.....We are using your brain's electrical system as a reciever.
We are unable to transmit due to conscious neural interference. You are recieving this broadcast as a dream...
We are transmitting from the year one, nine, nine,--"
---John Carpeneter's 'Prince Of Darkness'
"I'm the Operator, of my Pocket Calculator"*
*Kraftwerk
Pocket Calculators
We are unable to transmit due to conscious neural interference. You are recieving this broadcast as a dream...
We are transmitting from the year one, nine, nine,--"
---John Carpeneter's 'Prince Of Darkness'
"I'm the Operator, of my Pocket Calculator"*
*Kraftwerk
Pocket Calculators
I think what they might end up finding is that it isn't really possible to have 'clear' messages emerge from 'future energy changes'.
It's like ripples in time (changes, intensities of change that occur around an event*), that move not just forward, but back. Time itself is relative and does not really exist, at all. It is a human fabrication. Time moves backward as much as it moves forward. we simply live in a 'space' that is sympathetic or designed around the one direction..like a diode.
In essence, it would be much like psychics, the message comes through, but not in terms that can alter or change the current state, in a defined way, in relation to the unclear information from the future state.
I would think that clear messages would only come from the 'future', when we are absolutely clear within ourselves -in all dimensional considerations- that 'time' does not really exist. Ie, when time, to us, does not matter, or concern us, as a whole race or in the individual sense.
The problems tend to be that scientists are real, and many engineers pose as scientists. These engineers posing as sceintists, do much to harm our human developmental progress, due to the depth of their own human fears. The difference being that scientists can envision, attempt to quantify, and then measure...whereas engineers can only measure. Posers..and we have far too many of them. This is not the case in this little project, but ***** will comment and ***** will attempt to restrict development.... Like the fear filled ***** that they are.
*If you think I'm full of it, look at phenomena that get swept under the rug like they don't exist..hhhmmmm.. for example..sound moves a given speed in air, right? Yes. OK. but... did you know that there is a 'hiss' that preceeds any sonic boom? That is audible -before- the sonic boom hits?
Correlation?..well...molecules, or specifically, electrons must 'align' to the right 'orientation' before they allow current to flow, like as in current in a wire.....and the alignment can take place..and if the line (circuit of wire) is opened before the current flows..the inductive collapse still takes place. But no energy is extracted from the source. The inductive collapse still produces...energy... that's Joseph Newman's little trick.
It's like ripples in time (changes, intensities of change that occur around an event*), that move not just forward, but back. Time itself is relative and does not really exist, at all. It is a human fabrication. Time moves backward as much as it moves forward. we simply live in a 'space' that is sympathetic or designed around the one direction..like a diode.
In essence, it would be much like psychics, the message comes through, but not in terms that can alter or change the current state, in a defined way, in relation to the unclear information from the future state.
I would think that clear messages would only come from the 'future', when we are absolutely clear within ourselves -in all dimensional considerations- that 'time' does not really exist. Ie, when time, to us, does not matter, or concern us, as a whole race or in the individual sense.
The problems tend to be that scientists are real, and many engineers pose as scientists. These engineers posing as sceintists, do much to harm our human developmental progress, due to the depth of their own human fears. The difference being that scientists can envision, attempt to quantify, and then measure...whereas engineers can only measure. Posers..and we have far too many of them. This is not the case in this little project, but ***** will comment and ***** will attempt to restrict development.... Like the fear filled ***** that they are.
*If you think I'm full of it, look at phenomena that get swept under the rug like they don't exist..hhhmmmm.. for example..sound moves a given speed in air, right? Yes. OK. but... did you know that there is a 'hiss' that preceeds any sonic boom? That is audible -before- the sonic boom hits?
Correlation?..well...molecules, or specifically, electrons must 'align' to the right 'orientation' before they allow current to flow, like as in current in a wire.....and the alignment can take place..and if the line (circuit of wire) is opened before the current flows..the inductive collapse still takes place. But no energy is extracted from the source. The inductive collapse still produces...energy... that's Joseph Newman's little trick.
KBK - That was shown on discovery channel , lets say a year ago already.
The only problem - you also should have read the analysis of the results - no, not by engineers, by fellow scientists, who very convincingly show that different statistical analysis with different windows of observational period tend to smoothen those results to insignificance.
After reading to most of the critical analysis i concluded for myself this to be a non phenomenon.
and thanks sy for mentioning bob parks site. Found the above there.
The only problem - you also should have read the analysis of the results - no, not by engineers, by fellow scientists, who very convincingly show that different statistical analysis with different windows of observational period tend to smoothen those results to insignificance.
After reading to most of the critical analysis i concluded for myself this to be a non phenomenon.
and thanks sy for mentioning bob parks site. Found the above there.
And how does the second law of thermodynamics correspond to you statement.
Entropie runs only one way - it increases; if time is nonexistent/ or only a human concept - what happens to the low level thermal energy being created? What happens to our astronomical observations? Nobody as yet has observed a star from a supernova pull together to create its original state - not that it might not happen, but it would throw out the slt definetely. Sounds to me like you are proposing a miracle.
But - not any more directly involved with the sciences, just trying to get an overview and try somehow to understand - Ii might be wrong.
For those that don't know him, Bob Park is former President of APS. His hilarious weekly columns can be found at www.aps.org/WN .
I too, am willing to be wrong. As many times as I have to be. In my personal 'opinion', a REAL sceintist is one who is willing to be wrong, to take that chance..over, and over, and over...if need be. Simply to try and get to something new. The old 90% persperation rule. I've always contended that 'science' per se, has never been found in textbooks. It is found on the frontiers. The edges of existence, in all manners that one can envision, or specifically, attempt to envision. Once it is in a textbook, it's for engineers to work with.
As for Newman, I've taken some cursory looks at his work, and haven't tried to duplicate it. Until I attempt to duplicate it, I will likely have to stand ..uhm..with a leaning toward (my natural tendacy) beliving that what he propses -might- be possible. And from that point, attempt to extrapolate more. (farther, deeper, etc). I absoultely, (even upon the direct threat of death) -must- steadfastly give any new ideas a chance. For the alternative is intellectual death. The end of growth.
The parts I know of Newman's work, is that he stated the attempts to duplicate his work by a given group of folks, is that they grounded his devices in some fashion, to kill the 'spurious' RF. He stated that the RF was an essential component of how it worked. The full text I read (multiple sites, etc) but can't recall it off the top. Suffice it to say, I'm not about to defend something I haven't tried myself. But I won't dismiss it either.
There you go, SY, good enough for you?
The truth of the matter is Sy, I try hard to work outside of science, even though I have very quite rigorous internal rules that a qiven thought or idea must pass before I will use it as a stepping stone to try and reach other things, or points of understanding.
Science? many have been there,and done that. Boring-old-$hite. Much of the world is outside of science,and as far as we can figure, far more is outside of it, than within. So I say, don't search for new things within the borders of science..but outside of them.
As for Newman, I've taken some cursory looks at his work, and haven't tried to duplicate it. Until I attempt to duplicate it, I will likely have to stand ..uhm..with a leaning toward (my natural tendacy) beliving that what he propses -might- be possible. And from that point, attempt to extrapolate more. (farther, deeper, etc). I absoultely, (even upon the direct threat of death) -must- steadfastly give any new ideas a chance. For the alternative is intellectual death. The end of growth.
The parts I know of Newman's work, is that he stated the attempts to duplicate his work by a given group of folks, is that they grounded his devices in some fashion, to kill the 'spurious' RF. He stated that the RF was an essential component of how it worked. The full text I read (multiple sites, etc) but can't recall it off the top. Suffice it to say, I'm not about to defend something I haven't tried myself. But I won't dismiss it either.
There you go, SY, good enough for you?
The truth of the matter is Sy, I try hard to work outside of science, even though I have very quite rigorous internal rules that a qiven thought or idea must pass before I will use it as a stepping stone to try and reach other things, or points of understanding.
Science? many have been there,and done that. Boring-old-$hite. Much of the world is outside of science,and as far as we can figure, far more is outside of it, than within. So I say, don't search for new things within the borders of science..but outside of them.
Read Park's account (there are many others, too). Newman's behavior throughout has been that of a con-man, including his misrepresentation of independent testing.
See, contrary to the rubbish I see thrown about by people with no real experience or background in science, scientists get very excited when something new comes along to challenge their preconceptions. They get pretty annoyed when it turn out to be fraudulent. Remember the initial excitement over cold fusion? (This is one I'm personally and painfully familiar with) That excitement turned to disappointment when it became evident that Pons and Fleischmann turned out to have made elementary errors AND bypassed the peer-review process to get funded. Disappointment turned to absolute scorn and contempt when, despite the failures of replication, P&F refused to allow their setup to be independently examined and continued to bypass the peer-review process, moving them from error (human and accidental) to fraud (crooked and deliberate).
Nonetheless, they too have their legion of die-hard believers- after all, wouldn't it be wonderful if it DID work? Newman, by contrast, hasn't even been as forthcoming as P&F- he's much more the old-fashioned sort of con-man. His technology is the technology of tomorrow and it always will be.
See, contrary to the rubbish I see thrown about by people with no real experience or background in science, scientists get very excited when something new comes along to challenge their preconceptions. They get pretty annoyed when it turn out to be fraudulent. Remember the initial excitement over cold fusion? (This is one I'm personally and painfully familiar with) That excitement turned to disappointment when it became evident that Pons and Fleischmann turned out to have made elementary errors AND bypassed the peer-review process to get funded. Disappointment turned to absolute scorn and contempt when, despite the failures of replication, P&F refused to allow their setup to be independently examined and continued to bypass the peer-review process, moving them from error (human and accidental) to fraud (crooked and deliberate).
Nonetheless, they too have their legion of die-hard believers- after all, wouldn't it be wonderful if it DID work? Newman, by contrast, hasn't even been as forthcoming as P&F- he's much more the old-fashioned sort of con-man. His technology is the technology of tomorrow and it always will be.
audio-kraut said:
Ahhh.. the best comment possible. One cannot understand if they have been slammed, applauded, nodded to, accepted, derised, (a 'derisionistic' appproach?)or if the comment is sarcastic.
Beautiful. I wish I could do it that way all the time. A deft touch with the pen, my friend. Your comment is a work of art. And I'll bet it flowed with almost no effort.
... For I too have a touch of German/Dane in me. But seriously... whatever that means.....the amount of rigorous 'truths' I expect and search for in the places or areas I search for truth in, is every bit as rigorous as any good scientific work. That kind of work does not get reported/shared as few have any desire or ability to understand. So I keep it to myself, and a few people in whom I trust. People who's minds don't fall apart when I broach (with them) the subjects I like to ponder.
And the subject of the very first post in this thread is about as 'real' as it gets, in my favorite areas of research. To me, such results ar jokingly -absurdly- obvious, and more specifically...light years behind the curve of understanding.
One must always remember, that the common known reality is not in any way the truth of what reality can be or is, no matter what the subject may be.
I appreciate the way you can savour my comment - and it was all that you understood it to be.
I happen to think that you are on a not very fruitful search. So far most of those more esoteric studies have had results that in the end led to ridicule because the work did not stand up to scrutiny by the "mainstream sciences".
Although - sometimes I wonder if there really is a difference between those more uncommon attempts of explanations and findings that do not seem to fit within those mainstream sciences, and for example string theorie.
I can understand this search and need for more mysterious and less mundane explanations of how the universe works, having a friend who - on probably a less sophisticated level - does the same and with whom I have extensive discussions. I just think the " mainstream" physiks for instance is mysterious enough and - being outside of common sense experience - hard enough to grasp.
But - it is your search, and maybe you find on the way something that "soothes" your soul. In the end we are all only searching, and sometimes some of us find that beautiful pepple on the beach.
I happen to think that you are on a not very fruitful search. So far most of those more esoteric studies have had results that in the end led to ridicule because the work did not stand up to scrutiny by the "mainstream sciences".
Although - sometimes I wonder if there really is a difference between those more uncommon attempts of explanations and findings that do not seem to fit within those mainstream sciences, and for example string theorie.
I can understand this search and need for more mysterious and less mundane explanations of how the universe works, having a friend who - on probably a less sophisticated level - does the same and with whom I have extensive discussions. I just think the " mainstream" physiks for instance is mysterious enough and - being outside of common sense experience - hard enough to grasp.
But - it is your search, and maybe you find on the way something that "soothes" your soul. In the end we are all only searching, and sometimes some of us find that beautiful pepple on the beach.
Max Planck on the subject at hand:
"Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve."
"Scientific discovery and scientific knowledge have been achieved only by those who have gone in pursuit of it without any practical purpose whatsoever in view"
"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"
"An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: What does happen is that the opponents gradually die out."
And many other of our top scientists have felt and do feel the same about this subject. Mainstream is almost always wrong, in the end. As an example... there is no such thing as time, it is a human fabrication. This is a known and simple fact, but most people feel time does exist, but all we are doing is measuring the interactive phenomena of a localized energy. That is all.
Or, more importantly, that: in scientific discovery that deals with subjects that directly upsets the average person's views on reality, you get to a serious and not well noticed psychological block which is far more intense and difficult to deal with than any workable scientific explaination of the given explored phenomena. This is largely what Max speaks of in his quotes. Ground bound idiots abound. Old PITA *******s have to die of old age and hopefully more sensible folks will take their place.
"Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve."
"Scientific discovery and scientific knowledge have been achieved only by those who have gone in pursuit of it without any practical purpose whatsoever in view"
"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"
"An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: What does happen is that the opponents gradually die out."
And many other of our top scientists have felt and do feel the same about this subject. Mainstream is almost always wrong, in the end. As an example... there is no such thing as time, it is a human fabrication. This is a known and simple fact, but most people feel time does exist, but all we are doing is measuring the interactive phenomena of a localized energy. That is all.
Or, more importantly, that: in scientific discovery that deals with subjects that directly upsets the average person's views on reality, you get to a serious and not well noticed psychological block which is far more intense and difficult to deal with than any workable scientific explaination of the given explored phenomena. This is largely what Max speaks of in his quotes. Ground bound idiots abound. Old PITA *******s have to die of old age and hopefully more sensible folks will take their place.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.