Can One Travel Without Actually Travelling

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

The work has already been done with particle accelerators. If you plot the energy required to accelerate a particle to a given velocity u, you find the line u=c is an asymptote to the curve. In other words it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate the particle to c (and surpass it).

It's no coincidence that the LHC is able to accelerate protons up to "only" 0.999c.

Steven

Yes, Steven, I know all about that...simple physics. What I am saying is if we accept that (for the sake of argument) that these craft are coming here, then there's some aspect of physics which we have no knowledge of and/or what we think we know about physics is not completely correct. All the particle accelerators have done, so far, is confirm what we think we know about physics. It's like doing a series of experiments to confirm a theory when we know what the outcome of those experiments are going to be beforehand. What we need to do is step outside of that box and try some things which may seem to be heretical as far as physics is concerned. Even if we ultimately prove that they don't work, we may learn a few things which we might not have found out otherwise. It may even point to unique and unusual answers to questions we have about other areas in physics (and maybe other fields in science).

[GrahamL]

No worries mark ,I'll look under fiction though, On a conceptual level
the terms you use (seem to / somehow) to descibe some of the core concepts around the book your not promoteing here don't lend themselves to any qualification.

Your Science can't hide behind the intellectual property of one person and its shareholders for long, as its always been it needs to be tested
tried and judged on its merits , whether it falls or flys so be it.

Without that I only see ( to borrow anothers words )
"new age" .. bunkum whos only goal is to spin a buck .

having said that you'll probably sell plenty of them



I

[renormalised (Carl)]

If a particle is able to retain these frequencies, and strings can hold many, then in every particle may reside a history of its interactions.

Clear as mud?

Though I haven't read your manuscript, yet (not until the end of the semester), this would work as a good approximation for how the akashic records are stored. If you take conscious thought and consciousness itself as a fundamental function of the universe that interact with the structure of reality (i.e. the universe) at a quantum level and beyond, then anything that consciousness and thought create will impinge itself upon its surroundings. Therefore, if particles retain a history of their interactions, or to be more precise about it, each string which makes up those particles is vibrating at multiple levels of energy, then as with all harmonic oscillators the tone at which it predominantly vibrates will be a function of all the various overtones it's vibrated at or has had imprinted onto the fundamental waveform. If you know how to deconstruct that waveform, then you should be able to read off all the vibratory patterns it has stored within it. In effect, it stores all the information it comes in contact with. However, the fundamental harmonic vibration itself would act as a field, much like the fields you could subscribe to the 4 fundamental physical forces, as it would be common to all particles and other fields/forces/geometries. Just like matter and energy, information cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change form and function. So any information (thought/consciousness) should be preserved as secondary oscillatory patterns overprinted onto the fundamental wavefunction. Hence, the Akashic Records. They would be, in effect, information stored at a quantum and multidimensional level (or whatever level it turns out to be) that was generated by the conscious thoughts and awareness of all living beings. The field itself could be considered a living entity, effectively a gestalt of all conscious thought or innate intent within any living thing. Sentience would then be where that field was of sufficient complexity and structure that self awareness became possible. Once one part of that field became sentient, then the entire gestalt would become sentient. The degree to which the various parts became consciously aware would be one of degree and not of kind, but they would all share in that sentience.

Anyway, I can see this causing some consternation amongst our more literal minded fellows here, and I know many will find it hard to follow, so I think I'll end it here...and goto bed!!!!. Time for some Zzzz's

[Nesti (Mark)]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Though I haven't read your manuscript, yet (not until the end of the semester), this would work as a good approximation for how the akashic records are stored. If you take conscious thought and consciousness itself as a fundamental function of the universe that interact with the structure of reality (i.e. the universe) at a quantum level and beyond, then anything that consciousness and thought create will impinge itself upon its surroundings. Therefore, if particles retain a history of their interactions, or to be more precise about it, each string which makes up those particles is vibrating at multiple levels of energy, then as with all harmonic oscillators the tone at which it predominantly vibrates will be a function of all the various overtones it's vibrated at or has had imprinted onto the fundamental waveform. If you know how to deconstruct that waveform, then you should be able to read off all the vibratory patterns it has stored within it. In effect, it stores all the information it comes in contact with. However, the fundamental harmonic vibration itself would act as a field, much like the fields you could subscribe to the 4 fundamental physical forces, as it would be common to all particles and other fields/forces/geometries. Just like matter and energy, information cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change form and function. So any information (thought/consciousness) should be preserved as secondary oscillatory patterns overprinted onto the fundamental wavefunction. Hence, the Akashic Records. They would be, in effect, information stored at a quantum and multidimensional level (or whatever level it turns out to be) that was generated by the conscious thoughts and awareness of all living beings. The field itself could be considered a living entity, effectively a gestalt of all conscious thought or innate intent within any living thing. Sentience would then be where that field was of sufficient complexity and structure that self awareness became possible. Once one part of that field became sentient, then the entire gestalt would become sentient. The degree to which the various parts became consciously aware would be one of degree and not of kind, but they would all share in that sentience.

Anyway, I can see this causing some consternation amongst our more literal minded fellows here, and I know many will find it hard to follow, so I think I'll end it here...and goto bed!!!!. Time for some Zzzz's

Geez Carl, that was quick! How about that; you connected the Akasha...without too much of a stretch you can probably see now you how karmic values may be assigned, forming dependent arising and Samsara? Scary thought, yeah? A physical mechanism of an ancient doctrine, hidden within String Theory.

This may test you.
Question for you: If these frequencies are being stored at a linear rate, and of course think about the sheer number of interactions spread throughout the universe, and if the field is connected through higher dimensional space to each an every particle (directly via the sheer number of Calabi-Yaus), we would see a homogenous field growing not in intensity, but in the number of stored frequencies (events). Now if a string frequency (event record) requires energy for it to be added, then where does the energy come from? Remember two things; 1. only Fermions can store/record, Bosons and Gravitons are conserved and, 2. Strings don't take-on energy directly, it is a process which occurs within the Calabi-Yau (the consistency of particle properties are regulated here, just like honing the voltage of all electrons). The Calabi-Yau must find the energy to create the new freq, but where?

Think negative divergence.

Wild idea hey?!

That should create some controversy on the thread...

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Yes, Steven, I know all about that...simple physics. What I am saying is if we accept that (for the sake of argument) that these craft are coming here, then there's some aspect of physics which we have no knowledge of and/or what we think we know about physics is not completely correct. All the particle accelerators have done, so far, is confirm what we think we know about physics. It's like doing a series of experiments to confirm a theory when we know what the outcome of those experiments are going to be beforehand. What we need to do is step outside of that box and try some things which may seem to be heretical as far as physics is concerned. Even if we ultimately prove that they don't work, we may learn a few things which we might not have found out otherwise. It may even point to unique and unusual answers to questions we have about other areas in physics (and maybe other fields in science).

Carl,

We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that physics (science) is based on experiment and observation. If a theory predicts a particular outcome which is supported by experiment or observation then why bother contemplating alternatives. That is neither physics nor science as it contradicts the scientific method.

The primary objective of a particle accelerator is to smash particles, the fact that SR is confirmed is coincidental.

The beauty of experiments is that the outcome is the same irrespective of whether the objective is to confirm a theory or to develop a theory.


Regards

Steven

[FredSnerd (Claude)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

Claude,

I have a much more expansive view of this issue than you give me credit for.
Steven

Steve, With respect you do tend to keep alluding to that and unfortunatly I dont think it advances things very much.

Originally Posted by sjastro

Instead of invoking Minkowski space diagrams ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_diagram ) that show very clearly why exceeding the speed of light results in paradoxes, experimental particle physics gives a practical demonstration of why it is impossible to accelerate particles up to the speed of light and beyond.
Steven

Yes we know all about the paradoxes and the particle accelerators that "demonstrate" conclusively that its "impossible". You know, the establishment in the science community has been talking like this for centuries and quite frankly its always gotten in the way of good science.

Originally Posted by sjastro

My previous post would serve as a "hypothesis" which ultimately highlights the futility of using ever increasing amounts of energy in an attempt to accelerate particles up to c.

Steven

No it does nothing of the kind. It just repeats the old "we know best" line. It brings me in mind of what poor old Faraday must have gone through.

Originally Posted by sjastro

Carl,

If a theory predicts a particular outcome which is supported by experiment or observation then why bother contemplating alternatives. That is neither physics nor science as it contradicts the scientific method.

Steven

"Then why bother contemplating alternatives"??? That's not the scientific method I know.

[sjastro]

Claude,

It never ceases to amaze me with how the same tired old conspiracy theories surface about portraying science as some old boys club that is out to propagate it's own ideas and to suppress new ones that might threaten the establishment.

Einstein's story epitomizes the very opposite view. Einstein submitted SR to the science community while still a patent examiner with a recently acquired PhD, and as a "relative" unknown, yet SR was quickly and widely accepted.

You should keep this in mind, scientific theories are peer reviewed, not peer group reviewed.

"Then why bother contemplating alternatives"??? That's not the scientific method I know.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough. Contemplating alternative theories that contradict observation or experimental evidence is not science.

Steven

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

Carl,

We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that physics (science) is based on experiment and observation. If a theory predicts a particular outcome which is supported by experiment or observation then why bother contemplating alternatives. That is neither physics nor science as it contradicts the scientific method.

The primary objective of a particle accelerator is to smash particles, the fact that SR is confirmed is coincidental.

The beauty of experiments is that the outcome is the same irrespective of whether the objective is to confirm a theory or to develop a theory.


Regards

Steven

Of course, however, how often has science been made to progress by those that have defied convention and looked outside of the box. Nearly every major advance in science has been made that way. Now, whilst much of that advance has been made on the previous work of others, the truly insightful advances have come from original thinking. It's not a matter of ignoring, completely, the work of others or the accepted facts, it's about seeing another way of looking at things, or taking what may have been outlandish and crazy and seeing if it actually works.

[Nesti (Mark)]

If I may describe what I have observed.

There is a trend which is growing in numbers at a very high rate. 5 years ago, an alternative therapy clinic would be busy; today these same clinics are frantic.

My partner's clinic is booked out weeks in advance; my partner herself is booked out 6mths in advance. The only clients which jump the waiting list at terminally ill patients.

People are gravitating toward these new styles of old disciplines in increasing numbers. In fact, we are referred to by Oncology Departments when they have given up. In such a scenario, we regularly see patients which have been told they only have a few weeks or months to live...many years later, they are still coming for treatments and modern medicine (especially the practitioners who although they cannot explain any of it, are becoming accustom to the possibilities) is slowly looking this way. Even insurance companies are seeing the benefits and cost savings in alternative treatments.

Also what I have noticed is the patients themselves. Once upon-a-time they were all Mung-Beans, now we have doctors, lawyers, scientists, nurses, single mums and dads, you name it-we see it.

Another weird contradictory behavior I have notices is that modern medicine is restrictive in its acceptance of alternative thinking, yet is happy to make an exception to the rule as in the case of Placebo Effect. In fact, the Placebo Effect is widely used in drug testing. Then there's consciousness. Neuroscience hasn't a clue how it arises, yet when someone raises the possibility of it being in some way explainable is science terms, academia freak-out. I put double standard attitudes up there with other ridiculous double standards, like renormalization, and that egotistical twit who cannot see past his own self-importance, Sheldon Glashow.

The last is something which relates to this thread. I have noticed a progressive trend toward the spiritual, and a movement away from the scientific. Back in the 50's someone outwardly spiritual was a "Whacko", now they're "Alternative". This goes for the science too. Many people now feel that science is not offering them a better quality of life, many openly admit that while science offers us many technologies and advancements, we've never been sicker, unhappy and disenchanted with life in general. This of course doesn't rest solely with science: politics, modern societal mindset etc all must be looked at, but it seems that people are now attempting to connect again with their inner side.

What I have attempted to do within the book, is to describe in mostly science terms, an inner gut feeling, instinct, held by many, that there is a deep connection between science and spirituality.

As far as testability goes, if anyone wants evidence and observational agreements with what I have written, come along to the clinic and hang around for a few days and talk to people who have been so cut-n-dry at one time, and now just shake their heads in disbelief. We're going through the motions of attaining accreditation right now and wish to set-up a university. It's a long process, but it's worth it. One day we hope to be able to conduct research and analysis on different case studies, so that theories can be put together, based upon data (fact) and observational agreement.

There's an old saying, "there's no such thing as an atheist in a foxhole". We've seen hundreds of people who, when facing death, turn their backs on modern medicine and seek out an alternative, one which their gut instincts have told them to do...why is that?

Lastly, I'm pretty sure most people on this forum don't look at the stars, planets and galaxies to see the mathematics and science in action; they look because of the beauty...unless it's their job or they are making calculations. That goes for mathematics and science itself; people see the beauty in the field of study/enquiry.

At the end of the day, whether anyone here likes it or not, the world is changing. Before too long, whether people like Glashow like it or not, you will see science probing more than just particles. And why? Because people are slowly learning to turning inward…where real understanding comes from and the increasing realisation that maybe there's more out there than what we can experimentally observe.

[Nesti (Mark)]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Of course, however, how often has science been made to progress by those that have defied convention and looked outside of the box. Nearly every major advance in science has been made that way. Now, whilst much of that advance has been made on the previous work of others, the truly insightful advances have come from original thinking. It's not a matter of ignoring, completely, the work of others or the accepted facts, it's about seeing another way of looking at things, or taking what may have been outlandish and crazy and seeing if it actually works.

That's actually quite a valid point.

Einstein himself, after studying electromagnetism, saw what was needed and then applied science to the task of constructing an explanation. He did this for SR and then in exactly the same way for GR. He saw what was needed to bring it all together and then applied the tools to build it.

Isn't this what many people are trying to do with what we are discussing? See what is needed to explain what we observe and then employ the tools for its construction.

I also see the clear need for the 'Scientific Method', BUT, perhaps we really are missing some type of interface, between the two trains of thought. I mentioned earlier about a Philosophy of Science...the 'Village Elders' method of inquiry.

We actually have this in aerospace engineering, it's called an 'Independent' , whereby an independent entity, who is broadly educated, and looks upon ALL the information to find merit and/or fault. What does science have at the moment, peer review...that could be seen as the proverbial 'Fox guarding the hen-house'.

Steven, seriously mate, you have to admit that there is a biased pro-science viewpoint associated with peer review?!

Where's the independence? Should there be another, higher, level of review?

[Nesti (Mark)]

You know how the Egyptians built the Pyramids?...it's really simple...their whole society believed it could be done, and they simply built them. No problem is too big with that level of belief.

[peteyboy (Pete)]

Originally Posted by Nesti

That's actually quite a valid point.

Steven, seriously mate, you have to admit that there is a biased pro-science viewpoint associated with peer review?!

Where's the independence? Should there be another, higher, level of review?

There is, at least for medicine. It's called Cochrane reviews, and it's an independent group who take important medical issues like 'is taking aspirin everyday good' or 'does chiropractic work' and do meta-reviews of all the publications and studies out there. Often there are hundreds of studies to go through on a single issue. The stats get done (properly), they reject the poorly designed studies, and they form a view. They have laymans reports too online I think: great reading if you are interested in genuine evidence based medicine. The great shock of the Cochrane reviews is how much standard practice medicine has little evidence base!
I don't know if similar organisations exist for other sciences, but the Cochrane model is a very good one.

[Nesti (Mark)]

Originally Posted by peteyboy

The stats get done (properly), they reject the poorly designed studies, and they form a view.

Thanks Peteyboy, I'll look into that.

Compiling stats and constructing well designed studies is costly. But that's exactly where we are trying to go.

Cheers
Mark

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Nesti

Geez Carl, that was quick! How about that; you connected the Akasha...without too much of a stretch you can probably see now you how karmic values may be assigned, forming dependent arising and Samsara? Scary thought, yeah? A physical mechanism of an ancient doctrine, hidden within String Theory.

This may test you.
Question for you: If these frequencies are being stored at a linear rate, and of course think about the sheer number of interactions spread throughout the universe, and if the field is connected through higher dimensional space to each an every particle (directly via the sheer number of Calabi-Yaus), we would see a homogenous field growing not in intensity, but in the number of stored frequencies (events). Now if a string frequency (event record) requires energy for it to be added, then where does the energy come from? Remember two things; 1. only Fermions can store/record, Bosons and Gravitons are conserved and, 2. Strings don't take-on energy directly, it is a process which occurs within the Calabi-Yau (the consistency of particle properties are regulated here, just like honing the voltage of all electrons). The Calabi-Yau must find the energy to create the new freq, but where?

Think negative divergence.

Wild idea hey?!

That should create some controversy on the thread...

The problem with the assignation of karmic values is that they are inherently an imposition...and if freedom of choice (free will) is to be conserved then that restriction on free will has to be balanced by the freedom of choice to either: 1. ignore the imposition of karma, and/or, 2. the freedom to remove that karma (information) that is creating the restriction. The big problem with karma is that it's seen as a fait accompli, and cannot be avoided. If you consider karma as being a pigeon hole into which information is put and that once in there it cannot be removed, except by changing the "shape" of the pigeon hole, then that defies freedom of choice and the conservation of free will. If free will is to be conserved, then the only thing karma can be is a guide to where that free will may go, not to where it will go. The choice would be upto whatever was choosing to make the decisions as to whether it followed that information or not. Samsara (reality as it's perceived by the entity perceiving it...for those who don't know what it is), would then be a choice entirely of that which is making that choice to experience it. Not the choice of some outside agency.

The energy is found from the connection between mind and matter. The field which is consciousness and thought is continually interacting with the physical form fields that shape the higher dimensional spaces. That's where the whole idea of observer and the observed being connected comes from (in QM)...that what you think of observing intimately affects the outcome of what's being observed. It doesn't necessarily have to be a conscious observation or decision, just the mere act of observing will affect the outcome. The maths of probability will affect the outcome in any case (heads or tails...dead or alive). Once consciousness touches those other fields, they gain energy from the act of observation. That is then conserved as information in the vibrational state of those other fields.

[Nesti (Mark)]

Originally Posted by renormalised

The energy is found from the connection between mind and matter.

If you go back to the question and think negative divergence as within GR.

Are strings consuming energy in the recording process?! (Rhetorical) If so, what would be the affects, more importantly, what would we observe?

[FredSnerd (Claude)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough. Contemplating alternative theories that contradict observation or experimental evidence is not science.

Steven

Steven,

Its most unbecoming to try and misrepresent what I’m saying by labelling it “conspiracy theory”. I don’t think that scientists conspire with each other to promote an established view. Rather I think what happens is that those who’ve worked in a field for a time (and I’m not just talking about scientists) have a tendency to become very impressed with themselves and what they know (and not sufficiently impressed with what they don’t know) and consequently become unduly resistant to new ideas, especially if they adjudge the proponents of those new ideas to be mere interlopers.

Your revised remark is no better then the first. I don’t think science or the scientific method would ever discourage the contemplation of alternative theories regardless of what earlier observations or experimentation may say. That’s why the book is never closed, even on such respected theories as Evolution and Relativity.

[Nesti (Mark)]

Originally Posted by FredSnerd

Steven,

I don’t think that scientists conspire with each other to promote an established view.

Claude - I see you are saying, and I agree, but only within the context of your discussion.

May I bring to your attention that scientists do in fact conspire. There is a Cold War going on for some time. The String Theorists (Ether viewpoint) and Standard Model (Fields in continuum) are vying heavily for big budgets and public support for pursuing their ideas/theories.

The gloves have been off for many years...Glashow refers to String Theory as a "Tumor" whos theory is "untestable and thus permenantly safe".

After some time and realisation, I remarked to my tutor, "there's more politics in science than there is science", to his reply, "you'd better believe it boy-o".

[FredSnerd (Claude)]

Yes Mark in that wider context I understand what your saying.

[FredSnerd (Claude)]

Wow this thread has grown, though I don't know that we've actually stayed on topic. Maybe we should rename it "the theory of everything"

[Nesti (Mark)]

Originally Posted by FredSnerd

Wow this thread has grown, though I don't know that we've actually stayed on topic. Maybe we should rename it "the theory of everything"

True, but in a way it can be looked upon as being 'ON' topic, in that we have clearly seen that unless you can define 'methods in finding and evaluating truth', topics such as " Can One Travel Without Actually Travelling" cannot be properly explored, only opinions can be discussed.