Welcome to the Theory of Everything forums.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
| | |
| | White Belt
Status: Offline Posts: 6
Thanks Given: 0
Thanked 0x in 0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2006 Rep Power: 0 | On The Development of a Theory of The Universe -
05-24-2006, 01:02 AM
They who know of no purer sources of truth, who have traced up its stream no higher, stand, and wisely stand, by the Bible and the Constitution, and drink at it there with reverence and humility; but they who behold where it comes trickling into this lake...
Last edited by Robert : 08-05-2006 at 01:16 AM.
Reason: Removed the [size] references
| |
|  | | | | Re: On The Development of a Theory of The Universe
Joseph, I like what you wrote as a response to my questions. It isn't complete, but is more complete than anyone elses answers, so far. It reminds me of quantum mechanics reducing sub-quantum structure to ever increasingly smaller entities, then when all aspects of matter are individually created, to then start joining them together to create what we know to be cellular life, and eventually us. The equilibrium of entropy in two directions___I like it... This bi-directional entropy fits perfectly with my deeper desires for a better meaning of the ontic, being state of man and nature... Guille and I have been trying to think of better ways to work out new interpretations of this most complex concept; you have helped greatly, thanks...
Joseph, I think you'd get more response if you re-published your thesis under the TOE theories section, where everyone will see it and be able to make further comments. As it stands now, it is quite hard to find the location of your work as there is really no direct visible link to it. If you publish it in this other section, and post once in a while to keep it active, I believe you could generate a good deal of new comment and ideas...
regards,
Lloyd
p.s.
Not really a clear reply, I'm tired, because I've been moving out of a house for over two weeks. Try to make clearer later... | | |
By
Robert
on
08-06-2006, 01:04 PM
| | Re: On The Development of a Theory of The Universe
Hi Lloyd. The visible link to Joseph's article is the Article link in the upper navigation bar, but I just realized, it's only visible once you login. There's also a link in the submenu of the topmost menu under "Forums". I've added a link to "Member Articles" on the home page navigation module so that should help, especially with spiders.
Hello Joseph. Lloyd has a good point so I've brought your article into the "Focused Review & Study" category as its own forum so it can receive more attention and analysis by the ToeQuest community. The focus forum can be found here. All readers sure read the "Forum Introduction" thread before posting since there are a couple of rules and guidelines that should be followed.
Regards,
--Robert | | | | | | Re: On The Development of a Theory of The Universe
Joseph:
I cannot even pretend a capability of matching your verbal skill or your mathematical skill, even if you haven't practised it for some thirty years. I do ask that you go to my recent post "The Incremental Universe" or to my web site of the same name to review a simplistic model that I feel can comfortably incorporate most if not all of the proposed conditions illuminated by your paper. In fact your description of the helical motion of EM corresponds closely to my conjectured path of the increment through space.
My congratulations on your possession of an inquiring mind and a persistence in seeking answers to the underlying mysteries from which our iniverse springs.
WillieB | |
Last edited by WillieB : 09-02-2006 at 04:41 PM.
| | | | Re: On The Development of a Theory of The Universe
How does inanimate matter produce animate being ?
The brain waves i. e. alpha - beta - theta - delta - and omega are animate or frequencies of consciousness - when we through meditation (concentration) identify with -experience - and merge with - the higher frequencies of alpha instead of beta we not only have heightened states of consciousness but as a direct result better chemical production in the body.
The brain waves are animate matter - and we through the process of thinking then create thought as inanimate matter - and we are imprisoned in these thought creations because we have created them.
This is the inexorable "Law of Karma" that keeps us bound to the "Wheel of Life" or - physical - astral - and causal - worlds of the universal mind or Brahman. | | | | | | Re: On The Development of a Theory of The Universe
Sorry, but I think anything beyond provable science is BT-BS___big time-bull-_hit!!! Quote:
Originally Posted by Infinite Consciousness  How does inanimate matter produce animate being ?
The brain waves i. e. alpha - beta - theta - delta - and omega are animate or frequencies of consciousness - when we through meditation (concentration) identify with -experience - and merge with - the higher frequencies of alpha instead of beta we not only have heightened states of consciousness but as a direct result better chemical production in the body.
The brain waves are animate matter - and we through the process of thinking then create thought as inanimate matter - and we are imprisoned in these thought creations because we have created them.
This is the inexorable "Law of Karma" that keeps us bound to the "Wheel of Life" or - physical - astral - and causal - worlds of the universal mind or Brahman. | | | | | | | Re: On The Development of a Theory of The Universe
Sorry, but I know provable science as an "outward" event is BT _ big time- bull-_ hit!!!
Lloyd Gillespie
Are you aware that in discussing the wave -particle characteristics of light you are discussing the creation of 3d holographic objects where in fact there is no object ?
Do you know that the universe is a 3d hologram which consists of particles and waves from thought in-formation as interference patterns decoded by the brain as objects and that there is in fact no actual object there.
What possible benefit can their be in studying particles and waves as the components of an illusion when we are imprisoned in that illusion and it is preventing us from experiencing our True self independent of the illusion ? Does this make any sense ?
Wouldn't it make more sense to discover how we are making the illusion so that we can stop making it rise above it and meet our True Self ? Especially when it is the illusion that is the cause of all of humanities suffering and eventual death ?
You present scientific findings as provable scientific evidence but provable scientific evidence of what ? That there are particles and waves ? That you cannot measure both position and momentum of a particle accurately at the same time ? What does that have to do with ontology if no connections are made between us - our thoughts - and our universe ?
There is no scientific proof of why you cannot measure both position and momentum of a particle accurately at the same time ? Where does that leave provable science - if provable science cannot prove - the uncertainty principle in quantum physics - ontology (the study of Being) - and phenomenology (the study of phenomena as events in consciousness) then where does that leave provable science ?
Sorry, but i don't think - 'i know' - that the so called "provable science is in fact the BT-BS --- big time - bull - hit " preventing us from uncovering the ontology and phenomenology behind the uncertainty principle as it relates to events in consciousness and because consciousness is an absolute which can only be known and merged with "inwardly" it can not be known "outwardly" consequently " provable science" as an outward event can never know anything involving consciousness because "Consciousness is Infinite" - complete in "Itself" - and comes before any outer expression !
" I AM - THEREFORE - I THINK " ! | | |
By
Nobody
on
09-11-2006, 03:33 AM
| | Re: On The Development of a Theory of The Universe
Just a quick thing I noticed that might put your paper on ignore mode, is the discription of the big bang as an explosion. Eventhough the name implies an explosion, the inflationary theory and bb theory go hand-in-hand, and the consensus leans toward a big expansion with the picture of space stretching out and carrying matter with it as it expands. The cmb being more the result of decay of particles than due to a first exposion. | | | | |  Re: On The Development of a Theory of The Universe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Infinite Consciousness Sorry, but I know provable science as an "outward" event is BT _ big time- bull-_ hit!!!
Lloyd Gillespie
Are you aware that in discussing the wave -particle characteristics of light you are discussing the creation of 3d holographic objects where in fact there is no object ?
Do you know that the universe is a 3d hologram which consists of particles and waves from thought in-formation as interference patterns decoded by the brain as objects and that there is in fact no actual object there.
What possible benefit can their be in studying particles and waves as the components of an illusion when we are imprisoned in that illusion and it is preventing us from experiencing our True self independent of the illusion ? Does this make any sense ?
Wouldn't it make more sense to discover how we are making the illusion so that we can stop making it rise above it and meet our True Self ? Especially when it is the illusion that is the cause of all of humanities suffering and eventual death ?
You present scientific findings as provable scientific evidence but provable scientific evidence of what ? That there are particles and waves ? That you cannot measure both position and momentum of a particle accurately at the same time ? What does that have to do with ontology if no connections are made between us - our thoughts - and our universe ?
There is no scientific proof of why you cannot measure both position and momentum of a particle accurately at the same time ? Where does that leave provable science - if provable science cannot prove - the uncertainty principle in quantum physics - ontology (the study of Being) - and phenomenology (the study of phenomena as events in consciousness) then where does that leave provable science ?
Sorry, but i don't think - 'i know' - that the so called "provable science is in fact the BT-BS --- big time - bull - hit " preventing us from uncovering the ontology and phenomenology behind the uncertainty principle as it relates to events in consciousness and because consciousness is an absolute which can only be known and merged with "inwardly" it can not be known "outwardly" consequently " provable science" as an outward event can never know anything involving consciousness because "Consciousness is Infinite" - complete in "Itself" - and comes before any outer expression !
" I AM - THEREFORE - I THINK " ! | Just a brief thanks for your worthy reply.
IC-thanks.
regards michael. | | | | | | Re: On The Development of a Theory of The Universe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobody Just a quick thing I noticed that might put your paper on ignore mode, is the discription of the big bang as an explosion. Eventhough the name implies an explosion, the inflationary theory and bb theory go hand-in-hand, and the consensus leans toward a big expansion with the picture of space stretching out and carrying matter with it as it expands. The cmb being more the result of decay of particles than due to a first exposion. | Thanks Nobody, but I hold to the original explosion scenario___It's, IMO, the only mechanics of the universe that fits the actual laws of physics and thermo-hydro-dynamics. The inflation, only, theory makes no sense coming from nothing. The laws of physics require an infinite, eternal existence of energy/matter___IMO, it's just the original forces of motion and their evolutionary organizations that matter. The laws of physics become invalid if the entire energy/matter is not infinitely eternal___We know by all experience that the laws of physics are fundamentally sound___even when all classical, relative, and quantum cosmological relativity mechanics are considered. A universe coming from nothing makes no sense___a universe inflating without a description of original motion cause___makes no sense___scientifically. It must have the only original self-cause scientifically known___thermo-hydro-dynamics___and such a self-cause would create a true big bang explosion by simply/complex deisel through hydrodynamic compression and condensation of original wave/matter, as we now know it. How it formed then is the real question___before the first star was born___we can know the rest of the story___explosion and inflation of real wave/matter are, IMO, both true...
regards,
Lloyd | | | | | | Re: On The Development of a Theory of The Universe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Infinite Consciousness Sorry, but I know provable science as an "outward" event is BT _ big time- bull-_ hit!!!
Lloyd Gillespie
There is no scientific proof of why you cannot measure both position and momentum of a particle accurately at the same time ? Where does that leave provable science - if provable science cannot prove - the uncertainty principle in quantum physics - ontology (the study of Being) - and phenomenology (the study of phenomena as events in consciousness) then where does that leave provable science ?
Sorry, but i don't think - 'i know' - that the so called "provable science is in fact the BT-BS --- big time - bull - hit " preventing us from uncovering the ontology and phenomenology behind the uncertainty principle as it relates to events in consciousness and because consciousness is an absolute which can only be known and merged with "inwardly" it can not be known "outwardly" consequently " provable science" as an outward event can never know anything involving consciousness because "Consciousness is Infinite" - complete in "Itself" - and comes before any outer expression !
" I AM - THEREFORE - I THINK " ! | Un-Infinite Consciousness, I am well aware of ontology studies, and how limited and falacious they are. I believe Daniel Dennett and others have even questioned the validity of consciousness and being studies, as do I. He, myself and many others state consciousness is no more than brain states of the finite universe___I can't prove this, but neither can you prove anything about being or consciousness, other than we exist___how we exist no-one knows___and science has a "few" years more to discover this. Until science can figure out the quantum organization of life, we all are in the dark as to truly knowing anything real about life formation and true full functions. If you'd study a little more quantum mechanics you may see its real knowledge and benefits, especially as relates to quantum biology and other areas of quantum technologies and medicines___we are just on the cutting edge of this massive field of knowledge___you know Watson, of Watson and Crich DNA fame was a quantum biologist, and also states there is nothing in the universe beyond real science___anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional... Science is all we can know and prove, always has been, and always will be. Infinite being and consciousness is a myth created by man!
"Being and consciousness starts and ends with the biosphere." me
regards | | | |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Article: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | | | | Article Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new articles You may not post comments You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off | | |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8 Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com | |
