Re: Magnetic Monopoles Found? Dual-Slit Expe Explained?
From: Qion (physicsofchi_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 02/08/05
- Next message: Jesse Mazer: "Re: Time Dilation Model, NO ONE can point out what's wrong"
- Previous message: John O'Flaherty: "Re: Power Surges"
- Maybe in reply to: Qion: "Re: Magnetic Monopoles Found? Dual-Slit Expe Explained?"
- Next in thread: Qion: "Re: Magnetic Monopoles Found? Dual-Slit Expe Explained?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 7 Feb 2005 19:21:43 -0800
AaronB wrote:
> > Don't try to use physical descriptions on things not physical.
> > Etheric is non-physical and I think it is superluminal.
>
> You brought it up: you said that it changed dimensions. Dimensions
are
> strictly a physical property. Likewise, velocity (superluminal or
not)
> is also a physical property.
Are you aware of the M-theory version of branes where our world is
trapped within a brane and nothing can exist outside of it except
possibly gravity... and qi. This means we may be dealing with
non-ordinary dimension like our physical dimension. M-theory says
the other dimensions don't necessarily mean tiny and curled up.
If gravity is originally very strong, the strings can be larger
in size. I read this in Briane Greene "Fabric of the Cosmos". He
said the size of the dimension is related to the strength of gravity
and the size of the strings. Now. He commented how some theorists
stated how even gravity can be trapped in a brane. This means
nothing can go out... except consciousness (my statement in the
form of qi).
>
> I don't see any reason to believe it is superluminal regardless.
>
> > I once
> > asked this Greywolf something what is the behavior of
> > superluminal thing. He said it is present everywhere.
>
> And I'm guessing Greywolf has his PhD in theoretical physics?
>
> I think it would be better to say that it is present nowhere, since
> superluminal objects are in an orthagonal spacetime to our own.
Greywolf has about 10 Ph.Ds in physics... Heheh... just kidding..
I thought very hard about this superluminal thing months ago. If
the behavior of superluminal thing is that it is present anywhere.
Who knows. Qi may be superluminal. Of course I didn't take this
seriously. Just following a hypothesis waiting to be disproven.
> That still does not necessarily imply that it is superluminal,
because
> a light signal would still be fast enough; the clairvoyant would
never
> know the difference. Again, I would argue that superluminal being
> present everywhere is a misnomer anyway. That aside, there is no
> evidence to suggest that it is superluminal regardless.
Supposing there is object that can behave faster than light (I know
this violates Special Relativity).. supposing the object is
non-baryonic
and special and move at the speed of light.. or supposing there is
a superluminal equivalent to photons. What do you think would be the
behavior of the luminons (or superluminal photons)? Since they can
travel say a billion times the speed of light, wouldn't they be
said to be present at all times in any space location?
About what you stated above that superluminal objects is in an
orthagonal spacetime to our own so its nowhere. Tiller has dealt with
it in the following hypothesis:
"Interaction between the physical and etheric particles is not
possible unless something additional is added to the picture, because
the light barrier at v=c in Fig. 10 keeps bare particles of these two
types insulated from each other. To overcome this difficulty, I have
postulated the existence of a 9-D substance, called the "deltron",
which does not suffer the singularity at a velocity equal to c.
The deltron particles can interact with etheric particles traveling
at v > c and also interact with physical particles traveling at
v &1t; c and can thus bring about energy exchange between them.
Increasing the focus of human intention from the 10-D level increases
the deltron content at the 9-D level and thus the coupling between
physical and etheric substances at the 8-D level."
Look. I didn't say I'm sure it is superluminal. Still thinking about
it and all the counterarguments.
>
> > In pranic healing, we
> > can treat the patient even if he is half the world away.
> > You know what this means. This means this etheric thing can
> > only become located in space with the intervension of
> > consciousness.
>
> Do you have proof of this assertion?
Ah. I'm sure about it having dealt about this for so long. Just still
AaronB wrote:
> > Don't try to use physical descriptions on things not physical.
> > Etheric is non-physical and I think it is superluminal.
>
> You brought it up: you said that it changed dimensions. Dimensions
are
> strictly a physical property. Likewise, velocity (superluminal or
not)
> is also a physical property.
Are you aware of the M-theory version of branes where our world is
trapped within a brane and nothing can exist outside of it except
possibly gravity... and qi. This means we may be dealing with
non-ordinary dimension like our physical dimension. M-theory says
the other dimensions don't necessarily mean tiny and curled up.
If gravity is originally very strong, the strings can be larger
in size. I read this in Briane Greene "Fabric of the Cosmos". He
said the size of the dimension is related to the strength of gravity
and the size of the strings. Now. He commented how some theorists
stated how even gravity can be trapped in a brane. This means
nothing can go out... except consciousness (my statement in the
form of qi).
>
> I don't see any reason to believe it is superluminal regardless.
>
> > I once
> > asked this Greywolf something what is the behavior of
> > superluminal thing. He said it is present everywhere.
>
> And I'm guessing Greywolf has his PhD in theoretical physics?
>
> I think it would be better to say that it is present nowhere, since
> superluminal objects are in an orthagonal spacetime to our own.
Greywolf has about 10 Ph.Ds in physics... Heheh... just kidding..
I thought very hard about this superluminal thing months ago. If
the behavior of superluminal thing is that it is present anywhere.
Who knows. Qi may be superluminal. Of course I didn't take this
seriously. Just following a hypothesis waiting to be disproven.
> That still does not necessarily imply that it is superluminal,
because
> a light signal would still be fast enough; the clairvoyant would
never
> know the difference. Again, I would argue that superluminal being
> present everywhere is a misnomer anyway. That aside, there is no
> evidence to suggest that it is superluminal regardless.
Supposing there is object that can behave faster than light (I know
this violates Special Relativity).. supposing the object is
non-baryonic
and special and move at the speed of light.. or supposing there is
a superluminal equivalent to photons. What do you think would be the
behavior of the luminons (or superluminal photons)? Since they can
travel say a billion times the speed of light, wouldn't they be
said to be present at all times in any space location?
About what you stated above that superluminal objects is in an
orthagonal spacetime to our own so its nowhere. Tiller has dealt with
it in the following hypothesis:
"Interaction between the physical and etheric particles is not
possible unless something additional is added to the picture, because
the light barrier at v=c in Fig. 10 keeps bare particles of these two
types insulated from each other. To overcome this difficulty, I have
postulated the existence of a 9-D substance, called the "deltron",
which does not suffer the singularity at a velocity equal to c.
The deltron particles can interact with etheric particles traveling
at v > c and also interact with physical particles traveling at
v &1t; c and can thus bring about energy exchange between them.
Increasing the focus of human intention from the 10-D level increases
the deltron content at the 9-D level and thus the coupling between
physical and etheric substances at the 8-D level."
Look. I didn't say I'm sure it is superluminal. Still thinking about
it and all the counterarguments.
>
> > In pranic healing, we
> > can treat the patient even if he is half the world away.
> > You know what this means. This means this etheric thing can
> > only become located in space with the intervension of
> > consciousness.
>
> Do you have proof of this assertion?
Ah. I'm sure about it having dealt about this for so long. Just still
thinking how to prove it solidly to you guys (or even if its needed
making my chance of Randi's million smaller since some of you may beat
me to it if I can prove it solidly now).
>
> > Without consciousness. It is in an unmanifested
> > form and doesn't have physical location. Our consciousness
> > can create some kind of collapse of the etheric wave function.
>
> What, mathematically, is the etheric wave function?
Let's say Bohm implicate order function in a holographic manner with
interference patterns that you can objectify with the intervension of
consciousness. I got this idea from the book "The Holographic
Universe".
I don't know how to write mathematical equations for it. Ask the
geniuses like Uncle Al.
>
> > Gets? This is why when I say it switches from etheric to
> > non-etheric in mid-air. It simply changes in dimension
> > and focus without actual physical changes in space.
>
> Then you don't understand the meaning of the word dimension.
I'm referring to the modified meaning of "dimension" as stated in
more advance version of M-theory. The brane mediated dimension pathway.
>
> > Pranic
> > healers are familiar with this as they can scanned and treated
> > patients without their physical presence. Right now. All
> > this sound so bizarre. Here's the list of pranic healing
> > branches if you or someone would like to scrutinize with
> > the intent to debunk them. Do so all means you can for
> > pranic healers are not hiding anything for business hoax
> > or anything so they are open to full Randi category of
> > scrutiny.
>
> If they can heal illness over great distances, what is the point of
me
> going to the centre when they could just heal me here at home?
There is some 30% lost of accuracy in projecting qi at a distance
and scanning because concentration has to be perfect or any thought
waves in the surrounding can distort it. In college, I have a classmate
who is clairvoyant. He has difficulty reading my projected etheric
alphabeths in the fastfood restaurant but not when alone at room. I
can project qi from my head and form alphabeths out of it and he
can see the "A", "U", etc. shapes forming. Accuracy of this is
much diminished in crowds or at a distance.
>
> I don't think it is at all appropriate to consider this in the 10th
> superstring dimension. First and foremost because superstring theory
> has no empirical evidence supporting it, nor is it complete.
That's right. Tiller 10th dimension hypothesis is not about
superstrings.
He just used the same dimensional model in a modified M-theory sort of
way. I'm still thinking if it's close to the real physics of qi.
> Then it is misleading for you to be using words like "energy" or
> "dimension" to describe things that they aren't meant to describe.
What words would I use then. Some say western physics is developed to
hide or suppress the existence of other realities. If some elements
of the secret societies are involved and they are successful in that
even the english terms are controlled by our incomplete physical
based physics. Then I wonder if resistance is futile or even if they
have a point. If the secret societies (should they be responsible
for the foundation of our science that suppresses all this possibility)
can convince me why humanity is not ready for all this. Then I'd work
for them and spread the lie that there is no qi and all people who
work with qi is deceived. If any member here is affiliated with those
brotherhood of adepts working to protect the true physics. Just email
me and I'd listen.
> I don't see the distinction. Many religions believe in sorcery of
> various forms, and other paranormal activity. Many deal with
mechanisms
> and details. The common thread is that all are a belief structure
based
> primarily on faith and not on reason.
This is the reason I wanted to know the physics of qi to move it from
just belief into actual scientific usage should humanity be ready for
the next level in physics.
> > Non-physical field of information. Let us extend the definition
> > of field to describe non-physical reality too. Or maybe we
> > should not use physics term to avoid confusion?
>
> It doesn't make sense to call something a field if it isn't a field.
I know but can't resist. what's a good substitute word assuming qi
exist?
>
> If there were evidence for a 5th force, then there would, obviously,
be
> things that would move in ways that we cannot explain by the four
> fundamental forces. Forces are tied exclusively to motion, and if Qi
> can't move anything physical, then there is no reason to assume there
> is a force associated with it.
How can you use Standard Model to explain that all elements have their
unique energy signatures that can move in between sealed glasses and
which our mind can interact. See www.naet.com which we were able to
confirm has effect on allergy patients. Another possibility is if we
simply have an incomplete understanding of electromagnetic as suggested
by Bearden who used the concept of scalar wave to explain qi, etheric
body and all. Different scientists who research qi have different
theories. Only one is right of course (or a combination of their
hypotheses). Tiller said Qi is subtle energy from the vacuum.
Bearden said it is scalar electromagnetics. Thomson said qi is
flowing aether units. Gosh. So many hypotheses. At least they suggest
them to be disproven or proven by experiments. You'd say they based
it on incorrect standard of Standard Model. That is why, mainstream
scientists can easily solve qi physics if they would attempt it.
Unfortunately. They look up haughtily thinking qi is just an illusion.
They are wrong and the future would prove this statement.
> > Every principle in science begins with a step. You have Planck
> > quanta experiment, etc. before arriving at full fledge Quantum
> > Mechanics. Likewise, you have Tiller intention experiment
> > (he mentions a lot of circuits in his book where your mind
> > can be made to influence the output) before arriving at full
> > fledge Qi Physics that can be part of school textbooks in
> > the future generations of children.
>
> I'm not familiar with this experiment, but I have access to some
> abstract services. I don't suppose you know the journal he published
in
> so I can look it up?
All the scientific journals filter what is publish. If they have
something that divert from the Standard Model. They reject it. This
is good as crankpots lurk everywhere.. but once in a while. A real
one exist that can put humanity one step higher, etc.
> QM is very objective. It predicts *extremely* accurately in virtually
> test that we have found for it. Statistics are part of it, true, but
> that doesn't seem to be much of a problem so far.
One thing that bugs me about QM is this. They rejected the orbital
model because moving charges can emit energy and lost it. But electrons
are stable. How do they move then literally and say bind H20. I mean,
I'd like to imagine how the combined electrons in H20 look like in
real time. One would say. It's not possible because their movement
is only ruled by statistic and Heidenberg Uncertainty Principle say
you can't view them. But supposed we look at the electrons movement
using a probe that can't interact with them hypothetically speaking.
How do the electrons actualy move around the nucleus in real time
when atoms of different elements bind?
> > It's possible those into psychic stuff are walking spiritual
> > path so they don't mind about money, so not interested in Randi.
>
> It is unlikely that ALL psychics have no interest in money.
Or maybe they are stupid or not ambitious enough. Almost all pranic
healers I know are contented with healing. They seem not to be
interested in Randi's million. Some are certain it's a joke of
some kind.
> > I'm none of the above so I may succeed in getting the money.
> > Only problem now is I have to bribe immigration officials to
> > make me travel to US by giving them let's say $30,000. I
> > have to spend another $30,000 to stay in the US with a couple
> > of claivoyants well trained in perceiving stuff.
>
> I believe Bjoern indicated somewhere closer that you could go in
> another thread.
No. There is no group in the PHils affiliated with James Randi.
>
> If anyone can do it, why hasn't someone gone to Randi? You don't
think
> some nutjob in the US wouldn't take the book, learn how to control
his
> Qi, then go to Randi just for the million bucks?
Because there are tons of other silly new age books that may cover it
so most nutjobs are already stopped by fake books that don't offer
much.
So it's like the participants of pranic healing are filtered and they
are mostly in the spiritual path who don't care about money. This is
why
I don't post in new age groups because silly people there may beat me
to it if they really tried. I post here with most treating me as
nutcase
and it's good to protect my chance of RAndi's million. So I'm a bit
happy when people laugh off at it as nonsense, etc.
> 6 or 7 of those dimensions are too "small" to have any direct effect
on
> macroscopic events. I don't know string theory well enough to tell
you
> exactly what that means.
I just explained above that M-Theory can have those dimensions large
enough as explained in Brian Greene book and gravity be trapped in
a brane too. Other reality is using this model except there is no
strings, just like Tiller. Get it?
> > You can control spacetime itself like what masters or saints
> > were able to do. I have no physical proof so can't prove this
> > to you except to say let's just be open minded and keep
> > discernment.
>
> If you keep your mind too open, everything falls out.
Gee. I actually thought you'd say that when I wrote the paragraph,
hehe.
If you keep it too close, it won't be able to breath and suffocate.
> There are already creatures on Earth that can walk on water. What are
> deltrons?
Explained earlier in the message with the quote from Tiller.
> If spacetime is a subset of consciousness, that necessarily implies
> that spacetime cannot exist without consciousness. But humans are the
> (or one of the) subset(s) of spacetime that contain consciousness.
This
> presents a paradox because a set cannot be an element of itself.
That's why there are higher consciousness and this is what holds
reality
in place.
> > Since we are dealing not with baryonic matter and not
> > electromagnetic, gravitational and obviously not the
> > weak and strong forces. Of course physical evidence is
> > difficult because it is not physical in the first place! :)
>
> Then I don't see any point in considering the physics of it.
>
> A.
>
> > Qion
Or maybe the paraphysics of it where we can have our own parafield,
paraenergy, paradimenions, etc.
Qion
- Next message: Jesse Mazer: "Re: Time Dilation Model, NO ONE can point out what's wrong"
- Previous message: John O'Flaherty: "Re: Power Surges"
- Maybe in reply to: Qion: "Re: Magnetic Monopoles Found? Dual-Slit Expe Explained?"
- Next in thread: Qion: "Re: Magnetic Monopoles Found? Dual-Slit Expe Explained?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
