Yup, to be able to be that fast, you need to rethink your ownership concept. Your "God's will will be done" means that, but you haven't made it your own yet. I'll pray for you to get this paradigm shift done in 2012!
And OK, we have a date for March 3, 2013 here on "Minds Eye" to check if my connection to God holds true. On 12 Mai, 13:55, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > On 11 May, 23:50, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > That's the problem with ideas: they can be stolen. Whereas knowledge > > can be shared. I'm glad I don't have to fight with your demons and > > don't have to wait for some external paradigm shift to communicate > > with people in time. > > Oh, but you do. In fact, that conversation you'll have on March 3, > 2013 (after the paradigm shift!)...you'll have to wait for that. ;-) > But you're right, I bet you ARE glad you don't have to fight the same > demons I do. You have your own. > > > On 11 Mai, 16:47, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 11 May, 13:29, DarkwaterBlight <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > "I'm still hoping to have it > > > > published in Dec. 2012 in order to take advantage of the expected > > > > 'paradigm shift' in how we view the universe."-Pat > > > > > Well I hope you have it published on the first of the month, I would > > > > like to have a week to read it and the remaining five days to > > > > medidtate on the concepts. LOL! > > > > Nope! The idea is to publish it ON 21-Dec-2012, in order to disprove > > > that silly 'end-of-the-world' scenario that people think would occur > > > at the end of the Mayan Long Calendar. I strongly suspect that any > > > Mayan would laugh at such a thought and remind us that worrying about > > > the end of that calendar system is much like thinking that December > > > 31st of ANY year would be the end of the world; rather, the calendar > > > system starts again at January 1st. The OTHER school of thought is > > > that THAT day will mark the beginning of a paradigm shift that will > > > make us re-think how we view the world...and THAT I want to be my > > > book. > > > > On another note, this afternoon, I finally sorted out one of the big > > > problems that comes with depending on the 26-D string theory-- > > > tachyons. Today, I finally figured out how to solve for tachyons and > > > explain why we don't see them, why we won't see them and how that > > > relates to the Higgs boson and why we don't see them/it either. But, > > > I can't give too much away on this public forum without copyrighting > > > what I write, as this idea would be stolen VERY quickly. > > > Nevertheless, I have come up with a solution and it explains perfectly > > > that tachyons WERE produced; but they've already done their job. Any > > > more information and I let the cat out of the bag. Sorry! > > > > > On May 11, 7:19 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On 11 May, 02:04, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > I would have to agree archy that your illusion of a "perfectly" > > > > > > connected machine is premature at best, there are just too many > > > > > > unanswered variables concerning quantum mesh theories. I know you > > > > > > have > > > > > > connected some serious dots but when I see your surname amidst the > > > > > > list of notable physicists a change in perception may be in order, > > > > > > in > > > > > > other words, how is the book coming along? > > > > > > Yeah, not badly. I just need to put all the data into a logically > > > > > flowing format that nicely leads from one topic to the next. Plus, > > > > > carefully word things so as to avoid fatwas. This latter bit is what > > > > > I'm researching now. It seems that Islam forbids the discussion of > > > > > God's 'essence' (based on an hadith rather than any quote from the > > > > > Qur'an) and, as that is exactly what I do, I need to word my arguments > > > > > carefully by qualifications. I think the key point is that, whilst I > > > > > equate God's essence with energy, physics/science doesn't have a > > > > > 'clear' idea of what energy looks like and THAT'S my way out. > > > > > Certainly, potential energy has no appearance (just lift a pencil and > > > > > note the changes in the appearance of the pencil) and there are so > > > > > many forms of kinetic energy (and with that, I include thermal, > > > > > gravitational, sound, elastic and everything that isn't 'potential') > > > > > that it seems to have no 'single apearance' at the quantum level; so, > > > > > there's my way out THERE. My reliance on the original 26-dimensional > > > > > string theory also allows me to discuss energy in terms of 'forces' > > > > > and these forces seem to have no real appearance either. And, of > > > > > course, there's the plain fact that, if you ask a string theorist, > > > > > "what, exactly, does a string look like?" the response would be..."I > > > > > dunno. We can't see them." So, by pointing all that out, I should be > > > > > fairly safe. Although, I KNOW there's no way to please everybody, at > > > > > least I can put the concept out there. I'm still hoping to have it > > > > > published in Dec. 2012 in order to take advantage of the expected > > > > > 'paradigm shift' in how we view the universe. > > > > > > > On May 10, 8:03 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 9 May, 00:31, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Entanglement is the idea that particles can be linked in such a > > > > > > > > way > > > > > > > > that changing the quantum state of one instantaneously affects > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > other, even if they are light years apart. I'm always > > > > > > > > interested in > > > > > > > > "spooky action at a distance", or any serious blow to our > > > > > > > > conception > > > > > > > > of how the world works. In 1964, physicist John Bell calculated > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > mathematical inequality that encapsulated the maximum > > > > > > > > correlation > > > > > > > > between the states of remote particles in experiments in which > > > > > > > > three > > > > > > > > "reasonable" conditions hold: that experimenters have free will > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > setting things up as they want; that the particle properties > > > > > > > > being > > > > > > > > measured are real and pre-existing, not just popping up at the > > > > > > > > time of > > > > > > > > measurement; and that no influence travels faster than the > > > > > > > > speed of > > > > > > > > light, the cosmic speed limit. Many experiments since have > > > > > > > > shown that > > > > > > > > quantum mechanics regularly violates Bell's inequality, yielding > > > > > > > > levels of correlation way above those possible if his > > > > > > > > conditions hold. > > > > > > > > That pitches us into a philosophical dilemma. Do we not have > > > > > > > > free > > > > > > > > will, meaning something, somehow predetermines what > > > > > > > > measurements we > > > > > > > > take? That is not anyone's first choice. Are the properties of > > > > > > > > quantum > > > > > > > > particles not real - implying that nothing is real at all, but > > > > > > > > exists > > > > > > > > merely as a result of our perception? That's a more popular > > > > > > > > position, > > > > > > > > but it hardly leaves us any the wiser. Or is there really an > > > > > > > > influence that travels faster than light? In 2008 physicist > > > > > > > > Nicolas > > > > > > > > Gisin and his colleagues at the University of Geneva showed > > > > > > > > that, if > > > > > > > > reality and free will hold, the speed of transfer of quantum > > > > > > > > states > > > > > > > > between entangled photons held in two villages 18 kilometres > > > > > > > > apart was > > > > > > > > somewhere above 10 million times the speed of light (Nature, > > > > > > > > vol 454, > > > > > > > > p 861). > > > > > > > > This is not the science that lets us build stuff, but I do feel > > > > > > > > some > > > > > > > > kind of buzz about not being quite so trapped by the rather > > > > > > > > crude > > > > > > > > inevitability of being stuck with the limitations of the speed > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > light. > > > > > > > > Isn't it far simpler to just accept that the two photons are tied > > > > > > > together in a dimension outside our line of sight? That's my > > > > > > > proposal > > > > > > > via string theory and, if true, makes the speed actually > > > > > > > instantaneous > > > > > > > rather thna some multiple of C that, for all intents and purposes > > > > > > > SEEMS instantaneous. In fact, as you know, I propose that ALL > > > > > > > quanta > > > > > > > are constantly entangled and, whilst we only see entanglement > > > > > > > when we > > > > > > > isolate specific quanta, entanglement is the natural state of all > > > > > > > quanta and is what ties all the universe into one completely > > > > > > > interactive and interdependent 'thing'. It seems that science > > > > > > > keeps > > > > > > > trying to contrive around entanglement when, in my opinion, it > > > > > > > should > > > > > > > accept that it is the natural and normal state of affairs and > > > > > > > that the > > > > > > > state of entanglement is a constant feature of quanta--the one > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > joins them into one perfectly connected machine.- Hide quoted > > > > > > > text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -
