviolet)
or above, rays that might pass through the skin and skull.    If this 
is so, then the absorption of UV may be linked to the attainment of
enlightenment.

	The body seems designed to handle a wide variation in
ultraviolet exposure, since the skin manufactures a pigment which
prevents sunburn, after the person is exposed a while.   Does UV
exposure *really* cause skin cancer?   I'm not sure I believe this.
I *DO* believe that exposure to uranium or plutonium particles,
from nuclear testing and reactors *DO* cause skin cancers when 
they fall on people's skin.    The people who are out there getting
the sun exposure would be the same people most exposed to the
particle fallout.

	And now for the heart of the theory;

	Reagan's nose.     They are scraping the tip off of President
Reagan's nose.   The publicized moral of this story is;  Stay out of the
sun because the sun can give you cancer.      I say "bull...."
Now I wonder, just why would the government want people to stay out
of the sun ?    Perhaps they are afraid of too many people becoming
enlightened ?   Is skin cancer being blamed on UV to cover the rising
amount of radioactive particle fallout?

	From there, my nimble mind leapt to the August 16-17 "harmonic
convergence" celebrations.   All these people are going to expose their
bodies to the rays of the rising sun on August 16.   The true believers
in this event say that extra-special energies will be coming our way
during this period (and nine days before, and nine days after).   I've
noticed a lot of extra energies already, seems to be causing quite a
heat wave....

	Perhaps there was a two pronged propaganda effort to keep us
ignorant unenlightened folk from experiencing free enlightenment?
1) saying the ozone is going, and that people should always wear
sunscreens while exposing themselves (thus cutting off those potentially
enlightening UV rays)   2) Reagan's nose gets scraped, to induce a little 
extra jolt of fear of the sun, right before the August 16-17 events.


	Wow, I'm shaking too much to type much more on this,
	(from fear?  laughter?  enlightenment?)

	Reagan can get his nose scraped all he wants, I will still
be unafraid of a little sunshine.   After all, it's no skin off my nose!
(sorry, I just *had* to).

	Alan.

    When I saw Reagan's nose, I thought immediately of the story of
    Pinnochio, not of skin cancer.  Can his nose actually be instant
    Karma, or a wild subconcious reaction to too many Disney movies?

    Truth is like an onion.  It is layered, with each inner layer being
    in form like the layer just outside it, except smaller.  The Onion
    of Truth has an infinite number of these layers, each infinitesimally
    thin.
    
    Howw big is truth?  How big is an immaterial, infinite onion?
    
    :-P
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    I have a theory.  G_D created the Universe, not as a deliberate
    thing but as a waste product from something else He/She/It was doing?
    
    What do you think?
    

    Re .5:
    
    Doesn't it to everybody? :-D
    
    Re .4:
    
    There's a saying, "Waste not, want not."  Since there are things
    I want, then there must be waste.  Since _everybody_ wants something
    ... ;-)
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    Well, how's this for a theory...I've been drawing/sketching for
    years and one particular piece of work I did a number of years ago
    is a landscape with odd shaped mountains and hills. The sky is your
    normal, every day type of sky except for the fact that in this sky
    there is a large, square hole through which one can see an entirely
    seperate *world*. Through this hole, the light from the *other*
    place shines brightly down on my landscape. (no, i didn't see this
    on the twilight zone) 
    So, my theory is...what if the sun, or what we refer to as the sun,
    is indeed just a hole in the shield around our world and the light
    is shining in from the *other side*...?? 
    
    		              !! just an idea !!
    
    helge lutz. wensing	

    if there is a black hole in the center if the sun, perhaps your
    theory is correct.

    	There is NO black hole in the center of the Sun!  if there was,
    the whole Sun and our entire Solar System would have been pulled
    into it ages ago!
    
    	Our Sun is not massive enough to ever collapse into a black
    hole.
                                 
    	I would suggest checking out a few beginners books on astronomy
    for a more detailed picture of the subject.
    
    	Larry
    

    Yes, but what if the black hole in the center of the sun is actually
    the "other side" of the black hole - where all the
    light/energy/mass/etc comes out instead of in.  Sort of a black
    hole in one demention and an anti-black hole in this one.
    
    Marion
    

    re l;ast_few:
    
    This is better served in ASTRONOMY or SPACE; however:
    
    There is some theoretical modeling pointing to microscopic black
    holes called "Hawking Holes," after Gerald Hawking, who proposed
    them.  A Hawking Hole (or more) _could_ exist in the S un.
    
    The "reverse black hole" is called [this shouldn't surprise anyone]
    a "white hole."  It stands (rests?) on _much_ shakier theoretical
    grounds than does the conventional black hole.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    	RE 434.11 - 
    
    	What you are referring to is a "white hole", a sort of reversed
    balck hole (collapsar), where everything is pushed *out* of the
    star instead of pulled in by gravity like a black hole.  In fact,
    there is a theory that a black hole leads to a white hole, where
    everything that fell into the black hole of one universe comes out
    of a white hole into another universe, serving as an interuniversal
    "passageway".
    
    	RE 434.10 - 
    
    	I was *not* making a "snide comment"; I was just surprised that
    the person who said there could be a black hole at the center of
    the Sun did not see the illogic of the statement, and I was giving
    a helpful suggestion to them to study up on the subject more.  Please
    don't accuse me of things I did not do.
                                                                 
    	Larry
                                           

    	Steve, the current theories are that if such mini-black holes
    did exist, they did not last long after the creation of the Universe,
    having literally evaported into nothing do to the unusual nature
    of a black hole actually leaking energy into space.  The smaller
    a black hole is, the sooner it evaporates.  
    
    	Larry
    

    Re .14:
    
    Yes, I was aware of that; however, if it's within a large mass, the infall
    of matter can cancel out the evaporative effect.  I think it's ===>
    highly<=== improbable, but there exists the veriest ghost of a
    possibility that a mini-black-hole could have somehow survived (via
    equilibrium) so as to end up in the sun.
    
    But don't bet even your coffee money on it.  :-)
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.                               

RE: .9,.10

    Hold on there, you're probably right but for the wrong reasons. 

    A black hole doesn't pull any stronger than an ordinary star, its pull
    is just more concentrated.  Its like the difference between a spotlight
    and a floodlight. 

    Here's one way to think of it: 

    Imagine you are in a universe which contained only you and a planet --
    say the Earth.  If you are far away from the Earth then the pull will
    be weak.  As you get closer the pull gets stronger.  Finally you reach
    the surface of the Earth and the pull will have reached its maximum.
    If you continue to try to get closer to the center of the Earth, you
    have to burrow, so as you get deeper more and more of the mass is
    "above" you pulling you up and making you lighter.  When you reach the
    perfect center of the Earth, the mass is pulling you outward in all
    direction equally and you would be weightless. 

    Instead of burrowing, you could (we will suppose), compress the Earth:
    keep it with the same mass, but increase its density so its radius is
    smaller.  If you compress the Earth to half its radius, you will be
    half as far from the center of the Earth when you stand on the surface,
    and so you will be pulled four times as hard -- *there* -- as on the
    old surface.  If you were on a huge platform so that you are standing
    at the same distance as the surface before the compression, you will be
    pulled with exactly the same force as before the compression. 

    If you keep compressing the Earth the force of gravity at the surface
    -- the strongest concentration of gravitational force which will occur
    -- will keep getting stronger.  This will not, however, effect the
    gravitational force at all for any point in space outside of the
    original surface of the Earth. 

    Eventually, as you continue to compress the Earth, the gravity at the
    surface will get so strong that even light won't be able to escape.
    When that happens, *nothing* else can either according to Einstein.
    That means that anyone outside the "event horizon" (the imaginary
    sphere around the center where the gravity becomes strong enough to
    prevent light from escaping) cannot learn anything about what is
    happening inside the event horizon.  All you know is stuff that
    wouldn't have changed as it got compressed: e.g., its mass, spin,
    electric charge, and magnetic field.  In particular the size of the
    black hole (i.e., the size of the event horizon) is determined by the
    mass. 

    However, for an object beyond the surface before the compression,
    nothing gravitationally will have changed.  This means that if you
    replaced the Sun with a black hole with the same mass, things would be
    very different as far as radiation is concerned, but the planets would
    all stay in exactly the same orbits they are now in.  No dramatic
    swallowing of the solar system. 

    So how does the compression take place? 

    The "normal" way is that for a big enough star (a few times the size of
    the Sun is all that's needed -- I don't remember the exact figure off
    hand) the gravitational forces are stronger than the forces which keeps
    matter apart.  So eventually (it takes awhile because of the heat
    produced as the collapse takes place tends to push the star apart
    again), a big star will collapse into a black hole.  Thus "normal"
    black holes -- those which were created by internal gravitational
    collapse -- will always be larger than the sun.  Clearly none of
    *those* could be inside of the sun, or it would have a larger mass than
    it has. 

    Black holes of any size could be created, however, if you compress the
    matter with external energy.  The big bang had enough energy to create
    black holes. 

    A mini black hole which was small enough would not make a great deal of
    difference to the way the Sun looked.  Eventually, it would "swallow"
    the Sun, but this could take a very long time. 

    Stephen Hawking has given arguments, based on quantum mechanics, that
    black holes are not completely black -- that they convert their mass
    into radiation and thus shrink.  The smaller they are the faster they
    radiate.  This means that mini black holes, created at the big bang
    would radiate very fast, get smaller, and therefore radiate even
    faster.  In other words, they would evaporate quickly.  Larger black
    holes would radiate much slower -- almost not at all.  The result, if
    Hawking is correct, is that the initial mini black holes would have
    evaporated in very short order.  There may have been some midi black
    holes which by now are mini black holes, but the mathematics are such
    that that is very unlikely.  Which leaves some regular black holes
    which would just look like regular black holes. 

    Hawking based his ideas on some rather good arguments about how quantum
    mechanics and relativity *should* interact with each other, but no one
    has figured out the details of how they *do* interact with each other.
    This means that almost all scientists will say that Hawking was
    probably right, but many of them are not yet ready to accept it true. 

    The only possibility, then, is a small enough black hole created by
    powerful, unknown processes very much more recently than the big bang.
    Very unlikely. 

    There does, however, seem to be a massive black hole (hundreds of solar
    masses if I remember) at the center of the galaxy, for those who find
    that a fun or romantic idea. 

					Topher

    Topher,
    
    I am honestly impressed not only with your knowledge of such things,
    but also with your ability to clearly explain them.  Even *I*
    understood you!
    
    8^0 
    
    Marion

    re .0
    
    Here is my wild theory. Man was put on Earth by the Creator in order
    to aerate the soil.  Everything else we do is gratuitious.
    

.18
I can dig it ;')
Jay

  How the universe got here or how to get something from nothing, any 
guesses anyone. 
             
Here is mine:  The universe is a random expression of equivalent opposites
               whose sum is zero

            
           

             It is equivalent opposite forces( whose sum is zero) that give
            expression to zero, creating our universe. When we see change the
            amount of energy in the universe does not change.The universe is
            changing from one equal state to another(the sum of the energy in
            the universe stays the same) Sense no energy is created or destroyed
            going from one equal state to another,it requires no energy to go
            from one equal state to another.
           
             We are now faced with the question that although it may take no
            energy for the universe to change from one state to another,what
            gave it it's initial push.     
              
             Maybe there was no force to cause the universe to change from
            absolute nothing( inexpressive universe) to an expressive 
            universe(equivalent opposites wholes sum is zero).Perhaps
            all it took was the (fact??)that it could exist with out
            creating or destroying any energy and burst forth as a
            random expression of the possible  expressions of zero.The
            only factor guiding which random expression of zero burst
            fourth being  the probability of that expression occurring.
           
             Perhaps the universe is continuing to randomly express itself
            according to the law of probability from it's current state
            of zero to another state of zero.
  
             Energy and matter can be created or destroyed in equal
            amounts of equivalent opposites. 
 
             

              This occurred to me over a year ago, in about an instant 
             while I was shaving.(thank g_d for safety blades)


                                 Any comments??

    I can't remember where I saw this, but it is not an original idea.
     Just an interesting one.
    
    Being a human on this earth is dolphin hell.
    
    
    -Jody
    
    

    	I put that quote in the NAC::SF Conference.
    
    	And I wouldn't doubt it, either!
    
    	Larry
    

    Hmmmm....  What does being *dolphin* on this earth mean?
    
    
    
    
    John M.

    My theory is that there are only a few people in the world - about
    1/1000 or so (don't have the exact figure down yet) of what is 
    reported.  The rest of the population are androids.
    
    I base this on the incredible number of times that I run into someone
    I know in an unexpected place - such as Denver.  I only know about
    50-100 people in Denver, yet about 9 times out of 10 when I go up
    there, I run into someone I know in a place I was not expecting
    to find them - at a concert, a store, driving down the street, etc.
    Another thing is that there is one bookstore/restaurant that almost
    everyone I know (no matter where I met them) goes.  This place is
    fairly busy, but not that big.  Most people in Colorado springs
    cannot be going there.
    
    The theory goes that the androids (or, perhaps holograms) are there
    for stage dressing.  They are pre-programmed to do specific things,
    such as drive down the street or answer the phone in specific ways.
    These people cannot do much else.  If you try to start up a
    conversation with an android that they are not pre-programmed for,
    they will just stare at you and not understand.  These people cannot
    help others with an unexpected need.  That is why there are a lot
    of stories about people being raped or murdered and no one called
    the police - they were not programmed to call the police!
    
    That is the reason for economic problems as well - it takes a lot
    of resources to run an android, yet they don't produce that much.
    
    I have not yet figured out who is behind this conspiracy to make
    the population look bigger than it is, but there are plenty of
    conspiracy theories that point almost everywhere.
    
    This is not really to be taken seriously, but I seem to have convinced
    someone of it at an SF convention this weekend.
    
    Elizabeth

    
    This sounds like a spinoff of "Invasion Of The Body Snatchers"!
    
    Cindy

    re .26:
    
    Funny, I have the same theory. I guess you're another of the real
    people. 
    
    	Jon

    re .26, .28:
    
    Interesting!  How about substituting "no-soul" for androids?
    Sometimes I feel that there are people who really don't exist;
    they don't have an aura, they are not aware, they do not contribute
    to "reality" other than being "window-dressing".  
    
    Haven't you seen/met people who slide past your awareness?  You
    can't remember their name, their face, or understand what they do?
    And it's not just due to the rapid/hectic pace of our existence,
    either--these "people" have no soul.
    
    In other words, the people you see are not what they seem to be...
    
    
    --Eve
    

    re .last_few:
    
    No, no, no.  Haven't you guys (both genders) ever heard of simulcara?
    I mean, is this DEJAVU or SF?  :-)
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr. 

    This theory combines a belief in reincarnation with time travel.
    
    We've all seen movies where someone travels back in time, right?
    And even some where people travel forward in time, right?
    
    What if reincarnating souls can do the same?  What if we can reincarnate
    backward, as well as forward?  Might this account for some instances
    of prophets and visionaries?  The ones who claim to know the future
    have actually been there?
    
    Put that one in your smipe and poke it...;-)
    
    Marcia
    
    

    
    Meet you at Milliways!
    
    Cindy

    Fritz Leiber wrote a similar story called "You're All Alone," in
    which we find the world is peopled by mannequins which occasionally
    wake up.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    
    	How do I find out if I'm a 'droid?   Or for that matter, 
    prove I'm not one if I suspect I might be ?   Can one have
    sex with a 'droid ?   If so are there half-breeds?   Who is
    programming all these 'droids?   
    
    	Are there more androids in the computer business?   Gee,
    how many managers are 'droids?

    	I am being consumed by these pressing questions...
    
    	Alan.

    I've always thought of them as "props"_:-)

    
    	It's a humorous theory, one that most of us can relate to,
    but it does make me wonder.   This theory does have a dark side
    to it.   Are we all feeling like "I am real, but *they* are not"?    
    Perhaps this sort of thinking comes from being isolated in one's 
    own head.    Are we to conclude that these people won't suffer if 
    they die ?    There is a danger to believing in this sort of thing,
    particularly if it gives a person reasons to ignore the reality
    or feelings of others.
    
    	Some wierd combinations of odd New Age beliefs may result
    here;  To believe in channeling UFO entities as "real", while
    boring or uninteresting people are "not real" (androids).   hmmm...

        I am reminded of a line in the "I Ching";  "He awakens into
    an empty city..."  Perhaps many people will simply vanish one
    day ?   (the rapture?  the "props" disolving?)

    	Alan.

I hope this answers your questions, Alan.  I am always ready and willing
to enlighten.  ;-)

    
    >   How do I find out if I'm a 'droid?  < 

If you start communicating with software engineers, you are a droid.

 

    >  Can one have sex with a 'droid ?  < 


Yes.  But first you must inflate it.



    > If so are there half-breeds? < 

I wouldn't use that term around "Robo-cop."


    >  Who is programming all these 'droids? < 

Sun Myung Moon.  I had to send mine for de-programming.



    > Are there more androids in the computer business? < 


Androids *are* the computer business.


John M.
                                                         

    Re .39:
    
    >Perhaps this explains why my girlfriend was trying (unsuccessfully)
    >to reprogram me ?   
    
    There's such a vast potential for responses to that straight line
    I respectfully suggest we try a new wild theory. ;-)
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    
    Oh, Steve, go ahead!
                  
    Still laughing from the last few........
    
    Cindy

    
    	RE: .40
    
    	O.K. Steve, I wanna hear it;   Either a new wild theory,
    or a takeoff on my straight line.  (I can stand a little humor
    at my expense...)
    
    	After all, as a 'droid, I am trying real hard to understand
    this humor stuff.    Since the potential for responses was so
    vast, you could try several.
    
    	a.

    RE: .42
        
    >    Perhaps this explains why my girlfriend was trying
    (unsuccessfully) to reprogram me ?  < 

Maybe she prefers UNIX.



John M.                                  

    I wonder if DEC had an investment in the movie "The Stepford Wives"
    (or, later, with the "Stepford Children?")  Or is this sort of the
    opposite of being a "Walk-in" (a "walk-out?"  ---so, who's minding
    the store?)
    
    re: .42
    With a girlfriend like that, maybe you should invest in an inflatable
    doll, instead (at least they won't try to change you.)  (Enter grin
    of any type, here.)
      
    Frederick
    

    
    I'm glad that you'll all believe this here....
    
    Just had a dejavu flash - I was on John's note 2 notes back and
    "The Stepford Wives" popped into my head.
    
    Hit the <RETURN> key, and what is it that Frederick put in....
    
    dododododododod  
    
    Cindy

    |What! no wild theories in two years! All my theories are wild.
    The rest I leave for others. I've got to get out of here, but i'll
    enter one I saw on the wall today.
    
    
    			LIFE  IS  TEST!
    
    	If this were you're real life you'd have been given better
   			 instructions.
                        
    
    john