SUB: FIELD UNIVERSE- Model -Cosmology Vedas Interlinks

MAGNETIC MONSTER..NGC 1275.. 230 MLY
Hubble Sees Magnetic Monster in Erupting Galaxy
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/r...s/2008/28/fastfacts

MAGNETIC-MONSTER.
NGC 1275 AT 230 MLY
Constellation: Perseus
Distance: About 230 million light-years (70 Megaparsecs)
Dimensions: 4 arcminutes (260,000 light-years or 78,000 parsecs) across.
Courtesy:HST
Confirrmation-MAGNETIC FIELD LINKS UNIVERSE
Cosmology Vedas Interlinks Magnetic Field Universe-author Vidyardhi Nanduri- Copy Rights
FIELD UNIVERSE- MAGNETIC LINKS ~10^8 LY
The above confirms my approach
PURPOSE OF INTERLINKS:
1. The Science of Philosophy: Divinity, Vedas, Upanishads, Temples & Yoga
2. Philosophy of Science : Plasmas, Electro-magnetic fields and Cosmology
3. Resource : Reflectors,3-Tier Consciousness, Source, Fields and Flows
4. Noble Cause : Human-Being, Environment, Divine Nature and Harmony
CONCENTRATION, MEDITATION AND DEDICATION ARE THE KEYS FOR PROGRESS INDEX-
All Books - CONTACT AUTHOR-
http://www.ebookomatic.com/publish/AuthorLibrary.asp?Aid=241
COSMOLOGY VEDAS-Interlinks-FREE DOWNLOAD : http://www.buymyebook.com/buy/authorinfo.asp?EbookId=1422

Dear Matt C Keener,
SUB: UTTHISTA- UPLINK FLOW OF KNOWLEDGE
According to one's background, one needs to catch-up Cosmic thread. The origins in Vedas provide Flowing Knowledga that interlinks many field .
Naturally many research areas need to grow- This in-adequacy of faculty-is an opportunity for Positive growth provided through
CONCENTRATION, MEDITATION AND DEDICATION ARE THE KEYS FOR PROGRESS INDEX-
All Books - CONTACT AUTHOR-
http://www.ebookomatic.com/publish/AuthorLibrary.asp?Aid=241
COSMOLOGY VEDAS-Interlinks-FREE DOWNLOAD : http://www.buymyebook.com/buy/authorinfo.asp?EbookId=1422
East West Center helps Perception and links -Cosmology World Peace
Vidyardhi Nanduri

Resonance in quantum(physic)

orcach

Edited by author 08-15-2008 10:20 AM
Vidyardhi,

Your work sounds fascinating; and I apologize for not responding sooner. Life has distracted me with complications. I am working very hard to finish a doctoral degree with an approaching deadline; and I do not often check this message board. By the descriptions that you provided, I am interested in learning more. Given other circumstances, I would seek out a book and read more. I cannot do so now. Could you post a better description or discussion of something specific rather than titles or a list of topics? Please choose one of the many topics below that you've mentioned and discuss it.

And you were correct, I could not read or decipher your earlier message. (A very long and broken link to something?)

Matt

p.s. Unfortunately, I do not have the money to upgrade to Quick Topic pro at this time with respect to the company for providing a valuable service. So I also do not have the capability to edit or delete advertisements. Thanks to the "topic administrator" (whomever that is) for doing some of it.

Need new Rip DVD to AVI ?
Rip DVD to AVI
Have a nice surfing！

replica watches
Replica Watches guide
Rolex Replicas,
Replica Watches
Rolex Air King
Rolex DateJust
Rolex Day Date
Rolex Daytona
Rolex Explorer
Rolex GMT
Rolex Milgauss
Rolex Prince
Rolex Sea Dweller
Rolex Submariner
Rolex Yachtmaster

COSMOLOGY DEFINITION:
Cosmology is a borderland between science and Philosophy
Cosmology deals with Multi-Universe concepts and the Universe as part of Cosmos.
Cosmology details Creation, stability and dissolution of the Universe or parts thereof.
Cosmology covers broad Prime drive functions and links :
COSMOLOGY FROM PHILOSOPHY TO VEDAS
1. Cosmology in Vedas 2.Cosmology in Philosophy 3.Science of Philosophy
 4. Basic Philosophy
FROM SCIENCE TO COSMOLOGY
1. Basic Science 2. Philosophy of Science 3.Cosmogony-Astrophysics
4. Cosmology -Present Day under Revision
 NATURE TO COSMIC DIVINE
1.Nature 2.Divine Function in Nature 3. Divine Universe 4.Cosmos Divine
 
Key Words: Cosmology Definition, Cosmology Primer, Cosmology Drive,
Cosmology Science, cosmology Vedas, Cosmology Philosophy, Cosmology Nature,
Cosmic Divine Function, Cosmology interlinks, Cosmology Space Science,
Cosmology Knowledge Base, Knowledge Expansion, creation in the Universe,
Stability of the Universe , Dissolution of the part of the Universe
Ref:COSMIC YOGA VISION SERIES-II: Centre of the Universe
Heart of the Universe-Nov 2006 -Book By Vidyardhi Nanduri
Copy Rights TXU 1-364-245 -
The Science in Philosophy- Pridhvi Viswam Asya Dharineem Cosmos yoga vision series-II-
cover upto 10^5 Light Years —Vidyardhi Nanduri,


Reproduced from : HEART OF THE UNIVERSE by Vidyardhi Nanduri, Nov 2006,[Book}

Unable to read /decipher this message ?
Vidyardhi Nanduri


--- On Fri, 16/5/08, QT@yahoo.com <QT@yahoo.com> wrote:

> From: QT@yahoo.com <QT@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Quantum Resonance Theory
> To: "QT topic subscribers" <qtopic-subs@quicktopic.com>
> Date: Friday, 16 May, 2008, 2:42 PM
< replied-to message removed by QT >

黄色电影A片在线观看a级片免费a级片日本a级片欧美a级片下载欧美a级片迅雷a级片免费下载美国a级片韩国a级片日本a级片迅雷下载日本a级片下载日本a级片视频日本a级片在线</a<a href="http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-w5u6cdc7cqLugWwbt.vM4A?p=18">免费日本a级片日本a级片图片日本a级片在线观看欧美a级片在线观看国外a级片在线观看观看a级片免费欧美a级片欧美a级片迅雷下载欧美a级片视频欧美a级片bt下载欧美a级片在线欧美a级片电影免费观看欧美a片三级片日本三级片免费三级片韩国三级片欧美三级片黄色电影免费黄色电影韩国黄色电影欧美黄色电影大陆三级片港台三级片18电影AV女优变态电影日本av女优电影黄色图片鹿城娱乐图片性交图片鹿城娱乐熟女乱伦娱乐圈乳沟大战免费黄色电影网站幼女性交台湾18电影网性爱A片下载日本黄色小电影成人剧场18岁成人电影免费做爱电影bb成人小电影性爱视频做爱电影下载韩国黄色网站下载明星走光图色魔论坛迷奸电影淫荡少妇明星合成贴图走光摩洛客强暴电影二奶进入词典风骚少妇视频做爱同性恋成人三级电影少妇自拍性高潮性爱电影免费伦理片韩国伦理片激情免费电影性感美女性交视频日本AV女优写真中国性爱城欲女写真兴奋的动作激情女郎性教育电影美女诱惑护士装少妇频露裙下春光欧美一级片一级片免费一级片在线一级片一级片电影特级片<a href="http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-uhpp45U7brUbi6H2Zy0jaQ?p=24">特级片电影<a href="http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-uhpp45U7brUbi6H2Zy0jaQ?p=25">免费特级片下载观看<a href="http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-uhpp45U7brUbi6H2Zy0jaQ?p=26">欧美免费特级片

Sub:COSMOLOGY Search from Center of the Universe- Heart of Universe
COSMOS YOGA VISION DEVELOPMENT SERIES I-IV
I. NEW-BOOK:SEARCH BEYOND DARK MATTER-IMPORTANT NOTES.
VISION DEVELOPMENT SERIES IN PHASES COVER –
COSMOS YOGA SERIES-I 10^3 LY-Tamasoma Jyothirgamyam
BEYOND DARK MATTER BY VIDYARDHI NANDURI TXU 1-282-571
JUNE 2005 Copy rights USA - Contact Author
II.FOR COSMIC VISION: Centre of the Universe
Heart of the Universe-Nov 2006 - By Vidyardhi Nanduri
Copy Rights TXU 1-364-245 -
The Science in Philosophy- Pridhvi Viswam Asya Dharineem
Cosmos yoga vision series-II- cover upto 10^5 Light Years

III.NEW ADDITIONS: COSMOS YOGA VISION SERIES III- ALL PPT PROJECTIONS
COSMOLOGY VEDAS INTERLINKS KNOWLEDGE EXPANSION- OCT 2007
By Vidyardhi Nanduri (US Copyrights Cleared Jan 2008)

IV.HEART OF UNIVERSE TO DYNAMIC FUNCTION -COSMOS YOGA VISION SERIES IV (DEC 2007)-SPACE COSMOLOGY DIGEST- DIALOGUES AND DIRECTION By Vidyardhi Nanduri
   (US Copyrights Cleared Jan 2008)
        
Edit Summary:Cosmology,Cosmogony,Space Science,Philosophy,
consciousness,interlink fields, alternate cosmology, cosmology-vedas, Cosmology Interlinks, Space Exploration, Knowledge Expansion, Centre of the Universe , Vision Models of the Universe , Dynamic Universe
http://www.cosmologytrust.blogspot.com
vidyardhi.sulekha.com
For Copies contact: Vidyanand1941@yahoo.co.in {OR} vinandi41@gmail.com

Alert for all travellers to North America: Abuse of Human Rights and Privacy Violations:

Racially intolerant white canadian cops and security and their henchmen claim to be despots; following parasitically in the footsteps of their american counterparts, and wilfully engage in their racial profiling of non-whites, in racial harassment of non-whites, and in racially dehumanizing attempts to racially harass non-whites through intimidating physically, mentally, and spiritually; portraying their racial hatred of non-whites through causing wilfull and dehumanizing disturbance to non-whites through using illegal wall-see-through technologies and audio-bugs on non-whites' homes; through listening and watching through the walls of non-whites' rented and owned homes, and through their internet and private telephones. The perpetuators of these evil deeds do this from their cars using illegal equipment slyly given to them by the unworthy cops, and then
accelerating their cars loudly and intimidatingly near non-whites' homes and driving intimidatingly in presence of non-whites on streets, making threatening u-turns, driving intimidatingly right up and over sidewalks when a non-white is on the sidewalk, and throwing their ugly bullying weight around, in their shameless acts of cowardice. It is all done slyly, supposedly smartly, however, they cannot fool all the people all the time. The cops also participate themselves to wail their sirens abusively everytime non-whites move and talk inside their rented and owned homes in daily routine living, in addition to having their henchmen, and often, using their non-white gutless henchmen in cars, transport, shopping centers, neighborhoods, etc, to commit these ugly harassing racially profiling
deeds at all times day and night. Using non-whites to engage in racial harassment of other non-whites is an obnoxiously evil sinister humanely disgraceful intelligent move of the whites well-known for their ugly divide and rule tactics through their non-white henchmen.

It's a shameful disgrace when the so called protectors of law turn into abusers of law themselves and throw the weight of their uniforms and law around as cowards. So, they and their henchmen, appear to be very law respecting on the outside; however, they network cowardly to commit sly acts of provocation to non-whites all the time, which is supposed to
be legally acceptable. Is watching through walls of non-whites homes, bugging their homes, working in networking syndicates against them, committing human rights and privacy violations against them, supposedly lawful for the whites? Who makes those laws that favor
only the whites? The law itself has racism in its clauses. The ugly inner dirt of the perpetuators of these evil deeds of racism do not deserve to step into religious institutions for their ugly deeds - such as, if you ain't white, you ain't right? Oh! Really? Nicely dressed, beautiful people, magnificient concrete jungles, clean roads and lawns, sweet polite talkers on the outside, full of ugly stench in their souls, that is the
cause of these racist policies that are outrightly biased against non-whites. What a shame!

Most of these ugly acts of dehumanizing racial profiling depict the cowardice of the doers of these deeds in the real sense, and are done at the behind the scenes insistence of the racially intolerant white cops through their frontline stooges. However, without physical evidence, the white cops, security, societies, and their henchmen are laughing sinisterly
at their heinous deeds and the legal system seems to support this evil through its inability to take action without physical evidence. Their racial profiling penetrates public transport systems, shops and stores to do all they can to make the non-whites feel unwelcome in their dehumanizing acts of racial profiling against non-whites and those who don't conform to their nonsense. The white cops, security, and white communities use their
henchmen who do just as they are told and from behind the safety cushion of their oil-guzzling, pollution creating, often dark-glassed vehicles to intimidate and harass non-whites in obnoxious racial profiling that reflects the immoral, despotic, and cowardly behaviour of racially intolerant white cops, security, communities and their dumb henchmen
who do just as they are told, fuelled as they are in their racial frenzy, thanks to the racially manipulative corporate controlled media.

For more information, visit:

http://www.yourluckytoday.blogspot.com

Volunteers are welcome to circulate this information to all they know to put an end to this abuse and violations of human rights committed by immorally misbehaved white cops, security, white communities, public transports, shops, stores, etc, and their dumb henchmen who do just as they are told in their racial frenzy.

Save this information on your computers before any cowards remove it from the websites.

Racism is immoral and dehumanizing behaviour that reflects the "incapable to perform humanely" quality of those who are racist and are being watched from God's court above in ways they cannot be expected to be capable to perceive yet.

It's a shame when obnoxious stench of racism comes from people in so called rich countries. It's even more of a shame when words are twisted by media to influence young minds with lies. It's even more of a shame when so called authorities perpetuate racism and behave racistly and enforce racist policies and behaviour through intimidating means amidst outer sweet and polite talks. Racism seems to be prominent among so called white people in rich countries who cannot bear non-whites from other countries of origin. Planet Earth belongs to people of Earth. Highly educated people of high intellectual calibres, rich bosses and CEOs, etc, of rich countries are a blotch on humanity and their material levels when they
haven't yet evolved to basic human concepts of all humans have red blood irrespective of race.

Racism stems from social attitudes that are perpetuated by racist societies, the media, the authoritarians, and the peers. It's time to say, shame on all those who perpetuate racism and racist attitudes.

Thank you.

Vidyardhi Nanduri,

Thank you for the information; however, we've already seen the links to your books -- which appear to cost money, so your information does not appear to be free? In any case, some discussion would likely be more appreciated on this discussion space rather than advertisements.

I certainly support your interest in this area. Please provide any insights or questions, and perhaps others could dialogue with you.

To Matt C. Keener,
Sub:Quantum Resonance- Search further- INWARD TUNE-IN
One needs to search further- Electromagnetic frequencies, depth of penetration, Inward resonance, Earth's Schuman resonance and to Cosmos YOGA- This helps Vision development links
. Plasma Vision of the Universe (1993) Copy rights USA 1999- BOOK BY VIDYARDHI NANDURI
A Scientific approach towards Seven Dimensional Model of Plasma Electro-
Magnetic Universe.
Plasma Science: Introduction from Laboratory to Space Plasmas
Present day Universe: overall picture by space Scientists
Electro-Magnetic Fields: Frequencies, effects on Man, Environment
Plasma Vision: New approach to Higher Dimensional Knowledge
Over all View: Plasma Electro-Magnetic Universe and Bio-Energy (AURA)
More information to Scientists, Philosophers and others for comprehension,
Vision and perception of the Universe.
2. Next comes from Bilogical frame to Vortex Tube Structure and interlinks
(see Nallimov-Space Time Energy- Book)
A liittle more in-depth ledas to Cosmology Interlinks..see COSMIC TO PREM UNIVERSE-1996 by Vidyardhi Nanduri
Human Being in search of inward truth - before proposing theories
one needs to search a lot of interlinks.
My books provide many interlinks and Cosmos Yoga Vision seriesI- LEAD KINDLY LIGHT (June 2005),II- HEART OF UNIVERSE( Dec 2006) and III (under final stages of Compilation that include Space data)
This Vision from Heart of the Universe provides new meaning to LIFE,
Earth planet under severe strain or delicate balance and Science to advance with Comprehension of Knowledge.
Please do read :Unity of Consciousness that throws open questions-
Evolution to catch up with creation as well.
Thanks for encouraging the right spirit of discssion.
Vidyardhi Nanduri
ALL BOOKS
http://www.ebookomatic.com/publish/AuthorLibrary.asp?Aid=241
COSMOLOGY VEDAS-PUBLICITY
http://www.buymyebook.com/buy/authorinfo.asp?EbookId=1019
http://cosmologyvedas.blogspot.com/
SPONSORS TO ORGANISE EAST_WEST CENTER FOR
INTERACTION ARE WELCOME TO CONTACT me

Simple Mind, thank you for your interest. I'm not sure how well I can explain a theory that confuses me, but I'll do my best to say something.

An important aspect of the theory, from a human perspective, would be that we have senses relating to our inner and outer worlds ... and that as humans, in general, we appear to be obsessed with our outer senses, while losing touch with our inner senses. And in theory, our outer (empirical) reality is derived from a larger reality (cf. David Bohm's Implicate Order), and our inner senses are there to relationship with the greater Mystery (g~d, etc.). Moral: Listen to your heart because the universe is alive and trying to tell you something. That's a small but important piece. When you apply this to everything else as a theory of everything (or a grand analogy), then it gets much more complicated. I would also recommend reading the introduction:

http://www.xmission.com/~mkeener/essay04.pdf

I hope that helps in some way.

i am not sure how i stumbled onto this message board, but seeing as i have and that all of you have seen fit to wright these very long winded msgs. i think it might be nice if someone would try to in simple words, tell me what the hell you are all talking about? is it good for me? will it bring peace to my mind? do i have to take out a loan on someone eleses mind to get it? god i hope there is a simple way that anyone could understand what your talking about. you all go on and on about this or that and who you have read and who you admire. thats all great but if the goal here is to get people involved and have others want to join in the free-for-all. then you had better tone it down. matt seeing as you are both target and hero i think it is up to you to teach me this thing. all other are welcome as well. thanx S.M.

Hinducosmology in consonance with Modern Science
National Seminar-Tirupatti
Feb 10th-11th 2007
ThemeI:Hinducosmology in consonance with Modern Science
Key Speaker:Vidyardhi Nanduri
Theme II :Temples as a matrix of Indian History and Culture
Key Speaker: M.Radhakrishna Sarma
Joint Organisers:Tirumala Tirupati Devastanams.Tirupati
and
Itihasa Sankalana Samiti(Bharateeya),Andhra Pradesh
.............................................................
HINDU COSMOLOGY IN CONSONANCE WITH MODERN SCIENCE
(THE SCIENCE OF COSMOLOGY AND VEDAS: INTER-LINKS)
VIDYARDHI NANDURI*
ABSTRACT
The Cosmic Puzzle attracts Scientists, Philosophers and all mankind in several disciplines in search of divinity of the Human Being and Nature. The present day cosmology has advanced through Explorers, satellites and Galactic probes. Many Noble Scientists have advanced through these fields of sciences : Astronomy, Astrophysics and Cosmogony to Cosmology, Plasma Physics, Electromagnetic Fields and imaging techniques covering
up to 10^16 Light years (LY). In comparison, the center of Milky-way Galaxy is a spiral within 27,000 LY from Sun. The present day concepts appear to cover the Universe only in parts. Nobel Laureate Alfven (1984,1992) has opened-up a dialogue in search of new
insights through various Philosophies. This search opens up new frontiers in many inter-disciplinary areas of science that help even science to progress.
Vedic knowledge of the cosmic universe inspires many Philosophers of repute and all mankind from a different perspective:
“PURNAM ADAH PURNAM IDAM PURNAT PURNAM UDACHYATE
PURNASYA PURNAM ADHARAYA (ADAYA) PURNAM EVA AVASISHYATE”.
This statement signifies (1) the Cosmic universe is complete energy, (2) out of the northern part emerged a lower Southern Cosmos and (3) the present observational
universe is an envelope emerged out of this southern cosmos. The Milky Way galaxy is
a part of this material cover. The time-phase relation is attributed through “cosmic
junctions” under a cosmic process. The mysterious nature of “cosmos and cosmic function” may become evident if the search is directed to understand the basic attributes of Nature through critical junctions i.e. galactic group junctions, aligned cosmic flow-fields and neutral processes that form the “core cosmic route”. This approach raises few questions:
Is It a Reflecting Cosmos?
Is it a Field Dominant Cosmos?
Is it a Flow Dominant Glowing Universe? Or
All these above in a COSMOS complex?
One needs to search beyond the present domains of knowledge for comprehension and function of the Universe as part of Cosmos. A neutral approach of Data in Nature helps to evolve new models that form interlinks between
(1) the Science of Philosophy and (2) the Philosophy of Science.
1.BACKGROUND.. Sequence of Books
2.PURPOSE OF INTERLINKS:
1. The Science of Philosophy: Divinity, Vedas, Upanishads, Temples and Yoga
2. Philosophy of Science : Plasmas, Electro-magnetic fields and Cosmology
3. Resource : Reflectors,3-Tier Consciousness, Source, Fields and Flows
4. Noble Cause : Human-Being, Environment, Divine Nature and Harmony
3.THE BEAUTY OF INDIAN PHILOSOPHY:
There is no other enunciation except Indian Philosophy in-depth with comprehension that answers many queries about the science of the Universe: Cosmic Universe to Galaxy, Macro-Cosmic to Micro-Cosmic Divine Phenomena as process, Atomic structure to Cosmic Structure, links through `OM' for Core flows, Fields, Reflectors and Sources leading to Cosmic Source as Unity in diverse fields of Intellectual pursuit of knowledge directing towards Cosmic Conscious state of realization i.e. God, Divine function and Human Being in-depth as part of Cosmic Process (Reproduced from Om Vedic Vision of the Universe-part I, 1996)
4.INTEGRATION OF SCIENCE AND PHILOSPHY
5.VEDIC AND PHILOSOPHICAL VIEW (VISWAM DARPANA DRUSYAMANA JAGATEEM)
6.Uthithista Uthithista Garuda Dhwaja Om Govinda.
7.OM APAH JYOTI RASAH AMRUTAM BRAHMA
8.INFLUENCE ON MAN, ENVIRONMENT AND NATURE
9.VISION BEYOND
10.EARTH'S GLOW AS INDEX TO COSMIC SIGNATURES
11.LIFE BEYOND- COSMOS SEARCH
12.Cosmic String Theory
13.SREE TATVA DARSANA
14.REFERENCES
1 Hannes Alfven 1984,1992 Cosmology:Myth or Science ?
Journal Astrophysics and Astronomy,Indian Academy of Sciences,1984
IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science,Vol20,No 6,Dec 1992
2.Vidyardhi Nanduri,1991,Universal Plasma Energy Model,
IEEE ICOPS-Space-Plasmas-Cosmology
Books:By Vidyardhi Nanduri
ALL BOOKS
http://www.ebookomatic.com/publish/A...ry.asp?Aid=241
COSMOLOGY VEDAS-PUBLICITY
http://www.buymyebook.com/buy/author...p?EbookId=1019
..............................
NOTES: Yhose who are interested in the detailed paper
may contact author:vinandi41@gmail.com
Contribution Us $5 will be appreciated to cover mailing charges

SUB: COSMOLOGY VEDAS INTERLINKS-BOOKS

The author Dr. Vidyardhi Nanduri
Promotes the unity of science with philosophy

COSMOLOGY VEDAS-PUBLICITY :

http://www.buymyebook.com/buy/authorinfo.asp?EbookId=1019

Presently Cosmology is undergoing REVISION

and BIG-BANG,Dark Matter,DARK ENERGY and Blackholes are all under
question.
Evolution needs to catch up with creation.
These books provide search links,routes and

many COSMOS QUESTIONS
that form links to COSMOS YOGA SERIES as

follow-up.

PURPOSE OF INTERLINKS:
1. The Science of Philosophy: Divinity,

Vedas, Upanishads, Temples & Yoga
2. Philosophy of Science : Plasmas,

Electro-magnetic fields and Cosmology
3. Resource : Reflectors,3-Tier

Consciousness, Source, Fields and Flows
4. Noble Cause : Human-Being, Environment,

Divine Nature and Harmony

    
FOR Scientists and Cosmologists

Plasma Vision of the Universe :

http://www.buymyebook.com/buy/authorinfo.asp?EbookId=195

Cosmic to PREM -Plama Regulated

Electro-Magnetic Universe :

http://www.buymyebook.com/buy/authorinfo.asp?EbookId=228


FOR Cosmologists
Cosmic Consciousness to Cosmology Revision

http://www.buymyebook.com/buy/authorinfo.asp?EbookId=200

FOR Philosophers
Scientific Essenceof Cosmic Philosophy
 
http://www.buymyebook.com/buy/authorinfo.asp?EbookId=209
NEW-BOOK:SEARCH BEYOND DARK

MATTER-IMPORTANT NOTES.
VISION DEVELOPMENT SERIES IN PHASES COVER –
COSMOS YOGA SERIES-I 10^3 LY-Tamasoma

Jyothirgamyam
BEYOND DARK MATTER BY VIDYARDHI NANDURI TXU1-282-571
JUNE 2005 Copy rights USA - Contact Author


Vedic Vision of the Universe-PartI 1

http://www.buymyebook.com/buy/authorinfo.asp?EbookId=212
        
Cosmology
Vedic Vision of the Universe-Part II Vedas,Upanishads :

http://www.buymyebook.com/buy/authorinfo.asp?EbookId=240
        
For INTEGRATION: Science,Philosophy and Religion
Unity of Consciousness in Science,Religion and Philosophy
http://www.buymyebook.com/buy/authorinfo.asp?EbookId=239
                    
FOR COSMIC VISION: Centre of the Universe
Heart of the Universe-Dec 2006 -Application

Copy Rights
The Science in Philosophy- Pridhvi Viswam Asya Dharineem
Cosmos yoga vision series-II- cover upto 10^5 Light Years

All Books
http://www.ebookomatic.com/publish/AuthorLibrary.asp?Aid=241
COSMOLOGY VEDAS-PUBLICITY :

http://www.buymyebook.com/buy/authorinfo.asp?EbookId=1019
        
        
Edit Summary:Cosmology,Cosmogony,Space Science,Philosophy,
consciousness,interlink fields,alternate cosmology,
cosmology-vedas,Cosmology Interlinks,Space Exploration,
Knowledge Expansion
Vidyardhi Nanduri
Cosmology for World Peace
ALL BOOKS
http://www.ebookomatic.com/publish/AuthorLibrary.asp?Aid=241
COSMOLOGY VEDAS-PUBLICITY
http://www.buymyebook.com/buy/authorinfo.asp?EbookId=1019
http://cosmologyvedas.blogspot.com/
SPONSORS TO ORGANISE EAST_WEST CENTER FOR INTERACTION ARE WELCOME TO CONTACT
vinandi41@gmail.com

Thanks Sean, I always appreiciate the adjusting. knowledge is good, facts are "mo betta" After reading Eric R. Kandel's AutoBiography, I put Francis Crick on my list of interesting people to research. If you are aware of a good books that covers his research and him, please pass that info on.

Thanks also to Matt. I have read Holographic Universe by Michael Talbot. good book. I liked it enough to read the others you recommended.

I hope to hear from others with great insight. With "What the Bleep" and now "The Secret" covering "Law of Attraction", which I believe is the same as "CAUSE AND EFFECT", there are many so called "Experts" out there and sometimes truth is twisted to fit a $$$$Seminars$$$$ or sell a movie. My Skepticism, not to be confused with a Pessimist, Keeps me searching and excited about this topic.

Still would love to hear from Bryan.

Just a quick adjustment RJ, Francis Crick, while he worked with biologists, was in fact a Physicist... just throwing it out there

You're welcome

Thanks Matt

Thanks, RJ (may I call you RJ? RJ Velotti felt so formal...)
8)

I'm glad you're enjoying the discussion. I haven't always been very active in it -- but I've been lucky to have some visitors with cool ideas and more initiative.

Regarding your questions, "Do light waves resonate to our eyes? Does sound waves resonate our ear drum? Are these small waves then deciphered by our brains based on the meaning we put to them. That is, a meaning based on our previous memory and overall acceptance of that meaning given to those quanta resonance?" (RJ Velotti, previous message)

First, I need to emphasize that I am applying the term "quantum resonance" in a new way. And yes, the plural would be "quanta resonance," although the "singular" concept of quantum resonance already includes a singular and collective identity ... I suppose proper usage would depend on context. To be honest, it's something to which I haven't given much thought. I believe that the phenomenon in physics may relate, and I lack the background to explore this possibility to my own satisfaction. (Bryan...?)

Without claiming scientific truth, various theories suggest resonance in the functioning of neurons as well as cognitive models of memory. I expect that this is the best way (yet) to explain these phenomenon. In terms of applying this essential perspective to the physical universe, a classic book that I'd recommend is the Holographic Universe by Michael Talbot; and I would recommend the more recent book, Elegant Universe by Brian Greene. Their perspectives are different, and yet similar. (And of course, there's the popular Tao of Physics, Fritjof Capra; and Dancing Wu Li Masters, Gary Zukav.) All of these perspectives may be mistaken, of course.

Thanks again, RJ. I await Bryan's description of physical processes that disprove my conception of quantum resonance; hopefully, this will deepen the discussion. And it may provide opportunities for deeper understanding.

First I must say that this was by far the best discussion I have come across on this topic. It is my hope that it continues and that Bryan continues to insert his input.

There has been no discussion since 07-28-2006 and I would like to read the reply from Bryan to Matt’s last question.

 Everything I have read on the subject (Barnes and Noble, Library, Internet, etc...) Seem to come from two separate thoughts;

1. Physical (REAL SCIENCE)
2. Psychological, Neurological, Biological (REAL SCIENCE), Philosophical

I don't claim to be as learned as Bryan in his field or Matt in his, however I am some one who thirsts for knowledge and is also looking for the truth.

Bryan:
I think you present a very strong argument and I would like to here more from you. You had mentioned that you would explain yourself much better but it would be a lot of reading. I, for one, am looking forward to your knowledge.
But science has yet to accurately explain (the Dare I say it) Consciousness (whatever meaning is used). Which is why I understood Rages’ Brick/Flamingo comment? It could have all the properties of a brick. But if the person, who invented the brick, first called it a flamingo, it would then have all the properties of a flamingo. (Or do I mean Brick.) Stupid argument but a philosophical one just the same, one that has no place in "Physical - Real Science," or does it?
Don't get me wrong I agree with, and understand everything you have written. I certainly hope you continue to educate. As a layman searching for answers, I could easily equate everything I read concerning REAL Quantum Physics with theories relating to Quanta Resonance as applied in philosophy.
 
Matt:
 Presents a very strong argument as well, coming from Psychological, Neurological point of view. Please Matt correct me if I am wrong. Do light waves resonate to our eyes? Does sound waves resonate our ear drum? Are these small waves then deciphered by our brains based on the meaning we put to them. That is, a meaning based on our previous memory and overall acceptance of that meaning given to those quanta resonance?

Now there is where I get confused!!!
.
If everything is energy, that would mean we emit energy?
Do we somehow receive those energy waves others emit through one of our senses, or is it Entropic to Anthropology? (I don’t know if I used it right.)
I understand we are just scratching the surface in our knowledge of DNA, RNA and PROTEIN. Is there something there more than physical?
 How about understanding Consciousness or Sub-Consciousness, Nobel Prize Winner, Eric R. Kandel, wrote in his book; “Francis Crick (Influential Biologist who helped crack the genetic code) ...despite almost thirty years of continuous efforts, was able to budge the problem only a modest distance. Indeed Some Scientist and Philosophers of Mind continue to find consciousness so inscrutable that they fear it could never be explained in physical terms.”

 Bryan, I read the Anthropic Principle. Thanks, time well spent.
  “If the most accurate cosmological principle is anthropic in nature, then it is highly probable that the connection between the forces of the universe and humans also extends to the evolutionary process of humans and the universe to higher-orders of the same basic structure.”
     “Anthropic-Principle.ORG”

Matt, Excellent Blog and great discussions I hope we keep it going. I’ve got so much to learn!!
Thanks
RJVelotti@aol.com

Hi there! This forum has seen some dialogue! I think it's great that there's some new food-for-thought. And a lot of it. I agree with some of Bryan's ponts; however, I'm also confused with others.

In terms of agreement:

(1) Thank you for pointing out my mistake with position and momentum, whereas it's supposed to be position and velocity. That's a clear mistake and I missed it. My background is in philosophy and psychology. Although I believe that I understand some aspects of quantum physics, I am not a quantum physicist, and I can certainly be mistaken regarding my understanding. It's happened more than once.

(2) Also, my use of "quantum" (pl. quanta) in application is certainly different than a traditional application in physics. In using the term, I am drawing an analogy which I believe is relevant, and trying to expand upon it. However, from a literal perspective, one could also argue that I am applying the term incorrectly. It is "literally wrong."

(3) Quantum resonance theory, overall, lacks direct evidence for absolute support or rejection. In my opinion, this fundamental weakness of quantum resonance theory parallels similar problems with string theory. Bryan, I would be very interested in how you feel about string theory. Mathematically, string theory appears very promising to some; however, it can not be directly observed or disproven. That's a big weakness, and some reject the theory on the face of it for this reason. (In fact, by definition, one could literally argue that it isn't a theory. I understand this.)

On the other hand, I believe that Rage of Reason has raised a good point in stating that "the entire foundation of mankind's science is based on hypothesis." Sure, we could discuss physics and particle experiments and decide that we "know" what exists through observation. Or we could discuss neuropsychology and question whether we ever "know" what exists because neural activity can produce similar patterns whether we are experiencing something, or remembering an experience, or even thinking about a possible experience. Any interpretation of the "observed" events will depend on your fundamental hypotheses regarding reality. Quantum resonance theory seeks to explain psychological experiences, among other things, as they may relate to physical observations. In doing so, one hypothesis related to quantum physics relates to Bohm's concepts of the explicate and implicate orders. These concepts are also controversial because you cannot observe the implicate universe and the theory appears impossible to prove or disprove. (Again, similar to string theory.)

Finally, this brings me to a major point of confusion. Bryan, you stated repeatedly that the ideas within quantum resonance theory have been explored and have been proven to be wrong. I would love to read an exploration of quantum physics that "disproves" string theory, or Bohm's concepts of the implicate and explicate ... or disproves the assertions of quantum resonance theory. I had thought the theory was far too philosophical at this point; and besides, I did not think that quantum resonance theory made new predictions about particle behavior in quantum physics. (Not yet, anyway.) Please elaborate!

On the other hand, Bryan, if you want to assert that quantum resonance theory is NOT a REAL theory because there appears to be no way to prove or disprove it -- then, from a literal perspective, I agree with you. And I certainly do not present it as "correct."

I repeat: QUANTUM RESONANCE THEORY IS NOT PRESENTED AS "CORRECT." As the most recent abstract (v. 1.3) states, "Lastly, it must be noted that the process of describing quantum resonance theory, itself, implies some separation from experiential truth; nevertheless, like a finger pointing at the moon, the theory suggests many parallels and the potential for reframing and uniting of a variety of disciplines." The theory provides food-for-thought. And I do believe there may be significant merit in quantum resonance theory; and I may be wrong. Each person should consider it critically and decide for themselves.

I look forward to more discussion!

Edited by author 05-04-2006 12:34 AM
Your imagination is a wonderful tool. The thing is that you must check your imagination's findings. Intuition told Ptolemy's imagination that the world was the universe's center. Intuition also told Copernicus's imagination that the sun was the center of the universe (the known universe of the time, meaning the solar system). Imagination may and should be used to create hypothesis, but hypothesis must always be checked, to see if it can be proven false. In the above case, we have overwhelming mathematical, physical, and witness evidence to support the sun as the center of the solar system. Ptolemy's view explained what was known by the creator of the theory at the time, which may well be true of quantum resonance also. But theory does not only need to explain what is known, since that would then be it's inherent limit. It also needs to be correct, then it would predict things that we don't know, and upon investigation, those predictions prove to be true, increasing our knowledge. Then the theory has at least some truth and cannot just be used as a tool for the known, but also for progress. The death of Ptolemy's theory came when a comet came by earth. The comet obviously did not follow the heavenly crystal spheres Ptolemy supported. Therefore his theory was wrong, and because of that it wouldn't allow for progress, so it was scrapped. Since we do have overwhelming mathematical, physical, and witness evidence stating Matt's quantum resonance to be wrong, it must also.

The people you described used information combined with imagination to imagine what could be true, and then checked it, then built upon it. That is why they have made progress.

The truth is that I have imagined up theories no more correct than quantum resonance. However, I simply checked them and found them to be false, and if any part had merit I kept it and studied it further. The difference with what is happening here is that Matt has posted one of these theories to the public, and portrayed it as true. The problem is not that quantum resonance was thought of, it is what has been done with it. It is incorrect, that really is a fact. But since it has been portrayed in the way it has, people who do not have the specific knowledge in this field have no reason to doubt him. Therefore it is being accepted as truth. The equivalent would be Ptolemy's geocentric theory replacing the sun at the center theory of Copernicus. It is creating a small isolated group that is de-progressing. Since I spend my life for progress, I take serious offense to that, and believe that something should be done.

What you point out with Bearden and the printer support what I'm saying. Bearden would be studying fact to find truth. Matt's quantum resonance niether makes study of fact nor is it truth, in the fact that it does not account for many things that we observe, so it can't be true. The printers you describe actually are something I worked in for a short time. 3D printers themselves are common, and can be found in most university engineering departments and are called rapid prototypers. The part about them making better versions of themselves is the part I worked with. It's called Parametric Invention. The point is that the machine would contain parameters for basically everything we know (which would require quantum computing on a grand scale). That would allow it to use the paremeters to come up with a best possible solution for a problem and make it, or even perform virtual experiment to try to make new parameters for itself, making it able to do more virtual experiment, and more parameters, eventually becoming quite intelligent on its own terms (that would actually be the artificial intelligence I spoke of earlier). The thing is that all of those parameters must be true, and must contain parameters for all the quantum interactions. If one parameter is wrong, then everything the machine "invents" that uses that parameter would work wrong. Again, all theory must be checked, not just thought up, or else it cannot hope to help in the overall of progress. And again, since Matt's theory does not hold up to observation, it must be not used as real theory.

Basically, what you say is right, about imagination. But when theory that is imagined does not work with the facts discovered, it is wrong. All great minds have had wrong theories. The thing is that they checked the theory and found it to be wrong. Matt has a wrong theory, there is no shame in that. Hovever, he needs to stop spreading it portrayed as truth so that it can become a tool of progress. You can only learn from mistakes if you view them as mistake, otherwise you are repeating the mistake over and over.

I agree with most everything your saying, but the point I'm trying to drive home is that imagination must be checked, and Matt's theory does not apply to any of it, since it can be quite proven wrong. For my next post I will try to make a case in as easy as terms as possible for why his theory is wrong. It will be based on fact and indisputable. I don't know if I'll be able to do it in terminoligy and in a general fashion so that it can be understood by the general public, but I will try. It will also probably take some time, and be a very long post. I know my posts are already long, but this one will probably be longer.

I enjoyed reading your last post, since it made me feel that it has contributed to the creation of an opportunity for constructive exchange of thoughts. This is most likely what Matt envisioned or hoped for when he started this forum, well aware of the fact that views of visitors to his forum may conflict or confirm his ideas. As long as it is done in ways that show mutual respect, regardless of the fact how much views may differ or collide, the prospect of an outcome that has some sort of meaning always exists. Great minds like Tesla, Bohr or Einstein have had to deal with fierce opposition in their times and were only capable of conquering their place in history with the power of their perception and imagination. Their successor may be a thirteen year old girl who has to dedicate most of her efforts to survive in the war stricken Palestine area, it may be Col. Tom Bearden who has dedicated the later part of his life to explore the implications of Longitudinal Electro Magnetic waves, it may be a 3D printer that constructs and builds improved versions of itself (Von Neumann machine principle), that at present stage may seem ridiculously inadequate contraptions to the eyes of the scientific world, but may one time (allow us to) explore fields that are now still beyond our grasp. In short, my view on this is that if a person or machine is not given enough space (encouragement and support) to continue its ventures (regardless of the fact how primitive or advanced they currently seem to be) they will never be able to discover matters that may matter to mankind. In the past decades I’ve run into too many walls while relying exclusively on sheer reason, to ignore the whispers of my intuition. However these are impulses that require attention and dedication, but perhaps in the first place they need to be noticed and taken seriously. I assume this is why Matt started this place on the web, it is why I am present here too.

Edited by author 05-03-2006 02:00 AM
1. Yes the concept of multiverse isn't new, but the acceptance of it as fact rather than possibility is, and that is the point I was trying to make.

2. You bring up a good point, you don't feel comfortable with the scientific scheme. Something I would like to point out to you is that science that is taught that most people know is called classic physics. Classic physics is basically only a tool that makes approximations and simple points. Real science, or real physics should I say, consists of quantum mechanics and relativity. Once you start to delve into these, trust me, you will feel anything but harnessed. They are far from standard science taught in schools.

3. It is a brick because brick is only a label for what the brick is, and whatever that may be, it is a brick. What I'm saying is that we can tell what the brick is. In classic physics it may describe it vaguely and rely on you to have faith in what it is saying, but in the higher physics, the brick can be described, and proven, down to every last particle.

4. You are right in the fact that the brick may not be what it seems, but that is a fact that quantum physics addresses. Every particle can never be measured exactly, the more accurately you measure the speed of the particle, the less accurately you can measure it's position in space, and vice versa. That literally makes a squashing out effect on the particle and makes it not completely predictable. Because of this, the brick, as described by classic physics is not really the brick in its reality on a quantum level. The reality is that if every particle does certain things at the same time, the brick may not act much like the normal concept of a brick would. There is even a probability of the brick passing right through the solid matter of a table it is on, however the probility is so slight it would have to sit on the table for near eternity for it to have a decent chance. Nevertheless it is a property of the brick, and the probability of that can be measured, and explained in real numbers and terms.

5. Basically your concept of things being not as they seem is right. It's the assertion that we don't understand them that is a little out of date. And the fact of my original point is that Matt is attempting to support his theory based on quantum threories, that is in black and white. And also that he is using those theories wrong, which is also black and white.
Therefore his theory has no foundation or support, making it no more possible than the old hindu belief that the earth is a flat piece of land supported by a giant toirtose. Both may be equally possible from simply pondering, but if you experiment, look and find answers you will find them to be false.

6. As far as your assertions about multiverse not being a simple concept, no, it is not simple as a whole with all of its implications, and especially not simple to mathematically prove or come up with in the first place, and as this forum shows, minds are not easily swayed. But the basic points I illustrated are simple enough, and give you the jist of it. To show you what I'm saying, years after Einstien's theory of relativity (hardly a simple theory in it's entirety), the amount of people who fully understood it you could count on one hand. Now, however, thousands upon thousands of college graduates have a full grasp and knowledge of the theory. In fact discoveries lead to other discoveries, and will progress like that always. Relativity, in fact, had two inventors, another man published the same theory days after Einstein before the news had spread! To illustrate that I'll share a little story of mine. Right after high school I still had knowledge of pretty much all classical physics, and slight understanding of higher physics, but nothing too big. I had heard of relativity, but of course had never read it and had no knowledge of anything pertaining to it, basically the same situation of physics when Einstien made it. Over the summer I thought about some things, did some math to prove them, looked up a few statistics that would also prove them, and even used it to accurately predict a few planetary orbits. I wrote it all down, and took it to a physics professor when I went to college. He said that my work was worthless because it was near identical to work already done by someone else, named Einstien, and he called it general relativity. I may have felt very sheepish, but it made me think. If that theory was come up with that long ago what else have we figured out since then? That was actually when I decided to go into physics. I'm not the smartest person in the world and I don't pretend to be as smart as Einstien, but one step in science always leads to the next step. And we've gone through more steps than most people actually know. Literally because of how "things are not as they seem" physics has actually proven the world to be. Classic physics is more relatable from and to normal experiences, so it is all that is common knowledge, but reality really is deeper.

As you see, we agree more than you think. Things are not what our image of them normally is. However, the difference is: what they are can be measured and described, though that description includes slight probabilities of them acting like we would never expect, but those probabilies are still known, understood, and measured. The difference is that I had the opportunity to gain that knowledge, which most don't even know is there. What I'm trying to tell Matt is not that he's an idiot (though in my zeal for the truth I might have said that, and I apologize) it is simply that his ponderings are on a level that has already been explored, and that we know what is going on there, and that his theories are not it. If Matt truly is someone that wants to be able to have a "theory of everything", and truly a smart, and progress oriented person, then he will be just as happy with that as he would have been with his theory being right. Progress is progress no matter what direction it goes. I believe Matt will understand that.

I regret the fact that you see my words as insults, but fail to see where I've actually been doing that. Perhaps your perception isn't quite in tune with the reality of this universe.

The phenomenon of multiverse isn't as new, as one may possibly be inclined to think by reading you posts. In the 20's of the previous century Bohr, Heissenberg and Born pondered the matter in the Copenhagen Conventions (never using this term as a joint name for their ideas themselves), which leads to believe that it can never be as 'simple' a concept as you claim it to be, because these three great spirits were way ahead of their peers in the scientific community of that time and anyone else for that matter concerning these thinking experiments.

But apart from the persistent repetition of arguments (let's call them that for the sake of simplicity), the challenges you put forward while no one in this forum asked to be challenged or gave you cause to do that and the abundant examples of your own 'experiments', the nature of your posts have little to do with the intention of Matt to establish a forum where people are provided an opportunity to respectfully exchange thoughts, a surrounding in which none of the visitors claim to be an educated scholar, but merely spirits who don't feel comfortable in the harnass of the schientific scene.

And finally I'd like to express that I hope I'm not affecting your health in a bad way, because that was never my aim, but what if it is neither a brick or a flamingo?

Have a nice day.

Edited by author 04-30-2006 12:24 AM
If it was a round robin of facts that would be a different story, I give facts, he counters with no fact or reasoning, just blind faith that he believes what someone told him without looking into what it is.

If you wish to live your life in ignorance, I'm fine with that, but I still wish to hear from Matt. Hopefully he is smart enough to recognize when he is wrong.

In any case the round robin of facts here is still specualtive dribble and, in some cases..verbose. I'm with Rage. His diplomacy gives him a better footing.

Ahhh, yes, simply throw insults with no regard for the subject or knowledge of what you say. Perfect, now everyone can tell the futility of your argument. Hypothesis you say. A hypothesis is a guess that is done before checking with real quantitative measurement. Your first post states that science is structures and mechanisms, and what you supported was the hypothesis work done by Matt. You need to figure out what your argument is before you argue it.

I'll take your post as you questioning alternate universes. Alternate universes result from different possible combinations of the sum of histories of particles. This is a simple concept, each particle wave takes every possible path between two points. The possible paths all are quite real, and because of them different possible particle combinations of particles exist within 4 dimensions. Each of those particle combinations manifests itself as what is called an alternate universe. These alternate universes are far from the things depicted in sci-fi movies, they most likely are simple jumble combinations of particles with little of anything else, but they are a completely different 3 dimensional space than our own. The effects are easy to find in things that relate to four dimensions though, such as gravity, as in the numbers work out and the effect is measurable, and predictable. There is even a simple experiment to prove the sum of histories postulate that makes this true. Shine light through a thin slit in a piece of paper maybe a cm wide and 10 cm tall. Hold that paper a little ways from the wall and you will see a shape of light on the wall the roughly shape of the slit, just bigger. Now add a second slit a few cm to the side of the first. You will find that you don't get 2 slits of light, you get many small slits of light. This is due to all the light waves interacting with each other. Light waves that line up reinforce each other and lightwaves that line up in the wrong way (the top of the wave hitting the bottom of another) cancel each other out, easily proven in the fact that we exist, since it is what allows electrons to orbit a nucleus without smashing into each other, and the math even adds up perfectly, so don't say I'm wrong. Now here's the good part. When you get a device that can send through one electron at a time, and mark the place it hits, it creates the same pattern as the light, even though there should be no cancelling out since there is only one electron. That is because the particle wave takes every possible path between the two points. Once you run the numbers it proves that it is in fact true. As far as hypothesis goes, quantum mechanics has made many predictions about the universe that we would never have guessed, and every single one has been stone cold proven to be true. Even relativity made predictions, proven true that affect our every day life. It predicted that time would run faster farther from the earth where gravity doesn't slow it as much. That was proven true and is evident in many things. Notably in GPS. GPS uses calculations from satellites based on how long signals take to go distances. If relativity wasn't taken into account, the result would be miles off, as it is, we can pinpoint positions to inches. Even now, scientists have made working quantum computers, though not yet constructed efficient enough to be worthwhile, that can compute using past particle positions, evident from multiverse theory, which is the theory upholding parallel universes.

The plain fact is, if you want Matt to even have the hope of argueing his theory, you need to stay out of it, because you can't make a coherent argument towards anything. You contradict yourself, and post on the internet that the same laws that govern force particles that make computers run, are false. That doesn's work out, obviously because if they were wrong, we wouldn't have an internet. I'm very sick of you, I feel like I'm pointing a brick and saying "It's a brick." and you're yelling, "No, it's a flamingo, the establishment only tells you it's a brick, but this guy I know said it's a flamingo and that sounds mystical and cool so it's true!". Science doesn't teach anything except how to figure out what is true, and everything it tells you is true it also teaches you why it's true, and how to prove that it's true. But it sounds like you stopped after high school, so you never got the rest, so now you question how it's true since you don't understand. Matt's theory places it all out of your hands and unnatainable, so you want to believe it so that you don't have to understand, you'll just take the easy way out. But the fact is that we can understand the world around us, and we've made tremendous strides in doing so. Your resistance is only the cries of being left behind and wanting to be right without doing the work to figure out what right is. You don't have to be ignorant, pick yourself up and learn to understand, instead of being the one who just says you can't understand and anyone who thinks they do is wrong, because we do understand a lot, and you can to if you decide to learn.

I believe you've landed in one of the parallel universes here that you've mentioned in your comments, of which you understand little. Matt understands yours, he left behind a universe similar to the one you currently live in eons ago, which is probably why his theories are still parsecs beyond the scope of your awareness (which is something very distinguished from knowledge that you seem quite eager to flash). The entire foundation of mankind's science is based on hypothesis, yet you continue to speak of correct and incorrect. Perhaps you should try to sort that out first. Have a nice day.

Edited by author 04-29-2006 05:57 PM
Yes, revel in your ignorance. Ask me to explain any of the things I just told you about and I will do so in terms even you can understand.

By the way, If Matt's theory has any merit whatsoever, he will be able to defend it quite easily. However, since it doesn't, he will either pretend to not see these postings, or he will defend it the same way he created it, using incorrect reasoning and no real observed fact surrounded by large words and incorrectly used facts to keep people from questioning. In that case I will again point out the fallacy in his reasoning. Whether or not you decide to believe the obvious truth is up to you.

And now perhaps it's time for your little pill?

There is nothing banned from science. I can show you how to make a mini space-time wormhole with your car keys. I can explain to you what would actually happen if you went back in time and killed your father before you were born. If you actually took the time to understand the collective knowledge humanity has gained you would stand much more in awe it than you do this shallow theory. This theory is simple compared to how things really are, I'm not against it because it shatters my structures, it's because this theory does not do justice to the beauty and complexity of what is really happening around us. I can even explain why you so dearly want to fight me on this Rage of Reason. There's always some that are so deep into believing what they accepted first, the simpler theory that they can understand more easily, that they refuse to change their minds, even if it is laid out that they are wrong in black and white right in front of them. The universe I can explain to you consists of 11 dimensions, particles that take every possible path between two points instantly, infinite parallel universes, pockets of space where time has literally stopped, a universe where in 3 dimensions the earth travels around the sun because in 4 dimensions it's following a straight line relative to the sun, objects with so much energy and power that they literally rip themselves out the fabric of the universe, and particles all around us that travel backward through time. Matt has not gone deeper than science; science has gone deeper than Matt and proven him wrong.

The people who used to be called scientists and scholars centuries ago used the methods that Matt is using with this theory, so thank you for pointing out the they repeatedly eat there words. They made theories based on wrong facts and unchecked claims. We do things different now, and that is the reason they are eating there words.

Read what I am saying. He is basing his theory on real theories that he is using incorrectly. That has nothing to do with looking outside of science. That's called stupid. I'm far from what you think I am, I am one of the most open minds in science, I advocated multiverse theory a long time ago, while the world laughed at it. Parallel universes were considered science fiction simply because it was way out there. But if you looked into it, it actually worked and was supported by our findings. Now, I stand victorious as multiverse theory is commonly accepted. However there is a big difference with what Matt is doing. He is making up theory with no regard for checking that is true. Imagine how many ways things could be made up that could explain our universe, but only one way can really be true. Therefore when you make theory based on no fact, or bend fact to support theory, you are wrong, you simply have to look and see whether it works. There are some much known times of when this has happened before, notably a man named Ptolemy. He firmly believed that you could just think about how the world worked, and if it made sense with what we know, then it was true. Upon this he decided everything orbited the earth. Everything outside of the earth traveled on giant crystal spheres in fixed paths. This made sense upon normal observation and pondering, but we now know it's not true. If you don't check what you come up with it has no value.

Here's the best part: Matt DOES have real theories and real observed things in with his theory. The problem is that they are used wrong! That is a simple fact that can not be argued with. Face it; he has used big words in a complicated order to make people not question him. The problem is not crazy whacked out theories (most right theories are a little crazy); it is his theory in particular. I'M NOT SAYING THAT THIS THEORY IS WRONG BECAUSE IT CAN'T BE PROVEN RIGHT; I’M SAYING IT'S WRONG BECAUSE IT CAN BE PROVEN WRONG. The very meanings of the words he uses contradict themselves. Quantum is a word that seperates into individual bits, and he's using it to explain his theory of unity. I'm not saying that if it's mystical it is wrong; I'm saying that this one is wrong. Most of what is now science was once mystical. Take a butane lighter back in time 1000 years and it would be mystical, now it's science. Take a butane lighter back in time and tell them that it lights on fire because of a little dragon living inside it breathing when you press the button, and guess what, it explains what your seeing, but that doesn't make it right. You can't make up something and not check it, that is as foolish as the dragon in the lighter. AND THAT IS WHAT I'M SHOWING YOU. I'm not saying his theory is too deep or crazy to be true, I'm saying we've checked, we've already looked inside the things that he is saying, we've gone deeper than that, and we know his theory to be wrong, not too deep, just wrong. If anything it's not nearly deep enough.

One wonders why after centuries of eating its own words on numerous occasions, scholars still feel urged to defend what they've been taught by 'officially approved' scientists. Quite obviously you've learned a lot Bryan, but perhaps there's one thing you've not yet learned, which is to think for yourself, exploring matters beyond the teachings you seem to have absorbed eagerly. The nature of your phrasing in these posts was unsollicited, perhaps you'll find more satisfaction in discussing your views with peers who prefer to adhere to what leading scientists have offered for you to ponder. Matt's inclination to also consider matters banned by science because it is incapable of fitting them into the structures and mechanisms they've created for themselves, is not necessarily complying with their idea of a grand unified theory for this reason. The great minds of science of present and past have done the same and gained acclaim after wandering where few of their peers dared to go.

Take care,

RAge

You're not responding, so I will prove you wrong bit by bit myself. Today's proof is:

If you haven't, you should read the posting below this first though.

quoted by you on your quantum resonance site:"'quantum resonance' refers to the collective or unified (i.e., quantum) field of consciousness"

Here is a great little way to show that you don't know what you're talking about in a way that everyone can understand. Quantum is latin for "amount" (get it...quantum...quantity...a quantitavive measurement, something your theory lacks) and it's modern meaning refers to the smallest portion of something, usually referring to an elementary particle wave. It has no meaning of collective or unified. In fact, quantum is not even a plural, that would be quanta. In fact when Max Planck brought the word quantum into science, it was not to make things more unified, it was to change the view that light was a continuous substance into a view of individual "packets" of light he called quanta.

Speaking of Max Planck, I thought I'd point out one of your flaws in your explaining of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Your equation is fundamentally wrong. It's not position and momentum..... it's position and velocity. What's the difference??? Well... would you rather get hit by a semi truck at 55 MPH or a snow flake at 60 MPH. The snow flake has more velocity, but I'm telling you that it would hurt a lot less because of its momentum being much smaller. If you were smart enough to be making coherent theories, then you would have noticed that.

Edited by author 04-26-2006 02:08 AM
I am and expert on quantum mechanics and relativity. I am also one of the most open minds in science as far as out of the norm theories. Most of all, I've spent most of my life trying to help average people understand the world around them. I've read as much as I could stand to read on this site, to try and find anything, one single thing, that either: A- was based on any real measurement or finding, B- fit together in a coherent string, suggesting that it could be true, or C- offered any sort of truth based on already trusted theory. I found none. In fact what I found is the use of words, theories, and laws of science that have nothing to do with the message being given, and most of all, are being used wrong.

I understand your eagerness to have a "theory of everything"(known as a grand unified theory). But making up things with no real merit and surrounding them with words based on complicated ideas so that the average mind will not question is not the answer. In fact, it is the very thing that slows real science. Your use of quantum thoeries in the essays are wrong. The use of the word quantum in the theory's title is even wrong. Your theory isn't even related to quantum theory (at least not in a correct way). I would bet my very life itself that you do not even understand the real theories that you quote as supporting yours.

Quantum physics is a wonderful thing to behold, yet you are squandering it with lies and deciet. Quantum mechanics has proved that with perseverence of study, things that we cannot even dream of can be accomplished. Computers that are powerful enough to become artificial intelligence, nanobots that can extend our lives indefinitely, ships that can explore the universe, to the ability to pass through solid matter, making surgery non-traumatic, and the filtering of diseased cells and viruses possible, quantum machanics has proven EVERYTHING possible in time. The greatest enemy to it is ignorance. It is complicated theories, based on 4 dimensional space-time. That makes it hard to understand, but the world needs to be able to grasp it in order for it to progress. If you continue to spread confusion about it, then you will only hold back the greatest accomplishments humanity will ever behold.

Quantum machanics has nothing to do with any part of the theory you are suggesting, and is only being used as a factor to confuse those not educated in it (99.99% of people) into believing the suggested theory. Quantum theory is things like gravitational forces from the interchange of gravitons between 1/2 and 3/2 spin particle wave dualities, and strong nuclear forces holding together protons and neutrons, and 2 up quarks and 1 down quark being held together by color neutral strings of gluons, and how radiation is emitted from a black hole even though nothing can escape one, and much more complicated things. It is not about the mystical, and interconnectedness between humans. In fact, if you really understood how insignificant humans are to the universe you would stop basing theories of everything around humanity. If you knew anthropic principle you would understand that.

I am open to debate. Go ahead and ask me questions, tell me why your theory is right. Tell me in real terms that use real evidence or even just real reasoning. Explain how ANY part of ANY quantum physics related theory proves or even supports your theory in ANY way. And don't try to fool me, I will know the theory you use, and I will understand it, so don't even think that you can just use enough big words to make me not question you.

That's a great question, Myra ... and I wish that I had great answers. I can offer a personal reflection. Recently, for a class paper, I explored my "personal and professional identity" as a psychologist-in-training; and upon exploring different roots of those who have influenced me, I realized that many roots influencing me have connections with mysticism (for example, Carl Jung and William James). The mystical may also be interpreted in quantum physics and interconnectedness. The mystery is everywhere. Is that helpful? You probably already knew that.

You asked how we may help humans to realize that we are all connected? Again, that's a great question. I will only suggest that you provide a model of someone who feels the connectedness, and treat others accordingly. And expressing your passion through talks, workshops, etc. can be great as the spirit moves you. Think globally, act locally. Yada yada. 8)

That's my two cents.

Peace,

Matt


p.s. I'm sorry that I didn't reply sooner. I don't when someone posts to this message board ... although I bet that it would tell me if I subscribed.
;)

Anyway, for anyone reading this, my email is: mkeener@xmission.com
You may wish to let me know if you post something.

Hi, I'm doing a talk soon entitled: "Why We Garden: Becoming One With Everything". As a dowser, I am interested in energy and in understanding the information available through energy. In my talk I want to raise awareness of and discuss the "aha" moments gardeners discover in nature. Through meditation, dowsing examples, music (Peaceful Garden), slide projections of gardens, flowers, herbs etc. I hope to bring the joy of discovering our oneness with nature and with the universal consciousness. I hope to talk a bit about the energy in Quantum Physics, in Quantum Resonance Theory, in Gaia as attempts by humans to realize how we are all connected. Any ideas of how to do this? Peace Myra La Paix Herb Farm www.lapaixherbfarm.com

Oh! There's messages! It's great to hear from people, especially with such positive comments ... even if I'm not aware of it for months. 8)

Thanks, Juliette: I am familiar with the Zohar, although I am certainly no expert, and I have not studied it in its entirety and in the original Hebrew (except where the translated commentary makes reference to the Hebrew).

Harmonious warrior: True. Resonance produces all sorts of results -- some terrible to behold. I suppose that's the nature of power.

thank you matt your quantom resonance theory is amazing have you studied the zohar?

Your perspective was one of the nearest concepts that I have been endeavoring to understand. Two examples of human resonance you did not mention were the story of the tower of l, and the nature of 's charisma PRIOR to WW2 which I believe was caused by his ual virtue. That is he caused a transuent disaster or discordance by things we really do not completely understand yet.

Thanks, Rage! Indeed, science always changes, or at least historically it has done so -- hopefully, it will continue to do so rather than crystallizing someday into dogma. I always appreciate the support, and I wish you the best in your own exploration.

Matt

It was a pleasure to read your ponderings. Great spirits are always capable of relating knowledge to events feelings and thoughts of every day life. Science is never absolute, at least not in this realm, but a continuously changing thing. I was caught up in an obsessive search for particular information and was side tracked by your writings. Usually it is close to impossible to change my mindset, once I find myself structurally hunting for information, yet these pages made it happen and presented me with an intriguing and eloquent interruption that is stored to return to more intensively later. I appreciate your effort and vision.

Take care,

Rage

Edited by author 04-14-2004 05:12 PM
Thank YOU, James. You are very generous. And I am sincerely glad to hear that it's helpful. We must all resist the temptation to hit snooze buttons too often. Personally, I LOVE the snooze button. It's a big temptation.

And I realized that this discussion board doesn't reference my site anywhere. So here's the link for the Quantum Resonance Theory homepage: http://www.xmission.com/~mkeener/

I also would like to congratulate you for the links page. A comprehensive and excellent collection of valuable sources of information!

I find that a good way to measure the "worth" of a links page is to see how many of the pages it points to are worthy of a bookmark - as so many of the links you point to themselves point to pages of invaluable merit... well needless to say I have bookmarked your links page for ongoing exploration!

Thank you!

WOW! What a difference! The new website seems (to me at least) much more accessible! Needless to say, you have decided the abstract 1.20 to be a sound and concise introduction to QRT as it now appears on the intro page and I agree - it is a brilliant intro to the idea.

I am humbled to think my original response (or post) to reading your work, may have played a small part in promoting the new website and the abstract. Please don't stop!!!....... And let me know if there is anything I can do to help promote the relevance and reach of your ideas to more and more people. Last thing I would want to contribute to is keeping our destiny at bay (or at least hitting the snooze button too many times!)

I was thinking about the previous message after I posted it, and I'd like to make a correction: I would welcome feedback regarding the abstract at any time -- not just in the near future. Even if I post one version of it, there's always room for improvement in the future! So feedback is always welcome.

Thanks James!!! You're very kind. 8)

I'm glad to hear that my ideas were helpful for you (and thanks for the other emails). It's great to see the movement toward collective-mindedness and harmonious living in all the people who speak, sing, and dance of it. The Internet is a great tool for connecting!

Here's a revised abstract that I've been working on. I'd welcome any feedback from you, or anyone else reading this (if it's sometime near April Fool's Day--no, seriously, I may want to post it in the next week or so).

Matt


ABSTRACT 1.20

The Quantum Resonance is a paradigm of essential aspects inherent in experience (or existence). It is a theory of life; in some sense, it is also a theory of everything. Quantum resonance theory provides some explanation for questions that remain mysterious within more conventional paradigms, such as the origin of life, consciousness, the observable laws of probability, and the nature of subjective experience.

The term 'quantum resonance' refers to a collective or unified (quantum) field of consciousness (resonance) that manifests in any perspective, context or identity. Quantum resonances -— also referred to as self-moments -— organize themselves as a holarchy comprised of holons. A holon is both a part within a larger whole and a whole comprised of smaller parts. However, quantum resonance theory applies this concept in a novel way: “On the one hand, the self-moment exists as a unique individual within a larger collective; on the other hand, the self-moment also exists as the larger collective within which the individual in question exists.” (Quantum resonance theory, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, central tendency and the golden mean, 2000, p. 1).
  
Any quantum resonance naturally manifests as a continuum -— more specifically, a probability distribution of complementary aspects (termed alpha and omega aspects). Consider the following examples: Individual and collective, aggressive and passive, masculine and feminine, male and female, conscious and unconscious, particle and wave, spacetime and dreamtime, yang and yin. Quantum resonance theory appeals to empirical evidence as well as subjective awareness. Lastly, it must be noted that the process of describing quantum resonance theory, itself, implies some separation from experiential truth.

Thank you Matt C Keener!!!

I have recently had the most incredible and confronting personal experience that turned out to be my most enlightening and meaningful as well - and your theories (especially the QRT) have provided a context and framework thru which I have been able to provide some solace to myself that I am not going crazy (though I suppose that is still possible!!). This experience sent me on a search - thru the work of Joseph Campbell dealing with comparative religion and philosophy and, more recently, onto your ideas. I am very grateful that you have released them to the web for everyone to access.

I have a slightly better than intuitive understanding of how complexity theory allows us to better understand our place in the universe. I have been a student of popularised science for over 20 years reading extensively on quantum mechanics, Einstein's theories, chaos theory and a range of interdisciplinary ideas.

Complexity theory (the ultimate paradigm for understanding a range of different intellectual disciplines of mankind) has helped me to realise that far from being "the end game" of life, we are more likely some small eddy in the massive river of expanding possibilities that the self-organising forces of nature permit on an ever-increasing scale.

Recent advances made in systems theory and non linear dynamics, along with the beautiful symmetry and convergence in an extraordinarily wide field of human endeavours portend, to my mind at least, some significant and literally earth changing phenomenon could occur within the next generation or two (maybe sooner?).

Indeed when viewed as a network of information systems, humanity has created and crisscrossed so many neural networks and maps that we are like the proverbial pile of sand waiting at the point of criticality, for the serendipitous extra grain to start the next phase transition; where a new paradigm of existence - far more co-operative and harmonious - will emerge.

It will be like a new birth for all life on Earth and a shattering and complete collapse of the old more competitively based paradigm. I know it sounds crazy but the intensity and certainty that I experience during this "episode" simply leaves no other alternative if we are to survive as a planet brimming with life.

The clarity of your essay "Quantum Resonance Theory, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, Central Tendency and the Golden Mean" of how the self moment can relate to the collective really resonated with me. I feel I cam very close to experience that omega consciousness during the most intense period of this episode. I was petrified with fear but equally in awe of what it meant.

Being a student of financial markets, I have an appreciation of the wonder of the Golden Mean and how it relates to the Fibonnacci series and feel compelled now to investigate some of my more speculative ideas of how it relates to different number systems (in particular base 5).

Random thought stuff now but.. Thank you very much!

jbenjamin@ozemail.com.au