I think the Akashic record goes back to Mme Blavatski or before.
I like this quote; "The akashic record is like an immense photographic film, registering all the desires and earth experiences of our planet. Those who perceive it will see pictured thereon: The life experiences of every human being since time began, the reactions to experience of the entire animal kingdom, the aggregation of the thought-forms of a karmic nature (based on desire) of every human unit throughout time. Herein lies the great deception of the records. Only a trained occultist can distinguish between actual experience and those astral pictures created by imagination and keen desire."
Sort of like audio design.
Last edited:
True in a vacuum. But as you note, not true in a refractive medium. However, the issue was bending of light (or the apparent bending of light) in space, where, as far as I know, it follows the geodesic from the curvature of space caused by (for instance) massive objects. The redshift was a separate issue, but it's still a necessary consequence of c being constant in space.
Is there evidence that gravity is instantaneous? That would certainly violate special relativity, since one could arrange to send a signal faster than c.
He took that ancient Indian name to name the information-energy field he describes in his theory.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I understand the "correction" so far is simply applying some math to the error and having the results match with c. I don't know about you folks, but that doesn't satisfy me. A fancy calculator is way cheaper than a supercollider.
I'd like some repeatable concrete results, please. I anxiously await the next installment. And thanks for the response, DF96.
They have to make up a story like that to save their careers. The followers of Einstein's religion would burn them at the stake.
Relativity skeptics and aether proponents
Schaffner, K
Something doesn't add up here. They say a discrepancy of 60nS was caused by a loose fiber optic connector. I'll grant that a loose connector could change the path length by a couple of mm. However light travels about 18 m in 60nS.
OK, it's slower in cable, but even so , you'd need to get the path length wrong by several meters to account for 60nS.
OK, it's slower in cable, but even so , you'd need to get the path length wrong by several meters to account for 60nS.
A loose fiber optic connector either does not directly couple the light resulting in greater loss or bounces some of it smearing the impulses. What the result becomes depends on the circuitry that decodes the light.
Was it proven in double blind tests? People know that cables matter!
Actually it is a common measurement around here.
The network guys like to see single mode fiber installed in venues as it has less light loss per km than the easier to terminate multi-mode stuff.
The multimode has an inner diameter of 62.5 um the single mode they like is 8.3. What they don't understand is that the same light source is used for both. So the single mode starts out wit 10 log (8.3^2/62.5^2) less light! (17.5 db) So the advantage is only with runs much longer than entirely around an American football stadium!
The other issue is that a connection may show more loss than expected. That is typical of a bad termination, but since my guys test and record every connection, the usual problem is the rear panel connection is inserted but not twist locked!
Virtually all the large sound systems today use fiber!
He lifted it from Steiner et al (circa 1900). The word is often translated as aether, appropriate.
We use multimode up to about 310 meters, and up to 850 meters we are using single mode.
jn
Einstein claims the speed of light is constant. 299,792,457 meters per second, in a vacuum.
Light appears to travels slower through materials, however it is still constant, it appears variable.
The distance through a 100' of fiber optic is longer then 100' of vacuum, due to refractions. Not all refractions are lost, some are recombined with the original signal.
Light appears to travels slower through materials, however it is still constant, it appears variable.
The distance through a 100' of fiber optic is longer then 100' of vacuum, due to refractions. Not all refractions are lost, some are recombined with the original signal.
Which makes sense. Then there was the TV crew who plugged their cameras into a 75 ohm BNC feeding RG6 style coax from one end of the stadium to the other and wondered why they got a very low level signal at the far end!
Special Relativity has been debunked hundreds of times using twin paradox arguments. Part of the brainwashing involves the hypnotic suggestion that only Einstein's theories conform to experiments. The Lorentz aether theory had the Lorentz transformations before Special Relativity. Special Relativity is impossible to prove or test. Light cannot be proven to be absolutely constant since no real instrument is absolutely accurate. Special Relativity only applies where there's no acceleration or gravity. The physicists say the earth is accelerating as it circles the sun and gravity exists everywhere in the universe. Therefore Special Relativity can't be tested. We are left with the Lorentz aether theory and assymmetric Lorentz transformations.
Do you have a random crank phrase generator or do you actually write this stuff?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.