Whole Track Question.

[paradox]

Without any examples to look at, I'd say I can't see what your concern is about.

I see nothing that indicates a move towards a return of the High priest scenario.

There is no room or role for secretive authoritative leadership in either Science or philosophy. Religion is still hung up on that crap, but that's old religion. And new religion doesn't exist yet in recognizable form. But there is no way as trends develop that it will bear any resemblance to the old pyramidal command structures of the past.

Actually looks to be racing in the opposite direction.

Do you have any examples of what you are thinking of?

Yes, understandably so, I know. I mentioned in my post a perfect example of what I was getting at, modern mainstream Astronomy/Cosmology. The Office(s) of High Priest is actually quite active and doing well, although the title has changed significantly, and usually administered under the auspices of major Universities or institutions. There are so many experiences with the current status quo related by professionals working in the field, across so many papers, sites, etc I wouldn't know where to tell you to start looking. Well, actually, I'd probably go with starting here http://www.holoscience.com/synopsis.php and then just do a little further researching into alternate views to Astronomy's current acceptance, in the name of science, of very strange metaphysical ideas of "the big bang," "black holes," "dark matter," "dark energy," "magnetic reconnection," "frozen-in lines of force," etc. etc.

I'm not the best at expressing it so I can also understand if it just sounds like so much tinfoil-hattery, but check around if it actually interests you; there are others so much more eloquent and versed in the subject(s) than I.

[SweetnessandLight]

petal,

Did you ever run an incident that Hubbard calls The Gang Bang Goals.

He talked about it in an obscure lecture but for some reason it never made it into History of Man and not many people involved in the Church are aware of it.

===========

The being is instructed that his help is needed so that the universe can be saved. He is told how he is in the upper echelon of the elite because of his recent activities. He is urged on by the promise that his eternity is guaranteed if he hops on board and joins this cause. From the sales pitch he can only imagine a posh headquarters, elegant dining halls, silk blankets and down pilows and matresses.

When he arrives for his first briefing he sees that things are not quite what we he expected. However he it told that after his short introductory program he will be relocated to a more posh environment. He begins with a confessional where he is told that he is freeing his existence of all the past baggage that is holding him back.

Soon thereafter he is put to hard work in manual labor camps coupled with meaningless administrative work that can produce nothing of value. He is never allowed to contact former friends and family. Once he has begun to question things within his own mind the trap is sprung. Eventually he either speaks out or fails at a meaningless task and this is made known to a higher controlling entity. He is then brought before others and overwhelmed by yelling and screaming where he is told how worthless he is and made to stand before others and talk about sexual activities that he has engaged in throughout his life and made to lay bare sexual fantasies for the others to hear. He is overwhelmed further with name calling and forced to eat awful food and bathe in excrement infested water.

Eventually the being is so distraught that they he feels worthless and wishes to leave. He is then dumped out on the streets with the implanted goals of being worthless and sinful and destitute and evil for the rest of eternity.

Did you ever run that incident petal?

Rd00

Ah, Dear Heart, you've been to INT Base!

[Student of Trinity]

I think I said that. From my post:

"Now, scientists like to say that they are changing what is observed by observing, but really, it may be more a case that they are CHANGING THE ENERGY of the tiny particle by measuring it with a gaudy measuring device. It might not quite be truly a case of "the observer affecting what is observed". I mean if you hit a baseball with a baseball bat, it changes the direction of the ball, BUT you are not changing what is observed by simply observing it. Observing as passive awareness and "measuring" are two very different things. The measuring of very small energies has a major problem, because the measuring DEVICE itself imparts its own energy to the tiny particle or wave. The act of measuring is not unlike hitting the baseball. It is NOT a "passive activity", though scientists sure wish that it could be."

Yes? No?

Yeah, that's quite true, and it's a very important point that I think most people never understand, because they think science is some kind of modern magic, where we can just 'somehow' measure things, instead of having to actually do stuff in the real world. It's just that, despite widespread impressions that this point has something to do with the uncertainty principle, it really doesn't. The fact that measurement is never really passive simply happens to be the factor that is most often overlooked when somebody tries to beat the uncertainty principle with a clever measurement.

What quantum measurement does seem to do is force something to have a definite value of the quantity you measure, even if before the measurement it didn't. Kind of like asking a somewhat wishy-washy friend whether they like chocolate or vanilla best. They don't really have a preference, but when you put the question to them, they pick one at random, in order to have an answer for you. And at least for a while afterwards, they'll remember to be consistent if you ask them the same question again. But ask them the question next week, and you may get a different random answer.

That's how quantum measurement seems to work. Nobody knows why. The current state of science is, "It just does that." It's called the 'measurement postulate' or 'collapse postulate' of quantum mechanics.

[Student of Trinity]

very strange metaphysical ideas of "the big bang," "black holes," "dark matter," "dark energy," "magnetic reconnection," "frozen-in lines of force,"

The others are arguably metaphysical, I'll concede, but magnetic reconnection and 'frozen-in lines of force' are clearly observable phenomena on the surface of the sun. The 'lines of force' thing is just a language for describing magnetic fields. It goes back to Faraday. The 'frozen in' part is a handy way of describing how magnetic fields behave in plasmas. You can practically see the lines of force, though, if you look at images of the solar surface. All those big loops and whorls of glowing gas are plasma following the magnetic field lines. Saying that the field lines are frozen into the plasma is just another way of expressing the fact that the plasma follows the field.

[Gadfly]

Yeah, that's quite true, and it's a very important point that I think most people never understand, because they think science is some kind of modern magic, where we can just 'somehow' measure things, instead of having to actually do stuff in the real world. It's just that, despite widespread impressions that this point has something to do with the uncertainty principle, it really doesn't. The fact that measurement is never really passive simply happens to be the factor that is most often overlooked when somebody tries to beat the uncertainty principle with a clever measurement.

What quantum measurement does seem to do is force something to have a definite value of the quantity you measure, even if before the measurement it didn't. Kind of like asking a somewhat wishy-washy friend whether they like chocolate or vanilla best. They don't really have a preference, but when you put the question to them, they pick one at random, in order to have an answer for you. And at least for a while afterwards, they'll remember to be consistent if you ask them the same question again. But ask them the question next week, and you may get a different random answer.

That's how quantum measurement seems to work. Nobody knows why. The current state of science is, "It just does that." It's called the 'measurement postulate' or 'collapse postulate' of quantum mechanics.

I was wondering if anyone would call me on that. I knew that I was being a bit too general, but the way that many authors transfer these findings from science to the realms of the spiritual usually involves "metaphorical" or loose understandings of the ideas from physics.

Let me know if I got this right.

Yes, where this shows up is with sub-atomic particle studies. Where out of all infinite possible conditions or states, when something is observed in a carefully conducted experiemnt, in a certain way, the act of observing seems to "cause" a specific exact detailed event to "collapse" the "probability field". But, the parameters and details of the experiment itself nearly "define" WHAT will be observed. If one changes minor aspects of the experiment, then something else is observed.

I think in all larger contexts, or macro-scenarios, the measuring device itself influences and changes the energy of whatever small particle or photon is being detected or measured. On the tinier scale of sub-atomic particles, the act of observing does seem to interact and affect what is being observed. That idea gets "loosely" extrapolated into other, much different, contexts, where it might not really apply. In the same way, quantum effects are irrelevant at this level of resolution (zoomed-out).

It is like the effects of Relativity when approaching the speed of light - mass increases greatly, and time dilates (for the fast moving object). Except that here on Earth, for us, in our context, that factor is so minor to be inconsequential and not even considered as having an influence.

Are there any studies that discuss the "speed" at which "electrons" travel? It always seemed to me that the reason that there is so much energy locked up in atomic particles is because they are vibrating at frequencies comparable to "close to the speed of light". I mean, anything can cycle, move up and down quickly. What if this "vibrating quickly" were actually close to or at the speed of light? Or, is THAT what is involved with ? Or did Einstien simply come up with equation, never expaining how or why? I am rusty on my physics.

[NonScio]

re Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle: It always seemed to me that this is
so self evident that its a wonder it took physicists so long to identify it.
( That is, you cannot measure with certainty both position and momentum
simultaneously).
In simple terms, "momentum" implies mass in motion, position implies lack
of motion. So of course, if mass has "position", it cannot at the same time
be in motion. The reverse of that is that momentum implies motion or constant
change of position. In other words, its either moving (has momentum) or it is not (has position).

Calculus attempts to describe this by letting chunks of time become mathematically infinititly small;
allowing the describtion of position of a body in motion
at a precise moment of time. Question is, is there really such a precise
"atom of time"; a "now"; a smallest unit of time which exists in the physical universe
and not just in the universe of Mathematics.

[paradox]

The others are arguably metaphysical, I'll concede, but magnetic reconnection and 'frozen-in lines of force' are clearly observable phenomena on the surface of the sun. The 'lines of force' thing is just a language for describing magnetic fields. It goes back to Faraday. The 'frozen in' part is a handy way of describing how magnetic fields behave in plasmas. You can practically see the lines of force, though, if you look at images of the solar surface. All those big loops and whorls of glowing gas are plasma following the magnetic field lines. Saying that the field lines are frozen into the plasma is just another way of expressing the fact that the plasma follows the field.

I agree with your statement regarding lines of force. But regarding magnetic "reconnection" I would submit this is a major misinterpretation of observation. I'm not a professional in the field, but from what I've studied and what I know of electricity and electromagnetism, and magnetics, never but never has a magnetic field ever been observed, let alone verified, to be or to ever have "broken". The ONLY known phenomenon known and observed, and verified, to produce a magnetic field is an electric current. In a plasma, the charged particles flow and produce a corresponding magnetic field; the field of which is in all ways contiguous around the current flow. If the current stops, the field collapses, but it does not "break" or leave a standalone static, "broken" field "line." What we observe on the sun, those great magnificent arcs of plasma, they may appear to represent a broken magnetic field line of force - again, I submit they do not. As one example, see http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm .

It should be well understood (certainly by anyone who has had a basic physics course) that the magnetic field "lines"2 that are drawn to describe a magnetic field, have no beginning nor end. They are closed paths. In fact one of Maxwell's famous equations is: "div B = 0". Which says precisely that (in the language of vector differential calculus). So when magnetic fields collapse due to the interruption of the currents that produce them, they do not "break" or "merge" and "recombine" as some uninformed astronomers have claimed (e.g., see the quote regarding the mainstream concerns above - in 4. Acceleration of the Solar "Wind" Ions). The field simply collapses (very quickly!). On the Sun this collapse releases a tremendous amount of energy, and matter is thrown out away from the surface - as with any explosively rapid reaction. This release is consistent with and predicted by the Electric Sun model as described above. Some astronomers have proposed that heat is routinely transported out to the lower corona by magnetic fields and released there by "reconnection of magnetic field lines, whereby oppositely directed lines cancel each other out, converting magnetic energy into heat. The process requires that the field lines be able to diffuse through the plasma." This idea is inventive but, unfortunately, has no scientific basis whatever.


Note that although astronomers ought to be aware that magnetic fields require electrical currents or time varying E-fieldsto produce them, currents and E-fields are never mentioned in standard models. Possibly because they do not seem to be included in astrophysics curricula.


1. Double layers can be destroyed by at least two different mechanisms: a) Zener Breakdown - The electric field gradient becomes strong enough to rip all charges away from an area, thus breaking the discharge path; b) Avalanche Breakdown - A literal avalanche occurs wherein all charges are swept away and no conducting charges are left - thus the conducting path is opened.


2. A magnetic field is a continuum. It is not a set of discrete 'lines'. Lines are drawn in the classroom to describe the magnetic field (its direction and magnitude). But the lines themselves do not actually exist. They are simply a pedagogical device. Proposing that these lines break, merge, and/or recombine is an error (violation of Maxwell's equations) compounded on another error (the lines do not really exist in the first place). Magnetic field lines are analogous to lines of latitude and longitude. They are not discrete entities with nothing in between them - you can draw as many of them as close together as you'd like. And they most certainly do not break, merge, or reconnect any more than lines of latitude do. Oppositely directed magnetic intensity H-fields simply cancel each other - no energy is stored or released in that event.

I'm really not adequately versed in the subject to argue or present it well, but the gentleman's (Australian physicist, Wal Thornhill's) website at the link I provided does cover it. Even more so does the material of Professor Donald Scott (author of The Electric Sky). I think I gave a youtube link earlier in this thread to a presentation he made at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center two or three years ago.

[Winston Smith]

This is really about a whole trick question.

[Panda Termint]

If you think the Question is tricky, try following some of the Answers!

[Mark A. Baker]

re Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle: It always seemed to me that this is
so self evident that its a wonder it took physicists so long to identify it. ...

The point is not that Heisenberg's concept is a 'self-evident idea', the point is that it reflects a physical principle. There is nothing 'self-evident' about the fact that the physical universe functions on a fundamental level in this fashion. However plausible a concept, as a concept it need not represent physical fact. That it does is what makes it notable.


Mark A. Baker