Stathis, do you have a reasonable opinion about whatever you (and physicists?) call: *"energy"*? (Not how to measure it, not what it does, not the result of 'it', or quantitative relations, or kinds you differentiate, but 'is it a thing'? where it comes from and how? i.e. an i*dentification of the term*, I mean). I could not get a reasonable reply from physicists so far upon many such questions. All 'cop-out' on paraphernalia I want to exclude. (You remember: I have a Ph.D. chem-phys-math and 50 yrs in polymer engineering). Friendly: John Mikes
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 9:31 AM, Pilar Morales <[email protected]>wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 7:42 AM, Stathis Papaioannou > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 2:58 AM, Pilar Morales >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Does Comp address "ego" little or not, or super human powers, or theory >> > brewing? How about miracles, and temporarily apparent, >> > and non-repeatable, break down of laws of physics? >> > >> > For example, in the early 1900s, there was a man walking through the >> woods >> > and found himself staring at someone, just as startled, staring back at >> him, >> > dressed from 1700s; the "portal" vanished after a few minutes. This is >> just >> > one example. My motive for finding a scientific TOE is that I am >> interested >> > in objective and measurable proof that chakras, or some sort of energy >> flows >> > through the body. >> >> Some sort of energy does flow through the body, otherwise it wouldn't >> be able to move. You seem to have an alternative view of "energy". >> >> > Not really alternative, I think *all* is energy. Although I believe that > the physics/math fundamental principles are not truly understood. Faraday > was probably more on-track than Maxwell or Einstein, but he had a pure heart > full of wonder. Hawkin uses his own theory of a big bang to prove we > (he) don't need a god or some sort of cosmic consciousness, when it very > well could be that this energy is but an aspect of this cosmic > consciousness. > It's just that to me, a theory has to account for all phenomena, including > what cannot be measured or repeated. I haven't found anything so far that > can measure or even validate scientifically the exceptions that are usually > avoided by scientists. In the case of chakras, I've found that it is mainly > a personal experience of centers of energy in the body, but there's no way > to talk about them rationally. Brings to mind the movie The Matrix, where > humans were connected to cables throughout the spine, but there was no proof > inside the code to see them. > I wasn't able to read the comp paper, so it's not too easy to *not* fill in > the blanks with my own assumptions. I have observed things that I wish to > have an explanation for, other than my own speculations. And ignoring them > would make me a victim of group thought. > > > >> >> -- >> Stathis Papaioannou >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected]. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. >> >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
