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.