We are slaves to our minds. Nature of the soul.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-08-2012, 10:22 AM
RE: We are slaves to our minds. Nature of the soul.
(16-08-2012 08:22 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  String theory prolly never was a theory... http://blog.vixra.org/2012/08/13/susy-2012/... the latest data indicates SUSY is "still hiding."

And I'm with Chas - what is a "qualitatively adjacent particle?"

And as for "magic number 7," no. Tongue
I'll be gone for a day or so, going to the capital city to do something for my future.

Meanwhile, a qualitatively adjacent particle or matter, that's a reference to Theosophic model, where matter is arranged on a "ladder" according to its dimension and subtlety (levels and sub-levels).
Let's compare our matter to dark matter - or dark matter compared to something even more out there. (which I heard hypothetically defined as axions)

Dark matter represents a close equivalent of our matter, it's just perceived as "subtle". Despite of its greater mass per particle or atom (or perhaps because of that), the atomic bonds form on greater distances, so the density of objects of equivalent size is lesser.
Obviously, a different or larger atomic bonds won't easily overlap or bond with our densely arranged matter, the interaction will be weak at best. Hence, weakly interacting massive particles.
I think this relationship is called supersymmetry.

As for the fringe science, I've posted about Dr Harry Oldfield before and also about Orgonomy and its measurable effects. Effects on properties of water, plants, people, temperature, weather, vacuum tubes and neutron detectors and who knows what else.
There also seems to be evidence that the etheric substance is cosmic in origin and equivalent to the dark matter.

If you claim there are nuances to principles, there are no nuances to getting arrested or shot for disobeying the power.
The Venus Project
FreeDomain Radio - The greatest philosophy show on the web!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2012, 10:43 AM
RE: We are slaves to our minds. Nature of the soul.
Good luck Lumi. Thumbsup

I checked out Orgonomy when you first posted of it; seems to me like unsubstantiated woo. I think "dark matter" is merely antimatter aggregate, and that simultaneity eliminates the need for aether.

But then again, there's a doorway for woo through simultaneity... more research needed. Big Grin

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2012, 12:19 PM
We are slaves to our minds. Nature of the soul.
(16-08-2012 08:22 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  And I'm with Chas -

Had anyone noticed any other rips in the fabric of space-time?

"All that is necessary for the triumph of Calvinism is that good Atheists do nothing." ~Eric Oh My
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2012, 05:12 PM
RE: We are slaves to our minds. Nature of the soul.
(16-08-2012 12:19 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  
(16-08-2012 08:22 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  And I'm with Chas -

Had anyone noticed any other rips in the fabric of space-time?

Shut it, choirboy.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
18-08-2012, 06:16 AM
RE: We are slaves to our minds. Nature of the soul.
(16-08-2012 10:43 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Good luck Lumi. Thumbsup

I checked out Orgonomy when you first posted of it; seems to me like unsubstantiated woo.
There you have it, the uncertainity principle and observer influencing the observed object. Smile To me for example it seems like pretty solid hands-on repeated experiments and technologies, albeit ignored by journals for some reasons. These people seem to be technical enthusiasts who don't understand much the backstage dances of journal politics.
Just remember how Edison stole what he could of Tesla's inventions (just like everyone else around that time) and sabotaged the rest with slander. He wasn't an inventor, he was a CEO.

(16-08-2012 10:43 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  I think "dark matter" is merely antimatter aggregate, and that simultaneity eliminates the need for aether.

But then again, there's a doorway for woo through simultaneity... more research needed. Big Grin
The need for aether is there, because Michelson-Morley experiment was flawed. Looks like the negative aether result was caused by phase-locking the beam with the mirrors. The experiments of Sagnac, Silvertooth and this Dayton up there were positive for a theory of aether partially dragged by Earth.

So there is some stuff out there. I'd say it is not antimatter as we know it, because antimatter is unstable and we know that in early moments of the universe antimatter was produced on much lesser rate than the solid matter, due to some imbalance in fluctuation or something. So there's no justification to presume large antimatter deposits somewhere out there. OTOH, antimatter might be an anomalous subset of dark matter, which is an umbrella term for various material states, from cosmic rays to galactic halo or relatively solid planetary dark biospheres or even maybe whole dark matter planets and suns. Remember, there is an overwhelming majority of dark matter and I really doubt that it's all just freely floating elementary particles, or that only our matter can form all this variety of physics and chemistry. Wouldn't that be conceited? Wink

As for simultaneity, I have no idea what is it about, just like dark energy. I'd say the etheric world is actually a much less exotic concept than that. Scientists who threw aether out of window had to drag it back inside under the new name of dark matter or the world would stop making sense. Then some scientists here on Earth discovered that it plays a role in our biology and biosphere (not in carrying the light as previously thought). And some people like me are sensitive enough to feel it or in rare cases to see it. That's because in complex living organisms it's most organized and interacting, unlike the inert space stuff our there. Such is my opinion and experience.

If you claim there are nuances to principles, there are no nuances to getting arrested or shot for disobeying the power.
The Venus Project
FreeDomain Radio - The greatest philosophy show on the web!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2012, 06:47 AM
RE: We are slaves to our minds. Nature of the soul.
(18-08-2012 06:16 AM)Luminon Wrote:  He wasn't an inventor, he was a CEO.

He was an inventor and a CEO.

Quote:The need for aether is there, because Michelson-Morley experiment was flawed. Looks like the negative aether result was caused by phase-locking the beam with the mirrors. The experiments of Sagnac, Silvertooth and this Dayton up there were positive for a theory of aether partially dragged by Earth.

No, the drag is fully explained by relativity - frame dragging.

Quote:So there is some stuff out there. I'd say it is not antimatter as we know it, because antimatter is unstable and we know that in early moments of the universe antimatter was produced on much lesser rate than the solid matter, due to some imbalance in fluctuation or something.

Anti-matter is not 'unstable'. There only had to be a difference of 1 part in a billion difference in the creation of matter vs. anti-matter to result in a matter universe. Or anti-matter universe, no difference.

Quote:Scientists who threw aether out of window had to drag it back inside under the new name of dark matter or the world would stop making sense.

That is a profound conflation of two entirely different concepts.

Quote:Then some scientists here on Earth discovered that it plays a role in our biology and biosphere (not in carrying the light as previously thought). And some people like me are sensitive enough to feel it or in rare cases to see it. That's because in complex living organisms it's most organized and interacting, unlike the inert space stuff our there. Such is my opinion and experience.

What scientists?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2012, 12:58 PM
RE: We are slaves to our minds. Nature of the soul.
(18-08-2012 06:47 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, the drag is fully explained by relativity - frame dragging.
Damn, now I've got another homework to do, what exactly is frame dragging and if orgonomists did or didn't count with that. That's gonna take some time.

(18-08-2012 06:47 AM)Chas Wrote:  Anti-matter is not 'unstable'. There only had to be a difference of 1 part in a billion difference in the creation of matter vs. anti-matter to result in a matter universe. Or anti-matter universe, no difference.
Well, I thought if I should make it more precise, that antimatter is stable, but in a universe full of normal matter dust it doesn't count for much. But no, I thought, that would be nitpicking Smile

(18-08-2012 06:47 AM)Chas Wrote:  What scientists?
Maybe you already know, the holy trinity of Wilhelm Reich, James DeMeo and Miroslav Provod. Plus a different kind of research, doctor Harry Oldfield.

If you claim there are nuances to principles, there are no nuances to getting arrested or shot for disobeying the power.
The Venus Project
FreeDomain Radio - The greatest philosophy show on the web!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2012, 01:13 PM
RE: We are slaves to our minds. Nature of the soul.
(20-08-2012 12:58 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(18-08-2012 06:47 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, the drag is fully explained by relativity - frame dragging.
Damn, now I've got another homework to do, what exactly is frame dragging and if orgonomists did or didn't count with that. That's gonna take some time.

(18-08-2012 06:47 AM)Chas Wrote:  Anti-matter is not 'unstable'. There only had to be a difference of 1 part in a billion difference in the creation of matter vs. anti-matter to result in a matter universe. Or anti-matter universe, no difference.
Well, I thought if I should make it more precise, that antimatter is stable, but in a universe full of normal matter dust it doesn't count for much. But no, I thought, that would be nitpicking Smile

(18-08-2012 06:47 AM)Chas Wrote:  What scientists?
Maybe you already know, the holy trinity of Wilhelm Reich, James DeMeo and Miroslav Provod. Plus a different kind of research, doctor Harry Oldfield.

Which part of 'scientist' don't you understand?Smartass

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
23-08-2012, 01:43 PM
RE: We are slaves to our minds. Nature of the soul.
(20-08-2012 01:13 PM)Chas Wrote:  Which part of 'scientist' don't you understand?Smartass
They aren't true scientists? Well, they aren't true Scotsmen either. Except maybe doctor Oldfield, he's got a name for that Wink

If you claim there are nuances to principles, there are no nuances to getting arrested or shot for disobeying the power.
The Venus Project
FreeDomain Radio - The greatest philosophy show on the web!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2012, 01:49 PM
RE: We are slaves to our minds. Nature of the soul.
Well, in general, I'm anti-woo, but specifically, Lumi, you go! Big Grin

Cannot prove me wrong, cause Imma love my Gwynnies regardless. I don't see duality, I don't see a soul; I see mathematics. And we all know math ain't for everyone.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: