I'm astonished... Electromagnetic Current 7000 views!

[7redorbs]

Wow, First of all I'd like to thank everyone wh o was kind and patient enough to checkout my extremely controversial article, for which I encourage for many more-interesting-than-most-might-expect reasons.


http://www.CONSPIRACY.CO/forums/amateur-...c-current.html


Thank you
I'm astonished by the number of people who have taken the time to read this article. If only we knew the real effect we had on chance itself, we would be so much more careful, and so much more empowered.

We begin to learn that Ideas make a difference, and not every man is able to accept his ideas as right less others give him permission. Or perhaps Less he grants himself permission.

And in spite of this fact, many argue amongst themselves, and often with themselves, whenst in fact - the thing they were fighting all along were ideas and chances - and we ignore how they affect us all the time and then call it something it isn't. To even bare the thought that I would ever be accused of such a thing would bare greater astonishment than any intended mallice.

Surely is it not obvious how much ones ability to create goes beyond a realm of measured science. For it is in my experience of observation that the greatest obstacle to any progress at all be it measurement or fallacy would seem to be ourselves, our notion of it, and eachother.

The thing is in my vision we are not overcoming just ourselves, we are overcoming and becoming aware of quantum physics, and higher concepts of thought and dimension. This isn't pseudo science. We are also overcoming chance as well, and if nature does not display this eloquently enough let me provide an anecdote.

A man with an imagination to see the future, often avoids death. Scientists are wrong okay. Control is not at all what we think, but an algorithm to which we interact that controls all things. I don't need a legion a re-legion , or a science to make those observations, and I encourage anyone honest and kind hearted enough to approach this will be able to see the same..

The secret of the egyptians is simple. The difference between litteral and symbolic interpretation is like the difference between the currents of substantiation (constrict) and the creative evolution force (expand). Surely in quantum physics, the Egyptians did not just talk a language of mathematics that is equivalent to binary computer usage today (highly sophisticated indeed). But the very way they used their brains and perceived was a little different - they understood also concepts like the big bang , evolution , and the possible big crunch - and we do not forgive them for their less-than-litteral language.

And that is why we will continue to not understand largely as a society.

And that is why egyptologists and the likes of Hancock say that professionals should be banned.

And that is why archaelogists make real poor egyptian priests.

And that is why we thought that it was impossible for a society to do what the Egyptians did without slavery.

It turned out our literral interpretation is shown again, slavery was not used to create the Pyramids, it turns out to be an official archaelogical fact. So here we have todays supposed free society with a litteral interpretative method of science and joint-collobration and verification, wondering about this fact about the egyptians, an entirely free society, which used symbolic representation - infinite combinations of exquisite interlationships - which can be expanded - unlike litteral and modular and unexquisite bases of proof we use today - and call specialist subjects. We are confounded with a truth of information theory. Expansive vs contractive.

Heres new's people, the Egyptian symbolic way does both. And if you don't believe - just check out their binary math. This is all the same.

The sound bases. oh yeah!!

[Rediscover]

A big thank you for sharing your thoughts, they are very much appreciated.

The mere description you make about information theory seems to be fully accurate, information IS. Information IS and is influenced by our thinking, acting and so on, does it go away? By all means no, any idea resonates, either within oneself or by whatever communication in another. It becomes a memory of a thought therefore it is still there and available.

Are we using this? Mostly not because we have no idea of it's existence on a day-to-day basis. There are some books and movies out there revealing some of it, it's found in NLP techniques and concepts like 'The Secret'.

The underlying theory and concept is quite simple, we have a conscious awareness which is a very limited filtered set of the total information which is out there, the filter can be directed by us to provide us with the right information, to trigger our conscious attention to the specific things we want from it.

Being aware of the possibility of consciously adjusting our filter to receive just the information we want, having our unconscious mind analyze and prepare the whole of information received into packets which we can digest in our conscious mind, enables us to adjust our life experience. We create our own experience.

A positive outlook will adjust the filter to be triggered by more positive, the same goes for negative. The processing power of our unconscious mind is so much greater than imaginable, we're only beginning to grasp some of it's abilities. The simple question why does this happen to me, or even better why am I experiencing this can be answered by an understanding of our filter and pre-processing device.

Our filter device has a lot of processing ability, thinking of it's own if you like. Don't bother trying to figure it all out consciously, use the unconscious device, it does much faster thinking, processing AND has access to all available information. It has one drawback however, it's commands come from us, it's fully subservient to what we want out of it.

Every time we say something is impossible it is a conscious statement, done by using a very limited set of understanding, by doing this we implicitly tell our great device NOT to work on it therefore a self-fulfilling prophecy comes to life.

It's like our scientific method, we analyse things that are and simply categorize them, expelling the things which are not and the things which could be created because it is not scientific to even imagine.

If, however, imagination opens up our unconscious device to think over and analyse the vast amount of information out there in order to present us in some near future with a conscious trigger of a possibility, then should this be discarded?

The simple dog-training method where unwanted behaviour is ignored and the focus is directed to the behaviour we would like to see from the dog might be an indication that it has a chance of working.

The recognition that it is us -or our minds- that create our perception, that limitation of imagination leads to destruction of possibilities gives way to a free society by just that. Knowledge and understanding of this concept in the minds of a society protects it against fear and slavery. Not only does it create freedom, it also opens up a society to ideas and concepts which are not mainstream yet, development will occur at a much higher rate than we in our society of scaremongering and closed-mindless can imagine.

Depiction of gods, not as rulers but as helpers or destructor's of the human mind, might shed a light on a deep inner knowledge of the human perception by the Egyptians. It definitely isn't meant literal, just have a look inside and you'll find their gods either helping or destroying you.

An understanding of the relationship between the gods and the outcome of their behaviour to me shows one thing and one thing only: human perception. It seems a teaching, a teaching learning us how they perceived reality, how they imagined creation, how they used their knowledge of it. There seem to be many thousand of clues, all it takes is a little change in our paradigm to start understanding it.

Scientific sound proof of all this? Not with our current scientific paradigm. If one thing should be taken literally than in my opinion it should be universe, one song, a song of electromagnetic waves which comprises both thinking and existing.

[7redorbs]

>Are we using this? Mostly not because we have no idea of it's existence on a day-to-day basis. There are some books and movies out there revealing some of it, it's found in >NLP techniques and concepts like 'The Secret'.

In truth, and I have seen and found out for myself, if this does exist, which I think it does - and we do not know about it, then it is far more likely that it would run us

In a seemingly dishonest philosophical truth I would add, for anything to run in any state, it requires to be balanced. Especially if it is standing still. Newtons law states this, but should - if electromagnetically - go further - e.g. is a mass at rest at any time?

>Being aware of the possibility of consciously adjusting our filter to receive just the information we want, having our unconscious mind analyze and prepare the whole of >information received into packets which we can digest in our conscious mind, enables us to adjust our life experience. We create our own experience.

For me this begun when I chose to put some of the theory to test. And especially when I considered the possibility of overcoming the moment. Let me explain what I am suggesting, that somewhere deep within us all is the capacity to test an identical condition in a different moment. A science of unique events that only requires a single computer, and one universe.

This means that I am also suggesting something else, that the order of events have non linear relationships, and that actually, they are NOT inconsequential to each other forwards and backwards. This is an astounding and outrageous idea, remember. It is not scientific. The reason why this is to the human race could be simpler than even I realised, we have an incredible ability, or novel items in the universe have an incredible ability - it's called diversity, which actually - in my opinion describes this ability in a different way - the variable of the human being quantum mechanically cannot be disintegrated. I think that this suggests the first dependency of a universal approach,

and it shouldn't be surprising that it's not science because that, because now the science, the genetic diversity from Darwinian principle echoes something dipole in the truth that is perpetrated by modern scientists today , in my poor opinion I'm sure of course - that the way information works in the universe is entangled at many points which confirms the hypothesis - something that appears to be travelling forwards can be multiples of other elementary particles backwards.

This seems berserk, but we really need to ask ourselves, is it? When - the way nature and living things work is not science, and this thing we call science is yet another idea of the creator.

The whole idea of us affecting this quantum chance suggests that science is not the beautiful and elaborate perfection we seek, and deep down we know this, and that our very participation indicates a greater responsibility than any infinitely granular moment could be grasped. If a man suitably used his imagination - you do realise - he would do nothing.

This is called a fallacy in science, yet - us affecting quantum chance which we most certainly certainly do at every moment (again in my opinion) - for instance the adoption from the bible to the scientific atheistic movement seemed on first inspection to be a triumph for freedom. However, upon looking closer I begun to see that by rejecting all of our old ideas (quantum chances) and adopting news one (rejecting ALL things in the bible) all of a sudden the terrible demons of fear that science rejects as evil in the bible begin wreaking havoc, first beginning with the breakdown of family, and then with the breakdown of environment.

One certainly has to accept, that the course of events actually do look suspicious to any philosophically honest scholar. The real question is - does it matter? Yes! But not because God has to be real! Or any theory has to be right! But because change that is occurring from one thing to the other, no matter how 'enlightened' or 'obvious' or 'technologically superior' it might seem to be, information theory dictates all changes must be exchange trade offs AT ALL TIMES! Ask Ed Leedskalnin about this (God I wish I could).

- Information theory always has a different story to tell.

Why would this be? How could we do this to ourselves? Rejecting something that is supposedly literally imposing, and replacing it with what? Another literally imposing system? If god doesn't exist then the 10 commandments must be a load of tosh? People think like this, seriously...

thiis is the funny bit guys...

People think this BECAUSE
they don't know that they are subject to quantum chance,

AND that it doesn't matter if science is right that God doesn't exist.

CHANGE , MOVEMENT occurs, and during such a shift, the empty space from which humanity used to occupy in religion , is filled with new dangerous perils of their own by different moral dilemmas. We need to ask ourselves does trading A religion of fear and barbarism for A science of literalism and imperialism? Science believes that it's greatest achievement, it's GREATEST achievement that supposedly allows us to have confidence in calling it science is - that we are separated from the results.

It's true that certain approach works and has great benefits, but the physical information theory says something here - that EXCHANGE takes place.

I promise you if you think the same thought lots of time you make a bigger difference than thinking randomly... resound/resonance I think is key to this.

It's called prayer you know.

Like I said, when you start to see stuff like this, and truly grapple with the self honesty and respect of humanity, this stuff becomes quite easy to see. Because you are ACTUALLY not getting in the way of results. Rather than CONVINCING yourself you are with something called science, just BECAUSE you THINK you are separating yourself.

If you are a scientist and really think you have control over your separation from the data, you are ignoring the fact that without yourself you would do nothing. I do not call that separation, I call science separation of data - and I'm sure they'd be quick to *pedantically correct me*.

Well let me put it this way, I'm correcting you, I know your god-damn data is separated from you. But you scientist people don't realise that you aren't separated from you!!

And when you can think like this, and when I do think like this and am truly honest with myself, I have no difficulty understanding the perils of over-confidence. It might make you think that you had abolished slavery, or the imperialist interpretations of religious leaders. No no, instead we should replace these with something better - scientist leaders.

And little do they know the most important thing - is actually the thing they ignore. The thing that created the data, the notion of science, and their own perceptions of it. Fascinating.

I will say this, and please if you don't understand think hard. What are those prayer beads doing when you move them? What are you doing? The same thing, over and over again. Hmmm... I believe there is a word for that , resonating. Balance, i.e. the way a motor works. e.g. the way music works. i.e. the way harmonics interact with the universe forwards and backwards through time. And, if you stay really still.. or vibrate really slowly, or take out all the quantum chances (meditate) - different properties are illicitness.

I have come to the conclusion that Carl Sagan was right, it's not the atoms but how they are put together that is actually important - and that is a golden ratio. It's not the things we say or what we want to mean - or what data we have - but it's how we put that together.

It's not the technology we've accomplished, it's how we keep it together?

I would like to finish this with an example, because you know, I find it difficult taking myself seriously. You know sometimes I think I make this up, but this is really how I see it.

1. Science has no science of unique events
2. This means that science cannot repeat the same event twice, in the same way
3. If i "pray" by tapping my keyboard, or kneeling in a church the same effect is illicited - if i was to do something tomorrow that affected other people, I change the effect on how events unfold. Everybody knows this is actually obvious.
4. In 3 I'm saying that if you decide not to goto your work, shit changes, you get fired,
5. Science says because it can't get the data to test this you can't be sure whether you get fired or not
6. And that is why I have no difficulty understanding why morality takes the metaphorical back seat to science. Because.....
7. It hasn't even be established yet, that imagination, and the human brain is already accomplishing things that Science can't do. And that makes scientists just as dangerous as any one man.
8. Which might come as a surprise to a lot of down and out people.
9. I'm saying that if you have a good imagination you can be just as evil or as good as you want - I'm saying that you can avoid terrible things (by seeing the future in your mind before it happens -imagination!!), the decision to do something different isn't just changed, but the way in which you interact with everything around you, their positions and properties too - just by imagining something non existant).
10. Just because science cannot recreate the same moment I have realised that the 'patterns' many a good science teacher told me 'dont exist' - do actually exist. They may not be particularly relevant, or useful, or easy to discern, but they do exist. And the wonderful thing is, its us that have the ability to choose where we go. And anyone who isn't going where they want to go hasn't acknowledged that, or given themselves permission.

I believe that is why I have always gone to the effort to continually press my ideas, because after the realisation of much of this. I understood the power of choice really was quantum in effect. Which really says a lot about what the idea of morals are. Exactly the same idea of the quantum effect- responsibility in the extreme.


By the way, a UFO appearing in the sky, or a serious world event.

yup! definitely, think about it for a moment. Interruptions. It's just changing the harmonics of the standing waves of the points of matter across time, it is not so hard to understand.

We really can form constellations through time, but to build the Jacobs ladder, I think we really need to know it exists first of all. I think I have said enough!

Sorry to rant! I know a lot of you wanted me to answer some of these questions, and provide any thoughts about my personal experiences. All I can say is, yes continue judging a book by it's cover, but I am still trying to get used to how much of an effect I *REALLY* have on the world.

It's a terrible terrible responsibility.


And I must add, that I too was appalled by my shameless usage of And at the beginning of sentences, almost as much as my approach without levity to something so abstractly serious, however to quickly move back to why I pursue this so greatly and to why I am so struck by it, the realisation seemed to me to be - how many other people didn't follow themselves because of other peoples quantum chances affecting them? How many men saw the world differently? Surely like all events, a combination of all the harmonics added together, but what if one harmonic knew that he had to change, would he have an advantage?

Not according to science, because there's no data (or way to get it) for unique events.

People should perhaps take some credence to what the great Ingo Swan said. You don't need unique events. You create them. Ok he didn't say that, but I am sure that's what he meant!!


Red,

ps: this to me means science cant remove humanity from data without removing ourselves from the universe but the human device? Well, that I think you'll find is a different story. Don't think the effect is limited just to us though, I believe this is how life is designed. I believe that the force I'm describing is responsible for evolution. (At the very least as much as evolution was responsible for the properties of our design to influence quantum events), yes it is as simple as calling it just thought.

That's what thought does didn't you know. Which is why scientists ought to value it a bit more, ASWELL AS remember that other people have thoughts too, which sort of suggests that feelings aren't what we think they are at all. They are reflections of thought, and thought is a reflection of the universe, and at once - vice versa.

That is why the Egyptians included 2 sides to every piece of art. I think my theory for their symbolic interpretation allows for that, as well as humanities current literally scientific & rigid approach, misses out on clear points of novelty and advantage which reveal the 'secrets' of the Egyptian priests. Ridiculous, but I think shapes create properties or chances, and an aerofoil is really a quantum chance collector, if you split events down it's true to say you can express all of the atomic interactions of the universe, using just 1 electron.

Something odd is going on here. Why do we expect to get a proper 'accurate' & 'scientific' insight at once? How could that be done without science, indeed, is a good question. But how can accurate data be collected about a culture of infinite symbolic interpretation be done on a literal basis - because clearly to me - being an artist - a lot of their concepts are not only amazing - but quite touching to my soul, it is nice to know what we can do when we use the right programming language.

Red

[7redorbs]

movingly quick back to the reason why this bothers me so much... without knowledge AND wisdom together in balance it is far more likely that quantum chance it would run us, it is how we move through it that determines the exchange, and thus the balance also.. I must add just because science cannot do it, a single bet cannot ever be predicted by science yet, and if we think about that for a moment, we realise that what science measures is the constellation of repeated events.. not the same event twice. Which is why science can't predict a unique event, like a man gambling.

It can provide odds like the tossing of a coin being 50:50, but in fact not only is it not 50:50 for that unique moment, but if it was exactly 50:50 then it would not land at all. Think about that for a moment. What we thrown out, that theres a 100% likelyhood of an event, events cannot be predicted only constellations of them (i mean by constellation event repeated identically many times over many unique moments).

No science of unique events!


But humans make them all the time.

Odd huh! That nobody noticed, or cared about it, because it seems like its unuseful. I encourage all to ponder that final point carefully

and now we are truly at the root of the issues

the power that science sacrificed by dropping balance, and themselves from the data, not on a pure information theory level, but on a sound scientific philosophy. There is no science of unique events but humans make them all the time.

Think about it. Because i've come to learn it matters to me , and I know many it does not matter - but I also know (or have seemed to note) - they do not know how it matters, I often wonder if they were patient, obsessive and dedicated enough - that they might have come to the same quantum chance as me.

What's the most important thing that lets you succeed?

That your ideas are awesome?

That nobody else had thought of them before?

That you are honest and don't cheat?

That you don't copy other people?









That you don't give up. Some philosophies are better than science, for instance - the ones that allowed for it's creation. As if you have never seen a child argue with it's parents before ;-) Enter the tree of life.

[ge0]

If you ask me, i think that scientists CANT explain, not science, i think that everything is connected to science... Science is more like a dynamic train of events.. The problem here is... We got the end, but we cannot understand the start hence we can't explain it.. Or well the scientists can't explain it or at least "ACT" as if they can't explain IT which is more likely.. Its all about act its a well played game..

[Rediscover]

To me it seems the scientific method is the culprit, the poor scientists are bound by it. The science of it, or workings of it all, is beyond beautiful for curious people, including scientists.

If there's lies, big lies and statistics, then we should comprehend the place the scientific method takes in this. As the scientific method depends on repeatability in order to give way for possible falsification, it is a must-be-repeatable way of defining scientific proof.

The search for data yields data, the mean of all data is the scientific proof, the chance that any data measured corresponds with the mean is very small. This could in extremo lead to a case where although statistically proven, the result never matched any of the datapoints. The coin never fell 50% head and 50% tail, it simply can not do that in reality.

No scientific proof can ever be given for non-repeatable events, the event just happened, that's about all there is to say about it.

Does that mean it didn't happen, by no means, it definitely happened but there is no way to repeat it. If we were to blow up our entire solar system then that just happens, we won't be able to recreate the experiment.

Still there is cause and effect, still it probably occured by a logical chain of events, still it probably has a scientific model to it, but as far as science is concerned that cannot be proven therefore it has no scientific validity and is expelled from scientific reality

Recreating a similar setup to test it will exclude a vast amount of parameters, time and place to start with, and might produce head instead of tail. What has been proven, only the possibilty that it might or could happen that way? Are we really able to exclude time and space with all it's information in it from our experiments if we have no means of excluding it in (perceived) reality? Time and space are a primary necessity to perform any measurement but we don't include that factor in our science?

On the other hand, how do we prove the solar system hasn't blown up yet, should it really be necessary to falsify the theory and test the falsification (e.g. blow it up) to prove it hasn't blown up yet? If no then there seems a little whitespace in the otherwise rigid scientific standard, a little space for science-agnostics.

The exclusion of untested or untestable possibilities or probabilities from reality by a religious demand for proof makes science more of a religion than a real way to find the truth about reality.

For I say to thee: All shall be proven, all what is proven is true, all that is not proven holds no value, thou shalt prove it or suffer the dire consequences of scientific blasphemy.

[7redorbs]

To me it seems the scientific method is the culprit, the poor scientists are bound by it. The science of it, or workings of it all, is beyond beautiful for curious people, including scientists.

If there's lies, big lies and statistics, then we should comprehend the place the scientific method takes in this. As the scientific method depends on repeatability in order to give way for possible falsification, it is a must-be-repeatable way of defining scientific proof.

The search for data yields data, the mean of all data is the scientific proof, the chance that any data measured corresponds with the mean is very small. This could in extremo lead to a case where although statistically proven, the result never matched any of the datapoints. The coin never fell 50% head and 50% tail, it simply can not do that in reality.

No scientific proof can ever be given for non-repeatable events, the event just happened, that's about all there is to say about it.

Does that mean it didn't happen, by no means, it definitely happened but there is no way to repeat it. If we were to blow up our entire solar system then that just happens, we won't be able to recreate the experiment.

Still there is cause and effect, still it probably occured by a logical chain of events, still it probably has a scientific model to it, but as far as science is concerned that cannot be proven therefore it has no scientific validity and is expelled from scientific reality

Recreating a similar setup to test it will exclude a vast amount of parameters, time and place to start with, and might produce head instead of tail. What has been proven, only the possibilty that it might or could happen that way? Are we really able to exclude time and space with all it's information in it from our experiments if we have no means of excluding it in (perceived) reality? Time and space are a primary necessity to perform any measurement but we don't include that factor in our science?

On the other hand, how do we prove the solar system hasn't blown up yet, should it really be necessary to falsify the theory and test the falsification (e.g. blow it up) to prove it hasn't blown up yet? If no then there seems a little whitespace in the otherwise rigid scientific standard, a little space for science-agnostics.

The exclusion of untested or untestable possibilities or probabilities from reality by a religious demand for proof makes science more of a religion than a real way to find the truth about reality.

For I say to thee: All shall be proven, all what is proven is true, all that is not proven holds no value, thou shalt prove it or suffer the dire consequences of scientific blasphemy.

An excellent account of my theory of a science of unique events, and it's absence from scientific reality. Ironically, it is exactly this reason why quantum events can't be fully known at any one moment. If you could repeat the exact same test again at the exact same moment (or had a science of unique events to do this) you'd find a lot of the previous conceptions built upon the required belief of the notion that unique events can't exist because they can't be measured fundamentally. That is why a decision was made to repeat the test to gain accuracy, which indicates the philosophical and social ethos' that might apply - at best explaining why we are in this situation in the first place.

Perhaps for the very same reasons science was formed - we must understand that taking a step in the direction of science must still be taking a step away from something else. The theory of relativity predicts this, just not culturally - but it should - that's what Jungs multi-volume works of the collective consciousness try to encompass. It's also what I say could be summed up in a few words: quantum chance interactions. Let's think about the temporal , cyclical, and social qualities of society, then lets think about those that apply to individual human beings - unique people. That is the difference that can be observed on a sub-atomic level between measuring a current at 1000 moments in time, and calling the average the lie that it can only be - an approximation neither unique, nor real - exactly what science has led itself into. Something that never existed in the universe. I Would liken the behaviour of quarks to people - and would ask if our discovery of quantum physics is somewhat a confirmation of a predicate. (a pre-requirement or dependency ).

Whomever it may be that might expect that a science of non-unique events - or its proponents - could possibly ever shake a fist in anger at one for being 'unscientific' about quantum physics, but hypothetically if they were accusing me in this instance; They would be right.

What is being suggested at the core is exactly unscientific.

Science and anything that can be called scientific is based on meaningful data obtained from the integration of unique events.
Any guesses what integrating unique events does to their uniqueness? Nothing if you are to believe dividing the sum of the total by the total number gives you the value of the current in the wire at any one time - because to me it seems to be quite clear. 'Science' is doing exactly the opposite of reality here. 'Predictable' events how? Don't tell me, based on statistics.

There is a fundamental problem with statistics, they don't apply to unique people, or events. They actually don't apply, a person for instance either has cancer, or does not cancer, either has the ability to develop it or does not. The problem with statistics is, it tells you that because throwing a coin up many times provides a result closer to 50:50 that you should believe and expect the chance really was always 50:50 each fewer times you thrown it up. This idea is flawed, what about the quantum interactions between you and the coin!! If that's not enough, the non randomness of any natural universal beings thoughts / synchronicities /resonance / processes / points of interaction being non random goes against everything that the theory of evolution should stand for. A convenient relaxation , and preference of the conformable via butchering data - than actually finding a better way to test the universe, or even better what seems to often happen, scientists shooting down people like us for wondering how far it can go

I would say more accurately , science goes a way to express 'reliable' proofs based over measures of time, and then uses them to 'accurately' estimate the unique events, this can and is done effectively by the repeating of an event (test) to either confirm or disprove an initial hypothesis. Each event is unique - and because of that science eradicates it via averaging, the apparent 'only way to these slim minded people' to measure an 'unmeasurable' moment - and the only way to try in quantum physics in some of these slim minded peoples minds is 'via this way'. This also means that all 'proofs' are only based on real data, they are not the real data themselves, because that has already been established that is not feasible to obtain, in order to test the current at any one time, one must measure it any many.

Somethings missing, of course. but nobody wants to discuss it I think. I understand that feeling well, I am much the same.


E.g. measuring a current in a wire once is not enough to measure the voltage accurately or at all.

And, in essence this above hypothesis can be true - but its really there to make you think. If there is no device calibrated to test it (hypothetically speaking). Or rather no electronic device. What then? Yup you guessed it, back to 1000 tests to tell whats going on accurately again. But wait, aren't there plenty of calibrated devices already? Everything has to be calibrated, but actually - it's been no mystery to science or alchemists - I think - that this is a fundamental truth that speaks for the meaning of unique events is, ~
and opens rather random questions as to what the abilities of any calibrated device might be (afterall we are talking about, scientifically predicting the future.


It's name is evolution. Apparently. Science isn't silly at all, it's really smart, because the human beings that created it knew there was a problem with the way they perceived the universe around them. IT wasn't useful enough - to do any of the good stuff electronically, or at the wave or atomic level. It was kind of bland - science was created, and it gave a way that provided more obvious proof for how each moment was happening, but never for a minute do i believe its founders were stupid or non-intellectually gifted enough to have ever believed they were seeing the universe - that is something quite separate to both calibration, experience, conception and the above.

And that is the point I want to make that I think might be a fundamental to this, and why Teslas 3 6 9 might be a place to start.


In science there is wisdom in finding an accurate way to measure things that allows you to manipulate the universe, but there may also be wisdom in knowing the concept of trade off, it is a relativist and scientific concept - it is a quantum physical concept, it is a balance and resonance subject - its a _really wide_ subject that must encompass everything.

We must ask ourselves if science does not , and actually cannot measure unique events - which is why it started repeating events to 'get confirm-able results' , it actually detracts from understanding the interaction, for quantum physics already tells us if we can predict that accurately, we don't need to repeat the test - we can do it in our minds. Literally. Or on a physics simulator terminal console. heh.


Given that the universe works differently to the way science creates data - and given I believe scientists are not mad enough to bring this into dispute as-well - I find the resistance to interesting questions agonising but a necessary hurdle.

We have to ask ourselves whats human, or even natural, or universal about repeating difference events in order to find out what one same event is at. It's kind of ludicrous. Ask your children, they'll agree. I believe they might agree for a valid reason. It *is* ludicrous, that is *not* how the universe works *at all* - it's the *best way we're supposed to have* - but also not the best way we *could* *do* or *did* have, and this is something really worth thinking about.

Perhaps some of the old science lessons that existed before quantum physics, and after the iching -contained a certain notion of chance that was crude at best. [b] Now Quantum Physics presents all the questions that can possibly be asked about regular science! Infact the two are rather separated. No surprises why that was - *hint human beings* . What I think is this new science of the quantum world can't be based on averages or quantum chance abstraction. We do need a science of unique events, because its the other half of the equation.

It's what the abstraction of the multiple values sum divided by their total number is supposed to be is. The unique thing is what Total sum / Total n is supposed to equal . The science of unique events is representing the thing that is in the universe, that actually exists at that moment, and at all other moments (each moment is unique) (like the concept of god - quantum physics rocks!). If a science of non unique events comes very close to predicting things accurately, now knowing how this science works and where the actualy unique events might represent - we start to see what proves my theory of possibility to be quite a valid idea . That if non unique events added up in high N equals approaching unique events, we have learnt something about the time /space / temporal nature of dimensional interaction of the upper realms of quantum physics, and learnt why the always existant quantum world was effecting the scientific method - before its even awareness of scientific theory.

And no doubt smiting those who conceived such wizardry so early. Not me sir, I enjoy the smiting. It might help me learn something. and that's what's really important guys.

It might just be why now can be the shortest and longest moment of your life. Think about it. It's really much more important than a lot of people believe.

So science, non unique events representing unique events, well, Frankly, my theories predict (and I believe quantum physics will eventually proof) the opposite, the non unique event data comes from the universal unique event-stream (3 6 9 tesla, scalar waves, non linear transmission, entanglement et al). That is, the opposite in reality, This is particularly key to understanding resonance, the egyptian dynasty, and what the hell im jabbering on about most of the time. You have to see it.

Red

[7redorbs]

its not a very good post, but i was tired.. hope it helps some of you guys

Red

[7redorbs]

. "Science is more like a dynamic train of events.. The problem here is... We got the end, but we cannot understand the start hence we can't explain it.. Or well the scientists can't explain it ".

so true

The exclusion of untested or untestable possibilities or probabilities from reality by a religious demand for proof makes science more of a religion than a real way to find the truth about reality.

Amen.

Red

[Rediscover]

Then it seems science is measuring evolution. By taking into account the quantum interactions over time on a certain process it shows how a process evolves. Measure homo sapiens over a long enough time and you'll notice the change. An understanding of universal cycli might be needed to calibrate and synchronize the measurement and provide for accurate datapoints.

I think it really shouldn't be abstracted any further by the scientifc or mathematical way of defining reality, abstractions lead to misinterpretation of reality. To show what I mean please have a look at a point, it's axioma defines it as an infinitely small dot, a line consists of an infinite number of infinitely small dots, a square has a surface of an infinite number of infinitely small dots, a cube has a volume of an infinite number of infinitely small dots. Whatever you are observing, even the smallest object thinkable in reality still is an infinite number of infinitely small dots, what about the dot itself?

The dot is our reality, please think about it, by definition it is defined as something by which it comprises a whole universe of dots in itself. Replace dot by now or moment and it seems all in the eye of the beholder, or dot if you like.

Mathematical abstraction of reality (forms) might shed a light on the idea behind it, as well understood by Plato. A disturbed form might in the end turn out to be a combination of two or more perfect forms or a part of the process to become perfect (again), only the idea of the composition will tell.

Trusting our scientific data without enough background knowledge of ALL measurable parameters leads to constructs of reality in mathematical sense that has almost lost base in reality. Our scientific approach then leads us astray from reality by just that.

Where to put faith, in a mathematical construct based on axiomas or in a sound observation and accompanying logic? It seems almost the same, it just differs in one aspect: logic leaves room for not yet known parameters and is able to put a random generator in the circuit instead of actual data. Mathematical abstract science isn't able to provide for that so it will search for exclusion of unknown parameters or averaging data, even constants are introduced to link or translate incompatible sets eg sqrt -1. It resorts to chance-calculations to provide for a number (it then has mathematical proof, so it can be made scientific reality) while in fact that only leads to averaging the random generator or, even worse, defines the outcome of the random generator whereby not yet known parameters or interactions are left out. It leads to a model, so much is true, but leaves out the probably even more beautiful workings of the random generator, the science of that device/model which interacts with our scientific model could ultimately be not random at all but being a logical cause and effect machine.

I think you hit the nail on the head by postulating that science indeed is nowhere stupid or silly. Only when we forget about science as an abstraction of reality and trying just the opposite by defining reality by a scientific model which is mathematically correct and in order to proof it bend space, time and other unknown parameters just to fit the model which was an abstraction in the first place, then it might need some rethinking.

We are nowhere near to alter nature and its parameters if we don't understand them in the first place, the humble approach towards something which is not fully understood should not lead to arrogance by scientists who think they know a little about it, and it should never lead to exclusion of possibilities (the workings of the random generator), that imho would be preaching.

If we would take your approach, stipulating many non-unique events (forms) will eventually show the unique event itself (the idea of it), then we seem to be left with a path of manifestation or evolution of the idea. Any idea will eventually be manifested in form or perceived after a certain time of development. Any 'now' or moment either shows multiple complete manifestations or only a part of one manifestation. Taking into account interactions along the way during any manifestation process might lead to principles which manifest in a like manner but everytime slightly different.

Then the path of manifestation needs to be known in order to tell anything about the idea. If this path is seen as a wave then we need to know it's timings to be able to know it's progress. Having a 3-dimensional (perceptional) space and a 1-dimensional (perceptional) time will lead to 3D constructs changing or progressing over time. Uncalibrated measurement in place and time will lead to a rough estimation -or complete false assumption- if averaged, wrong calibrated measurement might lead to a so called proof by having found repeating sequences. Finding the extremes of a wave doesn't tell about the waveform, it can only be guessed, trying to do so by interpolation abstracts reality again and might possibly leave out the most interesting part.

If, and this is my assumption, the universe and its workings is scalable then we have a means of understanding the waveform of ultimately small and ultimately big by observing one seperate wave which can be comprehended and measured in acceptable time and relative time to the entity of the wave. To measure the wave of civilization we need some thousand years, to measure the wave of an era in civilization we need some 100 years, to measure a generation some decennia and so on all the way down to quarks. Any measurement at any point of time will leave you with the construct of several waveforms, not only civilization, era and generation are part of the result, even single human beings in a different state of development. A seemingly impossible equation.

Science is searching for the smallest (part of any) wave and hopes to deliver understanding of the big waves and its interactions. It is known to science that a rose will grow faster under certain circumstances, that is interactions, and grow slower, but still unfolding its plan, under different circumstances.

Some logic seems to dictate that interactions are key to speed and possibilty of development, if it is key to one wave, why not apply that to all?

The scientific approach to isolate towards processes which are completely isolated from whatever to manifest misses a part of reality, for no process can ever be isolated, it does not exist by then (scientific proof), only the concept or idea of it has a chance of being outside perceived reality.

The notion that reality needs at least three waves in unequal proportions to provide for perpetual existence without a possible halt makes the isolation process a somewhat bad idea.

One wave has no interaction, by becoming a standing wave (bounded) we find two distinct waves interchanging, a third wave irrational to the first two will keep it out of balance forever. Out of balance however doesn't necessarily mean chaotic, the imbalance progresses the whole into the next form. Neither does unbalanced mean that the total construct in the end will collapse because the standing wave isn't maintained, our current view has some difficulty with a concept of endlessness or perpetuality and interdependence. The fact that a third wave, lets try to envision it emenating from a point at a triangle alters the total (triangle), it's point of origin doesn't change so the other two have to, which leads to a change in the wave which alters the third point and so on.

The easiest way to accomplish in 2D a triangle, in 3D a tetrahedron. Any change in the triangle or tetrahedron which holds up the triangle or tetrahedron must act on its surroundings and by that be acted upon by its surroundings. This gives way for the smallest enities to maintain itself and interact, to be autonomous, perpetual in motion and capable of interaction. No empty space for that matter could exist, it is space.

Like waveforms or forms will stick together for it is most efficient, a carrier wave could be generating concepts of perception by sticking together forms to create bigger forms which ultimately will represent the idea which brought forward the carrier wave.

Now if you're still here and think I've rambled enough or I am completely insane maybe it's time to reach a point:

These concepts mentioned are old, very old but survived as by miracle the test of time. Understanding them to it's fullest is hardly possible, I for one am completely lost in there sometimes, on the other hand it makes more sense to me than anything else.

Beginning to understand this old science makes me feel like a child growing up to a point where it finally starts to understand his parents, all the years their knowledge and wisdom has been ignored until it dawns that they had a point, maybe that they were even right although I spent all my years scientifically trying to proof them wrong. Seen as a wave, I see it as our predecessing period, our parent civilization.

Being able therefore to pass information from within one period into another period can be seen as quantum interactions on smaller scales or wave manipulation. How it's done? Shake the surroundings in one period an read them back in the next. Evolution or information preservation, please tell me.