Your theory of a monistic system is about to marry science and religion??? Science is religion's daughter!!! WTF are you proposing????
On 13 Mai, 15:17, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > Erfahren Sie mehr »
