[mkirkpatrick]

Around and about the indwelling creative mind the crystallized substance crystallizes and
forms a crystal,in the same way around and abouit your creative thoughts the phenomena
is created as desired by you.

When your thoughts become creative they set into operation and activity the higher forces and powers of the mind,and there goes into action the law of mental attraction drawing persons and objects to you.
The law of mental attraction,once set into operation,proceeds like a big piece of machinery,or like some powerful physical process and creates instantaneous results in
your life.

When thoughts become creative,their magnetic power starts to attract and draw,pull and push in numerous waysthe things ,persons and conditions necessary to materialize your thoughts into a reality.

regards michael.

[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie Hi Greg, and to answer your questions. Infinite thermo-hydro-dynamic matter/motion is the source of dark motion, what you call dark energy, most physicists like Davies, Penrose and Hawking refer to as the matter/motion/energy before first star, whether big bang or actual star. It is a well known deffinition of dark matter/energy, in certain obscure writings.

Lloyd ..I have posted this elsewhere in this thread ... the Chandra/NASA observatory claims to have proof of Dark Matter ... there is also a picture

http://www.physlink.com/News/060824P...DarkMatter.cfm

there had to be a real matter/motion/energy buildup/evolution to the first singularity. It's physics and pure common sense. Where else is the cold quantum wave/particle and quantimizer of such linear low entropy waves, if not in a some sort of first finite high entropy singularity?

I don't fully understand this .. I interpret this as .... 'common sense ...prior to the Big-Bang, there was a high entropy singularity' ... if this is so, why is it then logical to assume a low entropy universe immediately after the BB ??

the physics is well founded. My most provocative knowledge of it was when a friend showed me a tv rock, ulexite. It's a mineral; NaCaB5O6(OH)6-5H2O, Hydrated Sodium Calcium Borate Hydroxide.

I agree ... I looked up the Ulexite ... it is amazing. But I don't know that light travels 'slower' through it ?? ... Why couldn't it be put down to reflection and refraction. ??

greg

[Graybeard]

Michael ... it rained mostly ... but I did have a tinnie or two ... and it was warm

greg

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by Graybeard Lode ... is 1/0 = (1 divided by zero) or is it a Boolean value as in a data bit .. 1/0 or as in true/false?? If you look at the expansion of the universe as an increase in entrophy ... and if you consider entropy to be information on the 'whereabouts' of all the particles. Then it could be argued that the particle at the elemental level is an data bit of information ie:1/0. This is part of the Holographic Principle which is not a proven theory. If the Universe keeps expanding ... then ultimately 4 differents fates are predicted for it ... prediction is the underlined word. It will accelerate for eternity.... or ... it will end in Heat-Death, the Big-Freeze or the Big-Rip. The version your referring to in the above quote is the 'Big-Rip'. The Big-Rip says nothing about the reversal of times arrow ?? ... Why would it ?? This is the death of a universe. What have I missed here ? By the way, here is a link to NASA site, where the headline states 'Direct proof of Dark Matter' and includes a composite photograph of Dark Matter. http://www.physlink.com/News/060824P...DarkMatter.cfm Greg

GREG old mate,are we on the right thread HERE!!!!!

regards michael.

[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick GREG old mate,are we on the right thread HERE!!!!! regards michael.

Michael .. your right .... I think the thread started out, that, there was a form of consciousness prior, during and since the big-bang.... as opposed to a random evolutionary cycle. You referred to this as 'crystallised thought' .... further .. it would be found in the 'Final Analysis'

Others, including myself have been proposing alternatives, 1/0 and expansion, Hi-entropy singularity, and so on .... the details may not seem like part of the thread... thats true ... but in principal all these are ideas are related to the 'Final Analysis'

I suppose it relies on whether you take the Final Analysis to be

a) The End of the Universe ... even if that ending is eternal
or
b) When all is known (which may be before the end of the universe)



Sorry if the thread got hi-jaked ..... greg

[mkirkpatrick]

Thoughts and things are correlated,every thought reminds you of a thing,similarly,every thing reminds of a thought.Always there is an action and reaction between things and thoughts.

Things react to your thoughts,and thoughts react to things.Thoughts bring change into a thing,so does a thing bring change in the form of thoughts,according to the modern sciences of psychology,physiology and metaphysics,it has been proven that thoughts do
transform,rearrange and set into motion and activity the material particles in our brains
thereby creating a specific mental state.

When you think,"I want to build a house"you proceed to make plans,draw up the plans,
and make measurements.When this is done you cost the materials,then go buy them,and
start to build a house,it started with an intangible idea,the became a crystallized tangible
building?

regards michael.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Thanks for the link Greg. I also watched pbs's NOVA special sunday night about confirming a dark matter singularity at the center of the milky way. It was confirmed at either four or five different sources at once, a radio telescopic satellite, The South Pole observation station, one in Germany and one in Hawaii. It was a massive collision of star and planet, etc., matter crashing into the singularity. Of course this was not seen as the singularity gobbled it up, but the radiation blast, as predicted years ago by Hawking, was more than evident at all four sources. I saw the pictures myself, they looked almost as massive as what this link shows. Hey, I think we're making headway. I have always had more confidence in cosmology revealing the secrets of the universe. It's happening...

Originally Posted by Graybeard Lloyd ..I have posted this elsewhere in this thread ... the Chandra/NASA observatory claims to have proof of Dark Matter ... there is also a picture http://www.physlink.com/News/060824P...DarkMatter.cfm I don't fully understand this .. I interpret this as .... 'common sense ...prior to the Big-Bang, there was a high entropy singularity' ... if this is so, why is it then logical to assume a low entropy universe immediately after the BB ?? [Greg the low entropy field would always exist at the same time as the high entropy field, in order for the equilibriation of temperatures. Where else would cold come from? It can't come from high entropy___it's hot___ask plasma physicists. Therefore the low entropy is the pre-existing of the singularity, in low entropy cold motion, and the existing low entropy field, of the high entropy space time continuum. It absolutely has to exist to give us 3.7k.___the low entropy state. The finite singularity, of low entropy rise to high entropy over say 10^137 years, just finally blew out into the infinite singularity of that original low entropy origin matter/space. BTW, it is just common sense___Occam's razor.] I agree ... I looked up the Ulexite ... it is amazing. But I don't know that light travels 'slower' through it ?? ... Why couldn't it be put down to reflection and refraction. ?? [I would have to ask, then why does it jump around as it slowly rises? It slows it down so I can see it___that's all I know___reflection or refraction___that's still light motion slowed down in a crystal where the light motion I witness is visable.] greg

It's all pretty amazing to me,
Lloyd

[dleviwing]

Lloyd;
Did you see a different Nova special than I did? The Nova I watched was on galaxy evolution and massive black holes. Did they have one on singularities also? I must have missed it.

I have found that when media present scientist quotes, there is a lot of editing being done in regards to the actual statements. Like Greg’s link, the media tend to make us believe scientific theories have definitive evidence when in reality, it is only more data and as yet no real confirmation of anything. It makes good television, but is the kind of hype that leads to the confusion of the layman. This misrepresentation of facts is what I find most annoying with media hype.

[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by dleviwing Lloyd; Like Greg’s link, the media tend to make us believe scientific theories have definitive evidence when in reality, it is only more data and as yet no real confirmation of anything. It makes good television, but is the kind of hype that leads to the confusion of the layman. This misrepresentation of facts is what I find most annoying with media hype.

Dave .... I re-read the link ... using the 'jaundiced-eye' principle you advocate . I also used the word 'claims to have found' when presenting the link .... sneakily excusing myself from all association

Even so, the 'signature' of dark matter certainly seems clear to me, tho the author may not be present. It seems a reasonably positive statement. Why do you claim it to be a mis-representation ??

How would you have reported this ??

http://www.physlink.com/News/060824P...DarkMatter.cfm

Lloyd... your answer made good sense to me .. thank you ... I have some quibbles

Lloyd .... Greg the low entropy field would always exist at the same time as the high entropy field, in order for the equilibriation of temperatures. Where else would cold come from? It can't come from high entropy ___it's hot___ask plasma physicists.

Why is a high entropy field hot ... or is this a special reference to the hi-entropy field prior to the BB. ?

The Universe is presently in a high entropy state, at least higher than it was immediate post BB. And as the entropy climbs we are getting colder. This seems to be a contradiction.?

greg

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Yes David, I saw the Nova special entitled "Monster of the Milky Way". The one I saw showed the massive radiation blast that only a dark matter singularity could have created. The blast was obvious on all four screens' locations. David, massive black holes are dark matter singularities to me. I see no other common sense evidence to the contrary, or that would make any sense. A black hole that sucks in matter to a point is pure mythos fiction, IMO. Let's have real science. Greg's link also backs up what I saw and have self-theorized over the last year, and in the back of my head for over thirty years. Black holes of massive mass and no size are simply physicists' wild imaginations and false foundations of their guage theories leading them down such a foolish road... I know what you mean about the hype, it's always there, but easily seen through. David, I don't know of any way the facts could have been misrepresented, as the size of the blast was unmistakable, and was predicted long ago by Hawking, of radiation escaping from a black hole singularity___radiation would have had to be the required action of solar systems colliding with such a singularity___and the size of the blast area could only be explained by escaping radiation, I saw. I don't believe four different global stations, of different technology, fudged the evidence at the same time___do you?

Regards,
Lloyd

Originally Posted by dleviwing Lloyd; Did you see a different Nova special than I did? The Nova I watched was on galaxy evolution and massive black holes. Did they have one on singularities also? I must have missed it. David, I don't know of any way the facts could have been misrepresented, as the size of the blast was unmistakable, and was predicted long ago by Hawking, of radiation escaping from a black hole singularity. I have found that when media present scientist quotes, there is a lot of editing being done in regards to the actual statements. Like Greg’s link, the media tend to make us believe scientific theories have definitive evidence when in reality, it is only more data and as yet no real confirmation of anything. It makes good television, but is the kind of hype that leads to the confusion of the layman. This misrepresentation of facts is what I find most annoying with media hype.