OMG, it’s finally done

[Nesti (Mark)]

Originally Posted by DavidU

When funds are avail I will buy a copy.
I'm thrilled to bit's for you.

Thanks Dave, much appreciated.

[Nesti (Mark)]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

So..you've written a book (no mean feat) "describing an entire particle mechanism connecting spirituality and matter"

Does this mean you are suggesting mind can influence matter?

Hi Peter,

Yes, I suggest a connectivity pathway between matter/energy and conscious intent (spirituality). In fact I suggest that it works much the same as a metric tensor, setting values at all spacetime points.

Firstly, in meditation the key is to keep the mind active so that conscious awareness may be expressed without the mind suppressing it. There's a world of difference between the mind and conscious intent. I do not suggest that the mind can influence matter in any way; what I suggest is that conscious intent can interfere with deterministic events and this in turn forces a free-will interference, an interference which must be compensated for. I suggest that particles have a basic conscious awareness of their states and values, this is fed into them much the same as how string theory suggests that all like-particles have exactly the same voltage/mass etc.

Many people out there believe that an observer can influence an event outcome (ie. collapse a wave function and bring an outcome into reality) just by looking at it, I don't subscribe to this. I feel that a free-will interference forces probability out of the deterministic features within the universe (yes, I'm actually saying that determinism and probability are coupled together until they are forced apart, however, I must also add that my view of probability is more akin to deterministic chaos, ie I don't believe in randomness or even uncertainty, I fully describe why).

It really does take 65,000 words to see my point on this...and I do map-out the pathway in a particle descriptive manner, albeit as a suggestion!

[leinad (Dan)]

Congratulations there Mark. Looks like an interesting read.

Any influence in your research from 'The Secret Doctrine' by any chance?

Have sent an email for event registration.

[Nesti (Mark)]

Originally Posted by leinad

Congratulations there Mark. Looks like an interesting read.

Any influence in your research from 'The Secret Doctrine' by any chance?

Have sent an email for event registration.

I get asked if I've read certain books all the time, and I would love to be able to say "yes" and discuss it further...but the truth is-is that over 10 years ago I deliberately cut myself off from others doing similar, as I wanted to ensure that anything written has come from my head and not so much a twist of someone else's ideas (last book was 'Tao of Physics' in 1995). I've always felt that was important. If there was a correlation between what I have written and that of someone elses', then there's a like-mindedness there...that being said, the book's full of quotes from science and math and a buy and read books on relativity regularly. Go figure!

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by Nesti

Hi Peter,
...........
I suggest that particles have a basic conscious awareness of their states and values.......

I'd want some clarification here.

You're saying particles (vis: Baryon Boson, Fermion, Hadron, Lepton, Meson & Quark) have "conscious awareness" ?

To me that's like saying a rock, "knows" its a rock. Sorry, I don't think a rock is any more sentient than an electron.

And no maths?! Bold claims require strong evidence, and maths is an imperative in any physical theory....along with an ability to predict events and be tested.

65,000 odd words is to be sure is a big effort, but to paraphrase Feynman, unless you can explain it, succintly, to a barmaid/barman, you don't truly have a handle on the subject.

So...I'm pulling the beer. Swan Larger or Fosters?

[Nesti (Mark)]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

I'd want some clarification here.

You're saying particles (vis: Baryon Boson, Fermion, Hadron, Lepton, Meson & Quark) have "conscious awareness" ?

To me that's like saying a rock, "knows" its a rock. Sorry, I don't think a rock is any more sentient than an electron.

And no maths?! Bold claims require strong evidence, and maths is an imperative in any physical theory....along with an ability to predict events and be tested.

65,000 odd words is to be sure is a big effort, but to paraphrase Feynman, unless you can explain it, succintly, to a barmaid, you don't truly have a handle on the subject.

So...I'm pulling the beer. Swan Larger or Fosters?

No, I've already spend 4 years writing almost full-time, I'm not prepared to repeat the process right here, right now, simply because you don't like what I suggest.

Instead of pulling beers, if you want to know exactly what I'm alluding to, visit Amazon and find out.

OR, you could write down you own ideas if you have any you would like to share?! But if you do, be wary, there are people out there who don't like other people having thoughts and ideas. They opt to attack their suggestions without first getting to know what they are saying and whey they are saying it. They also tend to rest upon the efforts of others to do so.

The word "Theory" is your choice of wording, not mine. I know what a theory is, to which everything I have written on this forum and within the book is not...and cannot be??? It is in fact a Hypothesis without a testable procedure, ergo, a series of suggestions, therefore I need no mathematics whatsoever. I have stated it is a suggestion all along. It seems some people don't listen.

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by Nesti

..........a Hypothesis without a testable procedure, .....

Whoah there Pilgrim.

I could also suggest Xenu brought people to earth 75 million years ago. stacked them around volcanones and killed them with hydrogen bombs.

Some people actually believe this. (I think they are nuts)

I did visit Amazon dot com, but the precis left me dumbfounded.

I would not expect an extensive explanation here either.

But to me, you are still being obtuse.

I don't need a lecture in Philosophy 105 to get the gist, but to suggest, (and it is still not clear to me whether you believe so) that the building blocks of matter are in some way "sentient", is to me, pure fantasy...I may have mis-interpreted your earlier post. Have I?

[Wavytone]

I'm looking at the moon, and I've been persuading it that it is made of swiss cheese. It didn't object, so according to your conjecture, it has converted itself to swiss cheese. Now someone needs to go up there and taste it.

Now all I need is a way to convince the postit notes in my kitchen that they are really $100 notes - I'm sure they won't object...

Next step is to persuade the grains of sand in the sandpit in the local park that they are really diamonds, I'm sure they won't object either...

Anyone else spotted a self-delusion ?

[Quantum629 (Will)]

Oh wow, there's an author in here! This looks really cool; I'll definitly have to get this. Will this be coming out in any stores at some point? Also, I know what the other three are, but what's OM?

[Nesti (Mark)]

Originally Posted by Quantum629

Oh wow, there's an author in here! This looks really cool; I'll definitly have to get this. Will this be coming out in any stores at some point? Also, I know what the other three are, but what's OM?

Thanks, it might be the graphics that grabs the attention.

To answer your last question before your first;
In Hinduism, the sacred syllable representing Brahman or God, and the source of all existence, is Om. The correct term is AUM, however it is customary to only use the lesser, interchangeable term, Om, if you are not placing the correct intent, attention and reverence with its use. OM is a Sanskrit mantra said to be responsible for bringing our universe – more accurately, existence – into being and sustaining it. Within it are the the three ‘Guanas’ (qualities) found within the cosmic vibration of creation and existence, where: A represents creation (God Brahma), U represents preservation (God Vishnu), and M represents transmutation (God Siva).
Roughly, OM can be thought of as the vibration of creation, preservation and transmutation (not destruction as often thought). If you can see a possible connection to string theory in that blurb, then you will know some of the scenery within the book.

I'm communicating with larger bookstore chains currently. The ISBNs all link to the publishers, so books can be ordered through any bookstore at anytime. What I'm aiming to do is hold local stock (done) and then supply direct to bookstores (yet to do) dropping the lead time from 4 weeks to 3 days. This of course takes time to achieve.

In the interim, books can be bought direct through StillPoint Publications (PM me for contact details) and shipped nationally within 3 working days.


Other choices so far are;
Barnes & Noble
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/If-...e+are+anything
Planet Books, Western Australia (need to phone)
Amazon
http://www.amazon.com/If-We-Are-Anyt...2181380&sr=1-1
iUniverse
http://www.iuniverse.com/Bookstore/B...h=mark%20nesti

[mac (Matt)]

Originally Posted by AlexN

Quantum physics does not rule out telekinesis, or telepathy... The mind is incredible, and considering the average human uses what? between 5% and 10% of their brain at any given time, it really makes me wonder what the brain would be capable of at even 30%, let alone 100%...

I'm starting to have doubts about the 5%-10% usage of our brain theory. Species tend to evolve through a need, don't they? So for the human brain to be the size and capacity that it is implies that we are actually using it - or have used it in the past - otherwise it would go the way of everything else that doesn't get used - and shrink or disappear. Unless of course, the additional 90% is the brain equivalent of 'dark matter'? Hmm...

[Waxing_Gibbous (Peter)]

Well done. Well done indeed.
I know the trials and tribulations of having one's work published.
My own, "Shemale Shennanigans" took AGES to find the right publisher!

[Nesti (Mark)]

Originally Posted by mac

I'm starting to have doubts about the 5%-10% usage of our brain theory. Species tend to evolve through a need, don't they? So for the human brain to be the size and capacity that it is implies that we are actually using it - or have used it in the past - otherwise it would go the way of everything else that doesn't get used - and shrink or disappear. Unless of course, the additional 90% is the brain equivalent of 'dark matter'? Hmm...

Keep in mind that a computer fails when it's hard drive reaches 100% capacity. The fastest your computer will ever run, is when only the operating system is loaded...perhaps brains need large amounts of capacity to operate effectively and efficiently. If our brain even falters (lower functions), we die. Also, we really don't know how memory is stored and what does the processing...so perhaps 10% is optimum?!

[Nesti (Mark)]

Originally Posted by Waxing_Gibbous

Well done. Well done indeed.
I know the trials and tribulations of having one's work published.
My own, "Shemale Shennanigans" took AGES to find the right publisher!

Thanks mate...and, you are taking the P...aren't you, coz I don't really wanna research that claim?