43 replies to this topic

[TabbyBoy]

Does anyone besides myself ever consider that mass is NOT the cause of the force with the invented name, "gravity?"  Matter or mass has now come to point in arguments of particle or wave.  I would put the argument between chunk and whorl.    In my seeing, it's never been a chunk.  It's always been a whorl.  The whorls, though immaterial, take on structure via laminar flow.  The structures of whirling flows are reciprocally involved with electric charge, which most of the time, prevents them from occupying the same space at the same time, i.e., force at distance.  Materialist science, after Isaac Newton, in its particular thinking, has most often only seen the chunks as real.   That the chunks could be non-material cannot have a place in the thinking.  They can't measure that which is materially nothingness.   Yet, at the top end of quantum research, there is seen that in a vacuum at zero degrees Kelvin, there is energy, perhaps a lot of it.  

 

But Newton gave us a formula for computing a mono-polar force in every imagined chunk of matter, and science believes in this to such a degree that it imagines infinite mass exploding into a universe.   As Terence McKenna has said of this:  "Science says, 'allow us just this one miracle, and we'll fill in the rest'."

They say its caused by a quantum fluctuation. but that just explains what happened AFTER the universe was brought to an unstable zero point zero form. What could have brought it there?

[Coopdog]

Gravity in itself is a conundrum. I have witnessed and participated in moving mass with Chi, or the subtle energy that flows through us and around us. Is that any different than gravity? I spent a good amount of time playing with Psi-wheels, and learned to manipulate them very well. I have even been able to do this under a glass jar so no air movement could have occurred, moving them first one direction, stopping them instantly and reversing that flow of energy. I did this with my hands as far as three feet from the jar.

 

I have not been able to duplicate this in front of people who doubt it, and I think it simply interferes with my comfort and belief system becomes too self conscious, and frankly I don't care if anyone believes it or not, as it has happened, not once but many times with my wife as my only witness. Alcohol was also involved with those impromptu "Prove it" sessions, and my teacher always told me to never combine the two. I have seen a man move a pencil with his chi, and seen candles extinguished across a room with chi, and I KNOW it is a real and learnable force of our conscious intent. I have witnessed 'mindsight" demostrated in a way that was quite impossible to fake. These things exist and are as close to real magic and "the force" as you can get short of television. That brings me back to energy being conscious, and I firmly believe it is. How else to explain non-local entanglement, and psychic knowledge or remote viewing? The energy carries information to and from us and is part of a universal field. 

 

I don't believe the universe ever was in a zero point non motion state. It has always been in motion and growing exponentially (In my humble opinion of course) Like our magnetic poles reversing, it might... just... turn back on itself from time to time, and if it did, there might have been a teeny tiny moment where it all stopped... then started up again in the opposite direction, if that makes any sense. 

 

EDIT: Very interesting discussion! LOVE IT

Edited by Coopdog, 15 March 2019 - 01:47 AM.

[Coopdog]

Things like this are why I come back to topia every single day. Every now and then you just get lucky and stumble into things like this discussion. :)

[vork21]

I'm curious to see what a fish would have to say about being wet. 

 

[swayambhu]

I tried to read the book "a universe from nothing". I didn't particularly like the writing, but the fact that the book was prefaced by a lengthy caveat explaining that "nothing" was not going to be used in the sense of "nothing" as I and the vast majority of people understand it is what made me put the book permanently aside.

[Alder Logs]

I have this copy of this book that came close to my way of thinking of things, physical and energetic. 

 

 

[Jawn]

The current pop science understanding of the nature of "creation" is flawed.
I prefer to start with the suggestion that "nothing doesn't exist"
That is true in its primary sense, but also in the more nuanced sense of nothingness being an essentially untrue proposition. We know that existence "is", by the fact that we "are".
Nonexistence on the other hand is purely an abstraction stemming from archaic fears of paucity which can be explained as evolutionary in nature.
So, nothing doesn't exist. Isness is all there is, as is confirmed by your own Isness and the observation (albeit perhaps subjective) that Isness continues after the demise of other individuals.
There is another question of the appearance of nothingness, which is essentially a state of near absolute stasis. However the basic inherent tension between true stasis and antistasis cannot support an enduring state of apparent non being, though such a state can endure for many aeons.

Everything you know of as space and nothingness exists, and is something. Even empty space is something. That space is expanding, meaning our known universe is expanding. Outside of /that/ is nothing. Nothing exists, and it's outside of space. What that means is an entirely different question.

If you really want to blow your mind, look into the collapse of the wave function upon measurement. 

Singular light photons shot at the two-slit experiment produces waves of interference, meaning the individual photon exists superimposed between both slits, and interferes with itself as they travel through two slits simultaneously. Upon measuring which slit they go through, the wavefunction collapses and the photon travels through one slit. 

Even more ridiculous is that even if they are measured AFTER they have already either gone through both slits or collapsed to one, the result is the same, meaning a measurement of a previous occurrence changes it.

Quantum mechanics holds the answer to everything, I believe.
 

Edited by Jawn, 08 April 2019 - 05:41 PM.

[Jawn]

Gravity in itself is a conundrum. I have witnessed and participated in moving mass with Chi, or the subtle energy that flows through us and around us. Is that any different than gravity? I spent a good amount of time playing with Psi-wheels, and learned to manipulate them very well. I have even been able to do this under a glass jar so no air movement could have occurred, moving them first one direction, stopping them instantly and reversing that flow of energy. I did this with my hands as far as three feet from the jar.

 

I have not been able to duplicate this in front of people who doubt it, and I think it simply interferes with my comfort and belief system becomes too self conscious, and frankly I don't care if anyone believes it or not, as it has happened, not once but many times with my wife as my only witness. Alcohol was also involved with those impromptu "Prove it" sessions, and my teacher always told me to never combine the two. I have seen a man move a pencil with his chi, and seen candles extinguished across a room with chi, and I KNOW it is a real and learnable force of our conscious intent. I have witnessed 'mindsight" demostrated in a way that was quite impossible to fake. These things exist and are as close to real magic and "the force" as you can get short of television. That brings me back to energy being conscious, and I firmly believe it is. How else to explain non-local entanglement, and psychic knowledge or remote viewing? The energy carries information to and from us and is part of a universal field. 

 

I don't believe the universe ever was in a zero point non motion state. It has always been in motion and growing exponentially (In my humble opinion of course) Like our magnetic poles reversing, it might... just... turn back on itself from time to time, and if it did, there might have been a teeny tiny moment where it all stopped... then started up again in the opposite direction, if that makes any sense. 

 

EDIT: Very interesting discussion! LOVE IT

If you can prove anything that you're saying you do, James Randi will pay you $1,000,000.

No joke.

Somehow, people that can do these things always shrink up faster than an Eskimos scrotum when actual parameters are put in place that prevent fraud.

There is also no such thing as there being a zero motion state, because motion in itself is a measurement relative to the observer and doesn't exist in absolute terms.

I appreciate your feelings about observations not necessarily being business as usual. I have a similar pit-of-the-stomach feeling about how, regardless of how long the current theories hold up as applicable, there's no understanding as to what causes or created the laws/theories themselves or what they depend on, and nothing says they won't arbitrarily change tomorrow just because they didn't for the past 4 billion yesterdays. 

These discussions are always fun because they stretch our understandings of the world around us in a way that's not normally necessary in day to day life, much like the creativity we get while tripping. Apart from partaking in entheogens, I don't know a better way to trip balls than by learning physics.

Edited by Jawn, 08 April 2019 - 04:17 PM.

[swayambhu]

Everything you know of as space and nothingness exists, and is something. Even empty space is something. That space is expanding, meaning our known universe is expanding. Outside of /that/ is nothing. Nothing exists, and it's outside of space. What that means is an entirely different question.

I find this theory bizarre.
You have an expanding universe, fine, but why would you imagine that there is nothing outside of it?
I'm sure every time I fart, the miniscule civilizations that arise and fall within the gas cloud would exclaim "our universe is expanding!". Luckily for us, sadly for them, the fart soon dissipates into the air, which I find a convincing analogy for what will happen to our "universe" when it's done expanding.

Edited by swayambhu, 09 April 2019 - 01:36 AM.

[TabbyBoy]

 

Everything you know of as space and nothingness exists, and is something. Even empty space is something. That space is expanding, meaning our known universe is expanding. Outside of /that/ is nothing. Nothing exists, and it's outside of space. What that means is an entirely different question.
 

I find this theory bizarre.
You have an expanding universe, fine, but why would you imagine that there is nothing outside of it?
I'm sure every time I fart, the miniscule civilizations that arise and fall within the gas cloud would exclaim "our universe is expanding!". Luckily for us, sadly for them, the fart soon dissipates into the air, which I find a convincing analogy for what will happen to our "universe" when it's done expanding.

 

Wouldn't this refute the idea that our universe is reborn when it dies?

[Jawn]

I find this theory bizarre.
You have an expanding universe, fine, but why would you imagine that there is nothing outside of it? 
I'm sure every time I fart, the miniscule civilizations that arise and fall within the gas cloud would exclaim "our universe is expanding!". Luckily for us, sadly for them, the fart soon dissipates into the air, which I find a convincing analogy for what will happen to our "universe" when it's done expanding.

The prevailing consensus is no longer that the expansion of the universe is slowing down, it's that it is expanding and doing so at an accelerating rate.
https://www.scientif...ws-then-speeds/

I'm not imagining what's outside of our expanding universe, it's the best understanding that humans have based on decades of research and some recent discoveries in quantum physics.
Here is a good article on the subject
http://discovermagaz...y-of-everything







 

[Alder Logs]

We can imagine, of course, that what is taken by the observations of things that appear to be farther away in space having their radiations' frequencies seemingly shifting more toward the red end of the light spectrum might not only be explainable by Doppler, can't we?   Oh, maybe not if we have been educated to believe in only this one possible explanation.  After all, we can't get our degree if we don't learn to answer all the questions as expected.  It can be hard to endure the process without drinking the Kool Aid, so to speak.    It's Doppler, and that's all to be said about it.

 

Hmmmm, you know, I was thinking one day and I thought, "what do we know, and how could we know it, if just the amount of space covered by stellar and galactic radiations could have the affect of a lengthening of wavelengths?"   The more space a radiation covers, the longer its wavelength?  Isn't that a possibility?  I know we don't know, because literally, we would have to go to great lengths in order to know it. 

 

So I guess for this one, the jury must remain out on the perceived red shift being possible only as a result of Doppler Effect.    Prove this guess before you make this picture of a whole universe into some ultimate truth.

Edited by Alder Logs, 09 April 2019 - 10:31 AM.

[Jawn]

We can imagine, of course, that what is taken by the observations of things that appear to be farther away in space having their radiations' frequencies seemingly shifting more toward the red end of the light spectrum might not only be explainable by Doppler, can't we?   Oh, maybe not if we have been educated to believe in only this one possible explanation.  After all, we can't get our degree if we don't learn to answer all the questions as expected.  It can be hard to endure the process without drinking the Kool Aid, so to speak.    It's Doppler, and that's all to be said about it.

 

Hmmmm, you know, I was thinking one day and I thought, "what do we know, and how could we know it, if just the amount of space covered by stellar and galactic radiations could have the affect of a lengthening of wavelengths?"   The more space a radiation covers, the longer its wavelength?  Isn't that a possibility?  I know we don't know, because literally, we would have to go to great lengths in order to know it. 

 

So I guess for this one, the jury must remain out on the perceived red shift being possible only as a result of Doppler Effect.    Prove this guess before you make this picture of a whole universe into some ultimate truth.

Fair point. Thanks for the humility. To anyone that sees me say something about theoretical physics as fact or decided science, please feel free to remind me it's not.

Long time no see, Alder, I always enjoyed your input.

Edited by Jawn, 09 April 2019 - 01:19 PM.

[Alder Logs]

Good to see you too.

 

The two most bothersome assumptions for me in physics and cosmology are that of the expanding universe (and how large are the implications of this one alone[?]) and that of a thought experiment generated thing someone named, "gravity," being inherent as a mono-poled force of all matter, simply by the fact that it is matter (the mathematics generated from this assumption is the mother of such workarounds as black holes, dark matter, and big bangs), and this assumption, then elevated to scientific law.   These assumptions, having been accepted, have probably forced the quantum gang (who in some way, seem to know better) to invent forces where they were not needed (because the gravity stuff, as imagined to operate, would be computationally too weak to serve the image of the microcosm).   If, as I posit, what is called gravity is simply electrostatic attraction/repulsion, we could have a much simpler image of the great What Is, as it manifests as the physical universe, from the macro to the micro. 

 

Thank you Isaac Newton, nice try.  Can we go back four hundred years and start rethinking how things might work, had we not one little assumption?

 

Electric force has no mass, but I would insist it has motion.  How could this be?  Can we create a hard enough vacuum to exclude electric force, or even diminish it?   From where does spontaneous matter appear in the vacuum?  From something with an immeasurable mass?  Very intriguing question, eh? 

[Jawn]

Not a response, but thought this was the appropriate place to share this awesome video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws6AAhTw7RA

Edited by Jawn, 09 April 2019 - 02:42 PM.

[Alder Logs]

That URL had too much going on to embed here.  Here is the video again.  Very cool and interesting.

 

[Direct Link]

[Alder Logs]

I wonder, what is the dry ice cooled hockey puck made of?

[Juthro]

That was a really cool vid Alder.  Have you seen this one?

 

[Direct Link]

[swayambhu]

 

I find this theory bizarre.
You have an expanding universe, fine, but why would you imagine that there is nothing outside of it? 
I'm sure every time I fart, the miniscule civilizations that arise and fall within the gas cloud would exclaim "our universe is expanding!". Luckily for us, sadly for them, the fart soon dissipates into the air, which I find a convincing analogy for what will happen to our "universe" when it's done expanding.

The prevailing consensus is no longer that the expansion of the universe is slowing down, it's that it is expanding and doing so at an accelerating rate.
https://www.scientif...ws-then-speeds/

I'm not imagining what's outside of our expanding universe, it's the best understanding that humans have based on decades of research and some recent discoveries in quantum physics.
Here is a good article on the subject
http://discovermagaz...y-of-everything







 

 

 

Again, fair enough, but I don't see how any of that suggests the validity of "philosophical" nothingness. It's just stuff that we can't see, don't know how to see, can't calculate for, and perhaps never will. I mean there is so much that is unknown.

But anyway, my initial proposition was that I believe it incorrect to necessarily start with a being vs nothingness/not being paradigm. I think it's a mistake, based on hardwired primitive perceptions of the world that long predate philosophy or science.

[swayambhu]

 

 

Everything you know of as space and nothingness exists, and is something. Even empty space is something. That space is expanding, meaning our known universe is expanding. Outside of /that/ is nothing. Nothing exists, and it's outside of space. What that means is an entirely different question.
 

I find this theory bizarre.
You have an expanding universe, fine, but why would you imagine that there is nothing outside of it?
I'm sure every time I fart, the miniscule civilizations that arise and fall within the gas cloud would exclaim "our universe is expanding!". Luckily for us, sadly for them, the fart soon dissipates into the air, which I find a convincing analogy for what will happen to our "universe" when it's done expanding.

 

Wouldn't this refute the idea that our universe is reborn when it dies?

 

 

No, not at all. The proliferation and collapse of our "universe" is on a long cycle, just as identical circumstances or even the same individual particles of matter that manifested as my fart will arise again, maybe not too soon though, but the time is there, and the tendency for this to occur is proven. You might have to wait a billion trillion years. That's a long time to wait for a fart.