Roaring Lovely's Posts

Scientific Skepticism Debunked

Posted by Roaring Lovely on March 8, 2017 at 10:00am

Scientific Skepticism is what I may term it as 'Randism' in (dis)honor of his skeptic, James Randi. There are, however a couple of people with a similar mindset, including the owners of sites such as 'skeptic dictionary', 'rational wiki' and sometimes even Wikipedia itself acts as an output not for truth but for a new whisky dubbed 'scientific skepticism'.Wikipedia define 'scientific skepticism' as:SCIENTIFIC SKEPTICISM: the critique of claims that are not suppoted by facts while promoting claims that are supported by facts.Good! One might wonder what issue I might have with such! It sounds like a good practice! However, there is a subtle catch. Just what is the meaning of this word: 'FACT'? This is exactly where the whole batle ground is!

FACT: A phenomena that actually happens.

In the proper definition of 'fact', there is no provision for knowledge, beleif, nobel prizes, 'scientific community', concensus, evidence etc. This is the major point that 'scientific skepticism' miss! The earth, for instance, did not become round when a gang of idiots voted for a 'round earth' and begun to puplish it in books. Rather, it was and it is and it will remain a fact or a myth whether we beleive it or not! If the earth was round, then the flat earthers at then were morons even if all the available evidence at then pointed that the earth was flat! This is a point that no 'Randi' would love to hear! It is however, an humble acceptance of our limited knowledge. It is humiliating to many to just answer a question by 'we don't know'. They device several way rounds to acknowledging ignorance. One of them is the 'kicking the burden of proof'.

WHY IT IS A BAD IDEA TO CRITIQUE UNOTHORDOX IDEAS AND NOT QUESTION STATUS QUO1.)SCIENCE ACTUALY NEVER PROOF ANYTHING

'Proof' is an utter misnormer! Aside from the fact that scientists INFERE with their minds and then lable it 'proof', a 'science fact' as used by the 'skeptic' is just nothing but what a group of people termed 'scientists' think that it is true. So it ultimately reduces to mere OPINION!! Developing unquestioning attitude to this latter group of people tantamounts to just a change in priesthood! Farthermore, the justification of existance of this group is completely groundless. Who in this world ever said there are such people who 'knows better'?

2.)SCIENCE IS JUST A DEFINITION!

Infact, the 'skeptic' operates on even a wrong notion of 'science' which equates it with 'scientific method'. This method was concocted by philosophers with no justification whatsoever! The philosopher shoves off by fiat what he THINKS should not be in this folder termed 'science'. This throws away a lot of claims a priori without any investigation just because 'they are not science'.So what can we say of the 'skeptic' now hunting these other claims that are thrown out a priori because, as claimed, 'they lack evidence'? By a simple word: moronic! We are not suppose to fund telepathy research because 'that is not science' and we should also critique it because "no scientist with credence researches on such 'magical thinking'". This is circular reasoning, otherwise termed question begging.

3.)SCIENTISTS USE FALLACIOUS REASONING

Scientists decides by pure fiat when to use logic, when to make an assumption and when to demand empirical fact! This is possible because 'science' enjoys two contradictory definitions! It is said to be evidence based and also 'not concerned with truth by just the best explanation'. This is stupid!Often, when someone with unorthodoxed idea INFERE using evidence, the 'scientist' counteract it with proper usage of LOGIC. He points out that the proponent is making a fallacious reasoning and that the conclution realy doesn't follow from the premises. True, BUT WHAT CONCLUSION IN SCIENCE EVER FOLLOW FROM PREMISES? When you use the same critique to an establishment 'truth', he shoves it off with the escuse: 'after all science is not about truth but making reasonable conclusion from the best available evidence'!

4.)SCIENCE DOES NOT SELF CORRECT

Perharps this is the stupidest of all the myths: that a group of humans can, holus bolus morph from the usual reluctance to self criticism, dogmatism tendency etc and become perfect reffarees of knowledge by merely aquiring a new lable: 'scientist'! Nope! Science is just another human institution ameanable to everything that bedevils a human.When you aske the 'skeptic' why he doesn't critique 'science', he takes you on some rounds which eventualy land you the much parroted without thinking claim: 'science can correct itself'. So the skeptic leaves some ghost out there termed 'science' to correct itself and then go correcting everyone else who does not bow to this ghost. But then when you exermine each one in the club of 'science', he is bussy critisizing anything not found in the box of 'science' and leaving 'science' to correct itself! So what is this 'science' which is never criticized by its members but which can nevertheless correct itself? It is just yet another illusion! It is an idol that some fanatics of 'perfect knowledge' have erected it to worship!At the root of failure of science to autoselfcorrect lies on the fact that it is an employment. You can be kicked out from the club any time! So you have to weigh between your job and 'truth'. So you see? A 'scientist' is someone who beleive in xyz by pure definition! If you don't beleive in big bang, then you are not a scientist. But also, 'most scienists beleive in big bang'. Again, the 'scientists' encages in circular reasoning and Scotsman fallacies!

5.)SCIENCE IS POSITIVISM, WHICH IS JUST YET ANOTHER PHILOSOPHY

Science boast that it uses evidence. But what is 'evidence' if not just an input to our senses? Who said that this reflects truth about 'outer world'? When using your eyes, you are just using nothing but a section of your brain termed 'visual cortex'. When using introspection, you are just using a more complex part of your brain termed 'celebral cortex'. So trusting only your eyes involves axing out a more profound, sophisticated machinary that you have! You do that by just pure fiat! Nobody said that the input to our senses reflects truth more than introspection and when we use reasoning, it becomes apparent that sensual knowledge is ultimately flawed, incomplete and quite useless in things to do with deep understanding!

REASONS TO EMBRACE UNORTHODOXED IDEAS

Healthy and far more difficult task is a skepticism towards 'well established' and often extreemly complicated ideas! This is the dancing place of the true heroes of our society: pointing out subtle flaws right comming out from the pulpit, and not some obscur, already wounded 'charlatans' who often have very simple claims that everyone can understand and see its possible short commings.The most dangerous interlectual erors are those done at the highest level because this is where almost no one can suspect erors to come from.

SCIENTIFIC SKEPTICS ARE REALY NOT THINKING

The lable 'skeptic' at times brings a picture of someone intelligent, not subjectible to gullibility and considers facts carefully to ensure that they don't contain flaws before beleiving them. Otherwise, he must declare from the roof with loudest voice that people are buying into baseless speculations. But do this happen in scientific skepticism? Obviously not! The body that emits the most voluminous claims is science itself! This mean that if we are to fit into the folder of the 'less gullible', we should be always standing next to a scientists with a metalic, thorny club in our hands, ready to see if our scientist might be stealthly mixing wine with snake oil and then we releas the club on the head. Clearly, this mean that the most sensible skeptic must be those skeptical to the mainstream science itself! There is no much need to critique a charlatan. Charlatans, astrologers, christians etc have been here for millions of years and they make the same same claims that everyone knows and everyone is aware of all the counter arguments against them.

Imagine Standing On A Blackhole

Posted by Roaring Lovely on February 6, 2017 at 11:30am

I have been trying to illustrate the problem with 'proof of existence' or even proof in general but I have not been finding a good example. Recently I got an idea: imagine standing on a blackhole and looking up the sky. What will you see?Existence of something is always a concept that help us UNDERSTAND the world. There is no meaning of proving existence whatsoever! However, somewhere on the way, scientists decided to pervert language.THE LION: How do we prove that a thing exist?THE HORSE: By touching, seeing, smelling, hearing and testing it.THE LION: I guess you are still not very smart.:)Rather, 'exist' is a concept we developed to help us UNDERSTAND why we see, test, touch etc. 'proof' is a bit of a misnormer that should not be in our language! 'explain' is the correct alternative! Understanding is the broader picture that encompasses 'knowing'. 'proof' apply in the context of man made concepts, such as 'prove Phythagorus Theorem' but is a useless concept as applied to natural phenomena. In the latter, either a claim is sensible (and often usefull) or not sensless (and often useless). By showing us a UFO, you don't prove anything! you just help us UNDERSTAND well what it might mean to say that UFO exist.Now then let me show you the problem with 'seeing' definition of 'proof of existence'. If you were to try to explain magnetism using the idea of a wind getting sucked to its poles, our misguided physicist will try to judge such an explanation on the basis of whether there is a proof of such a flux! Nope, little does he know that his notion of 'proof' is just 'seeing', which predemands that the flux has additional property of reflecting light, which would render it unsuitable for the job! What he unwittingly, and eroneously assume is that when a region relfect light, that proves that an object is there. As I will elucidate more, this is just as an assumption as assuming that flux exist that goes to the north pole. Both are INDIRECT 'PROOFS' contingent on the assumption (or conception) that nothing cannot affect something.Now lets take our physicists, with their mindset, to a blackhole, have them forget everything and then begine their study of the universe there! So it is a reincarnation. The question is: how much are they going to discover about the universe? It isn't much! They will only 'prove' one obviously wrong thing!Remember that in a blackhole, every light that goes up is boomeranged back at the event horizon. So our physicists will see something reflective in the sky, something like water covering all the sky! Of course it is just a mirage but here on earth, there is what help us to discover a mirage. We often notice that we can pass through the supposed 'water', discovering that it was just an illusion! But things are not so in the event horizon! In the latter, objects too will bounce off from the horizon!LION:So what does it prove your theory of 'water in the sky'?THE HORSE: Doesn't the theory predict that if you throw a stone to the sky it will hit the water and bounce back?Thus the 'predict', 'prove', 'see', 'touch' mindset will lock up the bozos in the abyssmal blackhole of total ignorance, 'knowing' only that some very viscous, highly reflective, wee bit testless, oudorless 'porridge' exist up there in the sky!THE LION: Then you wonder why I say that our physicists are a bunch of morons?

The Cat Is Neither Dead Nor Alife

Posted by Roaring Lovely on February 5, 2017 at 9:30am

THE LION: So please explain to me, what is the fuss about taking a photograph of a photon?THE HORSE: Well, in the 'weird' world of quantum, a particle can be in two places all at once!The 'horse' will swap the hats somewhere. When a die-hard skeptic use this jarrying claim of qm to ridicule it, he will deny at your face that a quantum particle exist at two places all at once! Our quantum snake oil pedler have different answers to the same question to different audience! He is like a magician with several cards hiding in the sleeve1.)The cat is both dead and alive all at once2.)There are two universes and two cats3.)The cat is neither dead nor alife4.)We don't know the answer to the question5.)Shut up and calculate!It is this 'shut-up-and-calculate' garbage that leads our quantum gawker into the illusion that he understand what he doesn't! You will often hear bozos boastfully make such quotes:1.)"If you think that you understand qm, then you don't understand it"2.)"May be it is safe to say that no one can understand qmNow then having say such, it may be tempting for a young physicists to think that new ideas are welcomed in the club. Nothing can be farther from truth! Suddenly qm turns into a well developed theory, well understood by the mathematicians in the pulpit! You are told that only the leymen have the problem with qm. Experts understand it very well! Of course when the troublesome guy, determined to shift the paradigm, goes away, the 'experts' spent the next six hours arguing about many worlds, renormalizations, quantum gravity, etc, amusing themselves again that if you think you understand qm, then you don't understand it!The problem is traceable to trance-like illusions developed when we spend hours of 'shutting up and calculating". In true science, when we don't understand a phenomena, we shut up and do more experiments, not more of shuffling man made symbols created by people impervious to reality.Meanwhile, the leyperson, whose role in science is just to fund ever expensive accellerators etc is too eager to hear of miracles for him to question whether the eggheads he placed there for priesthood are infact a bunch of bozos. Somewhere along the road, physicist observed how successfull science fiction writters were. People talking of wonders of curved flatland, time travel etc, were getting zillionairs. They realized that it can be far more paying to amaze people than to help them understand the universe. With a sleight of hand, they catapulted physics to a religion!However, this does not mean that what he says has no factual basis, it has! The trick is just what I told you: swappin cards! What if I told you that we have infact discovered santa twisting the hammock of 'curve spacetime' from 26th dimension? Well, that sounds like a wow! The lay person never seek at all to understand how a just 3d guy can 'see' things happening in upto 26th dimension!! Or how a 'Schrodinger' can peep into the box to see if the cat is both dead and alife all at once. The brain of a ley person is down on wonders, not understanding! The mesmerizer knows this very well! So why can't the snake oil pedler be trapped in a laboratory by his fellow 'experts'. Simple: he says that all of these mumbo jumbo, yada yada musings about qm etc are wrong! They are just the misunderstandings of leypeople! The only thing that we can do is 'shut up and calculate'. No, no one talked of particles existing in two places all at once, No one talk of santa twisting hammocks from 5d, not even blackholes exist, all of these are misunderstandings of ley people. What 'experts' are talking of are some math that no ley person realy can comprehend! So sorry, but you were attacking a strawman all along! When the troublesome 'expert' goes, the mesmerizer goes on to spend hours talking to leymen about the wonders of blackholes, wormholes, time travel and other mathematical mumbojumbo as legitimate physics!

Define 'Religion'

Posted by Roaring Lovely on January 2, 2017 at 7:30am

With time, people will tend to 'negatively charge' some words by attaching often vague and bad meanings. The thus smeared word is then used to lable the idea or the practice that someone doesn't like as a cheap way of creating a contempt for the latter. The term 'religion' has been extensively and incongruosly used just exactly for that purpose. When that happen, we must force people to define the word once and for all. Also the opposite can happen. People embody vague, positive but often inconsistent meanings to such concepts as 'love', 'science', 'spirituality' 'energy', 'God' etc. With time, words begine to mean anything that anyone want it to mean at anytime, creating a total confusion and communication break down. Meanwhile we amuse ourselves that 'everybody knows what the word mean' or 'it is beyond definition'. This wishy wooshy washy though has no place. We must form the habit of defining words even if 'everybody knows what they mean' just as we must question everything, even 'obvious things that everybody knows they are true, or even if they rifere to non-analytic concepts as 'space', 'time', 'spirit' or 'God'LIERS DODGE DEFINITIONSThere is uncanning reason why some people would rather look for petty excuse not to define strategic word. Though the more sharp we define a word, the less room we allow for the listener to guess what you mean, hence the less chance for misunderstanding, clear definition also makes it difficult for the speaker to lie without being cornered beyond resque by an objection! The key reason why debates often go in endless circles, with no winner is failure to define the strategic words used extensively in the debate. If we are not carefull, a murderer can get away with murder if no one in the court room can say what murder is even if 'everyone knows it very well'. He only have to challenge our 'common sense'. It is this magic wand of 'redefining words retroactively' that is behind all excuses pre-offered for not defining words including the stupid excuse: 'it is beyond definition'.IT IS IMPORTANT TO DEFINE 'RELIGION' WELLSuch definitions are not just aesthetics. Important decisions in perliament, courts, science etc can be made by invorking the word 'religion'. By just keeping saying 'this is religion', important science facts can be removed from science books. I can say 'cold fusion is religion' and demand that the government fundinding for the free energy research be frozen due to the constitutional need for there to be a separation between 'religion' and 'state'. On the other hand we can allow scientists to spend people's taxes peddling useless fantasies due to careless definition of 'religion' that merely remove god and/or spirituality from the picturesque.As usual, dictionaries are of no much use because they often offer more than one definition. These definitions can even be contradictory. Of course if I embody two or more incompatible notions under a single word, my ability to manipulate using the word is virtualy unlimited! I can dismiss anything I want without be cornered! If 'love' mean both war and peace all at once, I can kill people while also condeming those who do the same! I only have to unleash the correct one of the incompartible notions at the correct time. It is a sot of like a dishonest shell gamer having several cards hiding behind a 'single' card!Lets now consider these two definitions of 'religion' from dictionary:1:)The beleive in and the worship of God or a supernatural being2.)A beleif system that is firmly held by a group of people.We for instance want to know which of these two notions do the court system use when dismissing 'religion' in the name of 'church/state' seperation. Philosophers, scientists etc generaly agree that there is no agreed upon definition of 'God'. So we want to know how atheists are allowed to win in court by invorking 'god' and 'religion'. Whose definition do we go by? Atheists? Definition 1 include 'worship' as what define 'religion'. But why is atheist allowed to dismiss any beleif in any type of 'God' even if it does not involve any need for worship? Invorking intelligent factors, to explain a natural phenomena, for instance, does not constitute any need for dogma, worship, prayer etc. Ergo, there is no need to exclude 'god' a priori from science. However, atheists are often allowed just to do that! Following the atheistic reasoning, we can even dismiss a genuine, ET research if the supposed ET is powerfull enough to have created our moon! We only need to compare such a being with Yahweh!BELEIF IS NOT INCOMPARTIBLE WITH FACT.One tactic used by atheists to manipulate is false dilemas. They offer humans a choice between atheism and fanatisism. They have train people to say 'is it a fact or a beleif'. But that is not the case. We say 'is it a fact or a BASELESS beleif'. To see this we must again define 'beleif'.BELEIF: Accepting a statement or an idea as true without necesarily there being a direct evidence.The point is that this summarily sweep all INFERANCES, however reasonable they are in the basket of 'beleif'. The point is that 'beleif' can be so close to knowledge that it is infact a zero distance from it. You will beleive that a dynauser cannot possibly be inside the bonet of your car. But up until you open and check it, you donnot KNOW so! Ergo that 'dynauser is not in the bonet' was just a beleif, albeit a beleif that is close to fact, and certainly not a BASELESS beleif.THE PROPER DEFINITION OF 'RELIGION'The meaningfull one is the second definition:RELIGION: A set of beleifs held strongly by a group of people.It is the DOGMA and its ability to sway that characterise religion and not the specific contents of the beleif itself. It is, for instance a mistake to use the word 'religion' as a synonym of 'monotheism'. If a group of people in the street begine to shout 'theif, theif' and soon everyone join the corus and finaly beating up someone, that was just a religion that quickly developed and the quickly died!

Adaptation Is The True Mechanism Of Evolution

Posted by Roaring Lovely on December 29, 2016 at 1:00pm

We begine by noting that indead your entire body came from a single cell, the zygote just after the fertilization. The whole process that happened inside the womb is still an evolution albeit a faster one. In this sense growth and evolution are perfectly compartible. Everything in this universe undergo changes and the idea that indead we might have evolved from a single celled organism is plausible. This is not the Darwinistic, mechanical dogma though (though aparently Darwin never intended to create dogma).Modern biologist is not after understanding. That is not the reason he dives into such questions as 'the origin of life'. Originally though, it was curiosity that was the rocket and the fuel that propels science. Nowadays it is forcing the universe to fit a mechanical world view that is the bread and butter. The modern scientists presumes a blind universe in the fundamentals wherein the mind emerges accidentaly. But there is never a priori reason to presuppose anything and then stubbonly get nailed to it. Such blinds people even more than religion does. One should rather swing to and fro, viewing the universe from all angles.It is not then a surprise that they offer what is rather a wishy washy for explanation of origin of life. Though natural selection might explain why a car with bad wheels are not on the road, it cannot explain why the well designed ones are on the road. Forced to explain the latter, it turns out to be a red herring. It turns the attention from the existent, well designed car, to an imaginary, poorely designed one so you may not much contemplate on the origin of the former car. If it is not understanding at all that was the motive behind the non-explanation, then the wishy washy bone will still keep the dogs running.But I will illustrate a more empirical problem with natural selection using analogy. Supposing we say that the principia mathematica was not written by an intelligent being at all. Lets say it was written by mad monkeys typing the keyboard randomly and then printing it out. Lets assume that when the monkey manage to type the correct sequence, some mechanism ensures that the copy is retained. Otherwise the printend out paper is discarded to dustpin. Then after zillions of a random type, lets say the monkey succeed in typing out the whole principia. There is something we expect to see though. We espect to find a mountain of waste papers of unimaginable size in the dustpin. But we don't! We don't find lots of fossils, showing badly designed beings on their way to forming another stage. The number of fossils is simply not large enough to allow for trial and error of blind events.EVOLUTION AS GROWTHA true scientists need only to suggest understandable model. He does not fear giving room for a mind that is active in nature. He only fears a model that does not agree with evidence. Ergo I don't have to explain mind away. We can take it at face value that at least sometimes, the universe behaves like a mind and just happen to somehow 'know' the correct move.So again lets compare evolution from sigle celled animal to a multicelular one with the growth in the womb. In both cases I would like you to not that non of them necesitates more information in the DNA!! We can suggest evolotion as a type of growth that happens in the 'womb' of the earth! This mean that evolution is no more accidental than growth. Both are biological processes, that require carefull conditions to be in place, sorts of metabolisms. Evolution does not involve creating more information. All the information pertaining to your body are always all already in a single cell! Extend the same reasoning to the evolution of DNA itself. It is an holographic parking of information.

Quantum Nonlocality: Aspect's Experiment = The True Test Of Quantum Theory

Posted by Roaring Lovely on December 12, 2016 at 7:30am

"If anything ever 'collapse', then it is just our knowledge"EinsteinIt is ridiculus that people think that it is the tree-in-the-forest reasoning that quantum mechanics teaches when it says that the act of observation determines the outcome of quantum measurement. The secreat to this lack of understanding lies in never developing an habit of relating facts to theory, if not begining from facts to theory instead of doing the vise-versa.TREE IN THE FOREST LUNACY: When no one is seeing a billiard ball, then it does not exist!Whenever you see anyone in the 'fanny farm' of gang of idiots claiming that this is what quantum mechanics teaches, then know at once that you are dealing with one of the mental patient and not one of the doctors, even if he is wearing the doctor unifoam! The reason why this cannot possibly be what quantum mechanics teaches is pretty straight foward: it demands that one sees the scenario of the billiard ball without seeing it!QUANTUM MECHANICS:Supposing quantum mechanics teaches that the act of observation does infact create the billiard ball. The question that should always ring like a bell inside a sane brain is, how do we verify such scientificaly? The only way is that there are many types of observation. You can, for instance consider your friend (the famous 'Alice' and 'Bob' of quantum mechanics) observe the ball and see if he is going to create the ball. Normally, a laboratory measuring device plays the role of this 'friend'.What Aspect's experiment shows is something like this: supposing you see a table from a distance and find that there is no biliard ball there. You then get near it to see clearly but voila! A white ball apears. You turn around and voila! The ball turns black. You close your eyes and then opens them but voila! It disapears. You can conclude two things from such observations:1) Acts related to observation, such as changing perspective, viewing distance, etc does infact changes what we are observing.2.)The brain of the observer itself is the thing that is changing. In otherwords, it is all hallucination, or failure to see all aspects carefully, on the part of the observer, in every perspective.The details of Bell's theorem, which we will next see, is about how to rule out the second conclusion. Notice that this is dramatically different from the religion that new age tries to peddle around this. In the latter, there is no need to rule out 2 as they conclude that the whole world is itself just an hallucination. However, what quantum mechanics teaches is that it is not just the observer who is moving around the table who is seeing the changes. A distant observer, who is just sitting and watching the whole show sees that the ball do infact change as the other observer changes his perspective. In otherwords according to quantum mechanics, what is happening is OBJECTIVE and not just phantasms in the mind of the perceiver. This also makes it straight foward to note that what QM is saying cannot possibly be happening in classic world. This is simply because we don't see anyone perform such accrobatics as moving mountains by merely taking a turn and looking at them. On the other hand, the tree in the forest reasoning, which suppose that such miracles are happening in the macroscopic world, albeit with nature having done a huge conspiracy to hid it from us, is a speculation that has utterly no basis in science.BELL'S THEOREMFortunately, Bell's Theorem is extreemly simple to understand. The reason why you will find even a string theorist ignorant of it is that the theorem was worked out very late in history. People tend to have this mistaken assumtion that a problem solved the latest must be the most difficult. After all how could it have eluded all the past geniuses. I mean quantum nonlocality was though by Bohr and Einstein spent over 30 years deeply thinking about it. But these 'geniuses' tend to overdwell on 'big issues'. No one can imagine that the solution is in boyish like tilting of crystals! Ergo we can understand how small things can elude giants.As we will see by, Bell's Theorem can also help in sudying such phenomena as telepathy and other 'paranormal' claims. By subtituting brain for measuring instrument, we are also going to see how to use the brain to persue scientific studies, a thing that scientists are yet to be very accustomed with. So we are realy going to create lots of miracles with a single magic wand!Perharps polariscopes, crystals, photons etc that are studying by 'Alice' and 'Bob' are too boring for a spiritual person. So in place of polariscopes, or Stern Gerlach apparatus, I am going to regard the brains of Alice and Bob as valid measuring instrument. So our version of Aspect's 'experiment' will be done by these aparatus:1.)Alice2.)Bob3.)Chameleons4.)Beer5.)Glass ballThe aim is to investigate if:1.)Alice and Bob can change the color of the chameleon by merely looking at it.2.)Both Alice and Bob and/or the two chameleons are in a telepathic connection.Supposing both Alice and Bob are clairvoyant crystal gazers. So we are not seeing the chameleons that they are claiming to see inside some glass ball. But we wish to investigate the objective reality of such. In this sense, both the brains of Alice and Bob are acting as the measuring devices that detect for us the photons or the electrons, which our eyes cannot detect. These detectors reveal to us the otherwise hiden quantum world, just like Alice and Bob would reveal to us some unseen 'astral world' or something like that.We soon notice that something remarkable happens. The chameleon that both Alice and Bob sees inside the ball changes color from blue to green in a random way. However, we notice that every time Alice says that she sees a blue chameleon, Bob also claims that he is seeing a blue chameleon too even if Bob and Alice are in two different rooms and we can be sure that they are not communicating in any normal way. However, when we remove the crystal ball, non claim to see anything. Ergo we can savely conclude that the information about the chameleon is indead comming from the ball and not from the heads of these guys.Now let Alice gulp some two bottles of beer. We notice that the synchronicity is nolonger perfect. For every hundred views, only 75 matches. Naturaly, we tend to blame Alice for this. Probably the beer interfered with her ability to judge the color. We notice that same thing happens when Bob drink the two bottles. However when both of them drink the beer we find that the number of instances when their testimony is coherent is only 35 in hundred tries.We arive at a puzzle. Though the chameleon together with its changing color has proven to be objective, not only do the beer, to some extent, determines the color of the chameleon, when Alice drinks the beer, it also determines how the brain of Bob will change the color of the chameleon even if Bob is miles away! It is not that by drinking the beer Alice misjudged the color. She ACTUALY changed the color of the chameleon and also changed the color of the photon right in Bobs brain by simply drinking the beer herself! In other words when Alice drinks the beer, the sober Bob who is miles away begines to see pink elephants as if the beer made him drunk too! Such wonders are exactly what Aspect's experiment demonstrates!It is not that the mere knowledges of Alice, Bob and us 'collapses'. Reality itself does infact 'collaps'!

Mind Interacts With Aether

Posted by Roaring Lovely on December 5, 2016 at 1:00pm

Quantum mechanics is said to be the most popular theory in science. However, when you close exermine what many people know about it, it seems to be nothing more than 'yap yap yap quantum, yep yep yep observer' nothing more. Aparently, people are eager to hear from science that mind plays some fundamental role in reality. However, like in many cases, modern physicist uses the 'excape through loophole' ideas such as 'observer affecs quantum world' that he will later deny them at your face when conerd from the other side of the loop. Here I am going to elucidate perharps a better way of understanding the 'mind-matter' interaction.Contrary to how you may think, I am going to circumvent the question of whether the mind is some other entity that is entirely different from a state of matter. To me, the 'soul that can exist independent of the brain' can still be composed of just the same same matter. Invisibility is the only desirable artribute of soul, once we endow matter with consciousness. The 'immaterial' isn't a necesity. So you should not be surprised when I describe the mind-aether interaction as though 'material'. There isn't much distinction between 'spirit' and 'matter'.PROPAGATION OF LIGHT VS NERVE SIGNALQ:What is the difference between the signal in light ray, comming from say the sun all the way to your eye and the nerve signal from you toe to your head?A:only speed and the frequency!:)This might sound surprising but it is true! Light travels in rays. Sir Isach Newton had already warned against the lunacy of thinking that light spread uniformly like a wave by pointing at simple observations such as those you will get by oserving a beam of light shooting across a smocky room. What is clear is that light have a clearly defined edges. It is not much like sound, which you can hear it any where, even from the back of the source. This were years before physicists discovered phenomena such as compton scattering that waves difusing uniformly around could not explain. Hence the Newt's copuscle idea of light ray 'reincarnated' as 'wave packet'.The 'partical-like' behavior that I like to draw attention to you is that of shooting straight without difusing through space. It is not possible to straight away model such a behaviour in some ocean as, for instance, a pulse that keeps heading foward while the molecules of water themselves only move back and fot on the spot, only the pulse being the 'moving' energy. This is because the laws of thermodynamics demands that any such pulse spread uniformly throughout the ocean. However, in luminiferous aether, we must factor in the laws of electro-magneto-hydrodynamics as well. It is such difficulties, as in how a waveicle can stay intact that is behind quantum mystification.Untrue is the popular claim that nothing in clasic world mimick these quantum behaviour. Physicists must be walking with their eyes in the pocket! Infact, lightning tragectory already show clearly that with the precense of magneto-hydrodynamics, a wave need not difuse through space. We only need to remember that alternating currents, unlike direct currents, can pass through insulaters in wavelike manner. Infact one can say that the lightning trajectories or Litchenberg figures structures forms before the insulating properties of the medium are overcome by high voltage.This is exactly the point I draw your attention to the similarity between the brain and the structures that forms naturaly in aether! Like the paths in lightning trajectory, the only requirement is that there should be some plenty of energy in aether. But this has already been discovered as the so called 'Casimir Effect'.My reasoning goes this way:1.)The brain functioning is composed of electric signals propagating through nerves2.) Electric signals propagates through nervelike structures in aether.3.)The mind interacts with the brain4.)Ergo the mind interacts with aether as well.So I circumvent the question of how exactly the mind interacts with the brain.Now let us stop and check how the signal propagates along the nerve to see if it is indead similar to the light signals in aether. Innitially, the nerve's cell membrane maintain some potential between the inside and the outside. This is called the axon potential. When a signal arive at the one terminal, the charges are pumbed out of sodium channels. This riverses the axon potential. It is this undulation of charge that is propagated along the axon potential. The charges themselves are moving up and down across the cell membrane but the ENERGY moves foward. This is exactly the transverse wave desired. This is EXACTLY how light propagates in 'vacuume'!! The up and down movement of charges coresponds to the so called DISPLACEMENT CURRENT in electromagnetism. The energy that moves foward is the photon. So I can legitimately say that photon is just some 'packet of information' shooting from one part of the cosmos to the other. But this is the correct quantum picture as quantum particles are more of 'the particle is here or there' information than 'things per-se'.Q:So is it still a surprise if the photon in the double slit seems to 'know' that you are observing it?A:Nope! Not any more than the same same photon albeit in your nerve seems to be the observer.:)One other entity worth checking for its counterpart in aether is sodium channel. After all for a function to be truely termed a brain function, AMPLIFICATION is of tremendous importance. the pumbs that exists in the gates serves this exactly. But notice that the channels are toroidal in shape. So if you were to arrange the units of 'Flower of life' sides to sides, you surprisingly end up with a structure that looks like the nerve! Furthermore, as we say from previous blogs, the toruses must keep expanding and contracting as the light signal propagates along. This ensures that the hole in the torus keeps widening and narowing. In the process, it inevitably modulates the fields that ran across the loop just like sodium channels!

The Flower Of Life In Aether, Light Is The Propagation Kundalini.

Posted by Roaring Lovely on December 2, 2016 at 9:00am

With no doubt, light propagation is accompanied by a magneto-electrodynamic events involving toroidal fields. Torus is a sacred geometrical figure that represents stability. It is a good idea to attempt to understand a lot of dynamics of nature in terms of toroidal fields. One such a good candidate is magneto-electrodynamics, the phenomena, understanding of which is crucial to understanding the universe. The fire of kundalini, as depicted, mirrows electro-magneto dynamics and as you will see, the flower of life mirrors it even exellently.The physics of light propagation is supposed to be described by Maxwell's equations. However, the equations were rewritten in such a way as to favour the idea that light does not need a medium. The result are equations that describes sureal scenarios. Well, are the equations beautifull? Mathematically, they are so elegant that they are simplistic. So abstract that it is nolonger clear at all what the hell it is they are describing. Lets for instance consider Gauss's law of magnetostatics. It says that the total magnetic flux that is crossing some closed surface is equal to zero! The point is that both the 'flux' and the 'surface' are not supposed to be real. So the law ends up talking of inexistent flux, crossing inexistent sufface that is enclosing nothing! But in real physics, real phenomena must be described using real things.This wasn't so in the start for Maxwell's equations were meant to describe Faraday's ideas that he got from tinkering with wires and magnets. What Faraday, Ampere etc saw was that magnets moved in the vicinity of wires 'instantly' causes electric currents and vice-versa happens when we do the vice-versa. At best, we can conclude from facts is that if there is such a thing as electric field, then it interacts with MAGNENTS (not magnetic field) and magnetic field interacts with WIRE,(not electric field). This mean the modern math, which describes fields interacting with fields in the mid air, far away from real magnets, is a speculation that is not grounded in any facts! Then infact it has been proven wrong by quantum mechanics. So how ever beautifull modern version of 'Maxwell's math' are, their right place actually is the toilet where nature pees in! However, both Maxwell and Faraday's original insights were correct but incomplete. Here I will explain them, adding the idea of Flower Of Life to the thinking pattern. The aim is to show you how beautifull it is is the phenomena of light propagation.I will jetison the theory off bulky, unnecesary calculus (unnecesary in understanding). Then the use of calculus is WRONG and the thinking using calculus is MISLEADING and ultimately doesn't help one answer the simple question of WHY DO MAGNETISM CURL AROUND A WIRE. However, SPINNING WHEELS, like chakras and galaxies is the correct picture. This approach needs almost no calculus. It beatifully shoves off intergrals around complex loops and surfaces to MATHEMATICIANS leaving physicist to zero in on simple figures, perfect circles spheres and toruses. The irregular, macroscopic shapes are gotten by irregularly arranging regular, microscopic shapes, rendering calculus almost useless in understanding electromagnetism!In modern, sureal theory, it isn't made clear how an highly iregular, magnetic field crossing an irregular, mathematical loop is changing. It merely relates the change to some parameters at the left side of the equation. However Faraday showed EMPIRICALLY how to change the magnetic field that is crossing a loop of WIRE ( not the sureal looping of a CONCEPT) . You only MOVE the wire. So the correct Faraday's law should read:E=uBvE=force par unit charge in the wire. (it is the force that takes the charges around the wire)u=a constant that depends on the medium the setting is place in.v=the speed of the wire.B=the magnetic force taking magnetic poles across the loop.You can see it is very simple. You may think it is too simple, however I can use it to derive the bulky, arcane equation in the textbook! The derivation only adds CALCULUS to the soup and not any more PHYSICS (i.e facts)!Then the Ampere's law states:B=eEve=a constant that is medium dependent.v=the speed of the thread E=the electric force but now taking charges across the magnetic loop.B=the magnetic force but now that is taking the magnetic poles around the magnetic 'thread' loop.Then the loard said, let there be light!:).You can understand the speed of light by simply subtituting B in ampere's law for the B in Faraday's law or by subtituting E in faraday's law with the E in the other law (generaly, the two 'B's and also the two 'Es' are not always equal). Allright, it is the average speed at which 'Faraday' is waving 'wires' in vacuum!:) I will next elaborate.THE FLOWER OF LIFELet one of the 'wires' that are crossing the magnetic loop itself form a loop that then crosses an ajausent magnetic loop. Out of the second loop emanates a similar wire that loops ahead. This chain goes on all the way up to andromeda! Now we will see that if one wire experience 'Kundalini', it will be propagated forward, 'awakening' all the other loops!Esentialy, the amount of B crossing the loop alters periodically via the simple process involving the loop alternately geting bigger and then getting smaller. This creates longitudinal waves (ubsent in the sureal, nextbook nonpicture). The speed gotten by solving the two laws simultaneosly, so that that for instance one of the 'B' is equal to the other 'B' must be the true speed of light because it is the critical speed at which, B that is generated across one loop equals B that is fed back to the loop, which is always such as to oppose the B that generated and ultimately oppose the 'wire' that moved to cause (electromagnetic inertia at work). causing it to halt and begine moving backwards. To catter for frequency variation, now think of the loop as to be packed with even smaller loops filling the whole space of the bigger loop. When it is these smaller lops that are waving, then that is light of a larger frequency.

Wave-Matter Duality From Aether Perspective

Posted by Roaring Lovely on November 29, 2016 at 8:00am

"All these building castles in the air has not brought me any closer to the answer to the question: what is light quanta"EinsteinNon of the keys opens can of worms more excellently than an illusion of understanding named: wave-particle duality. Our physicist sells this as a remarkable discovery of the subatomic world. However, when you close exermine it, it is just some abuse of language in a huge roundabout way of saying: we don't freaking know nor understand what is going on in the subatatomic world! It is an hallmark of ignorance, not knowledge!Esentially, the quantum snake oil pedler dart in an hodge podge of ireconcilables.1.)Light is neither a wave nor a particle but something else on its own.2.)Light is both a wave and a particle3.)Only the particle is real, the wave is just a mathematical trick usefull in statistical prediction.4)It is meaningless to talk about the wave nature5.)Shut up and calculate!6.)we simply don't knowYet they insist that quantum mechanics is complete and their gate keepers are particularly notorius in fighting any sensible idea. So you see that I wasn't wrong in saying that they should summarise it in a single sentence: we don't know what the hell it is that we are talking about.The secret to this lack of understanding is rooted in failure to understand that a wave of any kind absolutely requires a MEDIUM that is doing the wavicng. It doesn't matter whether we can see the medium or not. This medium provides a basis for RATIONALY brainstorming various, unseen posibilities. A vacuum is not as rich as aether. If you begine with nothing, you will only wind up with nothing in the end.PHYSICISTS DONNOT UNDERSTAND A ROPE!When it comes to 'things that physicists don't understand', what comes to minds are some mind boggling, blackboard filling equations that 'explain everything' from big bangs, blackholes, big crunches. Answers are always searched in EFGH, not ABCD. It seems humiliating to go and sit somewhere and carefully watch kindagarteners do some rope skipping, than to massage some arcane equations!So following the denial of aether, together with the wave-particle duality vodka, lets close exermine again the text books to see how they explain the waves propagated along the rope. Could they be stupid enough that they donnot even understand accoustic waves? The answere is a surprising YES! This mean that physicists are not even qualified to talk about such lofty waves as 'electromagnetic waves'! They should first clear some kindagarten homework of describing how s-waves propagates along a rope!TESLA'S SCALAR WAVES ARE OVERLOOKEDAt the heart of the problem is confusing the ability to correctly describe a phenomena mathematically with correct physical understanding. As you watch, the physicist zero in on what I may term it as merely showing that if waves propagates along the rope, then the rope obeys Newton's laws of motion. This is an irrelevant show! To truely understand waves, EYES play more role than any calculation! All you need is an healthy visual cortex!Looking carefully, you realize that there is not such a dichotomy as TRANSVERSE WAVES and LONGITUDINAL WAVES! Yet this distinction is the bread and the butter of wave mechanics! Rather, all waves have both a longitudinal and a transvers component. In what we term 'transvers waves', the transverse component have significantly larger amplitude than the longitudinal component. The vice-versa is the case for longitudinal waves. In both cases, it is always the longitudinal component that takes energy foward. The transverse component only takes it 'up' and 'down' on the spot.The important point is that the longitudinal component of electromagnetic waves is never in Maxwell's 'wave equation' Tesla, however, to his credit, understood this! Without the scalar wave that must accompany the electromagnetic wave, it is never clear how the wave takes energy, and absolutely we won't understand photoelectric effect, compton scattering and 'wave particle duality'!In summary, light is composed of a disturbance of charge in luminiferous aether, that is propagated foward. Charged paticles themselves move back and forth on the spot. Some of them moves perpendicular and some of them moves horizontaly. The calculus is only necesary in showing that the entire process always obey laws of electrodynamics, and NOT in understanding how the waves propagates.PHOTOELECTRIC EFFECTSo light is also an alternating current of very high frequency, that is flowing back and fot along (not just perpendicular to)the direction of light propagation. In a more fancy language, I am saying that DISPLACEMENT CURRENT appearing in Maxwell's insight, donnot have only an 'UP' and 'DOWN' component. With this understanding, mysteries will now unfold! We will understand:1.)How mind interact with aether2.)How mind can creat particles3.)photoelectric effect4.)Compton scattering5.)Aetheric intelligenceThe secreat is a phenomena termed z-pinch. Z-pinch 'solidifies' aether. So instead of wave-matter duality, we are going to have solid-fluid duality. The advantage is that unlike the brewers of the former duality, I understand what I am talking about!When sunlight shines on a solar pannel surface, the surface can be seen as a tiny portion of a huge, spherical surface encicling the whole sun. The surface of the solar pannel, together with the sun forms a portion of what is termed 'cylindrical capacitor'. As you might have note, when you sprey some iron fillings on a paper underwhich two magnets are there, the fillings tend to form lines joining south pole to north pole instead of uniformly distributing themselves. A similar thing happens in electric field lines in the space between two plates of a capacitor. A single line is a ray of light. The more the lines, the stronger the light intensity. The charges in the molecules of aether, along each resultant 'rope' oscilates back and fot in a fixed amplitude that equals the size of the aether molecule.With this picture of light, we donnot need 'light quanta' to explain anything in the world! Hope I have answered the boss what light quanta is!THE HORSE: What is light quanta?THE LION: It is nothing!:)

A Case For Luminiferous Aether

Posted by Roaring Lovely on November 26, 2016 at 12:30pm

The late nineteen'th centuary physicists were in the path of seeking understanding rather than mere mystification. The modern physicist search for a single EQUATION that DESCRIBES everything. Perharps it is time for the mindset to change. Look for an ENTITY that EXPLAINS anything. A good candidate will be the luminiferous aether. Amongst other things, this all pervading entity must be capable of some at least rundimentary awarenes that I term it as 'protoconsciousness'. But here, I will zero in on its role in mediating the forces of nature.It is important that you realise that 'materialistic' or 'mechanical' world view is NOT necesarily that of corelating all dynamics with physical objects that must touch each other to mediate force. It is this eror that often leads to identifying Newtonian physics with a mechanical world view. However, to inject sanity, I suggest you begine by considering the fact that Newton himself was a master magician. It is not much about the absence of a visible medium in between the earth and the moon that appalled Newton and many other people, including me. Rather, it is the supposed BRUTNESS of the moon that is shocking. This ultimately mean that searching for an invisible medium connecting the earth and the moon is more about understanding how the earth COMMUNICATE with the moon and not about understanding the cause of this strange entity termed 'force'. Surprising is NOT the fact that an object moves. it is the fact that it moves DOWNWARDS and not at any other direction.LUMINIFEROUS AETHER WAS NOT REALY DEFEATEDIt is important that you understand that the famous Michelson-Morley experiment alone was not used to defeat aether. However, at times the modern, pretentious physicist misrepresent things so, rendering the argument against aether look falacious. Some other equaly important experiments you are probably not aware of are:1.)Fizeau experiment2.)Starlight aberation experiment3.)The de-Sitter starlight experiment4.)The Sagnac experimentIt is understandably challenging to account for all these without abandoning Galilean Relativity in favour of Lorentz-Einstein's Relativity, while also ensuring that occam's razor is on your side. I often use philosophical argument rather than a physics one. I disagree that the Occum's Razor criteria is well defined and that Lorentz's aether theory, which correctly account for all experiments, has more explanatory power than Einstein's paradox covered theory. This is because there is more to 'explanation' than just 'mathematical description'. It is by equating 'explanation' with 'description' that leads physicists to constantly abuse Occam's Razor. Yes, Einstein can describe relativity without mensioning aether. But so what? Even poets can absurdly describe sexual penetration without mensioning penis. Does this now mean that we need no penis to ACTUALY do sex? However, I recently got inspired by armatture physicists online. It seems we donnot even need Lorentz's theory either! This mean that we can account for all the 5 experiments using very simple Galilean physics. There are also some bonuses that Einstein's physics cannot explain, such as galaxy rotation.PHYSICISTS DONNOT CHECK FORGOTTEN IDEASIt is important for you to understand that scientific debater are rarely won by experiment! This is in stark contrast to how scientists tend to misrepresent science, as one success following another, always abandoning older ideas on sound experimental ground. As I have hinted to you above, too often, unscientific criterias such as 'occam's razor', 'beauty', 'sexiness', 'elegance' etc are the fuel that propels the engine. This mean that it is a huge fooly not to keep checking older ideas with the light on new discoveries. This is exactly the state of things in modern physics.It is ridiculus that physicists use the outdated ideas of matter, when debunking aether. In the late 19th centuary, it was not well undestood how matter can pass through another matter. Therefore positing an idea in which aether can tell one object from another was understandably far fetched and thus would be ruled out by appropriate application of Occum's Razor. However we now understand, via Ratherford's Experiment that matter is practically empty. By the time physicists understood Ratherford's work, the aether idea had already been abandoned. Nobody bothered to check that what was a conudrum in the late 19'th centuary is actually nolonger the case.FIZEAU EXPERIMENTThis is exactly where I begine positing the physical properties of aether. Esentially, it is a sea of molecules that strongly interact with themselves and weakly interact with electromagnetism. In modern physics, a closely simirlar, hypothetical particles are termed 'Weakly Interacting Massive Particles' (WIMPs). Neutrinoes also belong to the category. This immediately mean that such a tiny thing as pee cannot significantly drag the aether. However, such a massive thing as the earth can begine to drag it significantly.Fizeau experiment is said to have shown that if it exists, water donnot fully drag aether. This could suggest that aether particles are highly penetrative. Physicists at the time of Fizeau experiment were not aware of radioactivity, such things as x-rays, gama rays, beta particles etc. It is understandable that they would be puzzled by such a behaviour. However, the modern physicist has to exuse to foolishly assert that Fizeau Experiment, together with Michelson-Morley experiment demands the abandonment of Galilean relativity.Highly penetrative particles are often blocked by the bigger objects. While we don't espect paper to block beta particles, a thick lead will surely block it.SAGNAG EFFECTThis one even seems to run at odds with Einsteinia reasoning for it shows that if aether exists, it isn't dragged by rotating object and this effect can be proven by variation of light speed, exactly the effect that Michelson-Morley experiment was seeking to find. Einsteinians often opt to general relativity as a resque. You must however learn that it is never special relativity that agrees with experimen. It is QUANTUM FIELD THEORY, build from some marriage between Special relativity and quantum mechanics. This theory is incompartible with general relativity. This mean that when you see relativist move back and fort from 'special relativity' to general relativity, he is actually using two contradictory theories to explain natural phenomena! Not very helpfull! What will I be helping you to understand if I posit two contradictory properties of aether, one to explain Fizeau experiment and the other to explain Michelson-morley experiment, calling one 'special aether' and another one 'general aether'?Sagnac effect can be easily explain in a similar way we explained Fizeau experiment. The earth is effectively smooth and thus rotation, unlike TRANSLATION wount take aether. If you take a wheel by the axle and move the axle, you will surely take the rim together with it. However, this does not mean that rotating the axle (which has bearings) will rotate the wheel. Very simple things seems to boggle modern physicist. I don't know why!STARLIGHT ABERATIONThe reason why they cannot explain this using simple refraction is that the think that the aether moving along with earth must be spherically shaped! This is ridiculus because aether is supposed to be more pervading than the earth's atmosphere. It makes perfect sense to suppose that the aether moving with the earth, is shaped like a huge cone so that it is narrower in the region ahead of the earth and very wide in the region behind the earth. This is exactly how the sun's BOW SHOCK is shaped.

Valid Scientific Persuit Of The Unfalsifyable

Posted by Roaring Lovely on October 21, 2016 at 8:30am

Once an atheist boasted that if you take away all American atheists, you will take away over 90% of American scientists and only 1% of American prisoners! Of course you can guess what he was trying to insinuate. In modern times, 'science' has become a term like a perfume that we sprey on someone so he may smell like a 'genius'. I will latter show you that that was exactly the reason behind the invention of this word.When you close exermine the scientists, they kill their hours and people's taxes smashing inexistent, zero dimensional particles, gawking at ridiculus fantasies as wormholes, blackholes, time travel, big bangs etc. Isn't it a great thing for America to lose 90% of such a gang of idiots?An atheist might think that their supposed dominance in science mean something cool about atheists. However, it may as well mean that science has decraded into an idiology! It doesn't take a lot of effort to understand that if atheists has dominated science, it can hardly fail to be biased towards atheism! when catholics dominated science in dark ages, they could see the 'hand of God' everywhere in the universe. It is both naive and stupid to think that atheists are immune to this human tendency of 'seeing what we want to beleive' or 'not seeing what we want to doubt'. Our society have left only people of a particular mindset to rule science and then wonder why some questions (such as what consciousness is) remain subbonly unanswerable.WHY WAS 'SCIENCE' COINED?It has ended up becoming the platform to insinuate the difference between that which the pholosophers think is valid 'knowledge' and what he think are baseless beleifs. Unfortunately though, when the concern with a sharp discrimination between knowledge and nonknowledge exceeds the concern for expanding knowledge, our body of knowledge becomes surverely limited.WHAT IS SCIENCE?When you ask almost everybody, he tells you something like: we begine by observing the world, then some self proclaimed 'godman' frame some hypothesis to 'explain' what we observe. Then some 'astrologers' uses the hypothesis to predict something. Then we go and persuade some self proclaimed priests to exert some peer review (or preasure) against or for the new whisky. Then as more and more members of 'experts' join the new cult, the hypothesis is relabled 'theory'. Once the cult spread all over the world, it becomes unquestionable fact!So what people have in mind for science is actually 'scientific method' defined by philosophers. It is curius that even though science is ultimately founded upon philosophy, our scientist try to deny on your face that philosophy and science has any relation!'Science' however does not equal 'scientific method'. 'science' is coined from a latin word 'scientia' which simply means 'knowledge'. There is no method for aquiring knowledge! Any method only limit our body of knowledge!FALSIFIABILITYThe claims that can be objectively verified are also falsifiable. However, this criteria has often been swang too much by philosophers to mean that unfalsifiable claims cannot be persued scientifically! This is the standard, cheap criteria by which our scientist (people with a particular mindset) shove off the kind of things they don't want them to be part of 'science'. They can then use the fact that your claim doesn't appear in science books to belittle it.The claim that unfalsifiable propositions can never get to be of scientific study was just an atheistically inspired quest to remove 'god' etc as a valid hypothesis for scientific investigation. The atheist feer that if we persue 'God' scientifically, not only does the hypothesis become more respectable, but soon we may find a mounting evidences for God. So the only way is to exclude 'God' a priori from science. Then the atheist (which is just the scientist but now comming from the window) can use the fact that 'God' does not appear in science books to dismiss that the 'knowledge of God' is not legitimate knowledge. The atheist is infact engaging in curcular reasoning, though one that is a bit hard to notice as the circle is too large.To refute the claim that unfalsifiable propositions cannot be studied scientifically, lets consider the search for exoplanets. The claim that exoplanets exists is unfalsifiable because one can never go all around a possibly infinite universe trying to prove that there is no planet everywhere other than the solar system. However to verify the existence of the exoplanets, one must consider a special case of the generaly unfalsifiable claim. The special case itself must be falsifiable.This is exactly how to persue unfalsifiable claims (such as the claim about the existence of God). In sammary we do it this way:1.)Let P be an unfalsifiable claim.2.)There can be some set of of possibly infinite claims say claims q1,q2,q3,...,qn all of which are falsifiable.3.)Proving any of the qn proves P.So even if science must work with falsifiable claims, it can still persue unfalsifiable claims!Lets for instance consider a case with 'God'. P is the claim 'God exist'. Then q1 is the claim: if you discover life in exoplanets, then their DNA will look exactly like those on earth even if there has never been a physical contact between these planets. Ergo 'God' can be studied scientifically! The otherwise claim is based more of on stereotype and indoctrinations than carefull thinking!

Mathematics=Just A Language?

Posted by Roaring Lovely on October 3, 2016 at 6:30am

The short answer is that it is simplistic to say so. That maths is a mere language has had a negative influence both to those who shun mathematics and to those overaly obsessed with it. A 'new ager' can be so much into quantum mechanics, relativity etc yet when one show one some maths and he brushes aside saying 'you are not speaking my language'. Of course if math was just a language, it would be a waste of time to learn another cumbusome language when we can speak English etc. Sadly, this is what some have in mind when they say 'math is just another man's language'. They find an exellent exuse to be ignorant of mathematics.What the hell do one mean by 'math is another man's language'? Mathematicians donnot say: 'give me a cup of coffee' using maths. Mathematicians have to use English etc when talking amongst themselves. A math book still has a large part of it written in English etc. So math is not just just a language.MATHEMATICSMathematics is a SPECIAL language for expressing special concepts termed QUANTITATIVE. So it is not just a language. It cannot express the QUALITATIVE concepts. There are abstract nonmathematical concepts such as the concept 'tend to'. Then if you are ignorant of maths, there are concepts that you won't grasp. It is not just a language, that is to say like if you are ignorant of Chinese, you need not worry as every concept in Chinese has its counterpart in English etc.You might think that a 'new ager' etc is the one that need this lesson. You are totally mistaken! Ironically, it is mathematical physicist that is the sickest patient! He has completely lost a clue of what math is and what physics is! For instance, just because mathematicians do geometry, it doesn't mean that geometry is entirely mathematical. While a mathematician will try to 'prove' that a table is flat by taking measurements and calculating, a physicists should know better. Mathematician will not try to answer a YES or NO question such as yes the table is flat or no, it is curved. He jumps ahead, to the question of HOW FLAT IT IS taking for granted the meaning of the word 'flat'. So one might correctly note that math is a language that takes nouns and adjectives for granted, focusing solely on ADVERBS. That is why a mathematician still cannot say 'give me a kiss' using math. He would rather fill the blackbord describing HOW the kiss is done or how it is!There are no true nouns in maths. Though you went to kindagarten carrying sticks etc, then count 2 sticks, 3 sticks etc, somewhere when the EFGH lesson came, the ABCD lesson was forgoten. You now henceforth dealt with the sureal 2, 3, 4 etc as though they where things on themselves! Thats why when a mathematician beholds a mangoe, he has no use of WHAT a mangoe is. He is already way ahead with HOW big it is! A mathematician deals whith 'hows' misrepresented as though they were 'whats'. As such maths donnot adress the truely 'what' questions. For instance 3 is realy not a what issue. It is an 'how' issue. It is an answer to an 'how' question and not a 'what' question.

Looking At Yourself

Posted by Roaring Lovely on October 2, 2016 at 10:00am

One might note that there is an aspect of the brain that is excellent in pretending not to be the thing it is perceiving. Then things become realy curious when the brain as a whole pretends not to be itself. Then it can 'look' at itself. But do the idea of looking at one's self even internally consistent? What is it that looks at what? Am I the one looking at myself or am I the one being looked at by myself?There is a analogous case in the idea of a curved space. As we know, things curve only by curving away from or towards other things and/ or curve 'in' an empty background we often term it as space. But if we are talking of a single 'thing' that encompasses everything, then such cannot be sensibly said to 'curve'. So what the hell do relativist mean when he say space can curve but without curving into anything else? How can a single 'thing' be said to curve? A stupid relativist can tell you that it is because a human is too stupid to understand such lofty concepts as 'curved space'. However the correct explanation is that 'space' does not riffer to a single thing. It can be seen as a set of points, lines, planes etc. In this case, 'curved lines' should be the more appropriate wordings than 'curved space'.The question of what is it that is looking at what in the case of awareness of own's awareness is analogous to the question of what is it that curves towards and/or away from what in the case of a curved space, which can be incongruously said to curve relative to itself. In both cases, we solve the paradox by pointing out that the supposed one thing in question is realy not one thing. In the case of awareness, there are many things assuping the the title 'I' and 'myself' when we utter 'I am looking at myself'.VISUAL CORTEXWe compare what happens to light signals when you look at 'other' things to what happen to electric signals say in your visual cortex when you look at 'yourself'. Lets say you are looking at 'yourself' on a mirror, say your nose. Light bounce from your nose all the way to the mirror, then to eyes then,..., then,..., to the visual cortex, then,..., er, things somehow spirals to a blackhole of we know not what. Next time, the nose is appearing in a realm termed 'awareness'. Thus when energy ( light in this case) bounce from a region X, then eventualy tickles visual cortex, we eventual experience what we term it as 'seeing the region X'. So what about when the region X is the visual cortex itself? Does the mere presence of energy in a cortex constitute 'seeing the cortex'?Now you are going to look at your own brain! Be sure you are getting it! I don't mean the brain of another man nor looking at your head from a mirror. I mean looking at your brain using the energy already in the brain! Whill you be able to see it as it were from bird's eye view? That is to say I don't metaphorically mean 'experiencing your thoughts'. I mean litteraly beholding the structure of your own brain and realising, for instance, that it looks like interstines!One might say that when you see somthing, an image of the thing is existent in your brain albeit transformed accordingly. In some sense, we can say that you are infact seeing the aspect of your own brain that pretends not to be the thing it is perceiving. To see itself, the brain as a whole should pretend not to be itself!Now the pretence might be understood in a different way. Infact, the opposite. The signals datting around the brain pretends to be the thing you perceive. Then the signals generated in the brain should somehow pretend to be the brain itself! But any how, my point is that pretence, not 'actualness' can be said to be involved in perception. But my point in 'seeing one self' was a perception caused by the existence of a thing itself and not by the pretence of another thing.To understand more about own's awareness, lets consider the case of seeing another man's cortex in comparison to what would happen in the case of seeing own's cortex. While if perception were done on retina, we would define perception of a thing as the image of the thing, things are not the same in visual cortex as the transformation of the image in the latter is not merely that of scale. There is what look like distortion, however it is strange enough that an image like the one in retina is what eventually appear in the awareness!There is also the question how small we can see. If we are ultimately made of atoms, then we are infact seeing as a whole, what parts donnot see! The limit in how tiny a thing we can see undermines the idea of a perception that doesn't involve any pretence for if at least such and such number of atoms are necesary to form a perception the perception can only be that of the atoms perceiving themselves, non perceives itself on its own, but collectively, they perceive themselves.Lets come back to seeing another man's visual cortex, priferably, a man that looks perfectly like you. The cortex is a set of many neurones. Though there is a one to one correspondence between your neurones and the neurones of the guy you are seeing, the light bouncing from a given neurone will not in general eventually hit the corresponding neurone in your own cortex as you perceive the other cortex. This is due to transformation. So the signal from neurone at point X in the other man's cortex will eventually hit neurone at point Y in your cortex. But compare this to the case of a signal coming from point X all the way to point Y WITHIN YOUR OWN NEURONE. Does that not lead you to seeing your own neurone which is at point X? Doesn't the set of all such intercommunication withing your own visual cortex bring about seeing your own visual cortex?

What Should Be Science Default Regarding Afterlife Question?

Posted by Roaring Lovely on June 29, 2016 at 11:30am

This is a question of onus of proof. Another way to put it is what is an 'extraordinary claim' in this case? Is it to claim that there is no life after death or to claim that there is life after death? The automatic answer of course is that a scientist should demand that the onus is on the person claiming that there is an afterlife to prove so. However, I will here overturn the tables rightside up. It is an extraordinary claim to say that there is no afterlife!The morden scientific stand is that it is the onus of the one making positive claim to prove the claim. Then because 'no' in the 'there is NO afterlife' is a negation, then it is thought that the negation of afterlife requires no proof. However, this is too simplistic. If the claim negates that which is consistent with facts, then the onus shifts to the one negating to explain and/or prove why it cannot happen. For instance what if I claim that there are NO rocks in the interior of the moon? This is a negation and yet the mainstream science's default stand is that there are rocks in the moon. It is the onus of the one denying it to explain to us why moon should lack this faculty.In fact there is a very popular claim amongst physicists that 'if it is not forbiden, then it is compulsory'. From physics, we know that if something CAN happen, then it MUST happen! So from physics insight, our task reduces to merely showing that an afterlife does not violet any law of physics. Once we do that, the ball shifts neatly to the other side of the net. What is it that will constantly prevent something from happening for all of the eternity if it CAN happen?But showing that afterlife does not violet any law of physics is a no brainer. If 'life before death' does not violet any law of physics, then 'life after death' cannot possibly violet any law of physics. Laws of physics does not change with time. A fancy way of putting it is that laws of physics are invariant under time coordinate translation. Therefore there is no reason from physics to maintain a 'no afterlife' as a default position any more than there is a reason to maintain that there is no remagnetisation of a demagnetised piece of iron. The question is what will it indefinitely prevent the second magnetisation if nothing indefinitely prevented the first magnetisation?You should be able to note that we donnot ask what will make the afterlife to happen. We rather ask what it will prevent it from happening. In other words, the default possition is that of things happening and not that of things not happening. The mindset changes from: 'if nothing makes things to happen, then they cannot happen' to 'if nothing prevent things from happening, then they must happen'. An object for instance was innitially moving until something prevented it from moving. That is why an apparently standing still object is infact moving at c so that it has an energy of E=MC2. We donnot perceive it to move simply because we are moving together with it from 'past' to 'future'.So from our lives at the present moment, we know that life is possible. However, we donnot know of a future state wherein life will not be there. Contrary to how you may think, there is utterly no meaning in the words: there is no afterlife. This has something to do with the fact that the supposed eternal lack of life is in the future. The meaning of a lack of one's own awareness though can but only be illustrated as an event of the past. Past and future though are assymmetric as a matter of fact. This mean that the attempted illustration of the future eternal lack of experience by lickening it to a dreamless sleep is fallacious. This is because what it means to have a dreamless sleep can but only come out as a state that happens BEFORE a state of consciousness. However, we cannot use a meaning that assumes an experience and a lack of experience of past to illustrate it as a meaning of a lack of experience in future whence it is impossible to perceive it as a state in the past. This is contradictory.

Dream Reality

Posted by Roaring Lovely on June 26, 2016 at 8:30am

In a lucid dream, we are capable of asking whether or not we are dreaming while dreaming. This leads to the question of whether our wake state is also a very vivid dream albeit one that is harder to wake up from. But since the waking up is what defines a dream, it may not be proper to lable our day to day experience as a dream. A 'dream that we never ever wake from' is an oxymoron. However, there is still a lesson to learn about reality from the fact that we can dream about reality and convince ourselves that it is real at least within the dream.First of all if you want to compare our wake experience with a dream, it may be far more insightfull to say that what we term it as a dream is infact an experience of some reality than to say that what we experience as real is infact a dream. Contrary to how you may think, we unwittingly decide what is or is not real by just agreeing on what the word 'real' should unambiguosly rifer to and/or what it should not rifer to. Since we will perform the relevant, ostensive definition while wake, it would be self defeating to again assert that what we experience in the wake state is not real.The mainstream science and also many people will try to use the wake state to attempt to understand the dream. We do experience that we have a body and senses and whether or not we perceive the world depends on whether or not information get to our senses and then to our brains. Since the signal serves to creat some transductions at verious places in the nervous system, it is easy to imagine similar transductions happening albeit caused by something else other than the object we are to perceive. Thus it is easy to imagine a case where we perceive something that does not exist like it does when we are receiving information from the external. So we say such a process might simply be what is happening when we dream.COMPARISON BETWEEN A DREAM AND AN HOLOGRAMFor this purpose, we will consider a dream or imagination of a pictoral image. If certain 'pixels' fire in the retina, hippocampus or the visual cortex, an image will appear in your awareness telling you that you are seeing something at some distance away from you, even upto milions of miles aways! In this case, the visual cortex is behaving in a way analogous to an hologram. When you see through an hologram, a 3d virtual image appears that seems located far at the back of the hologram even though the relevant event of bouncing light off is all happening on the surface of the hologram. If you are not aware of the hologram, you can formed the false idea that the light you see is caused by something far at the back when it is infact caused by events on the surface. Somthing close to that happens when things akin to bouncing light off a surface happens in the visual cortex.You can then see that thus if you are not aware of the hologram, it is not at all easy to infer that thus whathever you are seeing is infact an holographic projection by studying the projection itself. This is because the image bears little recemblance with the hologram. One then might say that why should we categorise anything as a dream at all? If seeing at tree during wake is due to events that begines with light bouncing off the surface, and seeing a tree in the dream is due to events that begines with charges bouncing off somewhere in your brain. Why don't we rather define dream as just a perception in some other realm? The answere ultimately boils down to permanence and if the world out there is not permanent, then it is like a dream in that sense. It is only a longer dream. When we know that hologram is easy to get damaged, we then also know that the image will get lost alongside the hologram. This would not be the case if we were seeing something independent on the hologram.PHYSICS IN THE DREAMIs it possible to conclusively tell that you are dreaming while dreaming. Then we could use such a technique to exermine if the world we see is like a dream. Even though the scenario you are perceiving is caused by neurones that are firing, you can't easily see the neurones firing within the dream. Rather, you see an image such as a tree that bears little recemblance to neurones.If you use some reasoning, you can still tell that you are dreaming while dreaming. One of the ways to do that is checking the permanence of the scene. We use the intuition that nothing can come out of void, supposedly blind things cannot behave like intelligent things etc. If you see a simple stone doing such a complex thing as math, then you can tell that this stone must be caused by some underlying mind that you are not seeing. If you see that things surreptitiously appear and disappear, or get easily transformed to different forms, then you can tell that what you are seeing is more akin to an energy than a thing. It must be an exitation in some other invisible entity such as visual cortex. This is the reason why temporality mean almost the same as dream. There is not so much difference between a bark you hear of once and dreaming of one. Finaly if things appear to be much within your control then what you are seeing is probably just your own dream.Let us now see if our world fit that of a dream in a 'nervous system' that connects all of us. In other words, we might be dreaming and we all have a single, huge 'brain'!! Because there are countless consciousnesses operating the same 'brain', then we cannot espect the dream to be in much control of a single individual. The only way we can achieve such a control is through the coherence of our wills. This is not so in our world. Everybody has his own different and at many time conflicting will. We can see though that if at least we interprate quantum mechanics in a certain way, then yes we have some good control of the scenario at least in quantum world. The only reason quantum mechanics doesn't appear in our world is that there is no quantum coherence between many particles.We also see that things behave more like energy. Particles end up being exitations in a strange, unseen ocean termed quantum field. If we were to liken the world with a dream, then this invisible quantum field out of which particles emerg as exitations in it will be akin to the neurons that are not visible in the dream. Farthermore, the quantum word indead appear and disapears surreptitiously and constantly changing form just like a dream.Finaly, we see things akin to stones doing math. For instance the moon knows how to orbit the earth and where it is! Its behaviour then appears to be cause by some underlieing, unseen mind.

The Details Physics Of Realities Vibrating At Different Frequencies

Posted by Roaring Lovely on June 16, 2016 at 6:30am

The word 'vibration' ended up becoming an abracadabra in new age. It is used to explain everything and to understand nothing. Apparently, in the phrace 'higher frequency' what catches the eye is the word 'higher' and not 'frequency'. In the egotistic quest to put things in hierachy, words such as 'higher' and 'lower' are indispensable. So our guys wont buy into any idea of interlaced realities that does not suggest what is higher or lower. But it is not hierachy that should primarily interest us. It is how a realm can be unseen that is more important.Originaly, the vibration hypothesis was supposed to be taken more litteraly. It does not mean qualia, i.e sensations that you cannot describe, though qualia is indead corelated with vibration. Rather what the concocter of the brew wanted to illustrate is how different realms can coexist at the same region while not interacting with each other akin to how radio waves from different transmitters and coexist at the same region. That is why he posited that everything is vibrating and/or is a vibration.Once you understand this illustration, you will begine to see problems in it and then you will embrace my quest to address those problems and you will generaly love details other than handwaving glossing over issues to do with reality. The first, glaring problem is that the hypothesis says that we see this reality because it is a vibration we are in tune with. He goes ahead and site deBrongile waves as evidence that every matter is indead a vibration. However, they donnot vibrate at a single frequency. That is to say that they donnot realy recemble the carrier waves of a radio transmitter. Clearly detail explanation is neaded.QUANTUM FIELD THEORYIndead quantum mechanics suggest that elementary particles are wingles in some strange medium termed quantum field. Furthermore, vacuum is not realy empty at all. It is churning around in some event termed quantum fluctuation. However this creats a problem. If 'wavicles' are dating here and there, then one should at least in principle observe themselves moving relative to vacuume. This brings back the very problem of motion relative to aether, which is said to be undetectable by Einstein's theory. To 'solve' this, mathematical physicists are forced to say that the vacuum is vibrating in all range of frequencies from zero to infinity!Phew! This lands me exactly where I wanted. The deBrongile waves that are said to be the vibration of objects are not apparently of a single frequency which we can say that we are all tuned. Rather, it is a range of infinite frequencies. This is problematic for those who wanted to interlace deBrongile waves to form a multidimensional reality. What quantum field theory is saying is that if there are realms that are 'seperated' from each other by levels of frequency, then all those realms are visible and we already exist in all of them all at once! So apparently, we cannot realy use deBrongile waves to interlace different realities akin to how radio waves of differing frequencies coexists at the same region.However, there are minor catches in quantum field theory that makes it possible to reintroduce the radio wave analogy but now with a greater understanding. One has something to do with infinities that eventually lead to the so called 'renormalization'. The other one is the fact that the vibrations are harmonic. Lets consider harmonics first. There is this strange thing about infinity there can be many 'infinities'! Or simply, when you close exermine the maths of quantum field theory, the zero frequency they are talking about (the reciprocal of all the eternity!) is realy not zero. Rather, it is the usual technique of calculus, i.e an INFINITESIMAL frequency that is said to 'tend to' zero. But there are many ways to 'tending to' zero. This poetically creats many 'zeroes'. It is this many 'zeroes' that we now wish to interlace them to form a multidimensional reality.In a slightly different language, think of vacuum to be full of frequencies ranging from a very very small frequency to a very very large frequency but not realy from zero to infinity. All these other frequencies are harmonic to the one that is 'approaching' zero. This is to say that if the smallest frequency is f, every other frequency is nf for some interger, n. So we have n=1,2,3,4,... As harmonic frequencies, they are all RESONANT to each other. So we are now back to the radio wave analogy albeit with greater understanding. To form a multidimensional reality of differing frequencies, each layer has a unique f, which is its so called FUNDAMENTAL FREQUENCY. So you gotta stop saying that in this realm, we are in tuned to a certain frequency. To sound smatter, say that we are in tuned to a certain FUNDAMENTAL frequency.FINE TUNNED UNIVERSE AND FINE STRUCTURE CONSTANTPhysicists have been puzzled by the fact that our universe is increadibly fine tunned for life. This means that it looks like a place INTENTIONALLY created for life! One can conclude that the universe is infact created so intentionally or that our universe is infact just one of the myriads of other universes. Whichever way you choose, I can argue for a multidimensional reality of differing fundamental frequencies.Amongst the intriguing, fine tunned constants is the so called fine structure constant. This determines the sizes of atoms with a great precision. So if our realm can have its physics just the right one neaded for life, is it far fetched at all to say that there is yet another realm with physics just fine tunned for angels etc? Sure it isn't! We can even use the possibility of life as a criteria for determinning possible physics!Fine structure constant is given by:a=q^2/hceq=charge of an electronh=Planck's constantc=speed of lighte=permitivity of vacuumSo when we wonder if there are other realms with different fine structure constant, then those realms must have different values for elementary charge, planck's constant, speed of light and permitivity of vacuum. Then as we will next see, this in turn should mean that those realms also differ by fundamental frequency.We can use Einstein's law:E=hfE=energyf=frequencySo we say that if we alter planck's constant, then to create the same energy, photon must now vibrate at another frequency. If for instance the particle is to go to a realm of higher fundamental frequency, it must go to a realm of smaller Planck's constant hence it must be lighter. Planck's constant is just a quantum of angular momentum.

Reviewing The Law Of Conservation Of energy

Posted by Roaring Lovely on June 11, 2016 at 1:00pm

What if I wave a magic wand and utter 'abracadabra' then voila! A UFO surreptitiously emanate from a void in the full view of scientists. Will they say wow! So there are indead some things that science cannot explain? While magicians tend to think that indead they will say so, infact they won't, at least if they do science correctly. Rather they will revise the laws of conservation of energy and matter to give room for magic wands. This is the reason as to why proponents of such things as UFOs etc that can disapear off the sky must go ahead and say what physics such things work with! There is no such a convenient realm as 'beyond science' in which to hide Santas and pull out rabbits.Fortunately though, the physics laws of conservation of matter and energy are not necesarily the statements of ex ninilo nihil, as it first may seem. The later is more intuitive and many people find it problematic to suppose that something can come out from void. In physics, to violet the laws of conservation of matter, something does not need to come out from nothing. It can come out from unseen realms such as a ghost materialising. Problem is that physicist will not acertain where it comes from and like a male sheep fighting on a summit, he may suppose that it comes from nothing!So then if there are other realsm into which things can, at least in principle disappear to or come out from, then we must modify how we understand the laws of conservation of energy, matter etc. Specifically, it becomes more of a very contingent RULE than a LAW. Infact, it becomes far more difficult to understand why spirits etc donnot materialise and dematerialise than to understand how to pull them out via a magic wand!PROPER UNDERSTANDING OF CONSERVATIVE LAWS TO UNDERSTAND SOULI have often been noting that matter can go to the realm of the unseen by simply ceasing to interact with our electromagnetic forces. So what makes something belong to our realm is not the 'somethingness'. It is a sheer force! Because it is easy to conceive force as what something does than what it is, it is very easy to conceive of another realm wherein things simply DO other things and not that of BEING other things.Because of this modern revelation of what matter is, I found that it is nolonger necesary to posit a soul as to be another thing entirely different from matter. A soul can be seen as matter simply 'dancing to another tune'.Because the body can, in principle, go to the unseen realms, the question of whether consciousness is caused by brain or something else invisible is nolonger that relevant in answering the question of whether or not we will leave after death. If you are that guy still traped trying to understand what causes your consciousness, thinking that it will help you determine whether or not you will die, then I highly welcome you to modern science! The question rather is 'can matter cross over to the unseen world?' This translates to mean that we should rather seek to understand the conservative laws than to seek to understand what exactly causes our consciousness. It is enough to note that it is corelated to the presence of the body without necesary meaning that corelation implies causal relationship.INTERDIMENSIONAL CIRCUITOne very simple way to explain the fact that matter donnot surreptitiously disappear is to simply extend the laws gorvening fluxes to higher dimensions. The law is that of CONTINUITY. We know that for fluid to flow, circuit must be complete. In the same way for matter to flow to another realm, the same amount of matter must flow to our realm. So we donnot notice any change in the amount of matter in our realm.This is infact a modification in how we understand the conservative laws. We donnot even need any more arcane physics than quantum mechanics. Lets consider matter-antimatter interaction. We know that should matter and untimatter combine, they anihillate each other. We also know that every moment, a matter-antimatter pair pops out from vacuum. But the thus created antimatter can as well rather combine with matter, anihillating it, and then the newly created matter sits squarely where the old matter was! It is such swapping that can be understood as a circut flowing from our 'material' world into the 'spiritual' quantum field and vice versa. So you see that as long as the circuit is complete (i.e for every matter going out, equal amount of matter comes in) matter can flow to another realm without violating the conservative laws.NEGATIVE ENERGYPhysicists nowadays tend to accept the possibility of negative energy! But this mean that we need to modify how we understand the law of conservation of energy. If we creat a negative and positive energy pair, then we have not realy violated the conservative law! However, this is miles from the normal understanding of conservation of energy.You must note that negative energy is not trivial to understand. This is because energy involves a square of velocity and there is no real number for square root of a negative number. Similarly we have no PHYSICAL meaning of a negative of frequency, but we have a MENTAL one. This mean that it is hard to understand how nature can distinguish between negative an positive energy without there being some underlieing mind!Einstein's law says E=hf where E=energy, h=planck's constand and f=frequency. To understand negative energy, think of a vibrating thing as a shadow of something revolving around. Since you are seeing only a shadow, we can't tell whether or not the revolving things is doing so clockwise or anticlockwise. So the shadow has no concepts of positive or negative frequencies. But since the revolution is a mental consideration of a vibrating thing, we need an accountant to lable some vibrations as negative and then keep track on them!

Compartibility Of Free Will With God's Foreknowledge

Posted by Roaring Lovely on June 9, 2016 at 8:30am

Christians often say that to God, the future is as certain as the past. Good! Nothing at all is logically problematic with such. However, what puts ants in the pants is the claim that nevertheless, everyone still has a freedom to choose what he will do in future! Indead christians must hold both of these views for otherwise their religion will collapse in pico seconds! How after all will they claim that you will declared guilty in the last days?To compart this fatal paradox, the modern philosopher has brewed an amusing ad oc. He tosses around the concepts of necessities and contingencies to the utter confusion of people! He also rely on false dilemas and straw men fallacies.NECESITYWe can say for instance that necesarily, a triangle has 3 sides. At once, one should understand that the concepts of necesity applies solely to concepts and not things or events out there. 3 sides is a necesary conditions that make a geometric figure to be called a triangle by a sentient being. It is NOT a necesary condition for a thing in reality to BE a triangle. There is no such a thing as a triangle. A triangle is a CONCEPT.In a similar way, the statement that if God already knows where you will go tommorrow then you will necesary go there does not have any meaning. Rather we say the statement that 'God knows where you will go tommorrow' necesarily makes the statement that 'you have no free will' true. In other words, the battleground is entirely in SENTENSES and not in EVENTS!! Whatever happens there happens and it doesn't need the concept of nececity. We invented necessities solely to ensure that our languages does not contain internal contradictions.So it is actually straight foward. If it is true to say that God knew where you will go tommorrow even before the world begun, then where you will go tommorow was already determined at the beginning. If you you were not there right at the beginning, then it cannot be said that you made the choice. These are just tautologies. If the following two statements does not mean the same thing, then we are simply not speaking the same language, no need for argument!Statement 1: God knew where you will go tommorrow before the world begunStatement 2: Where you will go tommorrow was determined before the world begunThese are just ALMOST a roundabout ways of saying the same thing. Such needs as to be able to sabstitute 'God' with another word such as 'devil' to generate other meanings are the only reasons we need these two statements in our languages.FREEWILL IN A BLOCK UNIVERSEA block universe is a model wherein all the events of past, present and future happens all at once albeit seperated by yet another atemporal dimension! In such a model, 'future' can just be thought of as plans in the mind of 'God'. However, when we conceive of a block universe, at once, the possibility of 'time travel' becomes conceivable. But if we can time travel to 'future', the future ceases to be predetermined and as such, there is realy nothing incompartible with freewill in a block universe.There is still a need to account for the fact that we realy don't determine every event in our world freewillingly. While you can determine where the billiard ball will go, you donnot determine where moon will go. So if 'future' is realy in the mind of 'God', we can reconcile this with our freewill by simply understanding ourselves as to be part of this 'God'.FREEWILL IN A NEWTONIAN UNIVERSEIt is falsely taught that Newtonian physics is deterministic. Infact, 'Newtonian' is used to incongruosly lable every classical physics, most of which were realy not the works of Newton. We all know that Newton was a 'magician'. So we don't espect him to have concocted a physics that gives no room for magics, i.e physics that undermine his own beleives. So if Newton's look looks very 'mechanical' it is only reasonable to assume that his work was reinterprated or rewritten by other people.In the original Principia Mathematica, there are explanations that Netwon offered that are often omited in presenting Newton's physics to students. For instance, consider how he explains action and reaction forces. He considers a rope tieing an horse to a stone. If the horce draws the stone, the rope tries to return to its own natural tension, drawing the horse to the stone.In quantum mechanics, we now know that forces are mediated by such invisible 'ropes' termed bosons. So contrary to how you may think, we don't explain collition as to be due to 'contact'. After all objects are almost empty and they could as well penetrate each other instead of knocking each other. With this picture, we can reintroduce freewill in that there is a choice between collition and interpenetration.

A Talk About The Physics And The Metaphysics Of Interstellar Travel

Posted by Roaring Lovely on May 26, 2016 at 11:30am

The physics of interstellar travel is bedeviled by alot of problems. This is mostly due to the fact that to reach stars in time, one need to travel at unimaginable speeds. So this leads to the following problems:a)What energy and force should bring about such speedsb)How do we avoid friction, dodge objects at such insane speeds and then abrubtly slow down to land?c)How do we circumvent the so called einsteinian baririer?Given zero point energy, there is a conceivable way of solving all those problems simultaneously, which I will elaborate latter. This uses a kind of 'Maxwell's Demon'.I donnot find it appealing to brush aside such basement problems and then go straight to talking of the wonders of UFOs, star farmilies etc. i.e building a house of cards that begines at the first floor and which lacks the basement! We donnot dig graves and make coffines before someone dies.It is tempting to think that information does not obey physics. If you are that type of a guy who think that incase some unseen entity as 'soul' is responsible for consciousness, then I donnot need any physics to shoot across the skies like a witch flying with brooms, then you are exactly that guy who need to know that information IS physical! The Einsteinian barrier for instance does not act on objects alone. It prevents ANY signal from moving faster than light! Not even a soul can circumvent Einsteinian barrier without throwing Einstein's relativity squarely in the dustbin folders. Mark my words carefully.Ironically, the reason that makes even consciousness unable to shoot faster than light in Einsteinian world is exactly the very reason why the 'magicians' cellebrates Einsteinian physics! It is mass energy equivalence and time dillation. 'Magicians' blindly got interested with these concepts only because it triggers waaahs and aaahs amongst the masses. Ever since, we were told that occult is 'beyond understanding'. So whenever those after magics hear of any irrationalities emanating from the throne of mathematical physics, ants begin to get in their pants. Did they hear 'beyond understanding'? So they donnot think carefully about this new 'magic'.So the major thing one must do to make interstellar travel imaginable is to demystify relativity. Specifically, matter is not the same thing as energy. This may at first send shock waves to new age religion, it is ultimately for their own good! 'Demassing' and 'deernergising' makes it unlimited how light it can be. Time will come when you will grasp well how stupid it is to claim that 'everything is energy'. Einstein's energy is very heavy! It gravitates around massive objects and can't get to demask itself from the curved spaces hamocks in its visinity. If it happens upon a blackhole, the wave of energy waves bye bye. So if your spirit is energy, get ready to be gobbled by big crunches, blackholes and other unintelligibilities brewed by mathematical physicists. What a bucket of cold water to those who worships man made concepts as 'energy.'On the other hand Newton's physics never forbided anything to move at any speed. The thought moving instantaneously even upto adromeda is compartible with Newton's physics. Infact such is how Newton's gravity work which was famously termed action at a distance. Move a cup in Newton's gravity and you instantly move every object in the universe albeit by tiny amount! Newton's physics hinted a platform through which everything in the universe could be meaningfully connected with everything else irrespective of distance. Einstein physics is local. A thing can only affect its neighborhood and affect distant things only by sending crawling waves. The waves themselves propagates unintelligebly. So the entire setting does not help us to understand anything.To truely understand how to move to stars, we must seek to understand the laws of physics. Say what? It is a taboo to try to understand 'laws' in the modern physics. It is a sort of like trying to understand God. 'Laws' are things to be gawked at and preached. But this way of thinking is paving way to another way of thinking. It is increasingly becoming clear that the thought of 'laws' as inevitable necesities is ultimately flowed! It is this mentality that makes the modern physicist get obsessed with equation. He is stupid enough to think that nature is the way it is out of some necesity much like the way one equation follows logically from another. But nature is not that way! There are no 'axioms' through which to derive every phenomenon as a logical consiquence of anything. Even Hawking is finaly losing hope in the idea of 'theory of everything'.Had physicist not been misguided to look for LOGICAL reasons why things happen, they would have sought for PHYSICAL reasons. They won't try to bend logics and create absurdities so the phenomena may appear to follow from some logic. Not so with me! There are no 'laws' as such. We see 'laws' only because our impotence is enomous. Before we built jets, it was a 'law' that no man can break the sound barrier. Instead of laws, we have RULES that helps to make the world usefull and harmonius. I offer more of teleological explanations. For instance, lets consider the law of conservation of energy. If energy could be destroyed, the world would end in a big freeze. If energy could be created, it would end in a big bang. In whichever way, you won't be here to think about the universe. In some other regions where there are no such beings, there are no such laws! However, I am not advocating anthropic principle. But such is how the 20st centuary physicist tend to think, especially with the failure of supersymmetry.MAXWELL'S DEMONWhen physicists sought to understand the second law of thermodynamics, a possible way of circumventing it became conceivable. And this is the importance of seeking to understand the 'laws' and not just get amazed by them. I find it best to illustrate Maxwell's demon in a state that is in thermodynamic equilibrium. This should be of interest because untapeability of zero point energy is due to it being in thermodynamic equilibrium.Imagive moving through an ocean by tapping the wind. Then by simply changing the angle through which you tap, you can move at any speed. But the maximum speed will be the speed of the wind. Such a 'wind ' in aether explains relativity. The Einsteinian Barrier has nothing to do with getting fatter and fatter till you are such obese that it takes the whole cosmos to accellerate you. The latter ludicrous reasoning confuses INERTIA with MATTER.Zero point energy is simply due to standing, longitudinal waves propagating bidirectionally at the average speed of light. Then atoms are Maxwell's demons that taps into the zero point energy to fuel the forces of nature such as magnetism. Zero point energy also fundamentally drives all the motions. This easily explains the Einsteinian barrier. The substances that we have come to term them as 'fuel' are those that 'knows' how to tap into the zero point.But to get a glimpse that indead tapping the 'wind' explains relativity, let us consider time dillation. To tap the wind you must pute the vane at some angle, A, depending on how fast you want it to move. Then the speed, v, will be given byv=csinA, orv/c=sinA or(v/c)^2=(sinA)^2=1-(cosA)^2(using phythagorus.So we get cosA={1-(v/c)^2^}^(1/2)The reasoning is that the aether 'wind' which is moving at c drives the clocks just the way turbines do. This means that if the atoms moves at c, then no wind will get past the atom and thus nothing will make it spin. Then generaly, the faster you move, the slower the clock will spin. Thus the maximum spinning speed, call it u1, will be experienced at rest. Then the moving speed, u2 will be given by:u2=u1cosASo you can check that u1/u2 is indead the formula for 'time' dillation! Remember that A is LITERAL angle you place the vane at so that it taps to wind partialy. Such is how pilots do to manouver the plane using wind. To tap the wind maximaly, let A be 90 degrees. So A is the angle between the vane and the line of force that the wind is moving through.

Where Science End And Scientism Begines

Posted by Roaring Lovely on May 20, 2016 at 10:00am

It is not clear at all to many that somewhere science stops and then holus bolus, like an eagle snartching a chick, another impostor not any different from religion sits squarely on the throne. So here, I am going to elucidate the difference between science and 'scientism'. Here, I use science just to mean 'the collection of objective knowledge' and 'scientism' as 'the beleif in science theories'.The scientific shell gamer has two hats out of which to pull out the rabbit. When the unsuspecting lay man asks what science is, a trivial example is given. 'Science' is such processes like testing the claim that if I release an apple, it will fall to the ground. Good! The layman get accustomed with the notion that science is a collection of facts. But when you check the pockets of the snake oil pedler, you find another card! 'Science' is also inferances made by interlectuals in Berkeley or Copenhagen!Scientism is a religion around science that is pretending to be factual. It is not scence. It is 'about science'. This is worst because a lay person is never taught science in books or journals. He just read about science and he thinks that this constitutes knowing science. What is in the mind of a lay man is what I may term it as 'eureka claims'. Just the yawns from a tired nobel prize winner. People develope religion 'eurekah claims' and then argue for hours and days!Eureka! Man came from apesEureka! Give me the speed and the momentum of every particle, and I will predict everything in futureEureka! We leave in a four dimensional spacetime continuumEureka! Give me a long beam and I will balance the earth. And other stupid claims.Scientism is about making and/or unmaking beleifs. Scientism is about changing how you think with the suspection that someone comming from Harvard can think better than you. Scientism tells you what to beleif. You better beleive so because nobel prize winners, celebrities and a basketfull of similarly indoctrinated scientists beleive so. Scientism is about group thinking and peer preasure. A claim is a fact because many scientists beleive so. Likewise a claim is not a fact because many scientists donnot beleive. Scientism has swaped science with a priesthood.So every time you read an article beginning with:a)Most scientists beleive that...b)The prevailing view is that...d)The consensus is that...Donnot even read further! You can be sure that you are in for yet another Jehovah Witness on his door to door mission! Wikipedia articles are notorius at this in beginning sesions, but not in all articles. Finaly Wikipedia settles down and says the science. So Wikipedia is often good somewhere around last sessions. But it surely often begine or end in sheer scientism. Let put it on perspective, to a seeker of truth, who gives a shit about preveiling views, consensuses and what scientists beleive or doubt? This concerns the minds and not the issues. Only psychologists or psychiatrists should be interested with such.THE TRUE SCIENCE TEACHERHe is often less impresive but he imparts more. The lesson can be boring but you get something that will bring jow afterwards but not DURING THE LESSON. Those who seek quick entertainment during the lesson ends up becomming the victim of the scientism sways. While the scientism preacher donnot even need to have understood what he is preaching, a true science teacher need to have himself first mastered the lesson before he teaches others.A science teacher will NEVER begine by beating about the bush on how the theory has been proven over and over and how many scientists, people etc beleive in it. This are the hallmarks of soul winners seeking to recruite you to a new religion. The teacher wants you to think critically and to question the theory. He wants you to arrive at your own conclusion albeit based on knowledge of the facts around the theory.So the real teacher goes straight away and opens the nuts and bolts. He does not tell you that 'it is proven'. He stops at showing you how it was alegedly proven and leaves you to arrive at your own conclusion as to whether or not the proof was conclusive. He for instance stop at drawing and illustrating the apparatus, showing the maths if there and leaves you either to judge it for yourself or for you to go and carry out your own experiment. He knows that science is not about blind faith that include beleiving it because 'everybody' beleivs. Or in a poetic summary, a true teacher does tell students what is in a dark room. He stops at turning on the lights for everyone in the room to see it for themselves.