|
Post by whistler on Sept 15, 2005 23:48:28 GMT
Like Yoki and others I am sure, I have just seen the DVD I was wrapped, had to see it twice just so much thought. The comment from one wise chap about the tiny particles that were there , vanished, and then came back. His question where were they when they weren't there, were they in a parallel universe with somebody saying where are those particles when they aren't here? The comment about we all being Co-Creators. The examples of the water crystals and the photo's of the changed crystals The guys who made the film certainly aren't nutters. If thought patterns can alter crystals . Hang on how can they unless there is something going on around us that we cant see.... mmmm wonder what it might be... When our mind gets opened just a little there are some incredible things going on. Which further suggests that our friend Russell's, quite apparently quite way out claims may not be so way out after all
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Sept 16, 2005 0:25:44 GMT
>the tiny particles that were there , vanished, and then came back. His question where were they when they weren't there,
Whistler
I think the explanation for that is implicit in the proposition that ether underlies the material world. This is despite the Michelson-Morley experiment that purported to disprove the existence of ether based on assumed properties.
In practice most people can observe the etheric energy from their fingers over a black matt surface. The etheric energy appears as a bluish outline on the fingers and if fingers from two hands are pressed together and slowly withdrawn, the bluish outline extends across between the fingers
The proposition is that vortices in ether constitute physical particles. Hence matter vortices may come and go without destruction or creation of the underlying ether.
Cheers
Russell
|
|
|
Post by maat on Sept 16, 2005 0:49:03 GMT
The comment from one wise chap about the tiny particles that were there , vanished, and then came back. His question where were they when they weren't there, were they in a parallel universe with somebody saying where are those particles when they aren't here? Alternating Current! Where are we when we are not here? Could it be the same place that scientists, authors, composers, us.... find their 'inspire - ations' ? ;D
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Sept 16, 2005 8:02:49 GMT
Where are we when we are not here? Thing is we're ALWAYS "here", in one shape or other. As the song says "You can chack out anytime you like, but you can never leave."
|
|
|
Post by jonathan on Sept 16, 2005 11:16:56 GMT
Russell,
You've managed to come up with some fabulous pseudo-scientific theories again.
The Michelson-Morley experiment doesn't 'purport' anything. It took a very clever and very simple technique to prove the non-existence of an influence by an 'aetheric wind' on the speed of light, in line with Einstein's special theory of relativity.
If you want a straightforward and simple explanation of what that meant for the theory of the ether, then I suggest you read 'Big Bang' by Simon Schama. This is possibly one of the best books for explaining physical principles to non-scientists ever written.
Jonathan
|
|
|
Post by atarnaris on Sept 16, 2005 11:46:55 GMT
Like Yoki and others I am sure, I have just seen the DVD I was wrapped, had to see it twice just so much thought. Whistler, This film explains scientifically how Magick works in Theory and Practice. Of course, one has to open up their mind to see the relationship of the magick of the past and the science of today. Who was the one that said"the method of science, the aim of religion" again?
|
|
|
Post by a on Sept 16, 2005 11:56:34 GMT
I have a quantum scientist in my family, he is doing a Phd on something quantum related. Anyway he tells me that scientists don't have a lot of time for, what I shall call, the esotericists.
Which is a pity, for there is so much opportunity for coming together just now, here and now, at this precise point in our evolution. Such opportunities don't come along all that often.
Science meets religion, meets mystery traditions, meets martial arts, meets new age, meets old age, meets everything.
The language may be different, the expections of who can hold the knowledge will need breaking down to reflect reality, but fundamentally it is all the same. And naturally coming together. All that is keeping it apart is the ego of man.
|
|
|
Post by jonathan on Sept 16, 2005 12:37:13 GMT
Stewart -
The meaning behind everything or anything is of great interest to me, so I suppose you could say I am interested in esoteric subjects.
However, that interest won't come at the expense of not understanding the physics that underpin our existence. Like it or not, we are bound by certain principles, some of which have been well explained over the last years. I can't accept bad science being used to shore up esoteric thinking. If the science in the argument is demonstrably wrong, misunderstood or mis-applied, it will weaken the cause of the esoteric discussion and it will rightly be dismissed as faddish new age twaddle.
I think you can marry good science with the esoteric - people like Dr Richard Wiseman have been trying to do this for years. Many scientists have spent their entire career using observation, hypothesis and experiment to attempt to explain some of the greatest mysteries of our existence.
Jonathan
|
|
|
Post by a on Sept 16, 2005 13:20:03 GMT
Like it or not, we are bound by certain principles I am not so sure that we are. Though this is a difficult area. There have been a few areas of my life which defy obvious rational explanation, but they still happened. That is not to say that there is not a principal that I am currently unaware of. A couple of examples. 1. My eyes. Some months back I developed a problem with my right eye. After a period of months I went to the optician, who decided that it was serious enough to warrant a hospital visit. She also identified a possible problem with my left eye, and referred me for that as well. Well as you can imagine I was not thralled at the prospect of loosing my eyesight so you could say that I willed my eyes better. By the time of my hospital visit the problems in my right eye had disappeared, and the consultant, after a barrage of tests, could find nothing wrong with either eye. He even questioned the accuracy of opticians pressure readings. Now there could be an explanation as to why my eyes healed that I am unaware of, but all that I know is that I willed like nobodies business for them to heal. Could be coincidence. From an esoteric perspective you would not believe the number of ethical issues that this throws up. 2. If you have followed my posts over the years you will be aware of an occasion when I faced a phobia and bonded with a snake. I could feel its emotions and we communicated in a very special way. This is an area that I have been testing since. Rationally, on the basis of established science, I would have to say that such communication is not possible, but I know that communication with animals is possible, as do many pet owners, and indeed there is scientific research being done to prove that dogs can read the minds of their owners even at distance. I understand that even skeptical scientists are proving this in their experiments. Hence I am becoming increasingly convinced that we are not bound by principles, unless we choose to be bound by them. We are after all, intimately connected, and it is very difficult to describe in mere words the beauty of the oneness that is all. What is for sure is that once you have experienced it, you don't forget it in a hurry.
|
|
|
Post by atarnaris on Sept 16, 2005 15:12:10 GMT
1. My eyes. Some months back I developed a problem with my right eye. After a period of months I went to the optician, who decided that it was serious enough to warrant a hospital visit. She also identified a possible problem with my left eye, and referred me for that as well. Well as you can imagine I was not thralled at the prospect of loosing my eyesight so you could say that I willed my eyes better. By the time of my hospital visit the problems in my right eye had disappeared, and the consultant, after a barrage of tests, could find nothing wrong with either eye. He even questioned the accuracy of opticians pressure readings. Now there could be an explanation as to why my eyes healed that I am unaware of, but all that I know is that I willed like nobodies business for them to heal. Could be coincidence. From an esoteric perspective you would not believe the number of ethical issues that this throws up. Hence I am becoming increasingly convinced that we are not bound by principles, unless we choose to be bound by them. We are after all, intimately connected, and it is very difficult to describe in mere words the beauty of the oneness that is all. What is for sure is that once you have experienced it, you don't forget it in a hurry. iT IS ALL ABOUT THE wILLI, INNIT sTEW?
|
|
|
Post by a on Sept 16, 2005 20:29:16 GMT
iT IS ALL ABOUT THE wILLI, INNIT sTEW? Darn the secret is out.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Sept 16, 2005 22:40:30 GMT
Russell, You've managed to come up with some fabulous pseudo-scientific theories again. The Michelson-Morley experiment doesn't 'purport' anything. It took a very clever and very simple technique to prove the non-existence of an influence by an 'aetheric wind' on the speed of light, in line with Einstein's special theory of relativity. If you want a straightforward and simple explanation of what that meant for the theory of the ether, then I suggest you read 'Big Bang' by Simon Schama. This is possibly one of the best books for explaining physical principles to non-scientists ever written. Jonathan Jonathan Sometimes I find the subtlety of discussion on this board quite remarkable But, correct me if I am wrong, did not Michelson and Morley assume that the speed of light along the aether wind should be different from the speed across the aether wind? They tested for this, and within the accuracy of their experiments and later repeats, they could not detect a difference. Now that leaves us with a number of propositions: - the experiment was not sufficiently sensitive - the experiment was faulty in some way - the speed of light along the wind is the same as across the wind - the wind does not exist - aether does not exist. In my reading Michelson and Morley jumped to the last proposition. But I have not seen the alternative explanations disproven. Indeed I have only seen the first of those even attempted. But no doubt you can cast some light upon my poor science I wait hopefully Russell
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Sept 16, 2005 22:56:06 GMT
Jonathan I should also have said that, as far as I recall, Karl Popper tells us that science is unable to prove anything. The best is can do is demonstrate phenomena are consistent or inconsistent with a theory. And if you are by bent an experimentalist, I suggest that you try the experiment that I described and you might even see Aether for yourself. Of course many people of sceptical bent would feel unable to conduct the experiment on the ground that I had suggested the outcomes and that despite their long practice of scepticism they might be so suggestible as to see something that was not there. " a real bummer" as they would say down under Now most science is a science of matter. We do do a bit of science of consciousness but rather poorly. But the science of ether is quite well advanced while not being published in the journals of materialistic science since it is anathema to the material scientists Here are some links As you will see much of the current application of etheric engineering is military or weather modification - sometimes the same thing www.rainengineering.com/orgone.org/www.pureenergysystems.com/news/2005/09/06/9600160_Weather_Modification/www.borderlands.com/catalog/trevor.htmwww.whale.to/b/weather.htmlFortunately the primary research is still available in the work of Wilhelm Reich (The Function of the Orgasm) so that those who wish to know can repeat the experiments. Scary name for his book! I used to work for a sociologist in his llate fifties and I loaned him the book. But he could not read it on the bus in case someone saw the title. And he could not read it at home in case his wife saw the title. So he gave it back unread. Scary stuff. Cheers Russell
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Sept 17, 2005 4:32:52 GMT
Jonathan A familiar spirit has pointed out to me that my memory was faulty in regard to Popper. He only established the science advanced by disproof and was unable to prove propositions. See plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/ It is not until we get to Thomas Kuhn "The Structure of Scientific Revolution" www.des.emory.edu/mfp/Kuhn.html that we discover that disproof is embedded in the hermeneutic context. Thus it is most difficult even to disprove propositions. One has to wait for the proponents of the old paradigm to die. For myself, I involuntarily abandoned academic epistemology about 30 years ago and was thrust into experiential epistemology. But Jonathan, being younger, you are more likely to be across modern academic thinking than I am. Perhaps the wheel has turned full circle and we are again able to prove things I await your reply with keen interest Cheers Russell
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Sept 17, 2005 11:55:57 GMT
I fear I have killed this thread
Jonathan, feel free to ignore my questioning of religious materialistic science
Cheers
Russell
|
|
|
Post by a on Sept 17, 2005 12:26:26 GMT
What the bleep do I know?
Very little really.
But I do know that human beings are funny creatures. We learn something and the accept it as fact. Then we learn some more and realise that what we previously knew was only part of the picture, but what we then know becomes accepted fact. You know when you are getting somewhere when you come to realise that the more you know, about a subject, the less you know.
Our egos, arrogance, and fears all combine to stop us questioning what we know, even when there is evidence staring straight at us to suggest that there is more to know.
Man has only moved forward when he has dared to dare the "impossible". Our "comfort zones" of egos find it hard to take these steps. Yet we have tools to help us do exactly this. And if we stop moving forward, on our personal journies, the darkness creaps all around us, invisibly swamping us, blinding us.
Which is why having beacons of light, true illumination, in our world is so very important.
The question is, can you, yes you, find the light that lies within you?
|
|
staffs
Administrator
Staffs
Posts: 3,295
|
Post by staffs on Sept 17, 2005 13:50:02 GMT
I fear I have killed this thread Jonathan, feel free to ignore my questioning of religious materialistic science Cheers Russell Russell ,dont worry at all .It has been moved from the general and into another area and if you want to carry it on there then that is ok by us.
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Sept 17, 2005 14:00:27 GMT
The question is, can you, yes you, find the light that lies within you? Christians have known this all along. 2 Corinthians 13:5.
|
|
|
Post by jonathan on Sept 17, 2005 19:52:27 GMT
Russell -
Thread's not dead!
I'm thinking about your reply. I can see the point that the M-M experiment could have had a different conclusion, so off to find the correct answer. Since I last looked at the work a few years back, memory needs to be refreshed to argue properly.
By the way, who says I'm younger?
Jonathan
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Sept 17, 2005 21:52:18 GMT
Jonathon
I am pleasantly surprised.
By the way, the concept of a "correct answer" might need to be considered in light of the work of Thomas Kuhn on scientific paradigms.
Cheers
Russell
|
|