Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 49

Thread: Scalar Technology

  1. #31
    Administrator Aragorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2015
    Location
    Middle-Earth
    Posts
    15,116
    Thanks
    67,566
    Thanked 63,362 Times in 15,110 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    Torsional vibrations, is a moment of spin along the string. If you pluck a thick string with a finger, the way the string slides off creates a moment of torque where by the string twists slightly. This twisting oscillation is what I mean by "torsional vibration"; [...]
    Ah yes, I see what you mean now. Yes, that too is registered by the pickup, and will make a difference in the overall sound.
    = DEATH BEFORE DISHONOR =

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Aragorn For This Useful Post:

    Bob (2nd February 2016), lcam88 (2nd February 2016)

  3. #32
    Senior Member johnjen325's Avatar
    Join Date
    21st March 2015
    Posts
    163
    Thanks
    138
    Thanked 798 Times in 148 Posts
    I've been studying these topics for several decades now (since the 70's) and there remains much confusion, on all sides as to what is, and isn't involved, at least as far as I can see.

    'Modern' physics has it's own 'problems' in that it took some turns, early on that still 'influence' their foundation.
    One such 'misdirection' is due to the Michelson Morley experiment that was used to determine if the ether was 'real' or not.
    The experiment when originally performed was flawed when they 'cherry picked' the data to arrive at their chosen determination, among other discrepancies.

    Essentially what they were trying to come to know is, does charge (as in + -) HAVE to be linked to mass, and their conclusion remains yes.
    At least in the minds of traditional physics that is the case.
    This has some fundamental consequences for our understanding of the way of things.
    It's like when the foundation of a fundamental orientation to the way of things is established and it has 'errors' built into it, it can take a really long time to figure out and replace those 'errors' in the conceptual frame work.
    We are still stuck in this quagmire, and this is but one small example.

    Another example is the 'particles' of matter concept that is firmly 'stuck' in the physics (and the general population) mindset.
    Even though it is widely understood that mass is all about fields of energy, the particles framework remains firmly embedded within the fundamental conceptual foundation of the way of things.

    There are many other such examples of fundamental errors in not just physics, but chemistry, electrical theory, and materials sciences etc.

    I'm reminded of these quotes, which are as true today as when they were first written down…

    "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
    or
    "Truth never triumphs — its opponents just die out."
    or
    "Science advances one funeral at a time." Max Planck
    and
    "Max Planck said in 1944, "As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter." (from wikipedia)

    "The time will inevitably come when mechanistic and atomic thinking will be put out of the minds of all people of wisdom, and instead dynamics and chemistry will come to be seen in all phenomena. When that happens, the divinity of living Nature will unfold before our eyes all the more clearly." Johann von Goethe, 1812

    IOW folks will stubbornly hang onto and 'defend' what they have come to believe, ofttimes to the exclusion of 'better' ideas and conceptual frameworks because their identity is actively linked to their conceptual framework of the way of things.
    Meanwhile these errors continue to impede useful progress, and until a major breakthrough occurs this will continue.

    In 1974 the Firesign Theater made an album entitled "Everything You Know Is Wrong" which isn't to far from the truth.
    We are already seeing increasing evidence of this, and I expect this trend to accelerate.

    JJ
    Last edited by johnjen325, 3rd February 2016 at 00:22.
    The hidden harmony is found with joy, while the obvious brings indifference.
    The farther you enter into the Truth the deeper your conviction for truth must be.
    There is understanding of the world precisely to the degree that there is understanding of the Self.
    WingMakers.com — Collected Works of the WingMakers Volume 1 pg. 590

  4. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to johnjen325 For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (3rd February 2016), Dreamtimer (3rd February 2016), lcam88 (3rd February 2016)

  5. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    10th June 2015
    Posts
    1,010
    Thanks
    2,129
    Thanked 3,246 Times in 920 Posts
    I enjoyed your posting johnjen325.

    The following quote is insightful to me.

    Quote Originally posted by johnjen325
    Essentially what they were trying to come to know is, does charge (as in + -) HAVE to be linked to mass, and their conclusion remains yes.
    and

    Quote Originally posted by johnjen325
    Another example is the 'particles' of matter concept that is firmly 'stuck' in the physics (and the general population) mindset. Even though it is widely understood that mass is all about fields of energy, the particles framework remains firmly embedded within the fundamental conceptual foundation of the way of things.
    I will now put forth two series questions interesting to contemplate (for me) in light of these quotes:

    1) Is matter actually ever neutral? What is neutral? What does neutral mean when examined in relation to the 4 states of matter (solid, liquid, gas, plasma)? and lastly, what is actually important to notice about the states of matter?

    2) Our chemistry sciences has atoms defining the primary building blocks of material. They join to form molecules in various combinations and complexities... Atoms are defined by certain atomic masses and a structure of neutrons and protons forming a nucleus that is then surrounded by an electron cloud.

    But what if that system of subdivision is not the only way materials can be subdivided? What if there is another subdivision where part electron, part proton and part neutron can be separated into another system of elementary particles?

    Leadbeater and Besant describes such a subdivision in a 1933 publication where the atom was not viewed as an elementary particle, but as a compound. We know that atoms can be unstable; radioactive decay is a well known phenomena whereby nuclei undergo a type of entropy or decay transmuting into more elementary particles. Can these "fracture" lines where decay is observed in the atom be found in some degree within all atoms? Does everything fundamentally have these lines? What does that tell us about the structure of the universe?

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to lcam88 For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (3rd February 2016)

  7. #34
    Senior Member johnjen325's Avatar
    Join Date
    21st March 2015
    Posts
    163
    Thanks
    138
    Thanked 798 Times in 148 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    I enjoyed your posting johnjen325.
    Thanks, I debated within myself whether to venture into all of this, mostly because it can turn into a morass all to quickly.
    But given that it is here (TOT) and with those who are more willing to consider 'out there' constructs, I figured I'd run it up the flag pole and see who either notices and considers vs takes pot shots at it…


    I will now put forth two series questions interesting to contemplate (for me) in light of these quotes:

    1) Is matter actually ever neutral? What is neutral? What does neutral mean when examined in relation to the 4 states of matter (solid, liquid, gas, plasma)? and lastly, what is actually important to notice about the states of matter?

    My answer is, matter is 'condensed' light or tachyons which have dropped down below the speed of light and in so doing and based upon the 'way' in which this is 'accomplished', becomes matter.
    But it isn't as simple as even that.

    My investigations point to a type of digital (on-off) function for all matter that happens at a VERY fast rate, beyond our ability to measure and observe with our existing techniques. And if this is true, would mean we would never be able to use matter based stuff to examine this on-off functionality.
    But if this is true it would explain a great deal of the paradoxes involving motion, existence etc.

    IOW matter comes into and dissolves back into the Dirac Sea (ø-4 field, ether, etc. etc.) at an incredible fast rate and is downstepped in a variety of ways all of which create the material universe we interact with.
    There are several different versions of this underlying theoretical framework but matter is a consequence or result of this foundation of 'reality'.

    So charge or lack of same is determined by the energetic influences that are focused upon this pre-poteniated vast sea of energy during this on-off cyclic function.

    The key and 'control' to this down-stepping function is consciousness which all 'things' and no-things have in common, to varying degrees.
    This relationship of the 'materialization/dissolution' with consciousness and an energetic 'charge' associated with it (or by the nature of the consciousness of all that is directly involved) by consciousness, seems to be the means of primary 'control' for this.
    I figure we will be getting 'clued' into all of this in due course, even as the initial (re)introduction has already begun.
    By that I mean our (hue-manities) mass consciousness has been steered away from this understanding and is now being re-introduced back into the awareness of all of us (think asleep/awake and the effect mass consciousness can have during 'directed' meditation, as examples).


    2) Our chemistry sciences has atoms defining the primary building blocks of material. They join to form molecules in various combinations and complexities... Atoms are defined by certain atomic masses and a structure of neutrons and protons forming a nucleus that is then surrounded by an electron cloud.

    But what if that system of subdivision is not the only way materials can be subdivided? What if there is another subdivision where part electron, part proton and part neutron can be separated into another system of elementary particles?

    Leadbeater and Besant describes such a subdivision in a 1933 publication where the atom was not viewed as an elementary particle, but as a compound. We know that atoms can be unstable; radioactive decay is a well known phenomena whereby nuclei undergo a type of entropy or decay transmuting into more elementary particles. Can these "fracture" lines where decay is observed in the atom be found in some degree within all atoms? Does everything fundamentally have these lines? What does that tell us about the structure of the universe?
    Another chemical approach to examine is Dewey Larson's reciprocal theory which started out as an alternative method of understanding chemical interactions.


    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XgUCkID_n4


    Another is the work of Dr. Paul LaViolette and his theory of Subquantum Kinetics.

    But to me the whole idea of dividing mass, which sorta works for particles begins to fail when fields enter the picture.
    IOW change (of the chemical compound) is an aspect of this but it doesn't really involve dividing.
    I see it as consciousness influencing the re-creation of matter during its 'normal' on-off cyclic nature.

    And ALL of this ties, quite neatly, into the whole concept of creation as an active, ongoing, in real time function that all of consciousness is directly and fundamentally tied together with, us included.

    We are after all, creator beings.

    JJ
    Last edited by Aragorn, 3rd February 2016 at 09:46. Reason: fixed your video link ;)
    The hidden harmony is found with joy, while the obvious brings indifference.
    The farther you enter into the Truth the deeper your conviction for truth must be.
    There is understanding of the world precisely to the degree that there is understanding of the Self.
    WingMakers.com — Collected Works of the WingMakers Volume 1 pg. 590

  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to johnjen325 For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (3rd February 2016), lcam88 (3rd February 2016)

  9. #35
    Administrator Aragorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2015
    Location
    Middle-Earth
    Posts
    15,116
    Thanks
    67,566
    Thanked 63,362 Times in 15,110 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    [...]

    2) Our chemistry sciences has atoms defining the primary building blocks of material. They join to form molecules in various combinations and complexities... Atoms are defined by certain atomic masses and a structure of neutrons and protons forming a nucleus that is then surrounded by an electron cloud.

    But what if that system of subdivision is not the only way materials can be subdivided? What if there is another subdivision where part electron, part proton and part neutron can be separated into another system of elementary particles?

    Leadbeater and Besant describes such a subdivision in a 1933 publication where the atom was not viewed as an elementary particle, but as a compound.
    This is the basis of quantum physics. Protons and neutrons can themselves be divided into smaller particles, called quarks.

    In essence, everything is made up of energy — with the word "energy" itself being the smallest divisor we can currently ascertain — but when energy particles bond, they become something else, with different properties, and it would then appear that the more complex the bonds of smaller particles bonding into bigger particles, which then bond into even bigger particles, and so on, the less the resulting end-particle — i.e. a molecule — would be capable of moving freely about the many dimensions, ultimately condensing into what we here perceive as 3-dimensional matter, with time as an additional dimension of (increasing or decreasing) entropy.

    With all matter ultimately made up of energy, I personally feel — and share the opinion of Paul LaViolette — that all energy is ultimately made up of information, and that information is the most elementary building block in the universe.

    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    We know that atoms can be unstable; radioactive decay is a well known phenomena whereby nuclei undergo a type of entropy or decay transmuting into more elementary particles. Can these "fracture" lines where decay is observed in the atom be found in some degree within all atoms? Does everything fundamentally have these lines? What does that tell us about the structure of the universe?
    Radioactive decay is not a property of all matter. But all matter can and will ultimately engage in either chemical or at the very least crystalline bonds with other compounds. Some elements — e.g. gold and platinum — are more resistant in that regard, but they can be "coerced" into forming chemical bonds nevertheless.

    So the answer to the question as to whether anything can ever be neutral — in the widest possible sense — is "no". Furthermore, I define consciousness as the ability of a particular entity — the word "entity" applying to everything in existence — to exchange information with something else, and as such, I believe everything in existence to be conscious to a certain extent.
    = DEATH BEFORE DISHONOR =

  10. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Aragorn For This Useful Post:

    Bob (3rd February 2016), Dreamtimer (3rd February 2016), lcam88 (3rd February 2016)

  11. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    10th June 2015
    Posts
    1,010
    Thanks
    2,129
    Thanked 3,246 Times in 920 Posts
    johnjen325:

    Thanks for the vid, will watch unless it turns out to be a mundane monotone of irrelevance.

    I made mention of the physical states for one reason: material is self organizing. I will mention fluidity is an important aspect to notice in those physical states.

    I have no evidence to suppose that blinking in and out of existence as a type of "binary" operation is necessary. Fundamentally, it may be happening, but there is so much else happening that maybe other considerations are more noteworthy.

    Using the current model of atoms and molecules, one must not forget that in even stable molecules like H2O, where the 2nd electron energy shell is filled, and where we presume the molecule is inert and neutral, it is actually not so inert, and absolutely not neutral. It is a polar molecule that wants to create intermolecular structures like those little buckyball magnets you can find at a toy story. Our understanding of atoms and molecules often overlooks the London force or the Van der Waal force.

    So take that understanding to the states of matter.

    A solid has enough interconnecting molecules held tightly enough together so that fluidity only appears when we examine flexibility, malleability or some other means to "easily" restructure. EI an overwhelming external force. I like to use sand as an example of a solid demonstrating fluidity as well.

    A liquid has enough interconnecting molecules that it should hold itself together as a single body (surface tension) in an environment where external forces do not exceed specific somewhat low thresholds. The interconnecting bodies are held tightly enough together that compression is minimal.

    Is compression a type of fluidity? I suppose it is if you think of fluidity in terms of degrees of freedom that a medium may be characterized by. A gas is like a liquid in all aspects except that the intermolecular structure is much looser.

    Note that in all the three previous states, material is already self-organized in accordance to forces between the bodies. One would expect that even in a gaseous medium atoms or molecules are all engaged in an intermolecular structure where their position is somewhat fixed in relation to their neighbors.

    A plasma then would be a medium where another degree of freedom is added to particles composing the medium, a much lower energetic engagement to neighboring particles. We do not need to define the medium in terms of atoms or molecules specifically, only to note that the large interconnecting structure is absent in the medium and that we have more individualized "clumps".

    What is interesting to note is simply that this degree of freedom makes it very easy to notice the self-organizing characteristic attributed to material in the plasma phase.

    Here is where it gets interesting, it is why we learn the physical states of matter in a way that doesn't tell us much about that material is.

    If we where able to lower the electrical tension in a region of space sufficiently to cause a breakdown of intermolecular bonds, and then molecular bonds of a material within, we would have a "soup" of free floating atoms, but suppose the tension was lowered even further to the point there it then becomes a "soup" of free floating quarks, or even quarks clumped up but still permitting enough fluidity between the clumps so that atoms themselves are no longer particulate. Is that possible, a type of super-plasma? The atoms would then be "dissolved" into a body of elementary components (quarks as Aragon identifies or maybe quark like).

    Then as electric tension raises, the super-plasma will freeze up in a process where it auto-organizes its materials into a new neutral point where it is again a "soup" of atoms. But these atom are created in accordance to the conditions present during their formation the moment the "soup" of quarks freeze. The original atoms would have provided the quarks for this new formation only, the atoms themselves being only the raw material supplying the quarks now no longer in existence.

    With that in mind, atoms and molecules as specific divisions of matter is more for convenience than for accurately representing matter. And yet that convenience has perhaps been used to obscure that else is there to be known.

    Please refine the idea where you see the need to.

    Aragorn:

    Your views are quite traditional. I am using the states of matter above to try and describe the level of particles and their interconnected nature.

    Energy is indeed information insofar as we may define energy as a difference in potentials. But I'm still contemplating whether information is abstract, IE an inflection we introduce into the notion of the difference in potentials that is energy.

    Quote Originally posted by Aragorn
    Radioactive decay is not a property of all matter.
    That is a bold statement.

    Quote Originally posted by Aragorn
    But all matter can and will ultimately engage in either chemical or at the very least crystalline bonds with other compounds.
    That is also a bold statement. I'm thinking of Helium; when will it engage in chemical or crystalline bonds with other compounds?

    Quote Originally posted by Aragorn
    So the answer to the question as to whether anything can ever be neutral — in the widest possible sense — is "no". Furthermore, I define consciousness as the ability of a particular entity — the word "entity" applying to everything in existence — to exchange information with something else, and as such, I believe everything in existence to be conscious to a certain extent.
    Perfectly stated.

    I underlines a portion only because I would like to add a comment or two in regards to it specifically.

    1) Human beings also, are only conscious to a certain extent. What that extent is depends on "several" factors...

    2) It is not a stretch to associate individual (or collective) experience with consciousness. Is it then the case that our definition of "alive" is based on arbitrary characteristics that also mislead? Can the definition be fixed in a way that the term is still meaningful?
    Last edited by lcam88, 3rd February 2016 at 14:23.

  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to lcam88 For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (3rd February 2016), Dreamtimer (3rd February 2016)

  13. #37
    Administrator Aragorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2015
    Location
    Middle-Earth
    Posts
    15,116
    Thanks
    67,566
    Thanked 63,362 Times in 15,110 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    [...] Energy is indeed information insofar as we may define energy as a difference in potentials. But I'm still contemplating whether information is abstract, IE an inflection we introduce into the notion of the difference in potentials that is energy.
    Anything that can be processed in one way or another is information.

    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    Quote Originally posted by Aragorn
    Radioactive decay is not a property of all matter.
    That is a bold statement.
    Maybe, but it's an empirically tested one.

    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    Quote Originally posted by Aragorn
    But all matter can and will ultimately engage in either chemical or at the very least crystalline bonds with other compounds.
    That is also a bold statement. I'm thinking of Helium; when will it engage in chemical or crystalline bonds with other compounds?
    I didn't say that it would necessarily engage in such a bond by itself. But under the right circumstances, it would. And that includes coerced mutation through nuclear fusion or fission — helium can be turned into (radioactive) water, and vice versa. Or think about changing the properties of matter by freezing it to near absolute zero — look up on the Bose-Einstein condensate.

    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    Quote Originally posted by Aragorn
    So the answer to the question as to whether anything can ever be neutral — in the widest possible sense — is "no". Furthermore, I define consciousness as the ability of a particular entity — the word "entity" applying to everything in existence — to exchange information with something else, and as such, I believe everything in existence to be conscious to a certain extent.
    Perfectly stated.

    I underlines a portion only because I would like to add a comment or two in regards to it specifically.

    1) Human beings also, are only conscious to a certain extent. What that extent is depends on "several" factors...
    But that is a whole other issue, because now you are attributing a subjective property to the concept of consciousness, i.e. that it is (at least partly) defined by quantification.

    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    2) It is not a stretch to associate individual (or collective) experience with consciousness.
    Not in my definition of consciousness. It is an elementary and abstract definition, not a quantifier.

    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    Is it then the case that our definition of "alive" is based on arbitrary characteristics that also mislead?
    The human definition of "alive" is indeed a contested one. Viruses are technically alive, and yet there are scientists who are in doubt whether they should be regarded as such, because although a virus can survive for long periods of time, it cannot reproduce without a host.

    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    Can the definition be fixed in a way that the term is still meaningful?
    Only in the very broad and abstract sense as I have been using it here, i.e. if it is capable of processing information, then it is conscious, and by consequence, alive. Which means that everything is alive, in my opinion.

    Think of it this way: my statement here-above is only the other side of the coin of conventional science's extreme claim that consciousness would merely be a byproduct of electrical activity in neurons, and that life itself can only exist within something that has the ability to reproduce. So by the standards of conventional science, "consciousness" and "being alive" are hollow and subjective terms, which — even though they are conservative enough to avoid saying it out loud — would come to mean that nothing would ever really be either conscious or alive. After all, "alive" only means "electro-chemically active", in their book.

    What I am positing on account of being alive and the definition of consciousness is the exact opposite of what conventional science adheres to. And that's because spirituality has traditionally always been the domain of the religious caste, while science has traditionally been the domain of empirical and materialist scholars, and the two of those establishments have come to learn over time that it's better to rule together than wage war on each other. It's a matter of politics and of maintaining their dominion, not of a quest for the truth.
    = DEATH BEFORE DISHONOR =

  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Aragorn For This Useful Post:

    Dreamtimer (3rd February 2016), lcam88 (3rd February 2016)

  15. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    10th June 2015
    Posts
    1,010
    Thanks
    2,129
    Thanked 3,246 Times in 920 Posts
    I've watched/listened to the Dewey B. Larson video, thanks! That is food for though, I think I'll need to go over more of his material to really engage.

    Aragorn:

    So can you give an example of a material that cannot be forced into radioactive decay?

    I emphasis forced because it is the premiss by which you later suppose that molecular or crystalline bonds can be formed with all materials. I happen to agree with this.

    Regarding consciousness: (oh the riddle of words... :/ )

    So you are suggesting that it is inappropriate to attribute any subjective property to consciousness? Do you see the obvious chicken <=> egg problem/paradox?

    If you are inclined to describe consciousness as: "It is source finding/giving meaning to information" I will obviously have to point out that even with the abstract nature of the idea, such an idea is not without its own subjectivity.

    Insofar as you can say that any information or meaning found can be real, the purpose of finding such meaning (the purpose of source as per the abstract definition above) must be equally real, equally deliberate and equally absolute. To then get lost in the folds of ambiguity and abstraction through objectivity during that moment of real and absolute is in itself subjectivity because choosing to be unwilling to identify anything more specifically (refusing subjectivity) is still a [real and] unique experience in and of itself.

    The inverse of all that, if you decide that information and meaning found by "source" cannot be real: choosing to be objective carries its own subjectivity especially in light of what is purely abstract (not real). You still must choose the metrics by which to measure your objectivity.

    Lastly, can you clarify where I attribute quantification to consciousness in a way that is not attributed by your wording ( I believe everything in existence to be conscious to a certain extent )
    Last edited by lcam88, 3rd February 2016 at 16:51.

  16. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to lcam88 For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (3rd February 2016), johnjen325 (5th February 2016)

  17. #39
    Administrator Aragorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2015
    Location
    Middle-Earth
    Posts
    15,116
    Thanks
    67,566
    Thanked 63,362 Times in 15,110 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    So can you give an example of a material that cannot be forced into radioactive decay?
    Nope.

    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    Regarding consciousness: (oh the riddle of words... :/ )

    So you are suggesting that it is inappropriate to attribute any subjective property to consciousness? Do you see the obvious chicken <=> egg problem/paradox?
    I should have known you were going jump to that. I was merely trying to describe consciousness in the most elementary (and therefore least subjective) form, without quantifying whether something is more conscious than something else.

    The ability to process information — with the verb "to process" meaning "to receive" — is the least subjective and most elementary description of consciousness. If you can come up with a more elementary and even less subjective description for consciousness, then I'm open to changing my mind about that.

    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    If you are inclined to describe consciousness as: "It is source finding/giving meaning to information" I will obviously have to point out that even with the abstract nature of the idea, such an idea is not without its own subjectivity.
    That is not my description of consciousness, but my definition — and I would even daresay: not my definition but the definition — of the reason behind Creation.

    Insofar as we can ascertain, it is a seemingly universal property of a sufficiently advanced consciousness such as that of Source itself — read: a mind, capable of thought and cognition — to want to create order out of chaos by identifying the received information. (In the particular context of Source, the receiver is also the sender, but that's beside the point.)

    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    Insofar as you can say that any information or meaning found can be real, the purpose of finding such meaning (the purpose of source as per the abstract definition above) must be equally real, equally deliberate and equally absolute. To then get lost in the folds of ambiguity and abstraction through objectivity during that moment of real and absolute is in itself subjectivity because choosing to be unwilling to identify anything more specifically (refusing subjectivity) is still a [real and] unique experience in and of itself.
    That's a very nice over-intellectualization of something which is completely beside the point in this discussion. Not to mention that we're already lightyears away from the topic of waves — scalar or otherwise.

    Maybe return we should, hmm?

    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    The inverse of all that, if you decide that information and meaning found by "source" cannot be real: choosing to be objective carries its own subjectivity especially in light of what is purely abstract (not real). You still must choose the metrics by which to measure your objectivity.
    And that's exactly what I did, both in this post here and in my previous one. But you rejected it, based upon semantics.
    = DEATH BEFORE DISHONOR =

  18. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Aragorn For This Useful Post:

    Bob (3rd February 2016), lcam88 (3rd February 2016)

  19. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    10th June 2015
    Posts
    1,010
    Thanks
    2,129
    Thanked 3,246 Times in 920 Posts
    Well, I only rejected the notion that consciousness could be [conceptualized or envisioned] exclusive of subjectivity. But saying it that way leaves to many of the details lost in abstraction and thus presumed or ambiguous. I am of the view that meaning is real, you see, and cannot be purely abstract. Proof? We exist, that _is_ meaning.

    <shrug/>

    On topic now.

    I'm interested in Crook's Radiometer and how "cancelled EM" might effect it. The device works when exposed to EM, but we really don't know why. If it where to function in some way when exposed to an EM cancellation event... Does that seem interesting to anyone but me?

    There are several things I think need to be said about the Radiometer:

    1) It is not an absolute vacuum; there is a gaseous substance within the bulb.

    2) The composition of that gaseous substance is likely a noble gas (atomic substance). Does anyone have more specific information about the gas?

    PS Aragorn, I only elaborate on your explanation of consciousness because it helps me refine my ideas, and not because somehow I think I actually know. I think we both may agree that we actually don't know.
    Last edited by lcam88, 3rd February 2016 at 18:43.

  20. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to lcam88 For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (3rd February 2016), Dreamtimer (3rd February 2016), johnjen325 (5th February 2016)

  21. #41
    Senior Member johnjen325's Avatar
    Join Date
    21st March 2015
    Posts
    163
    Thanks
    138
    Thanked 798 Times in 148 Posts
    So the thing is, even the 'particle' supporters 'know' that the vast majority (like 99+%) of the 'space' an atom 'occupies' is (supposedly) empty.
    Yet these 'particles' have enough influence to overcome this to 'bond' with other 99+% empty atoms to form compounds.

    This 'factoid' alone points me to the concept of mass being a collection of condensed energetic fields rather than particles and Larson's reciprocal theory (among others such as LaViolett's Subquantum Kinetics) takes this a few steps further.

    And if all IS energy how does energy condense into discrete little teeny tiny balls that when 'disassembled' turn into a huge number of different sub-components (yet more particles?), all of which it is supposed can then in turn be broken down even further…
    This alone aims at quantum theory which is ALL about probability and fields and indeterminacy, which has nothing to do with particles.

    This whole particle approach violates the idea of what Occam's razor is all about.
    And there are a WHOLE bunch of exceptions and discrepancies and examples that point squarely at this being an 'incorrect' approach to the way of things.
    Yet this whole framework is 'stuck' in our perceptual construct of the way of things.

    This to me is part of the distraction away from what reality truly IS.

    And like I stated ALL of our models, theories, frameworks are considered 'classical' by those in the black projects.
    I leave it you to, to understand what that means.


    JJ
    The hidden harmony is found with joy, while the obvious brings indifference.
    The farther you enter into the Truth the deeper your conviction for truth must be.
    There is understanding of the world precisely to the degree that there is understanding of the Self.
    WingMakers.com — Collected Works of the WingMakers Volume 1 pg. 590

  22. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to johnjen325 For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (4th February 2016), Dreamtimer (4th February 2016), lcam88 (4th February 2016)

  23. #42
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    10th June 2015
    Posts
    1,010
    Thanks
    2,129
    Thanked 3,246 Times in 920 Posts
    [Un]Fortunately, I am not a participant in one of those black projects.

    Regardless, I do happen to agree with you insofar as to say that all theory is classical once it has been superseded. Once you absolutely know, you no longer depend on theory at all and in that sense it is a crutch.

    Quote Originally posted by johnjen325
    So the thing is, even the 'particle' supporters 'know' that the vast majority (like 99+%) of the 'space' an atom 'occupies' is (supposedly) empty.
    Empty only if you are focused on finding the actual "particles" themselves. And really, no more empty than the space between the stars.

    Quote Originally posted by johnjen325
    This 'factoid' alone points me to the concept of mass being a collection of condensed energetic fields rather than particles and Larson's reciprocal theory (among others such as LaViolett's Subquantum Kinetics) takes this a few steps further.
    Mass is a term used by science in reference to a measurement of material using a balance apparatus within a gravitational field. Let me paraphrase the quote above with that in mind as a sort of mathematical substitution.

    Quote Originally posted by paraphrased
    This 'factoid' alone points me to the concept of mass being that a collection of interrelating and interacting forces between condensed energy fields...
    Perhaps that is a bit more precise? That ALL is better described as energy and forces?

    Quote Originally posted by johnjen325
    This whole particle approach violates the idea of what Occam's razor is all about.
    And there are a WHOLE bunch of exceptions and discrepancies and examples that point squarely at this being an 'incorrect' approach to the way of things.
    Yet this whole framework is 'stuck' in our perceptual construct of the way of things.

    This to me is part of the distraction away from what reality truly IS.
    Well stated.

    Here is the thing, knowledge and understanding does not need to be "correct" necessarily for the most basic element of productivity (survival). As knowledge and understanding is refined and becomes more representative, meaningful productivity then increases.

    Elaborating: 'particle' is a word, with a definition. When used it serves a purpose by permitting the transmission of an idea and represents a baseline of "knowledge and understanding". Once learned, we can then presume that knowledge and baseline understanding when using the term.

    Perhaps a real issue is that we have not found a good way to think in ideas that are unrestricted by words and their definitions. That word and definition create an arbitrary frame of reference for all our knowledge and understandings, and that we miss out on the experience of "true" references. A true reference is hinted at in astrology, in art and imagination when it finds itself accosting something absolute, like a star perhaps.

    For some time now, I have understood that idea of the word 'particle' to mean something more than just its mundane definition, especially in certain contexts. Words can also encapsulate experience, intuition and emotions or any other complex of compound idea within the mind.

    IF you find it helpful, think of a particle to be a imaginary envelope formed by the specific motion of force and/or energy that has created its own true frame of reference. It can be something clumped up, like a snowball or a grain of sand, something more elementary like a molecule, the vagueness of the term would not exclude describing the solar system as a particle.

    Any word is also such a thing: an envelope containing an idea (force and energy of the mind). So then words are also indeed particles. (Insofar as it is the same thing as what mass is in terms of physics you and I are sharing.) Free your mind.

    Science has a similar problem to the arbitrary word based thinking in that it operates restricted by what it can measure and detect. Scalar waves, being difficult to detect, is therefore an idea that is easily challenged just as astrology or the defining of exact intrinsic value in art or imagination. Not because conceptually or realistically the scalar wave is of issue, but because science is at issue with measuring and detecting [easily].

    Lastly, the biggest problem with personalized or custom understanding of words and terms is that they then become much more difficult to communicate. A presumption of shared references in words can no longer continue as a presumption insofar as you try to be clear. Just look at what I posted to Aragorn above. He has helped me greatly actually; he is a champ! Sometimes it is better to invent new vocalizations for original ideas, but I'm not that as good as the finance industry to yet be doing that.

    PS I like your sig.
    Last edited by lcam88, 4th February 2016 at 11:52.

  24. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to lcam88 For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (4th February 2016), johnjen325 (5th February 2016)

  25. #43
    Senior Member johnjen325's Avatar
    Join Date
    21st March 2015
    Posts
    163
    Thanks
    138
    Thanked 798 Times in 148 Posts
    Kewl!
    I like your perspective!
    And as is usual I don't agree with some of what you present, but that is as much if not more a reflection of my take on 'What It IS', rather than a 'direct' reflection of the reality within which we are presenting our views for others to consider.

    I suppose I 'harp' on the word/construct 'particle' and why it 'sticks in my craw' just a tad is because it looks to be a deliberate misdirection away from our true basic underlying reality.
    And since the mass of humanity is 'aimed' away from (or not at) where it should be, this only further reinforces the particles idea being stuck in our mindset.

    A reverse do-loop of sorts.

    And the particle concept is a sort of key lynch pin which effectively 'blocks' any major investigations into those realms of reality that Tesla and others of his day, as well as the subsequent 'mainstream science' of today, from investigating.

    This would lead us to all sorts of kewl stuff, which looks like might be coming to the surface anyway despite the obfuscation.

    Still having to un-learn a whole bunch of stuff just to get on the 'right track' is a PIA, especially for all those folks who are heavily invested in these basic misconceptions.

    And it isn't just in the area of physics, but most of the technology in use today is in one way or another bassackwards.
    Which makes for huge inefficiencies and many many deleterious side effects (health, safety, massive overkill in execution which uses up way more in resources etc.).

    Tesla had tapped into systems that were way more efficient for the use and distribution of energy and information, that were and still are a marvel.
    And he wasn't alone.
    All of which has been abandoned in favor of the monetary dependent systems we have today.

    His 'magnifying transmitter' would have provided energy so cheap, a meter (a way of monetizing use) wouldn't have been necessary.
    And that was but one of the consequences of pursuing 'the way of things' vs. the way of controlling things.

    So yeah I can say it 'sticks in my craw' that we are 'stuck' in this morass, but fortunately not for much longer.

    I do so look forward to learning about the true nature of the way of things.

    JJ
    ps thanks for noticing my sig lines. They struck me as significant, enough so that I felt I 'needed' to pass them along to others.
    Last edited by johnjen325, 5th February 2016 at 04:32.
    The hidden harmony is found with joy, while the obvious brings indifference.
    The farther you enter into the Truth the deeper your conviction for truth must be.
    There is understanding of the world precisely to the degree that there is understanding of the Self.
    WingMakers.com — Collected Works of the WingMakers Volume 1 pg. 590

  26. The Following User Says Thank You to johnjen325 For This Useful Post:

    lcam88 (5th February 2016)

  27. #44
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    10th June 2015
    Posts
    1,010
    Thanks
    2,129
    Thanked 3,246 Times in 920 Posts
    JJ:

    Reverse do-loop! Yes!

    It implies a major change to our way of thinking, a turn-about of 180º.

    I think such a change needs to be headed by example, and not any amount of dialectic or logic. So it then falls on your shoulder, and mine to continue the trend that Mr Elon Musk has started, perhaps with the unconventional.

    There is no need to expend energies in contemplations of the academics of it all, just in making our reality. First, in my case, I need to see (clarity). These conversations help, I think.

    PS worth linking here.
    Last edited by lcam88, 5th February 2016 at 17:07.

  28. #45
    Administrator Aragorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2015
    Location
    Middle-Earth
    Posts
    15,116
    Thanks
    67,566
    Thanked 63,362 Times in 15,110 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    In that case, I would like to add this post by myself to the mix.
    = DEATH BEFORE DISHONOR =

  29. The Following User Says Thank You to Aragorn For This Useful Post:

    lcam88 (5th February 2016)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •