Quantized redshift anomaly

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">if you go to www.infinite-energy.com some where there you should find reference to Dr.Paulo & Alexandra Correa's works and there, they work with this, i think Orgon energy,(i have their CD, the title is, "From Pulsed Plasma Power to The Aether Motor" and this energy, glows blue!!!

---

North, you surprised me! But I think Plasma has been researched. Plasma is a mechanical energy, usually depicted as the arc in welding. But some plasma's are strange, for example, lightning balls. They are strange because they persist. So what powers plasma?

A plasma ball in a submarine would typically emerge from the contacts and float down the companionway. There have been thousands of sightings of "Balls of Light." Ball of light or BoL's as they are called in England, are seen frequently, expecially in conjunction with a crop circle sighting. In one case it was captured on video. The BoL is floating above a new crop circle, when a farmer approaches on his machine, in the video the Bol is shown moving toward the farmer, and when it passes over him, the video shows the farmer turning his head following it. Seems that strange balls of light are seen all over the place if one takes UFO's into accout. Plams is also being researched by Morel B. King, and others, as a means to harness the ZPE. They also talk of Plasma balls, and how time changes around them. Plasma has this quality of spirialing. I think if the plasma inbetween the galaxies would spirial too if they are plasma related. I've seen drawings of highways inbetween the galaxies, and how spacecraft using this power must follow the highways. Remnds me of a picture of a brain, all interconnected with current flows not only inbetween, but globally as well. The galaxies are groups of cells, the stars are neurons, and each neuron has this consciousness of awareness, all interconnected by plasma pathways in the Dirac Sea washing up the beaches of quantum foam ...

Think about this, we are talking about atoms interconnected "like islands on a pond, separate on the surface, interconnected in the deep" Imagine if the atoms can do it, what is that assemblage of atoms we call the brain able to do? For what we thought was empty, is really full of energy, and while we thought there was nothing faster than light, what was thought of as empty is instantaneous - as if it were a single entity. This is what is INSIDE everything, including us.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">if you go to www.infinite-energy.com some where there you should find reference to Dr.Paulo & Alexandra Correa's works and there, they work with this, i think Orgon energy,(i have their CD, the title is, "From Pulsed Plasma Power to The Aether Motor" and this energy, glows blue!!!

---

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">North, you surprised me! But I think Plasma has been researched. Plasma is a mechanical energy, usually depicted as the arc in welding. But some plasma's are strange, for example, lightning balls. They are strange because they persist. So what powers plasma?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

welding plasmas are not Cosmic plasmas, and Cosmic plasmas are coming into their own.

go to www.theuniverse.ws for at least a basic explaination of Cosmic plasmas. i think it will help in your lighting ball problem, i think!!

---

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">A plasma ball in a submarine would typically emerge from the contacts and float down the companionway. There have been thousands of sightings of "Balls of Light." Ball of light or BoL's as they are called in England, are seen frequently, expecially in conjunction with a crop circle sighting. In one case it was captured on video. The BoL is floating above a new crop circle, when a farmer approaches on his machine, in the video the Bol is shown moving toward the farmer, and when it passes over him, the video shows the farmer turning his head following it. Seems that strange balls of light are seen all over the place if one takes UFO's into accout. Plams is also being researched by Morel B. King, and others, as a means to harness the ZPE. They also talk of Plasma balls, and how time changes around them. Plasma has this quality of spirialing. I think if the plasma inbetween the galaxies would spirial too if they are plasma related. I've seen drawings of highways inbetween the galaxies, and how spacecraft using this power must follow the highways. Remnds me of a picture of a brain, all interconnected with current flows not only inbetween, but globally as well. The galaxies are groups of cells, the stars are neurons, and each neuron has this consciousness of awareness, all interconnected by plasma pathways in the Dirac Sea washing up the beaches of quantum foam ...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

i think that by now that, ZPE is no longer i true definition of what they have found is it?!!

---

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Think about this, we are talking about atoms interconnected "like islands on a pond, separate on the surface, interconnected in the deep" Imagine if the atoms can do it, what is that assemblage of atoms we call the brain able to do? For what we thought was empty, is really full of energy, and while we thought there was nothing faster than light, what was thought of as empty is instantaneous - as if it were a single entity. This is what is INSIDE everything, including us.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

yes, and that has been Tom's point for example in his gravitons concept, instantaneous gravity.

and as far as the brain is concerned i have always thought that the human being, the brain, will evolve to a pure energy state. at least i've always thought has the potential to do so.(survival problem again)

remember you said "as if" now it is up to you to show that this 'as if" is true, if not, do you have the ability to accept that you maybe wrong, because that is a sign of maturity of ego and that is where in your earlier quotes seems to point,that we only see what we want, (not that the truth is not there,it is just that we fail to accept it sometimes and/or change it to suit ourselves) not the reality of this gained knowledge, it may or may not be easy for you, but never forget,build and criticize your theory, to me this is the key to the truth.

the universe is infinite, truths are infinite but also there is an infinity of limits as well. both go hand in hand. or another way to put it is, infinity has within it, infinity of limits.

and to me never forget to have fun[] enjoy the journey,sound familar?









<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

If you figure out what lightning is all about you will have a great piece of work. It has several forms and must be connected to just about everything in the energy topic but no one knows very much about it even after centuries of study. But, you guys are all over the map and that is a topic needing some kind of focus.

"My friend, all theory is gray, and the Golden tree of life is green."



<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">so the universe speaks to us in both silence and sound.

the universe is more complex than the above. the universe does not limit its expression of its exitence to just specific things of understanding( pure thought) it also brings forth the understanding of how things work(photosynthesis) and the dangers for not learning in real terms(asteroids). now think of the knowledge this implies. now our ability to deal with the truth of what we find, that is the essence of our future survival as beings on this planet. without language we have no choices,(extinction), language gives us at the very least the choice of when. depending on what we do with it.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I am not advocating that we get rid of language, only that we undertand it well enough to be able to know its limitations and what we need to do in order to circumvent those limitations. The crux of the language problem is that words typically are nouns, look in the dictionary, the names of things. But the things that we name are objects that we ourselves have created in our minds by the act of paying attention to this and ignoring that. We look at a tree and name it so because we are paying attention to what we see. But we ignore the roots we can't see, the soil the roots are in, the earth containing the soil, and the sun providing sustaining energy to the tree. In reality the tree is connected the the entire Universe, yet in our thinking the tree is only what is before us.

Science has to be able to take the constraints of language into account at all times. Korzybski puts it cogently when he said "The map is not the territory." I hope that is enough quotation.

Korzybski also examined science and the relationship of language and the scientific method. Saneness of science sometimes is compromised, for example, he says, when they abstract first and observe later. This reversal of the natural process is "unsane" he says, basically because we only see what we are looking at. Saneness, Korzybski says, requires us to reverse the reverseal, such that we

observe first, then abstract.

I am not an expert in BB cosmology, but even my small knowledge base can find gaping holes and inconsistencies in the theory. But of course I have the advantage of updated knowledge, thanks to science. And I can see where many scientists are making the Korzybksian error of abstracting a theory, then observing it to be so.

One advantage that I have concerns the first assumption necessary to BB theory, that it all started at T = 0, the assumption being that there is nothing before T = 0. So the theory has a limit beyond nothing can be said. BUT, the error is the presumption that there actually is nothing before T = 0. This leads to the bubious working hypothesis that the BB came from nothing. My advantage is that science has demonstrated by means of quantum physics in general, particularily Bell's Theorem, by experiements in particular such as Aspects confirmation of Bell's Theorem, that there is in fact something beyond the limits of scientific knowledge.

The beginning of the story actually goes back to Maxwell and his attempts to describe electromagnetic waves with mathematical equations. The prevalent belief at the time was that light was a wave, and in order for this wave of light to move through space it had to have a wave-carrying medium. Research at the time of Maxwell was centered on the Aether, and Maxwell did indeed come up with equations that described how EM fields emerged from the Aether. They were 20 quaternion equations involved, and were extremely difficult to work with.

When Michalson and Morley conducted their famous experiment using a interferometer to confirm the existence of the Aether, they were surprised to find that no physical effect could be found, and it was assumed at the time and since that this constituted a falsification of the Aether theory. However, there was a major assumption being made by Maxwell and those following him, it was the assumption that the Aether was a material "fuild" as Maxwell puts it.

So when M&M failed to show a material fluid, Maxwell was thought to be incorrect, and his equations were reworked by Oliver Heaviside and simplified to the standard famous four equations of Maxwell.

But this left behind another major assumption, the assumption that magnetic and electrostatic wave components of EM fields were the source of the traveling wave. The wave in a sense creates and sustains itself as it travels forever through space.

Meanwhile, the Aether was assumed not to exist. And when it came time to develop a theory of the creation of the Universe, some theoriats were forced to abandon the Aether and assume that there was absolutely nothing before T = 0. That imposed a constraint on the first theories, and when measured redshift implied a velocity change, and thus an expansion, the first assumption was that this expansion could be reversed. Conceptually, this reversal indicated that an expansion started from a point.

However, when the assumption is that there was "something" to begin with, and I am using "something" so as to avoid saying anything in specific, if there were "something" to begin with, there is no reason to assume that the expansion started at a point. The expansion could have started at any size.

Maybe even the size it is now.

In order for expansion to come from a point, it would lhave to be that there was nothing before the point came into existence. If there were something before the point, then expansion would not predict a beginning point.

We can say almost with certainty nowadays, that there is "something"
inside space, that there is an INSIDE, already we have myriad names for it. What this means is that we have to revisit our major assumptions, and revise our physical theories so that they are consistent with our new assumptions.

BTW, Cahill revisted the M&M experiemnt, using modern technology, he did not find a null, he found a difference! While this is brand new, even Sarfatti hasn't been able so far to disprove it. I haven't looked into this yet, but they talk about something they call a preferred frame of reference.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Jim Posted - 17 Feb 2005 : 22:10:13

---

If you figure out what lightning is all about you will have a great piece of work. It has several forms and must be connected to just about everything in the energy topic but no one knows very much about it even after centuries of study. But, you guys are all over the map and that is a topic needing some kind of focus. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I found the perfect answer for you Jim, about being all over the map...

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In a message dated 2/18/2005 1:14:07 P.M. Central Standard Time, eparent@ucsd.edu writes:
Also, it
implies the GIVEN in the social sciences... that you can't understand
anything out of context, and that's what the interaction amounts to,
actually.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Jim, don't get me wrong, I am not knocking focus, but we can only see the big picture if we use our perifreal vision too. It's that foreground/backfroun gestalt thing. What we are talking about has to do with something that is all over the map literally!

And while we are talking specifically about how the Universe started, or how it is happening all along, because "NOW" has no beginning and no end (Schroedinger), we cannot begin to grasp the whole picture until we have the right parts together. Even then they will have their own gestalt effect and who knows what that is...



<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">MURRAY GELL-MANN


Today the network of relationships linking the human race to itself and to the rest of the biosphere is so complex that all aspects affect all others to an extraordinary degree. Someone should be studying the whole system, however crudely that has to be done, because no gluing together of partial studies of a complex nonlinear system can give a good idea of the behavoir of the whole."<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


This is the guy who started the compexity sciences thing. He also started a science of plectics, the science of simplicity and complexity but that is another story.

One of the main components in any theory of the Universe must involve the source of the Universe as it exists today. Today we know that there is a source of our energies, we have many names for this source, depending on what we are looking at, but regardless of what it might be called, it is a component of the Universe.

So it must form the beginning point of any theory, didn't I just say that? What we have here is a canvase and on that canvase we want to paint a meta-model.

When I think of meta, I think of something beyond but connected. I like to think of it as a more general whatever, a meta-model would be to me like a model of a model. A meta-science would be the principles of science stated in general terms. Metaphysical, to me, means not beyond the physical but fundamental to the physical. A meta painting would be a canvase with nothing painted on it. Hey, Tom, imagine a philosopher coming up to you and holding up a blank canvase saying to you that "this is a painting"!

Well, I am not a cosmologist, and my interest is supposed to be researching the ZPE as an explanation for the BOLs that have been seen all over the place so I can finish my article about "Real Crop Circles are Unreal" Somehow I got to here because of that quantized reshift thing and another hoaxed theory is about to bite the dust. I want to watch this one blow up in everyone's face...Well, they did it to themselves...

I'm trying to understand your inductive methodology, are you saying that we cannot assume the end, and then find the facts that fit? Are you saying that we can only find the facts and predict the end, and if it all leads to the same conclusion THEN we have a theory?

Well, you are the person who knows the facts. I don't. So, in review, say, what are the facts about cosmology that we know? It would seem to me that if we do this, ascertain what the facts are, then the facts will tell us the truth. Can you give me a list of keywords that would list the facts?
cosmic background radiation
gravity effects
redshift
movement
size
density

That's about all I can think of shows you how much I know. But you know what? I don't see any kind of "expansion" matter or space. It seems to me that if in fact we did come from a point, we would see that happening. But we see the same thing everywhere. We don't see the point. The only way that could happen is A) there is no "expansion from a point" or B)we are plumb bob in the middle. We just happened to be at the very place the point emerged. And that is just as absurd.

so, in your words Tom, what am I seeing?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
<br />"My friend, all theory is gray, and the Golden tree of life is green."



<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">so the universe speaks to us in both silence and sound.

the universe is more complex than the above. the universe does not limit its expression of its exitence to just specific things of understanding( pure thought) it also brings forth the understanding of how things work(photosynthesis) and the dangers for not learning in real terms(asteroids). now think of the knowledge this implies. now our ability to deal with the truth of what we find, that is the essence of our future survival as beings on this planet. without language we have no choices,(extinction), language gives us at the very least the choice of when. depending on what we do with it.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I am not advocating that we get rid of language, only that we undertand it well enough to be able to know its limitations and what we need to do in order to circumvent those limitations. The crux of the language problem is that words typically are nouns, look in the dictionary, the names of things. But the things that we name are objects that we ourselves have created in our minds by the act of paying attention to this and ignoring that.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

we did NOT create these things(tree for example)only the names that are given to things that we see and discover. the mind COULD NOT and cannot create these things. it only sees what reflects light. there is no-way it could build its inner-workings, if we created a tree, why do we have to pull it apart to understand what is going on behind the bark? that is why we pull things apart because we DON"T KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON INSIDE. we did NOT create the tree, we just gave it a name.

and as i said before we also try to find the workings of things. if this were not true then you could not have USED THE WORD ROOT which you use to describe what is below the soil line.

---

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">We look at a tree and name it so because we are paying attention to what we see. But we ignore the roots we can't see, the soil the roots are in, the earth containing the soil, and the sun providing sustaining energy to the tree. In reality the tree is connected the the entire Universe, yet in our thinking the tree is only what is before us. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

no we have not ignored the roots,soil,nor the Suns importance. if this were true where did you get these words? your point is old knowledge not modern investigation into WHAT THE WORKINGS ARE, of such and such.

---

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Science has to be able to take the constraints of language into account at all times. Korzybski puts it cogently when he said "The map is not the territory." I hope that is enough quotation.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

but we all know that Tommy thats why language evolves and always will!! and yet the map expands does it not?, based on investigation?!! so that the territory expands!!

---

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Korzybski also examined science and the relationship of language and the scientific method. Saneness of science sometimes is compromised, for example, he says, when they abstract first and observe later. This reversal of the natural process is "unsane" he says, basically because we only see what we are looking at. Saneness, Korzybski says, requires us to reverse the reverseal, such that we

observe first, then abstract.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

that has been the way i have myself thought. since in the mainstream the abstraction comes from mathematics, then they try to apply the mathematics to universe or what ever. and they assume that the foundations of which the mathematics is based is on sound footing in the first place.

the weakness of observation though, is the assumption that ALL aspects of that which is being observed can be seen.(i think you have forgotten your own point above in your tree arguement).

---

I am not an expert in BB cosmology, but even my small knowledge base can find gaping holes and inconsistencies in the theory. But of course I have the advantage of updated knowledge, thanks to science. And I can see where many scientists are making the Korzybksian error of abstracting a theory, then observing it to be so.

One advantage that I have concerns the first assumption necessary to BB theory, that it all started at T = 0, the assumption being that there is nothing before T = 0. So the theory has a limit beyond nothing can be said. BUT, the error is the presumption that there actually is nothing before T = 0. This leads to the bubious working hypothesis that the BB came from nothing. My advantage is that science has demonstrated by means of quantum physics in general, particularily Bell's Theorem, by experiements in particular such as Aspects confirmation of Bell's Theorem, that there is in fact something beyond the limits of scientific knowledge.

The beginning of the story actually goes back to Maxwell and his attempts to describe electromagnetic waves with mathematical equations. The prevalent belief at the time was that light was a wave, and in order for this wave of light to move through space it had to have a wave-carrying medium. Research at the time of Maxwell was centered on the Aether, and Maxwell did indeed come up with equations that described how EM fields emerged from the Aether. They were 20 quaternion equations involved, and were extremely difficult to work with.

When Michalson and Morley conducted their famous experiment using a interferometer to confirm the existence of the Aether, they were surprised to find that no physical effect could be found, and it was assumed at the time and since that this constituted a falsification of the Aether theory. However, there was a major assumption being made by Maxwell and those following him, it was the assumption that the Aether was a material "fuild" as Maxwell puts it.

So when M&M failed to show a material fluid, Maxwell was thought to be incorrect, and his equations were reworked by Oliver Heaviside and simplified to the standard famous four equations of Maxwell.

But this left behind another major assumption, the assumption that magnetic and electrostatic wave components of EM fields were the source of the traveling wave. The wave in a sense creates and sustains itself as it travels forever through space.

Meanwhile, the Aether was assumed not to exist. And when it came time to develop a theory of the creation of the Universe, some theoriats were forced to abandon the Aether and assume that there was absolutely nothing before T = 0. That imposed a constraint on the first theories, and when measured redshift implied a velocity change, and thus an expansion, the first assumption was that this expansion could be reversed. Conceptually, this reversal indicated that an expansion started from a point.

However, when the assumption is that there was "something" to begin with, and I am using "something" so as to avoid saying anything in specific, if there were "something" to begin with, there is no reason to assume that the expansion started at a point. The expansion could have started at any size.

Maybe even the size it is now.

In order for expansion to come from a point, it would lhave to be that there was nothing before the point came into existence. If there were something before the point, then expansion would not predict a beginning point.

We can say almost with certainty nowadays, that there is "something"
inside space, that there is an INSIDE, already we have myriad names for it. What this means is that we have to revisit our major assumptions, and revise our physical theories so that they are consistent with our new assumptions.

BTW, Cahill revisted the M&M experiemnt, using modern technology, he did not find a null, he found a difference! While this is brand new, even Sarfatti hasn't been able so far to disprove it. I haven't looked into this yet, but they talk about something they call a preferred frame of reference.


<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

you will find on this site, Tommy very few, if any ,that think BB is, anymore , a valid theory of our universe.

by the way i can't keep going with this discussion past this night i have a course i'm taking which will lead to a new career, so i must start studying soon.