On 13 May, 13:47, DarkwaterBlight <[email protected]> wrote: > Ah but will she be having that conversation alone?Or should I say, the > only one having that conversation with self?My research into > collective consciousness suggests that the many minds around the globe > are contemplating the very same things at the same time and are > shaping reality at 10 million times the speed of light!Perhaps you > should push for a closer date?Has this shift already begun?The Mayan's > were an advanced society and wonderful mathmaticians and astrologers > but the date points only to an end of the cycle.What occurs after that > must already be in the constructs of space-time. >
Of course it does. Just like January 1st of 2011 already exists. Their cycle just starts again and repeats. Granted, there was some bloke back there that dicovered the procession of the equinoxes with state-of-the-art Stone Age technology and a VERY clever man he was. But making a calendar system based on it is hardly anything to be frightened about. And the mass-hysteria about 'what will happen at the end of 2012' is just plain silly. On the other note, the 'shift' HAS already begun, because, before my publication, there are several readers here, including yourself, that already know much of the material. And many here have rejected it, as well. After publication, both camps will grow. I just hope they can refrain from fighting about it, as that would defeat the whole purpose. but, I WILL be tugging at some heartstrings that people feel strongly about (like 'free will') and there WILL be opposition. But there was opposition to Copernicus and Galileo, too. The fact that there is opposition does not mean that the opposition is correct. Of course, just because I have a thought doesn't mean IT is correct either. But, my theory does tidy up most of the holes in physics and seems to tie in very well with a monistic system that defines itself as deity. So, it seems to marry science and religion rather well. And, I have a very strong compulsion to ensure that the idea IS presented to the world, irrespective of its falsifiability. That MAY come later. But I refuse to allow a current lack of falsifiability to prevent me from speculating in a way that I think is actually correct. May our respective research collate in a helpful way!! So says me, and this, I pray!! ;-) > On May 13, 8:21 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 13 May, 10:06, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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! > > > Well, pray that the publishers publish it then. The actual 'shift' > > won't occur until several (thousands of) people have read the book and > > comprehended it and changed their way of thinking about the world. > > I'm hoping that it will be promoted as "The most important book > > written in the 21st Century." But, as you say, there's still quite a > > bit of time before then. > > > > And OK, we have a date for March 3, 2013 here on "Minds Eye" to check > > > if my connection to God holds true. > > > I worded myself reasonably carefully. All I predicted was that you > > would have a conversation on that date. I didn't say where or about > > what or with whom. And, if you decide to thwart that by only speaking > > to yourself in your own head, it will be THAT conversation. ;-) > > > > 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 > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
