Re: Magnetic Monopoles Found? Dual-Slit Expe Explained?

From: Qion (physicsofchi_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 02/01/05 

Date: 31 Jan 2005 22:04:56 -0800

AaronB wrote:
> Qion wrote:
> > To continue with the above. Well. When I found out years ago
> > that powerlines, TV sets, tranformers, etc. could interact with
> > qi. I wondered if the magnetic fields from those equipments are
> > interacting with the Aether particles.
>
> Aether isn't necessary to explain magnetic fields, so I see no reason
> why this should be the case.

No. You don't get what I mean. We pranic or chi or qi healers
handle some forms of energy that is interactive to our mind
in which we can even form qi balls using focused intention
only. Now this qi is available anywhere in space. When we
detected via hand scanning and clairvoyancy that the qi
around power lines is very dense and gross. I don't know
whether the qi in the air is being made gross by the power
lines current and corresponding magnetic field or whether the
gross qi is directly a product of the magnetic fields in the
power lines. Gets? About qi from TV. I'm not saying that
new physics is needed to understand convensional fields.
What I'm saying is that there may be subtle energy
outputs that current instruments can't detect yet.

Willian Tiller is a scientist that has been asking the
same questions as I. And he made a hypothesis or model
that many are in US are following now. All scientific
principles need theories such as Bohr, Schrodinger, Born
creating Quantum Mechanics. Now we are in another era
where scientific theories are needed to explain subtle
energy, qi, etheric body, etc. I guess in order not to
get nuts. I'd just follow Tiller for now as his stuff
doesn't break QM, QED, QCD, etc. unlike Thomson model
wherein you have to take the whole physics foundation apart.
The following is full details of Tiller hypotheses. It may
sound weird but something like that is the one that can
fit our data (us qi healers and thousands of others or
a subset of the human race who can sense or see more due to
awakened spiritual faculties... that's right.. we are
the next step in human evolution...).

http://www.tillerfoundation.com/science.html

I'll continue replying in a separate message later. I have
to do something. I hope you can study the above as it gives
the whole picture of it complete with many interesting
illustrations.

Qion

>
> > Thomson stated recently
> > how aether units could be composed of rotating magnetic fields
> > as he put it in the book with tons of mathematics to describe
> > it.
>
> The Thomson issue is dealt with in detail elsewhere in these forums,
> and you are free to read it yourself. Suffice to say, he apparently
has
> no knowledge of modern physics; little-to-no knowledge of more than
> high school mathematics; and his theories have absolutely no
> experimental backing. I don't see any reason to take his word on the
> subject as fact.
>
> > So it boils down to whether we are dealing with an exotic
> > form of magnetism not described by Maxwell or an Aether derived
> > phenomena. What do you think is more likely.
>
> The radiation from televisions is well understood under Standard
Model.
> There is no need to introduce new physics to describe it.

>
> > I wish it were
> > just a not thoroughly understood Maxwellian phenomena as the
> > Standard model doesn't have to be taken apart.
>
> Electromagnetism is well understood. Nothing you have said to this
> point suggests that were are dealing with anything that Standard
Model
> cannot account for.
>
> > If its Thomson
> > Aether, you have to wipe out the entire physics foundation
> > based on QM, QED, QCD, etc. Thomson Aether can only be
> > possible if the virtual particles and fundamental forces are
> > not related or just an illusion.
>
> Allow me to alleviate your concerns: Thomson is a crackpot.
>
> > In Thomson book, he can
> > explain the fundamental forces by Aether dynamics without
> > having to invoke virtual particles.
>
> The assumptions he needs to make are much more bizarre, and are not
> supported by experiment. Virtual particles ARE supported by
experiment.
>
> > Could reality be something
> > like that. I wish not and hope Heymann, Bjoern are correct
> > that the Standard Model was formed from solid mathematics
> > founded on reality.
>
> The Standard Model is the best, and most accurate model we have to
> describe reality at this time.
>
> > In the Meanwhile. I'd presume this is so
> > and would study qi physics from the point of view of
> > incomplete maxwellian description of the electromagnetic
> > domain.
>
> I don't understand why you insist that Qi cannot be already explained
> by the Standard Model (again, assuming it exists). If Qi is an
> electromagnetic effect, as seems to be the most likely case from what
> you've told me, then chances are Standard Model physics can explain
it,
> again, assuming, of course, that Qi exists at all.
>
> > If it fails, that's the time to go back to Thomson
> > and Seto Aether to zero in on the physics of qi. Now to
> > answer your message.
>
> It would probably be easier to judge these things if you have some
> quantative (ie numerical) evidence to test. For instance, you said
> earlier that 60 Hz power lines affect this bioetheric field. Well,
now
> you have something easy to test. Head to an electronics and plug in a
> function generator. Try making a 30, 40, 50, 80, 100, 500, and 1000
Hz
> signal, and see if the field distorts in some mathematically
> quantifiable way. Now keep the frequency constant, and change the
> voltage. Now keep both constant, and change the distance between the
> subject and the field. Try changing the waveform from sinusoidal to
> square, triangular, etc. This is all relatively easy to do: if I had
a
> Qi healer, I could test it myself. Hopefully, you will get some
> relationship from this. Now you can develop a model that predicts
that
> relationship, and see if it is a subset of standard theory or
something
> completely new. The way you're trying to do things, you will spent a
> lot of time researching theories that will go nowhere.
>
> > > >
> > > > I mean special relativity.. about light... Einstein said
nothing
> > > > that go faster than light...
> > >
> > > No, Einstein never said that to my knowledge. He said that the
> > velocity
> > > of light is constant in all frames of reference. That does not
> > > necessarily imply that nothing can travel faster than light.
> >
> > Einstein theory of special relativity says that nothing can
> > travel faster than light. Isn't it his main thesis.
>
> That may be a consequence of special relativity, but, no, it is
> certainly not his thesis. When Einstein proposed special relativity,
he
> said that 1) the laws of physics in all inertial frames are
equivalent
> and 2) the speed of light is constant in all reference frames. 2)
does
> not necessarily imply, however, that nothing can travel faster than
> light.
>
> > This is
> > why he made the Rosen-Einstein tests.. to prove that quantum
> > entanglement can't interact superluminally because it would
> > violate SR. This means he doesn't believe faster than light can
> > occur.
>
> I'm sure didn't believe that anything could travel faster than light,
> because, from a mathematical point of view, it is nonsense.
> Technically, if an object has complex mass, I don't think special
> relativity would forbid it from travelling superluminally. There have
> been particles that are hypothesized to travel faster than light, but
> they have never been detected, or is there any reason to suggest
their
> existence.
>
> > > The limit as v -> c+ does not make sense to compute, since the
> > equation
> > > in question is sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2), which produces imaginary values
> for
> > v
> > > > 0.
> >
> > That's for normal matter. But for negative mass as Tiller put it.
> > It may occur. One simply create special equations.
>
> Negative mass doesn't help you, actually. The mass would just get
> infinitely negative instead of infinitely positive, and complex for v
>
> c. Only complex mass can be faster than light, and no massive object
> can reach the speed of light.
>
> > >
> > > > But what
> > > > if an exotic substance or mass already started out at the
> > > > speed of light since the beginning of the universe, then it
> > > > doesn't violate special relativity.
> > >
> > > Only if it is massless. Otherwise it would still have infinite
> mass.
> >
> > Massless in a baryonic manner is not the same as negative mass
> > in a nonbaryonic manner. So exotic substance outside the light
> > cone created at Big Bang shouldn't violate SR as Einstein is
> > only referring to normal mass at positive time-domain.
>
> Negative mass would still be infinite at the singularity, and complex
> beyond it. Negative mass has, I might add, never been detected.
>
> > > > A person told me that qi may be neutrinos as concentration
> > > > of this can affect radioactive decays.
> > >
> > > This seems unlikely to me. Neutrinos are highly unreactive;
> detecting
> > > them directly has been extremely difficult.
> >
> > Oh. It was Thomson who said that qi may be dark matter as in
> > his hypothesis. Dark matter is composed of neutrinos which
> > can't enter the Aether units hence are trapped in between
> > Aether units or in between matter.
>
> We're reasonably certain that dark matter is not composed of
neutrinos.
> There just aren't enough neutrinos for that to work.
>
> > >
> > > Then it would pertain somehow to the weak nuclear force.
> >
> > The reason Thomson believes Neutron is composed of Protons
> > and Electrons is because in radioactive decay, neutrons
> > emit proton, electron, and anti-neutrino. Now he argues
> > that if neutron is made up of 3 quarks, how the hell can
> > electron come out in the first place. Well. Many scientists
> > of course don't believe it that's why I think the Tiller
> > version of qi that doesn't violate Standard Model is better.
>
> It is a common misconception that the neutron is just a proton and an
> electron stuck together. There are various other quantum mechanical
> properties aside from charge and decay that make this impossible, but
> that is beyond the scope of this discussion.
>
> > > I believe this is well understood without the need to invoke
> etheric
> > > waves.
> >
> > For the sake of argument. Etheric wave is just an extra property
> > or one you can squeeze out from it in addition to normal
> > interference and wave properties
>
> Occam's razor rules that out.
>
> > > > > Quantum mechanics explains itself very well without etheric
> > matter,
> > > > > thank you very much.
> >
> > Yes, but not the superluminal and non-local properties which
> > may be mediated by superluminal etheric wave.
>
> Care to give a few specific examples?
>
> > > There is no evidence that etheric counterparts exist.
> >
> > Gee. We qi healers can detect etheric counterpart in every
> > physical matter even a wood.
>
> Great. How much etheric matter can you detect in 1 kg of lead? 10 kg?
> How about iron? Does the shape matter? Temperature? Velocity?
Density?
>
> > >
> > > Multiverse theory presently doesn't have any testable
predictions,
> > and
> > > Scientific American is to a scientific journal what the National
> > > Enquirer is the to the New York Times.
> >
> > Well. At least Tiller stuff has testable predictions.. if only
> > you scientists would just listen to the possibility it can
> > be true. How can any experiments be performed when you are
> > already sure from the start it is not real. This is not science.
>
> If the experiment is done properly and the phenomena is real, then
what
> the experimentor believes won't make one iota of difference.
>
> > Oh Tiller stuff can explain how Acupuncture points have
> > special electrical properties different from other skin.
>
> What specific electrical properties do you refer to?
>
> > In qi healing. We can detect qi flowing inside the body much
> > like veins and capillaries. The entry and exit points
> > correspond to the acupuncture points. Now if qi has
> > magnetic properties. It can explain how there is special
> > electrical properties at the acupuncture points because
> > the flowing qi or magnetoelectric energy can induce
> > electrical properties in the entry/exit points as the
> > following person (who is studying Tiller stuff) explain.
> >
> > "Examining the ion pumping potential of an acupuncture meridian
> > point reveals a cross-section that looks like an umbrella.
> > Looking down on the skin, this umbrella appears to be a circle,
> > an acupuncture point.
>
> I don't suppose you have a link to a diagram?
>
> > More importantly, from an electrical
> > conductivity point of view, that means that an acupuncture
> > meridian point meets the conditions necessary for antenna
> > transmission and reception.
>
> Why is that?
>
> > Each Acupuncture Point (A.P.)
> > is a biologic monopolar antenna with overtones of helical
> > shape!
>
> How does he get this from the above?
>
> > Subtle energy wave flow along the etheric meridians
> > causes transduced magnetic waves along the physical meridians
> > generating the observed electrical field and conductivity of
> > the A.P.
>
> What does subtle energy wave mean? Is he referring to energy in a
> physics sense, or something else? What about etheric/physical
> meridians? How strong is this electric field?
>
> > Furthermore, this model allows the external
> > electromagnetic and subtle, etheric energy environment to
> > communicate with the internal physical and subtle substance
> > of the body.
>
> What is etheric energy? Is this referring to energy in a physics
sense?
>
> > Thus, if for some reason the flow of subtle energy,
> > Chi, becomes restricted or blocked in the etheric meridians,
> > then at the physical level the transduced magnetic flow and
> > associated electrical conductivity of the A.P. decreases.
>
> Why does that follow from the above? What is the relationship between
> this blockage and the strength of the electric field?
>
> > However, when one activates the A.P. by some means so that
> > ion flow is restored at the physical level, this generates an
> > increased magnetic flow that serves to unclog the etheric
>
> What does he mean by magnetic flow?
>
> > meridian flow channel and reduce the perturbations at even
> > more subtle levels of energy, namely thought and emotion."
> Thought and emotion are not forms of energy in a physics sense.
>
> A.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Binding Energy Question
    ... crossed my mind to try to convince you of anything. ... I said that physics is not like arts or even politics ... is how the electron can travel to all paths (Feynman ... energy in relation with the distances involved, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Magnetic Monopoles Found? Dual-Slit Expe Explained?
    ... to dissolve the gross qi energy. ... > said that 1) the laws of physics in all inertial frames are ... But for negative mass as Tiller put it. ... of proton and electron came out naturally without spin, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: The Whole Universe as a Finite Binary String?
    ... Does an 'electron in a box' (a standard first example in quantum ... mechanics) process information just because it might have discrete ... pure energy, but that doesn't mean that energy really doesn't mean anything. ... information in physics is precisely mathematical and objective. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Russian Torsion Field Weapons?
    ... Russian, American, Brasilian Exotic Propulsion Physics Compared ... of Relativity which was the first generalization of Newton's mechanics. ... "My approach considers Casimir vacuum energy rather than dark energy as ... If you require that the electron have a radius of 10**-13 cm, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Magnetic Monopoles Found? Dual-Slit Expe Explained?
    ... interacting with the Aether particles. ... form of magnetism not described by Maxwell or an Aether derived ... you have to wipe out the entire physics foundation ... emit proton, electron, and anti-neutrino. ...
    (sci.physics)