Jump to content
The Corroboree

Recommended Posts

but all that aside, lee smolin might be an author some of you wish to investigate,

i've not read any of his works but he does focus on the philosophy of mathematics,

something which interests me in general,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, this "flawed physics" is basically making this entire thread possible,

hay here's an idea, if physics is so shit why don't you come up with your own?

bearing in mind in order to come up with your own physics you have to invent your own mathematics.

calculus is bunk it's just elitists making shit up as they go along?

maybe you think the idea of "2+2=4" is flawed?

theres no such thing as the number five?

thunder, i think you should invest some time in number theory, you'd get a kick out of it

disclaimer: physics may not be flawed. i'm not exactly qualified to say am i? i'm an arm-chair ponderer. i do come up with my own "physics" but as a hobby. the fact is that there are lots of real scientists who DO have dissenting models so there's no need for lowly thunderideal school dropout to rock any paradigm-smashing leaps forwards.

i think your tone is friendly antagonism but if you are genuinely bothered that i'm questioning some science on account that it may have become a bit dogmatic (dogma and science shouldn't mix) then let me remind you that my opinion doesn't really matter. do you want citations? i wouldn't know how to put a wikipedia url into a primary school bibliography okay? if i tell you that relativity predicts phenomenon that should be observable but aren't then you can investigate further or just ignore me. if i suggest that there probably is no such thing as "missing matter" (dark matter), just missing evidence for the accepted model, you can contemplate further or remain faithful in unprovable undisprovable spaghetti monsters. if i draw your attention to objects interacting with each other despite having very different redshifts, you could infer that maybe our estimates of the distance of many objects is questionable (and therefore the perception of pulsars as being so energetic because they are "so far away") or you could assume like everyone else does that halton arp was a brilliant astronomer for a while then he just lost the plot. if i point you to possible explanations for all of the above there's no need to entertain any of them.... the standard models will work there are just a few minor details and hiccups to be ironed out.

i love science enough to love it if it's wrong... even if it won't admit it at first. just so long as it does admit it before becoming the next numbskull religion.

technological advancements, and models that yield them don't equate to perfect science/knowledge. i'm awed and ingratiated to scientific progress and i shouldn't even have to say so just because i question some of it. that's the hallmark of religion "you are not permitted to call the doctrine into question".

i've always wished i was a scientist, and i'm jealous of any cunt who actually is. the reality of being a poverty-stricken student.. the reality that my mind refuses to work unless it wants to work (eg problems of its choice eg cbf completing tafe assessments let alone real schoolwork).... the reality that i have no idea where it will lead me... and NOW, the reality that i'd have to regurgitate science in which my faith has been totally shattered.

thanks for the recommendation but maths isn't my thing right now. overviews are fine but i'm getting dumber with age, maths requires huge intellect, it's abstract and doesn't appeal to my sense of exploration, it doesn't embiggen my soul or contribute to my fantasy models. (euclidean) geometry on the other hand, while technically maths, is not the subject of mathematical advancements (it's fairly done and dusted) and is more engaging. geometry interests me. i want to start a thread on literal descriptions of the behaviour of the living geometry seen during CEV. all it requires is an observant mind experienced enough not to be overwhelmed, to make mental notes like you would while studying any other phenomena and then transfer them onto paper. chaos science tends to involve maths pretty heavily, it was more or less born when computers were, when it became possible to crunch huge numbers. chaos science is cool but i don't hear about it very often unless i look for it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i appreciate what you're saying, but

i just think the people who say physics is flawed have no alternative,

remember, "physics" exists because it's verifiable, if you have something that's verifiable too then great,

and when people start to say "man, physics is shit" then they don't actually know what they're talking about

and yes, there's lot's of things that "science" doesn't "know", but so what? does anyone expect humans to have all the answers? i don't,

**disclaimer** i'm shit at physics but i know that it's the closest thing we have to a description of the natural universe,

p.s. lawrence krauss is a knob

now, getting into the politics of science, well there you can say that certain ideas gain traction based on the politics of the institution,

atheism i guess has a strong sway in the scientific community, and as such the idea of a consciousness (at least human like) existing outside of the human mind is dismissed summarily,

but is that a bad thing? how can you test for a mind existing in space?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lawrence krauss and cosmology in general is the haughtiest of the haughty.

just to be clear i'm not saying 'physics is shit', just relativity and therefore gravitation and therefore much of astronomy and astro-physics. i worked my way in reverse though, from astronomers being forever "shocked by results from space probe/thing" because pretty much all of their creation myths and explanations were chosen over other candidates 100 years ago (i'm saying that there ARE closer descriptions of the natural universe, the discarded candidates). the reason their stories don't add up, and i mean pretty much ALL of their explanations for what is observed in space, is because they rely on gravity as the only really important factor (which is why they invoke ridiculous amounts of invisible undetectable mass). that leads to the killing blow perhaps, mathematician stephen crothers believes (and attempts to explain to laypersons) that there is gaping flaws in the maths of relativity (for instance they divide by zero, among other things dividing by zero is okay if its a black hole apparently) and some other physicist argues that gravitational lensing of light just doesn't happen unless it passes near the body of a star. in the models, the size of the star doesn't matter, gravitational lensing should occur at certain distances from the centre of its mass, going by how massive the star is).

quote "and yes, there's lot's of things that "science" doesn't "know", but so what? does anyone expect humans to have all the answers?"

well, maybe i'm mistaken, but my impression is that physicists believe they've got most of it sussed. didn't hawkings used to say we may be on the verge of creating a grand unified theory (theory of everything).

as for your last comment, testing for a mind outside of an animal, i can think of a few possible avenues. if it's a part of the universe it may even be composed of certain configurations of energy, whereas many people probably assume it is something other than energy..

one of the easiest experiments would be to to give dying people "missions" they could attempt to perform if their consciousness persists. we can't really guess what kind of actions consciousness can perform without fingers and thumbs, or whether the consciousness would even attempt the mission.

i'm pm'ing you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Physics is about models... no scientist would say it is 100% correct... it just seems to work for how we're going until the next model is found. This is what you learn in High School and what is every physicists wet dream, to prove everyone wrong!

I would say our physics knowledge is shit at the moment, we know fuck all about ourselves let alone anything else. I don't even know how this could be an argument, 100 years ago our knowledge of physics was pretty shit but i bet we thought it was pretty goddamn close too, 200 years ago, 300 years ago etc.

As for consciousness goes, I try my best not to think about it. Too many pieces missing I just end up in loops of loops.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Physics is about models... no scientist would say it is 100% correct... it just seems to work for how we're going until the next model is found. This is what you learn in High School and what is every physicists wet dream, to prove everyone wrong!

hopefully we all know how science is supposed to work, but we've also all heard that new ideas can't be accepted until most of the proponents of the previous idea are dead (the example usually given is that people resisted the notion of earth being round, although i'd wager that many past cultures knew earth wasn't flat when they looked at the horizon). i don't think anyone would disagree that science isn't 100% pure science, there are other considerations, like funding and prestige/reputation just to name two. if you win an award for science your work is likely to be cited about 20% more often thereafter. your papers might have stood on their own merits, but now they get a boost, they've been granted more weighting.

officially the best candidate for next major advancement in physics must be m theory aka string theory, which i assume is basically an attempt to combine relativity with quantum mechanics and something about particles. it propels us further still into psychedelic fantasy land, and further away from experiments that are feasible, further into territory that only mathematicians can navigate and further from natural philosophy (okay, science isn't trying to be natural philosophy but it would it hurt? there were no scientists 200 years ago the word didn't exist, but they were doing some cool stuff). somebody just spent 13 billion trying to close the book on particle physics. i think i've heard that testing m theory would require a collider on the scale of a planetary orbits size, the picture painted doesn't have many obvious openings for highly beneficial advancements/technology, except for zero point energy (i'm not sure if it's existence is well-established or if its just a name they gave to a number which couldn't be observed but without which their models fall on their face). anyway i just caught the humour in unifying disparate theories, lets say two areas (big scale and tiny scale) with a theory that has five variations of its own.

this notion of space with nearly impossible distances, inescapable black holes which might devour everything, but mostly just void, does it get reflected in some of the explanations given for beautiful gas/plasma formations? it probably isn't that our psyche demands that space fulfill our expectations of maximum bleakness, it's just that we don't have more dynamic explanations because our explanations utilise only one force, gravity. when gravity drives all of the processes of the universe you can only explain intricate nebulae with death and collapse, mostly things are labelled dying stars, but on some occasions they are birthing stars, and stars don't form like beads on a filament they say. now they say stars do form along strings, which is at least an admission that one of their stories doesn't describe this universe, so that's a step in the right direction. they're forming in strings, but they form under gravity with accretion discs. i'd wager no telescope has ever seen an accretion disc but gravity is the only thing shaping the galaxy so there must have been an accretion discs to create all of these concentrations of matter. or maybe the people saying "electricity, the force evident in the universe by the detection of magnetic fields and the fact that most matter is plasma (usually described as gas though because electricity doesn't shape the universe) is not unimportant, or slightly important, in fact it's far too important to be sidelined". i've heard of hydrogen gas rivers connecting some of our nearby galaxies, how can they call that gas?! look up plasma dudes, it behaves in incredible ways, it will re-explode your curiosity about space. then look up planetary nebulae, they are small (on the scale of a solar system) and their intricate patterns have explanations like, i dunno, a rotating fast moving solar wind (the explanation itself doesn't have an explanation though). plasma phenomenon is scalable, as in, you can produce something in the lab which is a miniature of something happening on stellar or galactic scales. in explaining planetary nebulae, plasma also explains how stars form without accretion discs and why they form along filaments. did i mention a well known plasma structure produced in labs looks exactly like planetary nebulae?

now something happy. now they're saying red dwarfs make up most of the stars and even one for one they are probably more likely to produce life. so we've found the cradles of life. we've also found that we can't find any jupiters. there are jupiter-like bodies but they orbit much closer to their sun, which means prospectively jupiter was captured. (i wonder if we came from a brown dwarf and were captured too?). this is crazy shit man, cuz everything formed exactly where it is when the solar system formed, with an accretion disc. that's what comets are, the leftovers, which means we comets can give us clues into the material that was in the original accretion disc from waaay waaay back...... waaaay back when the fictional tale of the creation of the solar system came into being, somewhere around 1900 i guess :P a multitude of comet-destined space missions have returned nothing but surprising results, everything you've ever heard about comets is wrong, everything! except the shape of their orbit. there is an alternative explanation for comets, its been around for decades and its predictions are vindicated by the missions. when i say it's predictions i'm talking about the predictions of one heretic physicist, but he predicted what we'd discover on closer inspection, and all the chief scientists at nasa who set mission objectives and interpret the data, and all of the other eggheads who tell us what is in space are left scrambling for hopefully a clue, but more likely a tale of dark matter streaming from the sun (saw that one recently) or some imaginary magnetic occurrance or maybe a flying space unicorn.

JUPITER.... there is an electric explanation for variations in orbits (which are observed), which also makes possible the capture of bodies like jupiter not only into the solar system but into a suitable orbit. actually there's a few things there that gravity doesn't explain, but most importantly, it doesn't leave much possibility for capture to occur, it requires some special circumstances. normally if something invaded the solar system it would speed up on approach, curve around the sun and fling off on it's way, slowing a little because it's escaping the system.

i apologise for switching in and out of sarcasm mode throughout.

among proponents of Electrical Universe, it's customary to use a condescending tone when describing fallacies that have lingered for a century, becoming stronger every time their death is stalled by ad hoc adjustments

like the solar model isn't blemished by missing neutrinos anymore because we realised it was never missing neutrinos, they're just changing and transforming before they get to earth, they fusion reaction produces choc fudge neutrinos but i guess the sun has a vanillasphere just beyond the corona and that ... transmutes them, they get transmogrified which is why they're missing, the model stands, notwithstanding the discovery of cookies and cream by voyager at the heliopause. i've noticed that if you throw litter into a water body (lake or ocean) you come back the next day and its gone so somehow it just takes it away and filters it through and it just cleans it up like a garbage compactor or whatever, so it's not really littering if you ask me, and the neutrinos are just observed to be missing, they aren't actually missing.

i'm above condescension though :P what appears to be condescension was accelerated by dark energy.

Edited by ThunderIdeal
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i googled planck data controversy and saw this line on its lonesome

"Planck satellite's picture of cosmic microwave background needs correction, some researchers argue."

which by itself is funny enough to post because it reads like "the evidence needs adjusting to fit the laws of nature (of man)", although if you know about the background radiation you'd know they are trying to see something miniscule through a lot of noise and along the plane of our galaxy in particular is uber-noise. so processing sounds reasonable. i suspect this actually led to recent controversy EDIT: i botched some terminology in my explanation so i won't edit the story to appear as though i fully understood the details. some researchers were trying to find "wrinkles" among the images, without success. eventually they removed something they thought should have been there, and found something they did not expect but announced it nonetheless. what they had found was an artefact of their own image manipulations.

it's just good to keep in mind next time you read something like

preliminary results suggest when the universe sprang out of a unicorns mane13.378346643478347854358787886769679873 billion years ago, the exponential expansion during the first millionth trillionth billionth billionth trillionth of a nanosecond was exactly as fast as we thought. however, previous temperature estimates of infinity minus three degrees kelvin might be off by three or four degrees either way. the anomalous data was due to a bird dropping a chunk of bread on a sensor (yes, the same bird who dropped a chunk of bread in the uber-collider!). cosmologists have ascertained that the crumb was dropped on the sensor 2343 seconds before activation (give or take a week) in a finite non-blackhole universe with funnel shaped space curvature. subsequently they ascertained that the universe is 0.002% wholemeal and 0.0024% multigrain, give or take a loaf, but the existence of whitebread-holes is still unconfirmed.

Edited by ThunderIdeal
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time dialation and precognition are well worth looking into Gunter, I myself as im sure many others here can confirm experiences of genuine telepathy, for the most part while experiencing NMDA antagonism while either chroming or robotripping in my younger years, a close friend and i confirmed we had a link sending back txts of what the other had thought, lived with a few women who could definitly read my mind over the years, although i couldnt read theres lol

heres a quick link to a paper that investigates telepathy and shows in a genuine occurence the activation of the right parahypocample gyrus, perhaps if you could find a brain gym or yoga set that activated the same region you could strengthen your own telepathic ability?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3144613/

Telepathy is a curious phenomenon, perhaps worth minimizing rather than maximizing.

What yoga reduces it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not one of the telepeaths ive ever met could comprehend even the most basic mathmatics, so i hyothesize daily mathmatic exercises may help to quell the trait in sensitive individuals. And due to the nature of the substances i experienced this phenominon possibly a glutamate suppliment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is nothing more than a snappy put-down really, but i felt it snappy enough to warrant posting.

Special relativity is no different to declaring that the apparent dwindling size of a departing train and the lower pitch of its whistle are due to a real shrinking of space on the train and slowing of its clocks. We know from experience that isn’t true. The farce must eventually play out like the cartoon character walking off the edge of a cliff and not falling until the realization dawns that there is no support.

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/a-nobel-prize-for-the-dark-side/

actually there's a few in there

Scientists are presently so far ‘through the looking glass’ that the real universe we observe constitutes a mere 4% of their imaginary one.

Edited by ThunderIdeal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“If you take a highly intelligent person and give them the best possible, elite education, then you will most likely wind up with an academic who is completely impervious to reality.”

"...the false assumption that the evolution of an expanding universe can be deduced from Einstein’s unphysical theory of gravity, which combines two distinct concepts, space and time, into some ‘thing’ with four dimensions called “the fabric of space-time.” I should like to know what this “fabric” is made from and how matter can be made to shape it?"

some more gold from that ^ link.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Space and time are essentially the same thing.

That is common sense.

Experimental confirmation of time dilation essentially proves relativity as fact.

Particle acceleration experiments likewise confirm relativity and demonstrate how matter is energy.

But then, the Catholic church opposed Galileo, and Einstein is the Galileo to the spiritualistic crowd. Some people refuse any form of evidence that doesn't confirm what they want to believe is true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awesome thread!

Damn I haven't been around for a while, but I'll always come back.
I didn't want to post on a thread like this untill I read it all - took ages with all your mega-long posts Thunder but real interesting.
I have to say I'm certainly not nurotypical either, and a bit dyslexic so please excuse my spelling.
Your videos - the first two were interesting, the third was really awesome, and the fourth was terrible imo.
Ok where do I start - there's so many interesting concepts and observations that are so deeply interconected.

My Perspective
I have a deep apreciation for Science, or should I say 'Good Science'. There is alot af bad science around that has been tainted with money, carear prospects/reputations, and influence by idologys. But good science is beautifull thing - through open mindedness and rational thinking it has the abillity to bring together the shards of truth to help us build a comprehensive understanding of the cosmos.
The quest for truth and understanding has led me a long way from real science - to study the realms of psycology, religions, and shamanism and other obscure places.
I have found that one underrated way to expand and warp your mind which I find extreemely effective, that is to read books. I think most books are shit, poorly written, tedious and really not worth the effort to read (I'm a slow reader so reading is real effort unless they're really engaging books). A few books that have altered my mind latley in the concoiusness department would be:

- Shamanism, archaic techniques in ecstacy - Mircea Eliade
- The Golden Bough - James Frazer
- Sincronicity, an acasual conecting principle - Carl Jung
- Anistasia (Ringing Cedars Series) - Vladimere Merge

The first two are really awsome and extreemely comprehensive in their depth of coverage on their topics, but mainly address psycology, culture, the roots of religon, and the interrelationship between these things. Thats a rediculus oversimplification of these books which are stunningly mind altering (I recently watched 'Apocalypse Now' on tv for the first time and noticed that at the end of the river in the abandoned temple occupyed by the rouge general was a small table and on the table was the book The Golden Bough, and I thought verry apropreate "...I had a dream and in the dream I saw a snail and the snail was crawling along the edge of a razor blade..." ).

Sincronicity by Carl Jung is much more in line with this thread - and I would recomend anybody reading this thread to read this book. Jung was a Psyciatrist/Psycotherapist, a contempory and associate of Sigmund Froyd, however his opinions were radicaly diffrent. Although extreemly well known and well respected he did not attain such a recognisable name, no doubt because his views were so radical that they are difficult for people ocostomed with the standard view of reality to concieve. other Awesome books he wrote were 'Dreams', and 'Psycology of the Unconcious', however Sincronisity was probably his signiture work. In this book many topics are addressed such as precognition, and telepathy but his development of the theory of sincronicity was a compleatly new aproach to psycology (and reality). This would be where the quote most people have heard "there is no such thing as a coincidence" comes from, although out of context it is quite meaningless. Sincronicity is the concept that everything happens for a reason, that there is meaningfullness in all events and a subconcious superconcoincious, although it dose seem to result in the fact that we don't seem to have any freedom of choice, or free will.
Although his insights are profound and resonate deaply he dose seem to have trouble bringing them together in a comprehensive way (but that would be a theory of everything I supose)

Anistasia is a really beautifull and unique book, it warps your mind and conciousness via your heart. Damn I feel weird talking about this book, it's like nothing I have ever come accross before. With my strong scientific views I have a fairly low tolerance for 'New Age' (although i did make myself read the entire book 'A New Earth' by Echart Tolle, but only because a friend gave it to me), but in general I find 'New Age' to be parts of Science with its dynamic abillity of metamorphisis, and matrix conection to the rest of science removed and and just conected back on its self, and it just makes me sad and angry that someboudy would do such a thing. But Anistasia is diffrent, It addresses so many aspects of life and the universe, weaving diffrent threads together, using words to create images that are more real than the things that we see, and projecting it both fowards and backwards through time in the most beautifull, positive and uplifting way.

Consciousness - well I supose if any one was asked if they were concious they would say yes. conciousness on one level is just the awareness of things around us. the higher levels of consciousness are about being aware of the grater systems and the part that we play in them.
One prominant point related to conciousness mentioned in the thread, in one of the videos, and in Sincronicity was the idea that we do not really have the abillity to actualy make desisions, and the things that we chose are the things that we were always going to chose and we just think that we made a cirtain desision. I also saw somthing on tv about this a while back where ECGs or some brain acctivity monitoring was carried out on people while they chose one or another option on a computer. The brain acctivity showed that there was a cirtain millisecond delay between the the signal being sent to one hand or the other, and the part of the brain actualy making the discision. This would sugest that the brain regesters which descision is made and then justifyes why it made that descision.

Sincronisity - This is a concept of high strangeness and requires our universe to be inherently deeply mystical.
As somebody who conciders himself to be spiritual and rational, it is a constant chore to make all the peices fit in my mind. Einstines equasion e=mc2 is to me one of the gratest discoverys. The realization that there is no such thing as solid matter and everything is just energy held in different configerations by other energy. The universe and us are all just vibrations and cosmic energys, but energys that can for the most part be detected and manipulated. With this infomation we can reconcile many of the deviations between a spiritual world and a rational view, and theorize that the two could exist in harmony and mutual exeptance. But with Sincronisity the high strangeness of the universe becomes undenyable, and the union between the undenyable truths of science and spirituality again become distant as this high strangeness permeates reality.

No doubt we have all experianced Sincronisity to some degree, usaly it can just be explained away as chance events and observer bias.
I've found that it can often be experianced as a topic/subjectexperiance/object that you have come accross then reoccures is diffrent ways, being presented/discussed/mentioned by diffrent people or occuring in your environment.
For me the reading of the book on Sincronicity occured in this way. I randomly came accross quite a number of quotes and references to this book eventhough I don't realy discus this kind of thing with anybody and I have always had an averson to psycology and things that can't be understood rationly.
Also was discovery of the Golden Orb. I found a coin with a metal detector, unlike the typical predecimal, and old chineese coins which can be found, I found an old imperial russian coin, 2 Kopec's. It had on it the Russian coat of arms (similar to the one that they have on their ceramonial flag today) with two headed eagle (or two eagles back to back) in one claw is a septer and in the other is the Golden Orb (a sphere with a cross attached, a symbol of cristian dominion over the world). Imperial Germany also had the same two headed eagle (associated with the Holly Roman Empire) which was latter transformed into the well known German eagle. Then while my somebody was visiting (who I do not talk to offten) the subject was refered to from difrent places and diffrent angles, we ended up having a bit of a discussion about it - minus the sincronisity, then about a week latter the Pope gave that new little baby prince-dude/king-to-be in the UK a golden orb for a present.

Ok most of this shit can be explained by chance and observer bias because if I hadn't have found the coin I would never have looked into what the Golden Orb was and when the Pope gave it as a present it would have had no significance to me at all. I have however noticed these types of occurences a number of times - usaly when non-mundaine topics are being aproached successfully, so I have began to come to the conclusion that these events are a positive thing and as we aproach a true understanding of the true reality, it could be that the sincronisity becomes all pervasive and compleate. Or at least accellerate towards that point, bending reality around us and encoraging others to come along with us in this beautifull and mystical journey to fullfill our most nobel asperations, become one with eachother and the Universe and together using our creative desires return the cosmos to pristine perfection holding delicately within it the memorys of the joys and happyness, the sadness and tragety, the horror and the courage, the brave lives of a trillion trillion beings who toiled for eons to bring back the Cosmos to a state of pristine unity that we always knew it was.
...or somthing like that...

...anywhosen back to the subject.
So a few other topics that I would like to address are Scripting, and Goblins
Scripting - I noticed two references in the thread to the relationship between script and our experiance of reality that were both interesting and insightfull. The first was about how language dictates (no pun intended) our conception of reality.This is a very good point and has distinct ramerfications for perception and understanding of reality aswell as our abillity to comunicate those things, of cource. A dramatic but not unrealistic represation of the manipulation of language to alter reality would be "Newspeak" in George Orwells "1984", where language redaction, standardisation, and simplification resulting in decenting views to be almost impossable to think of, and if articulated make no sence, even the simpilest descenting statment such as "Big Brother is ungood" would be like saying "Loving Mercifull God who has given us everything, is evil" - or somthing like that.

Can we change our language so we can understand and comunicate reality more effectivly without creating a Newspeak monster? Maybe.
I saw on SBS a while back that in China They teach the little primary school kids how to read and wright using english letters because Chineese is made up of two or three alphabets and most symbols are whloe words whereas english letters are most effective at representing sounds.
So the use of sound based alphabet is realy handy, but a more a range of more 'symbolic' symbols (hey yeah,ones that can transend language maybe) could be benificial.
As mentioned in one post was a reference to the script somtimes seen in CEVs. This script is seen to be the substance or essence of objects - to bring them into being, to make them exist, to create these objects. The surface of the objects emblazened with a checkerwork of alien, cosmic symbols - the object alive, magical and more real than the things in our Reality.
I have to agree that managing to replicate that script - even a fragment - would be an amazing task for a Psyconaught to acheive. An intrepid and glorious endeavor.

Ok I don't know much about these transdimentional Goblin dudes. I only call them that because it seemed to suite at the time. When He noticed, half mockingly and half mischeviouusly and without any ill-intent, but just to demonstrate his ability, he softly spoke a few words, and with a wave of his arm and a flick of his wrist he cast a memory back through time. The memory was just some compleatly unexplainable lights in the sky, that was seen one night with two others, which were wached and discussed for at least 10min. When asked them about it the next day they had no idear what was beenig talking about, somebody at the time said that they had heard a number of storys of people who had seen ufo's with other people who had compleatly denied it the next day - have also scince heard of many such cases. It was a fairly non-discript dull orange light moving and flashing at random intivals, around 200m high and 1500m away, almost forgotten.
I notice Lofty86, you mention a Being who spoke to you from the future who belive to be yourself. No doubt I think that that is quite possable. I certainly had the feeling that the Being that I mention above was in a place beyond time, and his abillity to alter perception accross time was remarkable, however I did't feel that it was unmatchable, or the abillity was unattainable.
I would sugest however that before you act on any sugestions from him that you decide how you would address yourself and the general format and structure of the comunications so that you can actually be certain that it is yourself - just a thought though, but If you're into card reading and stuff then you've probably got a pritty right with things.
And Lofty86 you also mention telepathic girlfriends. Yeah I had one who was - still a friend... and an enimga - ...anyway...
So somtimes she would say things that were so obscure and accurate that it was somtimes quite shocking and creepy, but othertimes just compleatly wrong. The accuracy level woud not have been as high as 50/50, so although I knew that she had some abillity to see things unseen very clearly, somtimes what she saw was not real at all. It's a difficult thing.
It's something that I realy don't understand, but somtimes you just have to work with what you can and make the conections latter.

Sheldrakes idea that memorys are not stored in our brains is interesting, but you end up getting to the obvious quesstion of "where is it stored?" and "Damn that's alot of info to just be floating around in the eather" and "how do I choose my memorys", and "why can we only somtimes remember other peoples memorys", and things like that.
So no doubt it comes down to somthing like the 'collective unconcious', as Jung put it.
But the rationalist in me - compleatly out of his depth, swimming in a deep, deep, dark ocean - would sugest that infomation can only be stored as energy in a rediculusly stable state, it can't just exist in an etherial nothingness, and it has to be able to be writen and retreived quite instantainiously.
But sometimes I see something random that leaves a certain visual impression, and afterwards somebody brings it up in conversation, talks about this visual impresion that I have not had before and is so obscure that I have never heard anybody talk about it before.
You do have to wonder 'what is it that looks out through our eyes?', we interact with it always, it sees through our eyes, out experiances are added to it, and our thoughts and imaginations are derived from it.
What is this collective unconcious?
The obvious conclusion is that the physical universe is the memories, that it is our eyes (or maybe senses in general) that that read the memories, that all of the energy of the universe - including everything physical, including ourselfs - is the colective unconcious, the things that we do creates memories in the 'colective unconcious', and the things that we see and experiance read the memorys. The universe is looking at itsself throughour eyes. It is timeless, it has existed for ever and will exist for ever.

Anywhosen, thats all a bit creepy and weird, and even harder to explain than to think...

Shear speculation, hyperbole, insinuation, and conjecture.

Well, after writing this it got me thinking about a vid I saw on a while back. Just watched it again - I like it.

 

p.s There dose seem to be some similarities between cev symbols and runic alphabet imo - maybe that alphabet was an atempt to replicate cev symbols.

As I mentioned earlier, the book "Anistasia" I feel, was written with deep knowlage of script that can create objects, create images, and effect reality. This is actualy talked about on a number of occasions and is explicitly declared to be what the book is. This can also be distinctly felt while reading the book. The book also aludes to the fact of a deeper script, and the incredible dificulty of representing it in basic written form, but the book is writen as a true story with much dialog, promotes sustainability, community, family, and the importance of gardening - intreaging, engageing and writen in simple but effective language that anybody could read. Positive, inspirational and beautifull and I highly recomend it.

I'll send you a copy if you want, Thunder, it's not technical at all though - made for distribution to general populus - but it was created by somebody who knows, and can use Deep Script.

Anyway, just sharing some idea's and opinions. I know I don't know much, but I sure find it an interesting topic.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thankyou for contributing statakak. i certainly agree about the power of books! i have one sitting here unread which somehow attempts to tie synchronicity together with science. i have so many unread books (including a few loaned from friends long term) it would be pointless to accept your offer! synchronicity is a topic fairly central in my ponderings (and experiences). i liked what you wrote, very nicely put. i think we're on the same page with synchronicity.

language. it's difficult to communicate outside of the tendancies and obfuscation inherent with an imperfect language of words, but remember not everybody thinks 100% of their thoughts in words alone! does visual/symbolic thinking, or the structures our mind uses (when sufficiently relaxed) to unite isolated concepts into its very own grand unified theory, rely on pre-cast entities arising from some unconscious or the like? not at all, partially, totally? i dunno.

memories. some lofty notions in this paragraph of yours, i'm not delving into all of that right now, i'll just mention that of all the times i've experienced something like deja vu, a few times there was an explanation. for instance watching a movie recently i experienced that unexpected congruency between a few elements of what was happening and some elements of a memory, it had all of the hallmark emotions of deja vu but i realised i had seen this film sequence a few months earlier in a cinema preview.

god. not a bad video but i prefer this statement (formerly my forum signature). i don't know where it came from.


In Occidental theology, the word transcendent is used to mean outside of the world. In the East, it means outside of thought. To imagine that your definitions of your God have anything to do with that ultimate mystery is a form of sheer idolatry from this standpoint. Your God is good enough for you and mine’s good enough for me. A God, from this point of view, is merely a reflex of one’s ability to conceive of God. Since people have various abilities of this sort, they have various powers of apprehending God.

it's worth mentioning that the video attempts to dismiss limitations in the viewers mind by providing a scenario which is admittedly rather mind-expanding at first, but ultimately imposes a fresh pair of shackles onto ones definition of god.

you didn't like my fourth video? that's understandable, there's quite a lot of heretical ideas that need to be digested before that particular video is much use. the third video was terrible IMO, but george takei (Sulu) has a great narrator's voice don't you think?

i hope this is enough of a response for now.

Edited by ThunderIdeal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool

Yeah ThunderIdeal, fair enough, I've go a heap of unread books laying around too.

No doubt we do think not only in words but also in a visual/symbolic way. Some people more so than others and sometimes more so than others. In our dreams and our subconscious this visual/symbolis thinking may be quite compleate.

No doubt our subconscious, and in our dreams, the mind dose bring together mesh everything together in a grand unifyed sort of way, but our concious mind can not remember or comprehend it very well. However in a "suficently relaxed" state we may be more able to aprehend the grand unified nature, but again it could be dificult to mesh that back into our conciouscious understanding, and more difficult yet to be able to comunicate it. But the best we can do is to try.

Yeah memories, sincronisity, and our conscious perception of reality dose get a bit weird if you get into it, but weird is good somtimes. And you can just step back and everything can be normal/mundane again. Like you said about deja vu, and as I mentioned as well, the sincronisity can always be fairly well explained as observer bias - that things are noticed because you have been exposed to them earlier and they were recognised. But on the other hand, I think that things can be unseen in your unconscious, afecting us and altering us - and while we are searching for something else we come accross it and look at it - an artifact of our unconcious brought to light, then we can see it in our conscious realm.

In this way sincronisity can be seen to be a very positive thing.

And so it may also have absolutly no bairing on the physical world, but moreso how we interact with it, and the understanding of the significance and relationship between objects, events, and consciousness - no doubt in a more shamanistic sort of way.

Ok about the videos

I watched a number of 'Thunderbolts Project' Electric Universe videos

I don't know what to say - rather than 'heretical ideas' I would be inclined to say 'rash speculation,with no basis beyond whimsical imaginings'.

No disrespect intended, I like your ideas and opinions and would be happy to discuss any of the points raised.

But while watching a news channel lastnight they mentioned Supermassive Blackholes being aligned with the Cosmic filaments, and I thought of you Thunder. :wink:

http://rt.com/news/207863-black-holes-interstellar-web/

Is that Sincronisity or what?

Yeah, probably not really...but sort of... :lol:

Edited by Statakak
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somebody else's post:

You know the old adage, "it will get worse before it gets better." More dark epicycles will be added before the whole structure collapses under its own weight. It will turn out the black holes are not spooky at all—the appearance of alignment is only an illusion caused by the warping of spacetime. Yeah, that's it. The objects that appear to be aligned are really multiple images of the same object, like gravitational lensing. The images from past and future come together through all the twists and folds so that they can be seen at the same time.

Math is Truth™

Edited by ThunderIdeal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of you wont have the background knowledge of pariah astronomy to understand the relevance of sentences like "the idea that the conclusions of comparative mythology aren’t to be taken seriously until they conform to the currently accepted theory of celestial mechanics is without foundation", nevertheless its a quick read and mostly accessible for those partial to liquefying their understanding.

https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2015/01/16/how-you-know/

Edited by ThunderIdeal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“If you take a highly intelligent person and give them the best possible, elite education, then you will most likely wind up with an academic who is completely impervious to reality.”

"...the false assumption that the evolution of an expanding universe can be deduced from Einstein’s unphysical theory of gravity, which combines two distinct concepts, space and time, into some ‘thing’ with four dimensions called “the fabric of space-time.” I should like to know what this “fabric” is made from and how matter can be made to shape it?"

some more gold from that ^ link.

very good point mr Lok. I've always asserted to a particular friendly circle of academics( :devil: ) by asking them politely -when they have finished remarking on Foucault and modernism- by asking them that exact simple question.

Now, after a few seconds - i see the look of defeat in their third eye and i re-assert to myself the exacting question and re-iterate my own belief system to them. They seem to either get it or don't. for the most part i just shut up shop after that but when one eagle eye academic invariably cannot resist my carrot dangling into their sub conscious pre ordained mind fashioned from their own hierarchical expansion after boarding school, i'm left to remark on nothing but organic chips of decadent self absorbent kitty litter -that is their mind- rather than marvel at all that money spent on an empty vessel (who will in the future run a multieyed million squillion dollar plethora of franchises under the guise of free market economy, i say, "NO!"

NO.

retracts brush and sucks another(winks) well it is summer time fuckya.

I hope i don't get kicked in the bum for being dumb

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"....a parable entitled Swimology.

http://mysimplereality.com/?page_id=3945

References and notes are available for this essay.
Find a much more in-depth discussion in the Simple Reality Trilogy
by Roy Charles Henry:
Where Am I? Story – The First Great Question
Who Am I? Identity – The Second Great Question
Why Am I Here? Behavior – The Third Great Question

Edited by Dreamwalker.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fascinating thread my friends even though I'm a bit late, it was very interesting to read through. In a general sense, I think the 'middle-path' is most often right and that there is space enough in this world for both science and religion/spirituality. Indeed both are of inestimable value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kinda agree re academics haha although certainly not all true but it does seem to have a ring of truth to it, that said all belief does really seem to act the same in terms of a defense mechanism for diffusing those lowly cognitive dissonances heh heh, and or generally unneeded information we are constantly processing via the subconscious . Not so certain most people could or would function on any sane level with the comprehension of there constant fragility in the world for instance which is certainly true and conscious and or the very sane extrapolation of the lack of will and drive needed to steer our largely unheeded global ideologies of living and life even if those are mostly strewn before us like so many gold coins dropped before a beggar bereft of human dignity. The true cost of all consciousness as in as much it is the awareness of ones position and or collection positioning via consensus or forced belief for the most part has lead to collective failure and will most probably continue to do so until humans learn if they even do. For the most part we seem as children still learning their way in the world and even if we are not we let those who act as thus steer the helm.

It is interesting that science as of yet has failed to find a definitive "seat" of consciousness/awareness as it were within the human biology of the homo-sapien brain or how it even functions at basic levels etc not to say we wont eventually but interesting statements none the less considering all the genome and brain mapping etc that has been undertaken.

Cool thread :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×