THETA & MEST

Hubbard

[Reference: Scientology]

“Theta is thought, life force, elan vital, the spirit, the soul, or any other of the numerous definitions it has had for some thousands of years… [It is] the energy peculiar to life which acts upon material in the physical universe and animates it, mobilizes it and changes it.” ~ Hubbard

To do justice to the above definition, one should have a good grasp of words like thought, life force, elan vital, the spirit, the soul, etc. Theta is the animation principle of a live body.

The body is made up of matter and energy that functions in space and time. This characteristic is abbreviated as MEST in Scientology. The body functions on its own. This aliveness of the body is referred to as THETA in Scientology.

THETA and MEST are the two primary aspects of life because, without them, there is no life. On a universal scale, THETA represents the spiritual dimension, and MEST represents the physical dimension. To call this universe the physical universe is a misnomer. This is a “spiritual-physical” universe.

THETA (spiritual) and MEST (physical) are two different aspects of this universe.

.

“Theta is thought; an energy of its own universe analogous to energy in the physical universe but only occasionally paralleling electromagnetic-gravitic laws… [Theta is] an energy existing separate and distinct from the physical universe.” ~ Hubbard

I disagree with Hubbard in viewing THETA and MEST as two separate and distinct universes. In my view THETA and MEST are more like harmonics of each other in this universe.

In Quantum Mechanics, pure motion takes the form of a wave. As this wave motion encounters resistance, particle like properties, such as, discreteness, location and mass emerge. It is wave morphing into a particle, rather than wave producing a particle.

Wave + resistance (inertia) = particle

Similarly, it may be observed that as THETA encounters inconsistencies, MEST like properties, such as, concreteness emerge. It is THETA morphing into MEST, rather than THETA producing MEST.

THETA + inconsistency (disharmony) = MEST

THETA and MEST are relative harmonics of the same universe.

.

In THETA-MEST THEORY Hubbard states:

Scientology is essentially a study of statics [theta] and kinetics [MEST]… it is dealing with a theoretical static and a theoretical kinetic which are at the opposite ends of a spectrum of all motion… It is now considered that the origin of MEST lies with theta itself, and that MEST, as we know the physical universe, is a product of theta.”

The above may be interpreted to mean that THETA creates MEST in the manner that God created the physical universe. This interpretation is inconsistent because one end of a spectrum does not create the other end.

In a spectrum, one end morphs in small gradients to become the other end. THETA and MEST are part of the same spectrum.

.

The impreciseness of Hubbard shows up once again in the following statement.

“[Theta is] not a nothingness. It just happens to be an exterior thing to this universe—so you couldn’t talk about it in this universe’s terms.”

This universe is more than a “physical universe.” One can talk about THETA as an earlier harmonic of MEST in the dimension of Abstraction. The complete model of the universe may look something like the one described in the following essay.

Spacetime 6: A New Model of Universe

.

Summary

Hubbard makes THETA and MEST very distinct from each other in his THETA-MEST theory. However, this generates inconsistency.

It is more consistent to view THETA and MEST as relative gradients on a spectrum. They are aspects of the same existence. They cannot be separated as motion cannot be separated from what is moving.

It seems that Hubbard expressed the idea of MEST being a product of THETA, almost as an afterthought. He could have been influenced by the earlier similar Christian idea of the spiritual God creating a physical universe.

In these ideas spirituality is assumed to exist independently from physicality. But in reality we observe that both spirituality and physicality make up this universe.

To call this universe a “physical” universe is a misnomer. This is a spiritual-physical universe.

.

.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • vinaire  On November 23, 2013 at 7:21 AM

    The above essay came about as we looked at THETA using the KHTK version of L-10 on the thread PROCESS: The Intention to Harm.

    We shall continue with the “L-10” process. Here are the items assessed on the first dynamic:

    Thetan, individuality, identity, mental machinery, a mind, a skill, tool, clothing, career, identification human body parts, brain, body, cells, car, house, food, meals, vehicle, decorations, certificates, diplomas, body organs, viewpoints, a habit, appetite, ego, urge to survive as individual, auditing, hobby, medicine, self-improvement, study, book, ornament, grooming, personal hygiene, self-expression, health, product, GE, job, paycheck.

    I shall be using KHTK approach as follows:

    (a) Look up the definitions for each item.
    (b) See what instances for that item come up in the mind from my personal experience. If nothing comes up then that is fine.
    (c) Let the mind unstack itself naturally on each item till I can be with that item comfortably.

    The full approach is given here:

    LOOKING AT KNOWLEDGE

    .

  • 2ndxmr  On November 23, 2013 at 11:32 AM

    Wave + resistance (inertia) = particle

    What is the source of the resistance in your model?

    • vinaire  On November 23, 2013 at 11:44 AM

      I have no idea. This is a conjecture about how a wave reacts to resistance.

    • Chris Thompson  On November 23, 2013 at 2:47 PM

      Good question.

    • vinaire  On November 24, 2013 at 7:05 AM

      I wonder why people don’t question about the source of wave?

      • Chris Thompson  On November 24, 2013 at 1:41 PM

        Good question, except that we’ve hardly done anything but question the source of waves. We’ve usually managed to combine cause with effect as you seem to be doing with this question which I get. However, your apt proposition that relative motion causes both inertia and mass and now that wave + resistance = particle is simply being questioned about the elemental parts that we seem to know something about relationships like resistance.

        • vinaire  On November 24, 2013 at 1:55 PM

          (1) “Questioning the source” assumes that there must be a source.

          (2) Mindful looking does not make this assumption. Must there always be a source?

          (3) Inertia and mass is not caused be relative motion but by acceleration.

          (4) Inertia manifests only when attempt is made to change the relative motion.

          (5) When relative motion cannot be changed, the “effort” to change manifests as inertia.

          (6) This is how I see it. It appears consistent.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 24, 2013 at 2:35 PM

          Vin: (4) Inertia manifests only when attempt is made to change the relative motion.

          Chris: I like this concept very much because it seems to point me looking and asking questions about “why would this be” in a possibly fruitful direction.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 24, 2013 at 2:38 PM

          VIn: (5) When relative motion cannot be changed, the “effort” to change manifests as inertia.

          Chris: As all objects in the universe are being acted upon at all times, it might be reasonable to assume that relative motion is always changing.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 24, 2013 at 2:40 PM

          Vin: (6) This is how I see it. It appears consistent.

          Chris: I should be more clear. Any inconsistency that I noticed was in your reply to 2X questioning resistance which seemed a retort or reparte’. If you did not mean it this way, then my mistake.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 24, 2013 at 2:41 PM

          Vin: (1) “Questing the source” assumes that there must be a source.

          Chris: We’ve looked long and hard for the initial appearance of source. Not particularly seeing it, except that it simply appears, made it seem reasonable to me to wonder at the “appearance” of resistance. Is resistance differing from inertia and if so how?

        • 2ndxmr  On November 24, 2013 at 4:30 PM

          V:”(2) Mindful looking does not make this assumption. Must there always be a source?”

          If you want to make that assumption (conclusion?) then you would have to allow for the emergence of awareness without questioning why it emerged – which I believe you have done.

        • 2ndxmr  On November 24, 2013 at 5:20 PM

          Vin: (6) This is how I see it. It appears consistent.

          Chris: I should be more clear. Any inconsistency that I noticed was in your reply to 2X questioning resistance which seemed a retort or reparte’. If you did not mean it this way, then my mistake.

          2x: The problem with an idea like

          Wave + resistance (inertia) = particle

          is that it combines an observation (wave) with an assumption (inertia) to come to a conclusion (particle). I fail to see how that is consistent with particle/wave duality.

          It is observable that electrons posses a particle/wave duality as do other elementary particles.

          That becomes an inescapable starting point: the nature of the duality.

          The simplest and most mathematically consistent conclusion to this is that the waviness or particle-iness quality is due to a simple, stable, reorientation of the vectors that make up the electron. These vectors will be charge, spin, and mass, to name just the most easily understood vectors.

          Each elementary particle can be likened to a Rubic’s cube combination of colors where the relative amount of color on a face determines the magnitude of the characteristic (charge, spin, mass) defined by that face.

          The amount the observer sees is dependent on the observers observation point. For instance, if the blue face represented mass and the blue face was pointed away from the observer, the observer would see the electron as massless (wavelike). Every other aspect of the electron might be the same, but it would appear massless and end up behaving like a wave.

          This simply comes down to a stable re-orientation of the electron with respect to the observers 3-space. This is easily understood if one can get the concept of multi-dimensionality.

          With this type of model it is also possible to predict the interaction of the electron with other external forces. Gravity won’t have the same effect on the electron in wave mode as it will in particle mode, so it’s apparent inertia will change.

          What this fundamentally comes down to is that it is not “wave + resistance(inertia)” that equals a particle but “wave-set + orientation” that equals particle-iness.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 24, 2013 at 7:44 PM

          These two different models are completely interesting in that I can mentally mock up either of them. Not knowing physics commensurate to this level make my thought experiments of dubious worth because I cannot spot the inconsistencies in science that I don’t know.

      • Chris Thompson  On November 24, 2013 at 1:42 PM

        Ohm’s Law is a law in the macro frame of reference but in this quantum frame of reference, possibly we need to know more about EM force, resistance, electrons, etc.,. I suppose that we will soon find out that Ohm’s Law is a workable analogy only, maybe only slightly better than the “water through a garden hose” analogy of electrical circuits.

      • Chris Thompson  On November 24, 2013 at 5:36 PM

        LOL We do.

    • vinaire  On November 24, 2013 at 7:12 AM

      Mindfulness is to simply recognize what is there. The rest will follow.

  • 2ndxmr  On November 24, 2013 at 3:01 AM

    In my model awareness is the result of some awakening event.

    When I first started considering this model I thought the awakening might have been due to some sort of tension that might be a natural product of what started a essentially a static. The what and how of that was and is as yet unknown.

    One possibility may involve the “production of space”.

    I view space as something that is very native to the being’s basic ability. It may be that it is so native that it occurs even at the level Hubbard called “static”, though that would make my idea conflict with his definition.

    If making space were this inherent, innate ability then we might be able to picture a static, a zero, that begins expanding its space in some ripple-less geometry.

    This space expansion might look something like what happens when a drop of detergent is placed on the surface of still water: without so much as a ripple, the detergent expands outward from a point; a flat sheet, or space, that is defined by a continuous property and linkage throughout that space.

    If a droplet of another detergent is placed on the water surface at some distance from the first drop, it, too, will expand outward.

    The two detergent spaces will expand uniformly and without any rippling motion until the moment when the two come into contact. At that point the slight differences in the detergents may cause a change of expansion at the boundary.

    I see this effect as being a model for the awakening: two spaces come into contact and the awareness of a change in the space causes a reaction like surprise, possibly sending the static into a contraction of space, or a ripple (motion, wave), or a retraction and expansion into another plane.

    If the first plane of expansion was flat, like a piece of paper, then an expected retraction could cause an expansion into the space above and below the plane of the “paper”. This expansion-contraction model would be consistent with the electro-magnetic wave model and could explain the transition from static to awareness unit.

    • vinaire  On November 24, 2013 at 8:15 AM

      Mindfulness is to simply recognize what is there. The rest will follow.

      At the moment, I believe for the sake of consistency that

      (1) Space is an aspect of motion. It is motion that I am looking at more closely.

      (2) There is no absolute static. The consideration of static is relative only.

      (3) Underlying the considerations of “awakening”, “tension” etc., there is motion.

      (4) Underlying aliveness, theta, thetan, being, etc., there is motion.

      (5) One must recognize assumptions and speculations that don’t fit in any consistent pattern. “Making space were this inherent, innate ability” does not seem to be part of any consistency.

      (6) Detergent requires water to expand upon. What does space requres to expand upon? More fundamental space?

      (7) Is static a thing? To me static is a relative condition.

      (8) We seem to be struggling to understand what motion is. All these models assume motion at the basis.

      .

      • Chris Thompson  On November 24, 2013 at 1:44 PM

        Vin: (6) Detergent requires water to expand upon. What does space requres to expand upon? More fundamental space?

        Chris: Nice analogy. I would have written that if I had thought of it!

        • vinaire  On November 24, 2013 at 1:47 PM

          I think that first part of cognition is discovering the inconsistency.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 24, 2013 at 2:31 PM

          Actually, I was talking about the detergent on water. This is a model. It seems that inconsistencies such as “missing” mediums show up when comparing usual occurrences to models and then discovering missing or extra pieces. This is why I think your detergent on water model works for me when I think of space expanding upon “what?” — Likewise, time seems to be the discrete measurement of space, such as light-speed X time.

        • 2ndxmr  On November 24, 2013 at 2:41 PM

          V:” What does space requres to expand upon? More fundamental space? ”

          Does a point require a piece of paper to be a point? Does a line? Space can expand from a zero. Space can originate from a void.

          What is the void? A zero of all dimensions? That is the proper question.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 24, 2013 at 2:55 PM

          2X What is the void? A zero of all dimensions? That is the proper question.

          Chris: Good response. Mechanically, “void” gets used philosophically in numerous ways and maybe rightly so. The zero of all dimensions is once again an unknowable or non-existent nothing, so there we are again. I’m liking my 1/2 sine wave model of quanta. At least, in the gaps, there is an absence or we might say void which is not nothing. In the gap, there yet exists space-time, I think.

        • vinaire  On November 24, 2013 at 2:59 PM

          Void may only be perceived as relative. There is no absolute void.

          .

        • vinaire  On November 24, 2013 at 3:01 PM

          Void seems to be masquerading as absolute in 2x’s model.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 24, 2013 at 5:42 PM

          It is a hard thing to work with. I always think of void as space without condensate. This I admit is purely relative and probably will not stand up to scrutiny.

        • 2ndxmr  On November 24, 2013 at 8:45 PM

          C:”It is a hard thing to work with. I always think of void as space without condensate.”

          That is getting close to how we must define the void.

          One more step may be necessary and that is to define space: if the void can be defined as “potential volume” without condensate then we have a starting point.

          What is a potential volume? Well, what is a balloon before you fill it with air? It’s still a balloon isn’t it? It’s just not defined by a volume. Maybe it’s a Heisenberg balloon – until it is observed it is both full and empty!

          The point is, you can start off with this “something” we call the void and you can inflate it with a space. Or multiple spaces. Or combinations of multiple spaces.

          The thing, though, about a balloon or an “inflated space” is that they are both bounded – they have a boundary. And what goes on within one bounded space stays in that bounded space. A little Vegas in the Void.

          That would account for why we:
          1) haven’t observed other sub-universes, and
          2) will likely never observe another sub-universe from our sub-universe.

          Another consideration that comes from this is that multiple universes can exist in the void and can each have separate rules of physics.

          This brings us back to the concept of real space – the stuff that can occupy a volume in the void.

          Space must have a measurable quality. Our problem with measurement is likely the same as for a fish in water. The fish would probably say “What water?”, being so used to the environment.

          Space, like water, will be a something, not a nothing.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 24, 2013 at 9:42 PM

          2X: Space, like water, will be a something, not a nothing.

          Chris: If we run time backward, we would arrive at a big bang or just before and we supposedly would find a singularity. What is a singularity? I will use it to describe something which contains all the potentials of space-time. Upon big banging, there would be an expansion, decompaction, and a commensurate thinning. This would be extant common sense whether true or not, I cannot say.

          Run time forward to the present and we see the expanded universe with all its condensation and I would want to say that “space” contains all it ever contained, just thinned out. So I wonder if space void of condensate and continuing to stretch and expand has a mass of its own?

        • vinaire  On November 27, 2013 at 6:26 AM

          Void = space = something = dimensions

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 27, 2013 at 7:37 AM

          Void = space = something = dimensions

          Point?

        • vinaire  On November 27, 2013 at 7:50 AM

          Elementary, my dear Watson! Void has dimensions.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 27, 2013 at 1:43 PM

          There doesn’t seem to be any true void. Void is a relative term only.

        • vinaire  On November 27, 2013 at 1:44 PM

          That’s what I said earlier. 🙂

          Snark! Snark!

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 27, 2013 at 2:26 PM

          hehe well it is quite the merry go round here in the TU tautological universe.

      • Chris Thompson  On November 24, 2013 at 1:51 PM

        Vin: (8) We seem to be struggling to understand what motion is. All these models assume motion at the basis.

        Chris: And sometimes we are ignoring what we already know about space-time. For instance, time is motion in the context of this discussion. And what appears as consistent to me is that it seems to occur in discrete bits of time. Stating that there exists both time and motion appearing and disappearing by quantum leaps is not inconsistent with any extant science and is consistent with the energy states of electron shells.

        • vinaire  On November 25, 2013 at 8:14 AM

          In my opinion time and motion are two different concepts. They should not be confused with each other. They may be shown as related to each other in a systematic manner but they should not be looked upon as the same.

          Clear definitions are needed to communicate what we mean. Please see

          TRAINING: Looking at Knowledge

          .

      • Chris Thompson  On November 24, 2013 at 2:16 PM

        Vin: (8) We seem to be struggling to understand what motion is. All these models assume motion at the basis.

        Chris: You’ve asked if a discrete universe, “then what exists in the gaps?” It is easy to imagine many ways to fill the gaps. Using a cyclical model of quanta, these small bits of waves, etc., can simply be the appearance of the half wave that appears and then disappears. Then where does the other half of the sine wave go? Well it goes “out of sight.” But where? For me, not as a conjecture, but simply using my imagination, it seems that our “visible” universe could contain only a half cycle with the other half cycle of “motion” appearing alternately in the “invisible” half of our universe. It is a fact that there exists plenty of time in the quantum second for this to occur. Yes, this “half” could be a parallel half universe to our own existing 180 degrees out of phase with this one. It might not be science but it could make for interesting science fiction. Possibly the other “half” universe is a universe of anti-matter to this half’s matter. It is wondrous to ponder and we only need to keep our eyes and minds open to these possibilities. Perhaps my sons and daughters will take up this flag and resolve mysteries.

        • 2ndxmr  On November 24, 2013 at 3:52 PM

          CT:” It might not be science but it could make for interesting science fiction.”

          It is the current science fiction that future science will be made from.

          You’re talking about the cycle that I expect has the period of a Planck second and the “invisible” portion will be that portion defined by the complex number operator, “root of minus one”. That is more likely than a swing to an antimatter state or antimatter parallel universe.

          I say more likely, but in the Big Bang model that I would employ if I were making a universe, a magnetic doughnut (torus) created around the point of the Bang would cause a separation of identical and entangled matter and anti-matter sub-universes. Take a balloon with air in it, squeeze it in the middle and two “sub-balloons emerge. The squeezing action creates the same effect as would the magnetic torus. The effect of the magnetism would be to separate out the majority of the matter from anti-matter, so that in our sub-universe we are mostly matter and very little anti-matter, while in the other sub-universe there would be mostly anti-matter. It would be expected that such a separation mechanism wouldn’t be entirely perfect: that there would be some seepage of matter or anti-matter into the opposite sub-universe.

          In that model there is some possibility of your 180 degree idea being the case but it doesn’t quite work as well as my “probabilistic state” model, mainly because your phase model would probably not have “root of minus one” in its equations, and the fact is, it’s there. Like I’ve said before, we use it all the time in electricity and magnetism, and we see the effect of that math working in front of our eyes even if we can’t imagine the imaginary number. That fact and other phenomena I’ve mentioned other times leads me to expect that the “root of minus one” is inescapably linked to the periodic cycle of our own sub-universe.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 24, 2013 at 6:01 PM

          Very interesting post. Each time you write it simulates me.

          The extant big bang model allows for a 1 in a billion imbalance of matter to anti matter with all of the matter destroying all of the anti matter, the imbalance favoring what we call matter and resulting in all the accreting matter in the observable universe. In your model containing two sub universes, the other one might be imbalanced in the other proportion.

        • vinaire  On November 25, 2013 at 8:23 AM

          There seems to be phenomenon beyond our awareness. We try to understand it by projecting back from what we think we understand.

          The only way we can convincingly do it is by removing all inconsistencies.

          .

      • 2ndxmr  On November 24, 2013 at 4:07 PM

        V:”Void seems to be masquerading as absolute in 2x’s model.”

        Snark seems to be masquerading as Vin’s absolute rejoinder. 😉

        If there was no initial void for universes to be hatched in, then the only concept we are left with is an infinite 3-space, the one and only universe.

        If that were the case, then the quantum instability that started our universe should not have been unique and we should be able to see light from earlier universes.

        You have to address that paradox if you want to make the claim you’re making.

        • 2ndxmr  On November 24, 2013 at 4:15 PM

          “…then the quantum instability that started our universe …”

          Oops. I should have made a slight distinction here. In this model there is only one infinite 3-space and our little poof of a matter/energy expansion is a subby to that overall universe, not a “universe” on its own.

          But our little poof should not have been the only poof to occur in that big, infinite 3-space universe. And since “space” already exists in that model, then light from other earlier universes should already be moving through that space the same way light moves through our “space” – since those “spaces” are identical.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 24, 2013 at 6:07 PM

          The same way light moves to and through our galaxies from other galaxies. I kind of like the “poof” universe model. Seems consistent in light of the way our fractal universe behaves. Why not more of the more of the more of the same?

        • 2ndxmr  On November 24, 2013 at 6:58 PM

          C:”The same way light moves to and through our galaxies from other galaxies.”

          Exactly. There is no good reason we should not see the light from another subby (another sub universe; another poof in the infinite 3-space) considering that by definition such an infinite 3-space has had an already infinite duration of existence; an infinite amount of prior time to go poof in a different location.

          To say that our poof was the only occurring poof in the infinite 3-space is like saying our planet is the only planet in our sub-universe that has ever had life.

          That is saying that in all infinite time and distance there was only one quantum instability that ever begot a bang that begot you, the pixel reader.

          Not quite the odds you’d by a lotto ticket on, are they?

        • Chris Thompson  On November 24, 2013 at 7:48 PM

          Haha yeah. Everyone bus lotto tickets using these odds!

        • Chris Thompson  On November 24, 2013 at 7:49 PM

          Week actually no, lotto is are good compared to these big numbers.

  • MarkNR  On November 24, 2013 at 3:03 AM

    Interesting line of thought.
    I can’t profess to have all the knowledge of the precise relationship and connection between theta, thetans, and MEST in the current environment we share. I can relate my experiences and some of the conclusions I have drawn.
    Time, for me and others I have discussed it with, has been linear, one moment following another, building experience which adds to what has been experienced, from the moment I decided to continue, create, and experience. I can discard recordings of events, but I cannot un-know what has occurred. Rates of occurrence may change according to my attitude. My future has not yet been created and therefore does not yet exist to be viewed, except for postulated events and conjecture.

    This is not my first universe. My existence as an individual predates the 100+ billion yrs. this one has been running. The 13.7 bil. the scientists have decided on is just the latest cycle of this universe. Although I have developed a relationship with MEST, I can recall a time when this was not so and cannot see that I am intimately and inextricably connected to and a part of it.

    I was not an integral player in the formation of this environment, but was guided to and invited to join it. It was said that a group of individuals who were experienced in such things were responsible and, at the time claimed ownership and control. They were not ‘superior beings’ yet were touted as being in charge at the time. They had built the last few and it had come to be accepted by most. These were the original so called ‘Psychs’ and have as their purpose to control and limit others. This has long been justified as ‘protecting’ us all.

    I have not separated out all previous universes, but there have been several large agreed upon environments. When I glance at several incidents which relate to a certain principal, I do not date them all except to establish order when needed to establish cause and it’s related effects. Earlier areas seemed to be of simpler construction and were easier to manipulate. The complexity of the mechanics of the current scene is not by accident and has exact intentions. In my earliest recollections of shared environs, there were no particles, things just were what they were. Light was instant.

    To be continued:
    Mark

    • 2ndxmr  On November 24, 2013 at 5:48 AM

      The “cycling” of the universe is a concept that appears in Buddhism, as well.

      An interesting current science tidbit it that the measurements of cosmic background microwave radiation shows a distribution of energy that indicates the universe is “flat”.

      The upshot of the universe being flat (as opposed to curved or spherical) is that it will expand indefinitely.

      If that is true then either this is the last “cycle” of this universe (it will never again collapse) or some idea is incorrect.

      Considering that the unseen dark energy seems to be the cause of the accelerating expansion of the universe, a question would be whether or not dark energy is new to this cycle, or not. If it was new it could be the explanation of the difference in curvature (flat compared to curved or spherical).

      Lots of interesting questions.

      • vinaire  On November 24, 2013 at 10:14 AM

        What is “flat” and “curved” relative to?

        Could expansion be an appearance due to a shrinking viewpoint?

        Could an individuality be a subset of a bigger individuality?

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 24, 2013 at 2:21 PM

          Of course! . . . Just as 3-Dimensions can be an abstraction of flat coordinates in the complex plane! In a universe of infinite possibilities, everything is both possible and real. We have brought these concepts forth and made mental objects of them, therefore, accordingly and consistently with our conjectures about mental space-time, this is real, at least mentally to me.

        • 2ndxmr  On November 24, 2013 at 3:19 PM

          V:”What is “flat” and “curved” relative to?”

          The “shape” of the universe determines the type of geometry used for calculation of distance. “Flat” space enables Euclidean geometry.

          V:”Could an individuality be a subset of a bigger individuality? ”

          I see no reason that there could not be a full connectivity of “individualities”. The phenomenon of entanglement would suggest this possibility.

          Even if that were the case, there is also no reason that “individualities” could not be fundamentally distinct and disconnected. Just as a phone or the internet allows us to connect and feel a closeness to each other, similar lines probably exist at the entanglement level.

          However, our sense of connection at the entanglement level may be just as volatile as an internet or phone connection: we can “hang up” or disconnect by choice (or mechanism not necessarily in our current control – like a new internet connection that you haven’t yet figured out, or a phone with no buttons).

          Give a computer connected to the internet to an infant and it won’t know what to do with it. Let the infant grow with the computer at hand and it will figure out an amazing amount simply by bashing on keys.

          In our understanding of the nature and abilities of a being we are simply infants.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 24, 2013 at 5:51 PM

          That is one way of looking at it – infants. Another way of looking at it is that we can already be operating at the limits of our programming and that we have to learn. Or yeah, maybe that’s what you said.

    • 2ndxmr  On November 24, 2013 at 6:20 AM

      Mark:”It was said that a group of individuals who were experienced in such things were responsible and, at the time claimed ownership and control. ”

      That aligns with my thinking on the direction of the creation of the universe. You have possibly read my thoughts on space being the basic medium that would be used to create the fabric of the universe (likely the Higgs field).

      I have had numerous experiences of being almost tactilly aware of a significant volume of space. I have also experimented with expanding and contracting that space fairly rapidly (multiple times per second). A very large energy effect seems to occur from that (uncomfortable to the body when done very quickly). This sensed energy effect leads me to extrapolate on expansion and contraction of space as a means of generating a lot of energy. If a being was capable of expanding and contracting over a very large volume (lightyears) at an extremely high frequency, then the energies generated might be of the magnitude that are needed to fire the furnace of creation.

      It comes down to creation of a multiple of spaces, and the geometries, frequencies and phasings of the combined set of those spaces that will create the multidimensional fabric from which energy can condense as wave and particle.

      My question to you, Mark, is whether you have recall of the properties of a being’s space and what your experience is with perceived geometries of space while exterior. By geometry I mean a sense of sphericallity, or planar space, or linear space (as a line).

      • vinaire  On November 24, 2013 at 10:22 AM

        The basic assumption here is “Being” being an unlimited source of energy.

        What is “a Being” or just being?

        .

      • MarkNR  On November 25, 2013 at 6:38 AM

        2nd:
        A few months ago I did some looking into the Games Universe era. This was a VERY large portion of my existence, covering several quadrillion yrs. by current time frame standards. There was, after it was well established, a common space which allowed access to individual spaces which were actually separate and potentially infinite if one so desired.
        One’s own space is ones own and is whatever configuration one desires. In the beginning stages, when one shared space with another, it was intensely pleasant, being an analogy of rejoining with Theta with the added excitement of experiencing emotion and past experiences that were new to you. Perfect affinity, being zero distance, is very much desired and can be likened to sex with someone you are head over heels in love with. It wasn’t that you knew what the other was thinking or feeling, but rather there was one simultaneous thinking and feeling.
        Later, play areas became more diverse and individuality became more solid. 2 dimensional areas had the challenge of skimming along the surface of space. Actually you were the surface. Some of these allowed one to cover the space, similar to laying on the floor, stretching out with your hands and legs and feeling the textures of the wood and/or carpet or tile. Others required one to be only a moving spot on the plane.
        Game fields became more and more complex and riddled with rules. While operating in them, one was usually exterior to what MEST one was controlling. In human terms, it is similar to sitting outside in a noisy area with ones eyes closed, hearing all the sounds around you and being able to create a picture in your mind of all you hear at once. This is far from exact but gives one an idea of it. The idea of objects having to possess their own finite energy was not yet instituted. You simply moved things around. This is the era which instituted the mechanics of giving things energy and controlling them through beams and strings and such rather than just doing it directly. There is a fun and challenge in picking things up with a long pole or stick or hook which has as it’s basis, this era. Remote control. The skill of handling things mechanically from a distance.
        Much fun was had in this period but much much case was gathered during this time. Rules, laws, morals, justice, punishment, and authority were invented. Desire for experience and possessions was expanded and used against each other.
        Will talk again. I’ll answer what I can.
        I have suspended searching in this area unless I see specific incidents which relate and untangle specific principals. It is very broad and complex and I will be getting assistance to keep me on particular areas of case. I got frustrated a few times. This is a grand adventure but I must go out and observe each principal in present time as I discover it.
        Mark

        • vinaire  On November 27, 2013 at 8:01 AM

          Didn’t Hubbard say, “Complexity is directly proportional to the degree of non-confront”?

          I don’t know what Hubbard meant by that. But for me, if things are becoming more complex then I am not looking in the right direction or in the right area.

          .

        • MarkNR  On November 27, 2013 at 7:55 PM

          The complexities were invented by individuals on purpose for exact reasons. As others have seen, this is not an opinion or conjecture. I don’t want to sound arrogant or uppity, but this was an occurrence which is affecting us all in the now. (spare me the definitions of now) The intent was and is to keep our attention fixed on confusions and to make it difficult for individuals at large to gain any significant control over their own existence or this universe in general. It happened, confront it, master it, be free.
          Mark

        • Chris Thompson  On November 27, 2013 at 10:10 PM

          MarkNR: The complexities were invented by individuals on purpose for exact reasons.

          Chris: The longer I go, the more I view complexities as lots of simplicities.

        • MarkNR  On November 29, 2013 at 8:55 AM

          Right you are Chris. Additionally, Inconsistencies are placed, which prevent thorough understanding. It is no accident. This was an old trick which was developed in previous universes. Surround the inconsistencies with a large number of details and the truth remains hidden and un-understandable.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 29, 2013 at 9:11 AM

          Mark: Surround the inconsistencies with a large number of details and the truth remains hidden and un-understandable.

          Chris: For me, I’ve found this statement that you’ve made to be a great and basic truth. I also find that we do not need to anthropomorphise that this was done long ago by individuals for evil purposes in order to grasp or to understand its usefulness and value.

        • MarkNR  On November 29, 2013 at 11:33 AM

          Right again Chris. It is a common phenomenon that can be seen practically every day when a child takes a cookie, then will make up story after story as to why the cookie is missing. But it does put one above the fray when one sees and understands it’s origin, a key part of all effective systems of enlightenment.
          Mark

        • vinaire  On November 29, 2013 at 11:41 AM

          We don’t really need the prop of “trillion years of track”. Just look at it in NOW.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 29, 2013 at 12:25 PM

          Yes, I have done quite a bit with this and find the “whole track” to be distracting and time consuming.

        • MarkNR  On November 29, 2013 at 1:21 PM

          Sorry to put forth disagreement, Vin, since we agree so often on so many things. As you have learned from my comments, I have spent a lot of effort in examining my past existence. This has been the primary route I have been following AT THIS CURRENT MOMENT. It is far from the only work necessary for thorough and permanent gain.
          When one is looking at a confusion in the now, sees the current source of the problem and reaches an understanding on the cause and effects of the confusions, one will reach a state of RELEASE. This is a valuable and worthwhile state. It improves one’s life. But the original confusion and subsequent erroneous decisions still exist, unseen, waiting to come back into play.
          Two important points:
          1, Past examination ALONE can produce relief and understanding to a point, but will eventually validate and solidify and make more valuable the obsession to hold on to one’s past. One will come to a point when no or little further progress is possible.
          2. Past examination ALONE, without understanding can produce relief to a point but will lead to frustrations which will build up and stop future progress. Recalling an instance when one was hit in the face may lessen problems with ones sinuses, but when the reason one was hit in the face remains hidden, the confusion remains, keeping the confusion stuck in the ‘back on one’s mind’.

          An additional necessary ingredient for deep, lasting improvement is going out in the world and validating the understanding what one has gained. Go out and live life, interact and evaluate what has occurred, what is occurring and the correctness of what one has learned. Form new, better evaluations, learn more principals, often from others but also from yourself. Observe in the present for their correctness, examine how they played out in the past and adjust and correct your new evaluations.

          Examination of the present and the past, WITH NO EVALUATION WHATSOEVER, has great value. The importance of the ability to see exactly what is there, as is, cannot be stressed enough. But it will leave one lacking and confusions will remain when the ability to decide, coupled with the ability to change one’s mind as additional data is gathered, is not also present. The danger of thoughtless evaluation and conclusion has been pointed out by you and others and is well known and important. Evaluations without data or with erroneous data produce confusion and stupidity. Evaluation with full and accurate data equal understanding.

          The point I am making here is that if one wants to have it all, one must do it all. Long effort can feel like a drudgery when one is mired in mud and making little or no progress. As one gets part of one foot on dryer ground, the effort becomes more enjoyable, and can become one’s favorite game. There is much to be gained by grabbing the low hanging fruit. Allowing understandings to come naturally and easily has much value. But simply stated, many of the valuable fruits are not low hanging and require honest effort and discipline to reach. Do not deny yourself the benefits of both.
          You have assisted me much in my path. I only hope that a few of the things I have learned can be of some assistance to you.
          With admiration, Mark

        • Chris Thompson  On November 29, 2013 at 12:22 PM

          MarkNR: “But it does put one above the fray when one sees and understands it’s origin, . . . ”

          Chris: Thank you Mark but you give me too much credit if you assume I understand the origin of what I am observing. This is for me the rub: “The more I look, the more I see. The more I see, the more my assumptions dissolve. The more my assumptions dissolve, the less I know.” Enlightenment? Yes, I guess I do feel lighter.

        • vinaire  On November 29, 2013 at 12:51 PM

          Nice way of putting it! Haha.

          .

        • MarkNR  On November 29, 2013 at 1:40 PM

          Your ability to have quantities of data that are understood are infinite. Only when there is confusion, inconsistency, does quantity become a problem.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 29, 2013 at 7:13 PM

          MNR: Your ability to have quantities of data that are understood are infinite. Only when there is confusion, inconsistency, does quantity become a problem.

          CT: I am not challenging your model for yourself, especially since you are pleased with it, not snagged, and not asking for help. To make my own position clear and to thwart unreal expectations, though yours is a very positive and upbeat thought, I do not see a reason to think this is true or that there are examples in the world at large.

        • MarkNR  On November 29, 2013 at 7:35 PM

          Some, when they receive too much information too fast it becomes ‘in one ear and out the other’. With me, it is a little different. It’s “in one ear and something else gets kicked out the other”. I once had a rough day in math class, came home, looked at my mother and said “Who are you?”
          Mark

        • Chris Thompson  On November 29, 2013 at 7:42 PM

          LOL! Good one.

        • MarkNR  On November 30, 2013 at 12:47 AM

          While reading a post by Phil, I noticed an aberration in myself. While giving accounts of my own work and observations, I have been speaking in an authoritarian manner, using phrases like “it is” and “it happened” instead of “I have found” and “I believe” or “in my experience”. This is not consistent with my own philosophies and writings. One must…….oops there I go again.
          When I ‘declare’ something that I believe to be true, it may cause it to be of less use to others since it takes away others right to evaluate it for themselves. When I have found something out for myself, it was of far greater value to me than when I was ‘told’ something, regardless of it’s truth. I have found knowledge from others of great value to myself when I took it as a possibility and investigated myself.
          In the future, I will attempt to relay my experiences in a manner which invite others to find out if it is also true for them.
          Phil remarked that “Scn. and Dian. WILL help you create more mind if you suspect it or not”. This, I believe is an instance where the difference in ‘will’ and ‘can’, make a very large difference in the meaning of what was said. If I am correct in his meaning, he was stating that Scn. as a generality, will solidify and validate one’s bank, reactive mind, sub conscious, whatever one calls it. I have found this to be a POSSIBILITY when one is poorly led and poorly educated. In my case, I have found that the more I understand about the mechanics and principals of the spirit, and the more I see of my past, the more I can view it easily and release it, without detriment. One of my goals is to have my entire existence available to me, as knowledge and be completely able to discard any obsessions to hold on to any pictures or mass. So far I am doing well. If I run into trouble as some others have, I will search for the knowledge and use other methods to handle it, as I have done before.
          I have balanced my searches into the past with positive processes from LRH, Ken Ogger, Vinaire, Tibetan Llamaism and other sciences. This has worked for me to relieve any fixation on the past. So far.
          Next article, an extension of a description of continuous nuclear fusion that I once wrote to Vin and a few others. It was lacking in details and needs to be updated and exposed more broadly.
          “Love is the glue which holds us all together, it is what makes the R and C possible” MNR
          Mark

        • Chris Thompson  On November 30, 2013 at 10:46 AM

          Good post MarkNR. We can all improve in this regard and I will try as well. Feeling the roiling universe as it never holds still helps me be mindful of your points.

        • MarkNR  On November 30, 2013 at 2:26 AM

          Chris:
          I should have prefaced my statements with “in my experience”. I have taken apart motor control relays with hundreds of parts and once I understood the intent behind each part, it became perfectly simple. I have worked with children who were having trouble with math and biology. Once all their confusions and misunderstoods were resolved, the subject became simple to them and they were eager for more information.
          Using the word “infinite” and putting forth the principal in an authoritarian manner was an error.
          Thank you for assisting me. (not sarcasm)
          Mark

        • Chris Thompson  On November 30, 2013 at 11:09 AM

          It is fine Mark, no problem. Running around in our lives, inundated with tsunamis of information, it is hard to be heard. I was raised in a family where we only spoke in superlatives. Everything was the most, least, best and worst. I found myself using comparative and superlative degrees exclusively even though I was not making any side-by-side comparisons. But when we’re among friends, like blogging here, I hope we can talk in a normal tone of voice and both hear and be heard without the emphatic shouting that pervades the rest of the worlds that we live in. It is more comfortable and helps me think when I try to practice this.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 30, 2013 at 11:14 AM

          MarkNR: “in my experience”.

          Chris: When we are all practicing mindfulness, the effect pervades both our speech and our listening. When we earnestly discuss how the world is put together and are really listening to one another, then our confidence that our communication is getting through grows and we no longer will need devices to convince one another that our message must be reinforced to make it interesting or worthy enough to be listened to. The world needs a lot of this! hahaha

        • Chris Thompson  On November 30, 2013 at 11:15 AM

          “Thank you for assisting me. (not sarcasm) Mark”

          “You are welcome! (not sarcasm either!) Chris”

        • Chris Thompson  On November 27, 2013 at 10:11 PM

          MNR: be free.

          CT: +1

        • 2ndxmr  On November 27, 2013 at 11:41 AM

          V:”I don’t know what Hubbard meant by that. But for me, if things are becoming more complex then I am not looking in the right direction or in the right area.”

          Sometimes the complexity becomes a simplicity when we look at it FROM the right direction: a large piece of paper could look like an impenetrable wall until we look at it on edge.

        • 2ndxmr  On November 29, 2013 at 2:45 PM

          Mark:”Long effort can feel like a drudgery when one is mired in mud and making little or no progress.”

          I agree with you that it is necessary to access “the fruit at the top” but the reach of the ladder-of-looking should not be diminished.

          I began on my own research into looking some years before I came across Vin’s blog for the first time.

          The simplicity is that I used observation to blow by inspection. Not wanting to dig too far down without a safety rope, I picked at the low hanging fruit as the fruit came into view. This was sufficient to keep charge off. I fully understand this to be mere release but the permanence has been astonishing.

          The biggest advantage to this method is that when you get it understood, you can sweep your attention about and dissolve charge with only the equivalent effort of sweeping a feather duster over a surface.

          So what about the crusty spots? The tartar? The stuff the feather duster can’t dislodge?

          A variant and only slightly deeper look works here. And for this I acknowledge Chris who put forth the idea. In short, this idea is viewing the postulate as a condensed energy, which is fundamentally all it is. When the energy is viewed, it blows. The postulate blows. Fully inspected, or not.

          That’s one of those simplicities that got covered with a complexity of details.

          LRH talked of the importance of getting the postulate in order to accomplish erasure.

          And that the postulate was what held the picture in one’s space and gave the picture the power so that it could act on one.

          One of the things that made auditing arduous was trying to word the postulate, especially when words just didn’t come close to describing it.

          By looking at the postulate strictly as an energy condensation and viewing that energy in a way that you understand it, or simply duplicate it, or whatever, it disappears. Along with the charge. Sometimes there is a picture stream, sometimes an additional cog that will be “word-able”, sometimes not word-able, but always the feeling of certainty that one more bit of plaque has been chipped off. Sometimes you are left just blown-out and wordless.

          The only problem with this is it can be done way faster than you’d ever be able to keep up with if you were using a meter and trying to be fussy with admin.

          As far as how far up the tree one can reach, I don’t know. There certainly seems to be energy limits to what one can bring near a body. However, I’m tending to think that it may be easier to deal with the energy from an old postulate than it is to deal with the newly creatable energy.

        • MarkNR  On November 30, 2013 at 3:09 AM

          2nd:
          I have received jolts of energy and gotten minor burns on my fingers when I contacted areas of high energy content. I used LRH methods to diffuse much of the mass and energy. I then scanned over the related incidents to resolve the area fully. Once it became humorous it never happened again.
          Mark
          PS: I use a meter to locate later incidents but find it’s usefulness very limited in resolving very early considerations which I “KNEW WERE RIGHT” at the time. Early considerations do not read. Later conflicts with these ‘decisions’ read. My experience.

        • 2ndxmr  On November 30, 2013 at 2:42 AM

          Mark:”While reading a post by Phil,…”

          Your reference to Ken Ogger caused me to look up Super Scio just now. I had seen a few paragraphs of his put forth in other blogs before, but I hadn’t looked at his full dissertation previously and hadn’t heard the term “Super Scio” before you began using it a few days ago. I’ve only gotten through a few of the chapters so far and have mixed opinions about his conclusions. Of course, I’m reading through the filter of my own recalls and current understanding and I do recognize that as a rather thick filter.

          As to your self criticism of finding yourself speaking in an authoritarian manner, I find that pretty much understandable as the natural consequence of believing that one understands something. That is not an uncommon situation, happening all the time even in the world of science – more often than not with vigor and vehemence – so while anyone’s conclusions may be viewed as incorrect by others, and commented on as such, I don’t see an absolute need to preface each opinion or conclusion with an IMO or similar limitation, (IMHO 🙂 ).

          I’m looking forward to your contribution on continuous fusion.

        • MarkNR  On November 30, 2013 at 3:42 AM

          Frequencies, resonances and harmonics. The reactors I am familiar with were fairly simple in design but precise in manufacture. They were a magnetic compression type but not of toroid shape. Basically, an elongated doughnut with fuel injected at the point of greatest compression. The configuration of the field was such that the injector was shielded from the magnetic intensity, but that was not a significant problem since the field did not have to be that great. There was a slight lessening of the field to draw fuel away from the injection point. This protected the mechanics from the heat of the reaction point. At the reaction point, the field was modified with combinations of resonant frequencies, harmonics of the vibrations of the subatomic particle vibrations. When the temperature and compression and frequencies were correct, Fuel was injected and ignited with a simple arc. The field was such a shape that most of the heat was pulled forward into a heat exchange chamber. In addition to heat, there was a great amount of electricity produced that was drawn off and added to the energy output of the generators. The key was the correct combination of frequencies that would cause the protons to be ‘willing’ to fuse. The “flame” would blow out occasionally and have to be re-ignited, especially in small reactors.
          The phrase we use to describe the process was “If you play it the right tune, it will sing for you”, or something like that.
          The potential for the application of frequency harmonics in the materials sciences is tremendous, especially metal alloys. ‘Convincing’ atoms and molecules to bond together in different configurations is a science waiting to emerge. A common practice was to heat an exact alloy to the right temperature, turn on the frequencies and hammer forge the part. The forge itself had to be of particular materials to prevent it from being destroyed in the process. This would have to be developed, but it’s not that complicated. These manufactured parts were extremely durable. This is not limited to metallurgy but to complex chemical compounds as well.
          There were also electro-magnets that, instead of coils of wire, had solid metal cores. The advantage was that a tremendous amount of current could be applied to a very small ‘winding. The winding was made from an alloy that acted as a coil when current was applied. Very small, very strong motors and actuators could be produced.
          Hope you found this little story interesting and maybe even informative. If nothing else, I hope it was entertaining. This is an abbreviated description of my own experiences and does not have all the details. I don’t recall the exact frequencies and they wouldn’t translate anyway.

          This is a letter I wrote to Vin a few months ago. A few more details.
          The injectors and ignitors were made with a tungsten, nickel, copper alloy that had three frequencies applied as it was hammer forged and in a plasma state. This coerced the atoms to share an additional electron and form a rigid crystalline matrix which was almost immune to heat and corrosion. They still have to be replaced regularly.
          Mark

        • Chris Thompson  On November 30, 2013 at 11:17 AM

          2x: (to Mark) I’m looking forward to your contribution on continuous fusion.

          Ct: Me too!

    • vinaire  On November 24, 2013 at 9:08 AM

      At the moment, I believe for the sake of consistency that

      (1) Tme is also an aspect of motion. It seems to document the sequence of occurrence.

      (2) Knowingness sticks out only due to inconsistency. What is consistent simply merges into the background.

      (3) “My attitude” is simply a variable. “My” is sort of an identification. The variable of “attitude” needs to be understood better.

      (4) A universe is the sumtotal of everything. It is the master set. when one is talking about more than one universe, one must be talking about subsets.

      (5) An individual is simply a collapse of Theta, just like a particle is a collapse of wave. It is the theta or wave which has continuity. The individual or the particle has no continuity over a long period of time.

      (6) Theta has no individuality, just like wave has no discreteness.

      .

  • vinaire  On November 24, 2013 at 9:46 AM

    Let’s now look at the first two words of the L-10 assessment list for First Dynamic:

    Thetan, individuality…

    It seems that Thetan is the outcone of Theta acquiring individuality. It is like a “photon” is an outcome of an electromagnetic wave acquiring particle like properties.

    A photon like particle lies somewhere on the spectrum of wave to this universe.

    Similarly, the individuality called Thetan lies somewhere on the spectrum of THETA to MEST.

    .

    • vinaire  On November 24, 2013 at 9:48 AM

      This is giving me some basis for writing my next post on “Thetan and Individuality”.

      .

      • MarkNR  On November 25, 2013 at 4:33 AM

        “Thetan and individuality”. Now there is a big, very basic, and possibly very valuable subject of discussion. I will try to point out which of my statements are my opinions. (All of them perhaps)
        Mark

      • MarkNR  On November 25, 2013 at 5:08 AM

        OT-8, as posted on the internet, was directed primarily at sorting out ones location, past and present, or lack thereof. Also, methodically sorting out ones individuality, identity. From reports I have read, It fails to accomplish this fully. It uses techniques which avoid viewing one’s past directly, since even after the wall of fire one and two, many have trouble differentiating their past from the past of other individuals, entities, beings, whether real or imagined. The actuality or idea of others memories mixing with one’s own can confuse and overwhelm many. A fundamental understanding of the origin of communication, distance, and location as invented concepts and a realization of when one agreed with them, and a realization of oneness and separateness together can resolve this problem. That these old comm lines are created and held in place by you is an obsession that can be released. Then one ‘s entire existence can begin to be viewed directly and accurately without ‘tricks’ or ‘techniques’, even when they converge with the past of others. A “Christian Love”, Jesus-like affinity for others is necessary for and a product of this research.
        Then the adventure can really begin.
        There may be differing methods of accomplishing this, but I consider the exploration of this area to be of great value.
        Just my thoughts.
        And yours?
        Mark

        • vinaire  On November 27, 2013 at 7:09 AM

          Thanks for writing about OT-8.

          Location in space comes from a localized form. A form has boundaries. One assigns location to a form. When a form has no boundaries it does not have a location. It is assumed to be everywhere like God.

          Location in time (past, present, future) is a localized sequence, and its relationship to other localized sequences. It can be a very broad or narrow sequence. When the whole sequence is considered, then it does not have a location in time.

          An identity would have a location in space and time. It would have a localized form, and a localized sequence of occurrence.

          Memories seems to be subset of identities. They have location in space and time, and they exist within identities.

          Communication would be considerations in motion among identities.

          These are just some conjectures.

          .

        • MarkNR  On November 30, 2013 at 3:54 AM

          From my experience, one’s location is where one directs his attention. One’s attention can be drawn. This, for me, has been a vital area of study and examination as it relates to traps. My attention was first directed and anchor points were pulled in by beauty and curiosity. Later, when confusions were slipped in, my attention was directed by more mechanical means.
          Mark

        • 2ndxmr  On November 27, 2013 at 11:48 AM

          V:”Communication would be considerations in motion among identities.”

          Another interesting point. Certainly we are exchanging considerations via a motion-based network called the internet, but there will come a time when we can exchange considerations instantaneously across any distance. A mechanical way of doing that is by modulating entangled photons. A non-mechanical way would be telepathy. With telepathy there would be an exchange of consideration, and these considerations would have emotion, minimally, so there would be a wave – or motion – at the receipt point matching the one at the origination point.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 27, 2013 at 2:06 PM

          The communication would cease to be communication since nothing will be sent and nothing received. This will tap into an as yet untapped and more basic and rudimentary condition of existence.

  • vinaire  On November 24, 2013 at 6:46 PM

    Wow! You guy’s have been busy. Who could have thought that the dry research on this blog could generate so much interest.

    I plan to move away from conjecturing on the physics side and get my hands dirty in working out some math. I am cracking open my books on Calculus and Differential equations to really start working on higher math and sort out the subject of motion.

    I don’t know if it’ll be too long a project for me to finish it, but I am going to give it a try.

    .

  • MarkNR  On November 25, 2013 at 1:46 AM

    I have noticed, as have some of you, a missing agreement of a definition.
    Universe: “All existing matter and space considered as a whole, the cosmos.” (Oxford American dictionary)
    “All of space and everything in it including stars, planets, galaxies etc.” (Marriam-Webster)
    The key words I see are from the Oxford, “…considered as a whole…” MY PERSONAL ADDITION to this def. would be ‘A continuously connected physical space and its contents,’ Some others have a more broad meaning of this. ‘All spaces and contents existing anywhere in any physical form for anyone or anything.’ Any difference in these two ideas is PURELY SPIRITUAL, since any physical connection of any kind would be the same universe by both definitions.
    A theoretical ‘additional dimension’ would be part of the same universe. I add that a separate universe would “have no spacial relationship and no physical connection to the former.” Some have proposed that this is actually a sub-set of the universe as a whole. I consider this difference ONLY a matter of wording, definition.
    IN MY PAST EXPERIENCE, I have, as an individual, been involved with spaces and activities whose only connection with this space we share is spiritual. Any traveling, transfer, doorway etc. was by intention, postulate, consideration etc. Since this and other subjects discussed on this site deal with the relationship of spiritual and physical matters, an agreement (necessary for accurate communication) on terms and meanings would be helpful. Some don’t agree that completely separate spaces can exist at all. That separate universes or dimensions could ‘bump into’ each other, which would, by MY definition, establish a spatial relationship between the two, making them actually one. That some spaces co-exist in the same greater space of >3 dimensions. Still the same universe by MY definition.
    Perhaps a term for separate universes could be coined, such as postuverse, whereas when referring to all possible and theoretical universes, the term magnaverse or some such agreed upon terms could be used. I’m open to suggestion. I’m not much of one for making up new words. Perhaps ‘THE universe’ as opposed to ‘A universe’ will do.
    This definition may be more important to me than to most others. Separate universes, to me, are rather ‘matter of fact’, as I have spent a lot of time reviewing my past existence for significant occurrences.
    Thoughts?
    Mark

    • 2ndxmr  On November 25, 2013 at 2:23 AM

      You’re quite right about the confusion of the word universe. The biggest problem with the word is it’s original definition and still oft agreed-upon meaning of an infinite 3-space.

      Magnaverse captures to a degree the idea of a larger ___ where multiple separate universes could simultaneously and independently exist. I have been calling this the void because my think is that it should start out dimensionless.

      A universe created into the void (like a balloon being inflated) would have dimensions specific to itself, not to any other universe in the void/magnaverse. Also, like an inflated balloon, any one of these universes would necessarily have a boundary; it would not extend to infinity.

      • MarkNR  On November 25, 2013 at 4:06 AM

        2nd:
        Imagine a green meadow. Put up a blue sky with puffy clouds, a few trees and a rabbit hopping.
        Now.
        SOMEONE ELSE is imagining a fishing pond. There are fish jumping, the sun glitters on the water and a frog is croaking.
        There is no possible way to go from THE MEADOW TO THE POND. There is no direction that can be traveled that will lead from one to the other. One could walk forever, in the imaginary space, and never reach the other space. Infinity could stretch out before you. ONLY BY COMMUNICATING WITH THE OTHER INDIVIDUAL COULD YOU APPROACH HIS POND.
        Thinking of bubbles suggests there is an inside and an outside. Using the word ‘void’ implies that there is some kind of something between universes. This can lock one into a single, all encompassing space, line of thought. I’m not saying that is wrong, just not the theory I’m putting forth.
        Once this idea ‘clicks’ it can open up a new and very broad area of thinking. Let your imagination run wild. After all, that really is what it’s all about. Think of an area where you speak from an inverted bubble and all your comm is in colors, no sound. And it was perfectly normal. What would a chair look like if your knees bent the other way. Hmmmmmmmm.
        Mark

        • 2ndxmr  On November 25, 2013 at 10:43 PM

          I don’t have a problem imagining overlapping spaces that may or may not be mutually tangible between creators of the spaces.

          I even see that there is a possibility of phasing multiple, overlapping, solid universes so that each can appear to be unique and yet remain fully unobservable to the other solid universes occupying exactly the same physical space.

          The key to accessing these other universes is certainly based on communication, which could equally certainly be viewed as a function of wavelength and phase.

    • Chris Thompson  On November 25, 2013 at 6:56 AM

      Mark NR Thoughts?

      Chris: Our imaginations are our greatest ability and assets.

    • vinaire  On November 27, 2013 at 6:29 AM

      KHTK Axiom #6: A universe is all that exists.

      https://vinaire.me/2013/10/19/khtk-axiom-6-the-universe/

      .

  • MarkNR  On November 25, 2013 at 3:35 AM

    Physical phenomenon as they relate to Theta or spirituality.

    One of the first physical phenomenon that I can recall, that became common to other beings, was vibration, oscillation, wavelengths (regularity of push-pull across a space in a common time frame). The common scientific representation of oscillation on a graph or screen is useful for mathematical work, but is a poor symbol of the actual motion. It is thought by some to be analogous to a cross section of waves in water. A one dimensional sectional representation of a two dimensional plane yet which rises and falls in the third dimension. A drawing of an antenna sending out pulses in all or one direction is much more intuitive of the actual motion.
    I do not recall the exact origin or purpose of a vibrating or shaking motion or it’s first use in common space over a distance. I do recall some early uses.
    In the earlier mentioned game of throw and catch, sometimes two or more players, instead of throwing the object, would grab and hold on to the object, refusing to let go. This could go on for some extended time. This got old and one solution was to suddenly push the object in order to overwhelm ones opponent, then quickly pull it back. The sudden push would trigger a push from the other side in order to prevent an unwanted impact. A handling for this strategy became known but pushing and pulling was incorporated in other, more complex ways. Often the object was made to shake when thrown, making it difficult to catch. When it was a friend, the vibration would be regular and smooth making it easy to catch. (Pleasant.) For an opponent, the motion would be erratic and difficult to follow. (Unpleasant.)
    Small high speed vibrations and combinations of similar motions were pleasant to receive ( Aesthetic) and large, ragged, random movements were difficult to receive (Ugly).
    In Super Scio, a work by Ken Ogger, was described arguments over how many dimensions common space would be composed of. I found this an interesting and entertaining story. Until I came across a few incidents in this era. Close your eyes and listen to sounds around you. Do not attempt to ascertain the direction or location of the sounds, just hear what comes to you. This is a throwback to communication and interaction in a one dimensional universe. When this was all you had to work with, it could become quite complex. Various combinations of vibrations and the quality (shape of the wave, so to speak) of the vibrations was everything. Music was born.
    THIS IS WHERE THE IDEA OF FREQUENCY AND EMOTIONAL TONE BECAME CONNECTED. THIS IS WHEN VIBRATIONS BECAME AN INTEGRAL AND FUNDAMENTAL PROPERTY OF SUBSEQUENT SPACES, MATTER AND ENERGY. AND, OF COURSE, THE REGULARITY OF TIME.
    Vibration was a reliable and recognizable way to send energy and communication (motion in time across a distance). It could be formed, released, sent, forgotten (you thought) and it would arrive in the same condition that it left. The uses became endless.
    I hope this data triggers some resolution of inconsistencies or at least spawns some additional theories.
    From your friendly neighborhood electrician, plumber, mechanic, welder, carpenter, machinist, theoretical spiritualist and general handyman.
    Mark.

    • 2ndxmr  On November 25, 2013 at 10:30 PM

      Mark:” Do not attempt to ascertain the direction or location of the sounds, just hear what comes to you. This is a throwback to communication and interaction in a one dimensional universe.”

      When you say “one dimensional” I need a clarification as you go on to talk about vibration and I don’t usually think of vibration in less than two dimensions. I could see a one dimensional line as a form of a space and the lengthening or shortening of the line as a sort of one-dimensional vibration. Is that what you are meaning? Getting music from that is a bit more of a challenge.

      • MarkNR  On November 30, 2013 at 4:39 AM

        2nd:
        Look at the difference in waves of an earthquake. S wave travel as a wave in the water, going up and down. these waves are in 3 dimensions, up down to and fro spreading radially. P waves are compression and dilation. Pushing and pulling. These spread out radially as well in imaginary lines but can be thought of a single line to any given point. This can be likened to a one dimensional communication. A single line coming toward and away from you with no thought of left right or up down.

        • 2ndxmr  On November 30, 2013 at 6:49 AM

          Mark:”P waves are compression and dilation.”

          Right. That’s what I was saying above, a lengthening and shortening line, like a P-wave on a line.

          That would make it follow the rules of a mathematical dimension as opposed to the idea of a “quality” based dimension that I described at
          2ndxmr On November 27, 2013 at 1:36 AM

    • vinaire  On November 27, 2013 at 6:43 AM

      Vibration is a characteristic of motion.

      .

  • MarkNR  On November 25, 2013 at 4:12 AM

    A pleasant memory (or an entertaining story) that I once shared with Vin.

    I recall a game we used to play. A large space was filled with crystals, plates and various shapes of every possible color. When you touched the shape, a tone would be produced and a shimmer of light would come from some place near you. How you touched the crystal or shape would determine the quality of the sound. You could “reach out” and touch hundreds of shimmering objects simultaneously, in patterns (music) and, once you got good at it, the most breathtakingly beautiful light show would play out that you were controlling. The patterns were determined by your rhythms. Whether you tapped, or hit, or pinged, or stroked the crystal, and what speed or pressure you applied made a great variety of sounds and complex light patterns. It was unimaginably beautiful. I spent a long time there, it really sucks you in. Armed with the knowledge of traps, and it didn’t start out as a trap, I’d like to go visit there or recreate it for friends.
    These are the kinds of things I’m looking forward to in my spare time in the future. When I saw Avatar, I immediately knew that the writer had been there too, whether he knew it or not.

    • 2ndxmr  On November 25, 2013 at 1:02 PM

      @Mark

      I really appreciate you sharing this data and history. It goes well beyond anything I’ve recalled or done recently but it is all very real to me as to how I would do it.

      I’m looking forward to hearing more from you.

    • vinaire  On November 27, 2013 at 6:47 AM

      What are considerations? Do considerations have motion?

      .

      • 2ndxmr  On November 27, 2013 at 11:51 AM

        I would say motion, meaning wavelength, but not necessarily phase motion, meaning a broadcast wave.

      • MarkNR  On November 30, 2013 at 4:16 AM

        Vin:
        For the purpose of my studies, considerations are decisions I made, opinions I gained and postulates I created. Times I made up my mind. These times, especially when involved with an occurrence that I considered important or profound, and then forgotten, became a part of me, who I am and how I think. More so when multiple incidents appeared to validate the original assumption. The earliest consideration did not contain or use mass or energy until some fool thought that and convinced others that we needed a physical “personal assistant” to remember things automatically and “protect us” automatically.
        Finding these is the PRIMARY GOAL OF MY WHOLE TRACK RESEARCH. It is not the whole of my work. In the now exercises and contemplation is balanced in. Digging into the past ONLY has had it’s pitfalls and I have done other things which have proved very fruitful.
        Mark

        • 2ndxmr  On November 30, 2013 at 4:30 PM

          Mark:”Digging into the past ONLY has had it’s pitfalls and I have done other things which have proved very fruitful.”

          You’ve articulated a point here that has perhaps been an unarticulated thought of my own.

          The approach I adopted a few years back was to push forward along current knowledge and understanding lines with a focus on raising ability as opposed to the traditional Scientological line of solely pushing back on bank with the expectation of cognition and ability-restored arising from that attack on bank. I still consider that workable, just slow.

          However, when I run into a brick wall of sorts during a forward push, then I find it useful to scan backwards to locate the incident, postulate, identity or whatever that is hanging up the forward motion. This works just fine, more often than not (a “not”:I encountered one of those when looking at the area of memory and it had all the earmarks of a good implant, so I shelved it until I get a proper e-meter setup. Most others resolve by contact and scan. A few had more energy than I knew what to do with.)

        • MarkNR  On November 30, 2013 at 7:39 PM

          Are you skilled with a meter. It can be a useful tool. It does what it does, no more, no less.

        • vinaire  On November 30, 2013 at 7:47 PM

          In my opinion, It is very naive to put all one’s trust in the e-meter.

        • Chris Thompson  On December 1, 2013 at 12:13 AM

          Once I solo’d and matched e-meter reading to reading my body, I’ve just found I don’t need that via as much. Whats the meter is reading is physical which can as easily be noticed directly as via the emeter.

        • MarkNR  On December 1, 2013 at 11:47 AM

          The Hubbard Electro Psychometer.
          Indication vs. distraction
          Grab a guy off the street. Spend a few hours teaching him about mental mass, aberration, and how an e-meter works. Give him a set of processes and stick him in a room, In about 15 mins you will have one pissed off, frustrated guy who will never want to go into an auditing room again.
          Grab an experienced solo auditor and give him a list of areas to look at which relate to pre agreed upon universe considerations and tell him that he must pay constant attention to every little reaction and needle action for this process. You will end up with a guy who is worse off than when he started. He will feel he is not properly set up and unable to do the process. Frustrated. He will pull in and invalidate case that he had handled earlier. (A whole other line of discussion. Full resolution vs. release.)
          It has been my experience that when I put my full attention on a meter, I have little attention for what I’m really looking for. I’m not looking for little pieces of mass and energy that I am obsessively holding on to. I’m looking for areas of confusion and erroneous decision. Bits and pieces of energy can ASSIST me in finding these areas, to a point. Keeping a fourth of one eye on the needle at times when it is needed is a very useful skill. There are times when I need a little direction, a nudge toward something I am not consciously aware of. There have been many times I ignored and avoided areas that needed to be looked at.
          Knowing that the meter is only one indicator and keeping that in perspective is vital. It is a skill I have worked on for some time and found very useful. Knowing that when you see something that it is important, and KNOWING it is important, is primary to meter action. Being able to completely ignore the meter as though it were not even in the room is another skill to be mastered. I’m working on it.
          I feel this is an important area of discussion with much left for me to learn.
          Mark

        • Chris Thompson  On December 1, 2013 at 2:59 PM

          If you are making the point that it takes practice to get better at being mindful, then I do agree. Practice is a conditioning. How should we organize and define this type of conditioning? — As opposed to harmful or ideological conditioning? Conditioning is an important topic to consider.

        • Chris Thompson  On December 1, 2013 at 3:06 PM

          MNR: Being able to completely ignore the meter as though it were not even in the room is another skill to be mastered. I’m working on it.

          CT: One important piece of this “tech” is giving oneself permission, at least this was important for me. Before my Scientology experience, I had permission to explore my world as I desired, but during my Scientology experience, this freedom was barred from me, in fact mysticism was heaped upon me. Now that I am free once more to explore, it feels very free.

          Because of the way that you write, because of your success using Scientology processes and the e-meter, I am loathe to give you advice nor to try and change your direction. You seem to me to be doing fine. Your path is your own and you will know if and when there is a fork and what you should do. My only advice is to trust yourself and to continue. But to discuss? I am all for that.

        • MarkNR  On December 1, 2013 at 7:01 PM

          “CT: One important piece of this “tech” is giving oneself permission, at least this was important for me. Before my Scientology experience, I had permission to explore my world as I desired, but during my Scientology experience, this freedom was barred from me.”
          This is a very important paragraph. I wish I had written it. The freedom to think freely. LRH (metaphor) “I will teach and show you how to think freely, but you must not think while I am teaching you.” Ron spent a tremendous amount of work separating the wheat from the chaff so that we wouldn’t have to. He later denied us the right to do so. Curious.
          Mark

        • Chris Thompson  On December 1, 2013 at 7:22 PM

          MNR: Curious.

          Chris: Thank you Mark. This oppression was also unnecessary and counterproductive, the proof being the condition of Scientology and of Scientologists today . . . For everything good and decent thing that we try to give him credit for, each of these suppressive acts negate them. Sometimes I wonder at it but for the most part, I move on with my own personal exploration, satisfied that I have moved on from where LRH ended.

        • MarkNR  On December 3, 2013 at 10:10 AM

          Chris:
          Please don’t hesitate to give any advice, data that you think may or may not be helpful. I have learned so much from all of you already, don’t stop now.
          Mark

        • Chris Thompson  On December 3, 2013 at 10:54 AM

          You honor me Mark and I feel the same way about you. I will contribute where I can in the give and take of discussion, however, I am trying to live without ideology and slow to volunteer advice except when specifically asked. I feel that ideologies are like drug or drink and that I am working gradually through my withdrawal of them. On the bright side, you are doing great! Your path is your own and so long as you walk it and are mindful that you walking it, it seems to me that you cannot fail! I read your words and get the picture of someone who is earnestly already well on the way!

        • vinaire  On November 30, 2013 at 6:07 PM

          In my opinion, the concept of “past track” is not really necessary to un-stack the mind.

          .

  • vinaire  On November 25, 2013 at 8:37 AM

    Related to: https://vinaire.me/2013/11/23/theta-mest/#comment-14401

    .

    Expansion of space seems to be the same phenomenon as something appearing from nothing. And this brings us back to the phenomenon of awareness.

    Things appear when we become aware. These two are the same phenomenon. it seems.

    .

    • vinaire  On November 25, 2013 at 8:41 AM

      Void seems to be an abstract concept representing “nothing.”

      From dictionary,
      void
      1. Law. having no legal force or effect; not legally binding or enforceable.
      2. useless; ineffectual; vain.
      3. devoid; destitute (usually followed by of ): a life void of meaning.
      4. without contents; empty.
      5. without an incumbent, as an office.
      6. Mathematics . (of a set) empty.
      7. (in cards) having no cards in a suit.

      .

      • MarkNR  On November 26, 2013 at 11:40 AM

        Vin: From dictionary, void

        Mark: It seems to me that these definitions are missing the noun usage. In the Mariam-Webster it is listed as a separate word.

        2.Void;noun ; A large empty space.

        To me, this is simply the noun usage of 1.Void def.#4;without contents, empty.

        I believe this is what we are referring to in our conversations.
        Mark

        • 2ndxmr  On November 27, 2013 at 1:06 AM

          Mark:”Void def.#4;without contents, empty. I believe this is what we are referring to in our conversations.”

          That is my interpretation of void. Further, no specific dimension should be implied or inferred.

          “2.Void;noun ; A large empty space.” implies dimension and by an undifferentiated usage of “space”, one will tend to infer 3-dimensional space from this. This is especially what makes this definition of void very poor for our discussion.

        • MarkNR  On November 27, 2013 at 1:12 AM

          I see what you mean, now. Thx.
          Mark

        • vinaire  On November 27, 2013 at 6:16 AM

          If Void = A large empty space then void has dimensions because space has dimensions.

          🙂

        • 2ndxmr  On November 27, 2013 at 11:54 AM

          V:”If Void = A large empty space then void has dimensions because space has dimensions.”

          Which is why we can’t use that def’n of void, as we have indicated:

          Mark:”Void def.#4;without contents, empty. I believe this is what we are referring to in our conversations.”

          2x: That is my interpretation of void. Further, no specific dimension should be implied or inferred.

    • 2ndxmr  On November 25, 2013 at 12:58 PM

      V:”Things appear when we become aware. These two are the same phenomenon. it seems.”

      This isn’t quite complete. A spherical radiation pattern (EM field) can appear from a point, that point being an antenna. (Let’s not get too fussy with the word “point” here, I well understand that length is required in an antenna.)

      What I’m getting at is that an energy source can create an effect in a volume. The RF field idea I started with could be manipulated into a standing wave. That effect could well be the equivalent of the space phenomena I’m talking about.

      • vinaire  On November 25, 2013 at 1:25 PM

        Let me revise it to say.

        “Things appear to an individual when he first becomes aware of them. These two are the same phenomenon. it seems.”

        At the level prior to individuality is formed, things and awareness seems to be the same phenomenon.

        .

      • vinaire  On November 25, 2013 at 1:28 PM

        Anything that appears is accompanied by space. Space is an aspect of what appears, and so is awareness.

      • vinaire  On November 25, 2013 at 1:31 PM

        Space cannot appear by itself. If space is “expanding” then there are things appearing.

        .

        • 2ndxmr  On November 25, 2013 at 3:13 PM

          V:”Space cannot appear by itself. If space is “expanding” then there are things appearing.”

          No, that’s not a reliable datum. The space we each create (if one is able to create it) is a space only the creator may be aware of. Another person may or may not be aware of a space I create, depending on their awareness. I may or may not sense another persons expanded space. This is an ability that will take some rehabbing to get back.

        • vinaire  On November 25, 2013 at 4:35 PM

          In my opinion, it is much more accurate to say that “Motion is appearing, and that gives the impression that space and time are expanding.”

          To me, space and time are aspects of motion.

          .

  • vinaire  On November 25, 2013 at 8:48 AM

    Related to: https://vinaire.me/2013/11/23/theta-mest/#comment-14402

    .

    I had corrected the misspelling of “Questing” to “Questioning” later. I correct my posts often after writing them so the post you may get in your email may be different from what actually exists after modification on the blog.

    I try to respond to the post as it exists on my blog and not in my email.

    .

    • vinaire  On November 25, 2013 at 8:51 AM

      You are right. “Resistance” simply appears as far as I am aware of at this moment, just like anything else appears, or the relationship between various phenomena appears.

      .

  • vinaire  On November 25, 2013 at 1:09 PM

    Anything and any relationsip may simply appear from unknowable.

    The source is unknowable because it cannot be comprehended logically. It may be apprehended intuitively only.

    .

  • vinaire  On November 25, 2013 at 1:47 PM

    Related to: https://vinaire.me/2013/11/23/theta-mest/#comment-14408

    What is the basis of our understanding of the shape of the universe?

    It all comes down to awareness. That awareness could be direct if we happen to assume the viewpoint of the universe. Otherwise, it would have to be indirect, usually computed from limited number of observations per some laws observed to operate within the universe. Will those laws operate at the boundary of the universe as well? That cannot be predicted.

    .

    • vinaire  On November 25, 2013 at 1:53 PM

      To be part of a universe, there has to be a common denominator to all things existing in a universe. So any connection or disconnection is relative only. The special type of connection that I am musing about is ”Could an individuality be a subset of a bigger individuality?”

      .

      • 2ndxmr  On November 25, 2013 at 3:18 PM

        I answered that one above somewhere. Did you see it?

      • Chris Thompson  On November 25, 2013 at 4:37 PM

        Vin: ”Could an individuality be a subset of a bigger individuality?”

        Chris: Or component parts of a bigger individuality in the same way that our body contains within it complete little individual processes for example cells, etc.,.

  • vinaire  On November 25, 2013 at 5:26 PM

    In response to
    https://vinaire.me/2013/11/23/theta-mest/#comment-14411

    .

    I don’t think I was trying to be snarky. It is just my native state. 🙂

    To me, things just seem to appear. It seems that THETA and MEST appear together. I have no idea of source.

    Maybe what you are calling “void” is my unknowable.

    .

    • vinaire  On November 25, 2013 at 5:35 PM

      I am not sure if it were some “Quantum instability” like Big Bang that started this universe.

      .

      • 2ndxmr  On November 25, 2013 at 10:19 PM

        V:”I am not sure if it were some “Quantum instability” like Big Bang that started this universe.”

        Neither am I. But that is science’s best estimate. Personally,I find it a rather odd and limited idea that there could have been just this one quantum instability, ever, and that it worked out so well that we are the result.

        You’d think that in 14 billion years there would have been another hiccup, or two, another bang that would’ve blown our little poof apart.

        • vinaire  On November 25, 2013 at 10:22 PM

          Well, there is lot of experimental data out there. I am sure we can use it to come up with a more consistent theory.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 25, 2013 at 10:46 PM

          2X: You’d think that in 14 billion years there would have been another hiccup, or two, another bang that would’ve blown our little poof apart.

          CT: I see nothing wrong with this statement save the omitted orders of magnitude of space-time. In other words, I think you can be right, we just have to give it a bit more time. Mankind, as we know it, has been here such a brief moment that we’ve hardly existed at all when compared to the universe as a whole. Then take into account that you are voting for more big bangs and just adding 10’s of orders of magnitudes to the numbers . . . it is the thing that buries our mysteries so deeply that it makes the universe seem complicated — these orders of magnitude.

        • 2ndxmr  On November 25, 2013 at 11:49 PM

          CT:”In other words, I think you can be right, we just have to give it a bit more time.”

          Occurrences called virtual particles are a continuous product of the “vacuum”. They are said to come into existence as pairs and they annihilate each other leaving our universe net energy level exactly as it was before their appearance.

          These virtual particles may be a brief condensate from the Higgs field, or the vacuum, or whatever, but the point is, they are spontaneous, frequent and observable. They are every bit as much of the nature of a quantum instability as the big bang instability would have been.

          So what is the difference?

          Orders of magnitude.

          We think a gigahertz computer is fast but that speed is like a snail frozen in molasses compared to the speed of oscillation of one of these virtual particles.

          And the speed of oscillation of one of those particles is similarly like the frozen snail when compared to the basic frequency of our visible universe.

          The number of zeroes that relates the speed of a computer is 9.

          The number of zeroes that relates the speed of a virtual particle is upwards of 18.

          The number of zeroes that relates the fundamental speed of our universe is about 35.

          The singularity that our universe popped out of (if it was a singularity our universe popped out of) could have had a frequency of upwards of 70 zeroes.

          That’s a lot of zeroes and may explain why there have been no recent poofs to upset this one.

          It makes it equally hard to reason where the one that made us came from.

    • 2ndxmr  On November 25, 2013 at 10:12 PM

      V:”I don’t think I was trying to be snarky. It is just my native state. 🙂 ”

      I’m all for native states, going native and dealing with restless natives.

      When the snarks circle, I’ve been known to sharpen my lampoon. 😉

  • vinaire  On November 25, 2013 at 5:49 PM

    From https://vinaire.me/2013/11/23/theta-mest/#comment-14414
    2x: If you want to make that assumption (conclusion?) then you would have to allow for the emergence of awareness without questioning why it emerged – which I believe you have done.

    .

    That is how it seems to me. Why and how things appear in awareness is unknowable logically.

    .

  • vinaire  On November 25, 2013 at 6:59 PM

    Related to: https://vinaire.me/2013/11/23/theta-mest/#comment-14415

    .

    Inertia is a well known concept of physics.

    in·er·tia noun
    1. inertness, especially with regard to effort, motion, action, and the like; inactivity; sluggishness.

    2. Physics.
    a. the property of matter by which it retains its state of rest or its velocity along a straight line so long as it is not acted upon by an external force.
    b. an analogous property of a force: electric inertia.

    3. Medicine/Medical . lack of activity, especially as applied to a uterus during childbirth when its contractions have decreased or stopped.

    Origin:
    1705–15; < Latin: lack of skill, slothfulness. See inert, -ia

    .

    My observation is that the more inertia there is, the greater is the certainty with which a phenomenon may be located. A pure wave cannot be located at all.

    .

    • vinaire  On November 25, 2013 at 7:07 PM

      I am sure that the math for this observation can be worked out.

      .

    • vinaire  On November 25, 2013 at 7:13 PM

      Particle-wave duality simply means to me that the location of the phenomenon can only be partially determined.

      .

    • vinaire  On November 26, 2013 at 5:05 PM

      Here are some definitions from Wikipedia that may help us understand what a particle is,

      particle = a small localized object to which can be ascribed several physical or chemical properties such as volume or mass.

      elementary particle = a particle unknown to have substructure, thus unknown to be composed of other particles.

      quantum = the minimum amount of any physical entity involved in an interaction = the magnitude can take on only certain discrete values

      quantization = the process of transition from a classical understanding of physical phenomena to a newer understanding known as “quantum mechanics”

      force carrier particles = bundles of energy (quanta) of a particular kind of field.

      virtual particle = a transient fluctuation that exhibits many of the characteristics of an ordinary particle, but that exists for a limited time

      .

      • vinaire  On November 26, 2013 at 5:17 PM

        Here is an example of a particle.

        Photon = elementary particle = a quantum = force carrier of EMR = virtual particle = boson

        It seems that the properties of “localization” and “quantum” shall characterize a particle.

        The photon has zero rest mass; this allows long distance interactions. This means that if one is traveling alongside of a photon with the same speed (relative velocity = 0), then a photon shall be perceived to have no mass. This may mean that photon may appear not to be localized or quantized.

        Photons localization and quantization may be seen at relative speeds only. Higher is the relative speed, the more localized and quantized a photon might appear.

        .

        • 2ndxmr  On November 27, 2013 at 12:14 PM

          V:”This may mean that photon may appear not to be localized or quantized.”

          Not quantized?

        • vinaire  On November 27, 2013 at 8:40 PM

          Zero rest mass = zero quantization when at rest (in my opinion)

          .

    • 2ndxmr  On November 27, 2013 at 1:52 AM

      V:”A pure wave cannot be located at all.”

      That provokes a thought, or two:

      If you had a wave tank and your medium was highly viscous so that the propagation velocity was low compared to your ability to take a measurement, then you might say “I can predict with certainty where the wave will be at any instant in time after I supply the initial impulse.”

      So, my thought is, if your ability to take a measurement was such that a wave propagating through space looked to you like a wave propagating through molasses looks to me, would you still say that “A pure wave cannot be located at all” or would you say that since you could measure the location of the wave in space that it, therefore, could not have been a pure wave? Does that make space “dirty”?

      • Chris Thompson  On November 27, 2013 at 7:24 AM

        Which brings up the fact that there is no void in this universe because it is utterly permeated with at least these waves. Including both interstellar and intergalactic space. Which brings up my question whether all space contains the same amount of space? Does a cubic meter of “empty” intergalactic space contain the same amount of space as a cubic meter of iron, etc.,? I come back around the question of how can something so very light and airy as a whisper of light information make across the billions of light years of space and arrive in a cipherable form? Does the light from a star arrive or does the disturbance of space arrive? What is touching the cones of my eyes?

        • 2ndxmr  On November 27, 2013 at 12:07 PM

          CT:”Which brings up the fact that there is no void in this universe because it is utterly permeated with at least these waves.”

          There is no void in our physical universe, but I maintain that it must be bounded. I’ve made this argument before.

          What you are saying about space changing depending on the proximal medium is correct. That is why there is space-time curvature around massive bodies.

          The curl of this space-time curvature may even resemble the curl of magnetic flux lines apparent with a magnet and iron filings. In the case of space the phenomena is quite weak and still difficult for us to measure even around a body the size of Earth. That is why, for all intents and purposes, we don’t have to take it into account when transitioning mediums such as vacuum and air and then into a modest amount of steel (like a car).

          The mathematics that describe this phenomena even uses an operator called curl which allows the calculation of this form of curvature.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 27, 2013 at 2:12 PM

          2X: That is why there is space-time curvature around massive bodies.

          CT: This is fascinating. I wrestle with these concepts and marvel at how they flip, for example, “That is why there are massive bodies within space-time curvature.” Is there a valid reason not to state this in this way?

        • 2ndxmr  On November 27, 2013 at 2:46 PM

          C:”“That is why there are massive bodies within space-time curvature.” Is there a valid reason not to state this in this way?”

          A corollary is not always true: You could say there is a flame around every burning match but not that there is a burning match in every flame.

          While one might be able to attract a massive body into a space-time curvature – if you could create one – in a naturally occurring sense it is the body that will curve space.

          Could the worm-hole exist without the black-hole? If space can be created and manipulated the way I think it can, then yes. I has been my expectation for some time that it is a space-vortex structure that is responsible for the attractive force of gravity.

          The cumulative force vector in a vortex is on a line along the axis of the vortex.

          The actual force vectors would be rotational and towards the “bottom” of the vortex. All the forces would manifest in the “skin” of the vortex with the apparent resultant vector going along the axis.

          Because the cumulative force is along the axis, even a strong vortex is hardly felt a short distance from the event horizon of the vortex. That basically is because the force vector is a right angles to the surface outside of the event horizon of the vortex. I expect that is why the force of gravity is so much weaker than the electric force and the strong and weak nuclear forces.

          May the forces be unified by a nabla dot cross. 🙂 (Don’t try to make sense of that or you might just make a void in your space. 😉 )

        • Chris Thompson  On November 27, 2013 at 4:20 PM

          2x: While one might be able to attract a massive body into a space-time curvature – if you could create one – in a naturally occurring sense it is the body that will curve space.

          Ct: Of course, yes, the corollary is not always true. However in this case, is original statement that you wrote true, testabley true or an assumption? Though we measure and calculate gravitational forces and because they are stronger around large bodies are the bodies creating the forces or are the forces a quality of space-time gathering to acrete bodies?

          Is the original statement true or is it an assumption? I do not know the answer nor am I trying to be right, I am trying to locate an exploitable inconsistency in this line of thought.

        • 2ndxmr  On November 27, 2013 at 5:48 PM

          C:”… are the bodies creating the forces or are the forces a quality of space-time gathering to acrete bodies? ”

          It is testably true that a gravitational line of effect is associated with a mass-displaying unit.

          I believe that is due to the space vortex that is a dimension of each condensed particle. That line is a vector and to the degree that vector aligns with 3-space the particle will demonstrate mass.

          Now the question is, if the open end of the vortex has an alignment with 3-space that allows the force vector of the vortex to interact with 3-space, where (to what) does the “bottom” of the vortex align?

          That alignment would be to a common dimension point such that in a massive body, such as Earth, the sense of gravity is that it points to the center of mass.

          This is, again, where the concept of the point dimension makes for a solution to the question.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 27, 2013 at 5:54 PM

          2x: It is testably true that a gravitational line of effect is associated with a mass-displaying unit.

          Ct: Yes, I can follow that. But that is the tautology of which I speak unless I am not getting your point.

        • 2ndxmr  On November 27, 2013 at 5:59 PM

          Ct: Yes, I can follow that. But that is the tautology of which I speak unless I am not getting your point.”

          Perhaps I’m not answering the right question. There is a satellite that has confirmed the space-time curvature around Earth.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 27, 2013 at 6:15 PM

          2x: Perhaps I’m not answering the right question. There is a satellite that has confirmed the space-time curvature around Earth.

          Ct: No, you are. Possibly quantum gravity is equivalent to quantum space-time and cannot truly be separated out.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 27, 2013 at 6:01 PM

          2x: This is, again, where the concept of the point dimension makes for a solution to the question.

          Ct: I did not follow this so well. Space-time seems to both gather and then through invisible intergalactic forces called dark matter push itself apart. Occam’s Razor seems to favor qualities of space-time being responsible for both rather than massive objects, or possibly these two phenomena cannot be looked at separately . . . I am not sad that I cannot follow this but I am very curious.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 27, 2013 at 4:23 PM

          2x:I has been my expectation for some time that it is a space-vortex structure that is responsible for the attractive force of gravity.

          Ct: I read this again and seems you also suspect qualities of space-time are primary to the secondary occurrences of the condensate of matter?

        • MarkNR  On November 27, 2013 at 6:06 PM

          Gravity and inertia:
          When a body is not being accelerated in any manner by any force or another object, it is at rest in its own space. This is called weightlessness or free fall. Sit out in space with no thrusters and this is the natural inertial state.
          How much acceleration does it take to make them realize their weight on earth? 1-G acceleration. If you contain 150lbs. of mass, how heavy do you feel when standing on earth? 150 lbs.
          One property of space is that it is continually expanding, nonstop, eternally.
          One of the properties of mass is that it is continually collecting space.
          Space is kinetic.
          Space is not mass. As it is being collected or ‘falls’ toward mass, it does not do so at a velocity. It moves at an intended pressure or at a somewhat static acceleration. When one stands on a sidewalk, one is being accelerated through space at 1-G acceleration. If you jump off a building, You are in a natural state of rest, for a few seconds, then you go into a state of eternal rest in a cemetery. Sorry about that line, I just couldn’t resist.
          Standing on a surface, one is in a balance between being accelerated through space and space that is being collected by the mass one is standing on. Going up an elevator alters that balance, as does falling off a curb, for a short time anyway.
          That objects ‘curve’ space is not the most accurate description of what’s going on. If one is traveling relative to another object, yet not accelerating, one is at rest in one’s own space. As you draw near the object, it is collecting the space you are in. As you ‘fall’ you remain at rest in your own space until you strike the object, at which time you accelerate very rapidly through your space as it is collected by the mass. Instant headache.
          This resolves the accelerating expansion of this universe. As massive objects move farther from each other, there is more space between them which is expanding at a constant rate, More given space relative to a given mass.
          This a workable theory which resolves some inconsistencies.
          Comments?
          Mark

        • Chris Thompson  On November 27, 2013 at 6:34 PM

          MarkNR: This a workable theory which resolves some inconsistencies. Comments?

          Chris: I’m not going to pick on the inconsistencies in the language you used as I am more interested in the notion of “collecting space.” In short, this is what I see happening from my experience of holding my head aerodynamically steady as I try to keep the river of space that I swim through from crushing me against the earth as it rushes toward the center of the planet. Sometimes (daily) I get tired of the effort and simply let that space pin me to my mattress as I take a snooze. I do not understand what I am observing here.

          I doubly do not understand how or why the spinning core of the earth creates a magnetic field about us and whether that is a quality of space-time or a secondary quality of the mass mechanics of the earth.

          I am being careful to not-know what I do not know about this.

        • MarkNR  On November 27, 2013 at 7:29 PM

          Chris, you are really special, and I don’t mean that in that little short school bus sort of way.
          Mark

        • Chris Thompson  On November 27, 2013 at 7:53 PM

          LOL! I will show my wife and say, “See? I tol’ you!”

        • 2ndxmr  On November 27, 2013 at 5:52 PM

          Ct: I read this again and seems you also suspect qualities of space-time are primary to the secondary occurrences of the condensate of matter?”

          Yes. And since the primary constants of the cosmos relate in terms of space and time – and since the basic time unit itself is easily described by the rate of expansion of space – all things can be brought back to a function of space.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 27, 2013 at 6:07 PM

          2x: all things can be brought back to a function of space.

          Ct: I wonder if there is a quality of space-time such as “diminishing density” whereby space-time was quite dense but through expansion became less dense? And the other question tagged onto this one is what to think of dark matter, whether existing since the initial cycling or somehow coming into existence ongoing? And how would this affect a concept such as space density? To be clear, I am looking at the possibility that vacuum of intergalactic space would register, however thin, on such a scale as “space density.”

        • 2ndxmr  On November 27, 2013 at 6:35 PM

          Ct: I wonder if there is a quality of space-time such as “diminishing density”

          I wouldn’t be surprised if one could not write a variant of Maxwell’s equations to cover this. They may already. You’re pretty much on the mark with this.

        • vinaire  On November 27, 2013 at 8:28 PM

          2x: “What you are saying about space changing depending on the proximal medium is correct. That is why there is space-time curvature around massive bodies.”

          .

          proximal medium = ???

          .

        • 2ndxmr  On November 27, 2013 at 10:43 PM

          V:”proximal medium = ???”

          The medium (like a planetary body) in proximity to the phenomena (space-time curvature).

        • 2ndxmr  On November 28, 2013 at 2:58 AM

          Ct: “No, you are. Possibly quantum gravity is equivalent to quantum space-time and cannot truly be separated out.”

          The current theory of quantum loop gravity fits pretty well with my idea of gravity being due to a vortex of space.

          I would interpret the gravity loop as being the event horizon of the vortex.

          What you are thinking about quantum gravity and quantum space-time being inseparable is the same as what I am thinking.

          The only difference is that I am saying that this gravity well or vortex is pre-existing in the fabric of space because it was created; formed. It becomes noticeable to us when it is oriented to align with some particular dimension(s) like 3-space, or maybe when it aligns with the time dimension.

          Time, in my interpretation, is set by a periodic pattern or shape of one or more fundamental space geometries. To make explaining this simpler, consider the relevant geometry to be a spherical space. (I don’t expect it is this geometry, but this is an easy one for explanation.)

          If the fundamental geometry for the time dimension was a spherical space then the basic time unit would be the time it took this spherical space to go through a cycle from zero diameter to a maximum diameter and back to a zero diameter. That cycle establishes a period albeit a poor one for mathematical modeling.

          The essence of the idea of this space “clock” is that while the sphere is non-zero you have real time and the moment it shrinks back to zero a time unit is complete and a new one begins. Time is thus governed by the expansion-contraction cycle of this dimension.

          Now we can look at how gravity might affect space-time.

          Let’s start off by saying that every point in space has one of these little time-sphere dimensions beating away. Like a heart, the little time dimension swells and then shrinks, swells and shrinks.

          Now add in the gravity-vortex dimension.

          Let’s say that this dimension has an effect on the time dimension in a ratio of 1000 to 1. This would mean that the expansion of the time-sphere would be affected by 0.1% (1 part in 1000) for every unit increase of the gravity-vortex.

          So, if you had 100 gravity-vortex units collected together the time sphere would be affected by 10%. This would mean that the time sphere only expanded to 90% of normal size but – if the sphere always filled up to the same size before shrinking – it could mean that it took longer to fill it.

          To an outside viewer who was only experiencing a 1 to 1 ratio of gravity-vortexes to time-spheres, time might appear to be going faster in the zone of increased gravity if the time-sphere was getting smaller in diameter, or time might appear to go slower if the rate of expansion of the sphere was reduced.

          Taking it further, if you had a full 1000 units of gravity-vortices then the apparent time in the intense gravity zone might appear to be 1000 times as fast or 1000 times slower depending on how the spherical time-space unit was affected.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 29, 2013 at 9:30 PM

          Hey 2x, I need time to digest your meaty post and I have been taking it but not studying your post – anyway wanted to mention it as you honor me by taking my questions seriously and bothering to post such a meaningful response. The parts addressing time dilation, etc., are appreciated.

        • 2ndxmr  On November 29, 2013 at 11:25 PM

          CT:”…you honor me by taking my questions seriously…”

          I appreciate you trying to understand the concepts and taking time to formulate meaningful questions. Critical dialogue can result in very exciting new thoughts.

      • vinaire  On November 27, 2013 at 8:20 PM

        https://vinaire.me/2013/11/23/theta-mest/#comment-14566

        .

        What you are saying is that you can locate the wavefront. I am talking about wave. The wave does not have a location. It is throughout.

        .

        • 2ndxmr  On November 27, 2013 at 10:49 PM

          V:”The wave does not have a location. It is throughout.”

          “Throughout” may be a little too loosely used here. The wave may occupy a volume as opposed to a 2-dim plane but it still has relatively well defined boundaries. Do we need to worry about the asymptote that goes to zero at infinity if it is at 99.9999% of zero after 2 units of measure?

        • vinaire  On November 28, 2013 at 5:44 AM

          When I see light propagating in all directions from a point source, I see it occupying the whole space rather than having a location in space.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 28, 2013 at 9:23 AM

          Looking outward at the night sky from inside my eyeballs, I cannot understand how light from every angle traveling many light years arrives at my head and can be sorted out into the crisp images that I perceive rather that interfering with each other and arriving as a fuzzy diffused sky awash in light without distinguishable images. The more I consider this, the more inconsistent it seems, and yet they they are, crisp images of every shape and separate color. This must have already been well worked over and well worked out before I have finally bothered to notice and comment on it. Hasn’t it?

        • 2ndxmr  On November 28, 2013 at 11:56 AM

          V:”When I see light propagating in all directions from a point source, I see it occupying the whole space rather than having a location in space.”

          A single quantum of light, a single photon, will not make a wavefront that would occupy the whole space. It will have a well defined propagation path. The photon’s approximate position at any point in time could be calculated with significant accuracy. Determining an absolute position would, of course, alter the photon or stop it. But the photon would not appear as a wide wavefront in the same way that a wavefront is generated from a pebble thrown into water.

        • 2ndxmr  On November 28, 2013 at 12:01 PM

          CT:”This must have already been well worked over and well worked out before I have finally bothered to notice and comment on it. Hasn’t it?”

          Big G finished the details just last Sunday. 😉

          Yes, I’d definitely agree with you on that. The dice weren’t rolled.

  • MarkNR  On November 26, 2013 at 2:09 PM

    To Vinaire, 2ndxmr and others.
    The value of your concept of mindfulness has recently increased greatly for me. I have realized an expanded meaning and increased detail of application of it’s meaning.
    In my recent conversations, I have attempted to describe the idea of “completely separate universes”. This has proved difficult, as people have ‘always’ lived and operated in the one common space where EVERYTHING is connected to everything else is some manner. If it exists, then some form of energy, dimension, wave, direction or quantum principal connects it to this space. I can understand how this stuck concept can be difficult to ignore completely. How can one describe an absence of something that has always been an integral part of them all their lives. I can explain the idea of being deaf to a hearing person, but how does one explain the concept of never having heard a sound and not having the concept of sound to a hearing person. You can’t, it seems, un-know something once one knows it.
    I can get across the the idea of no space between spaces, but how do I get across the idea of no BETWEEN.
    How can one imagine a 2 dimensional plane without the concept of an above or below existing around the plane, which would immediately make the image 3 dimensional. How can one describe one dimensional space when the very word space instantly invokes the concept of 3 dimensional quantity.
    That strikes at the very heart of mindfulness, confront, TR-0, being completely in present time. Accepting (not the same as agreeing) precisely and accurately what comes to you without so called filters, fixed opinions, or even comparing it to any previous knowledge. One always, as Hubbard stated, compares data to data of comparable magnitude, but that is secondary. The primary instant is to see data exactly as it is in present time. The comparing of data comes an instant later but is done obsessively.

    Which brought me to a great revelation.
    1. Mindfulness is a GRADIENT. How much and how deeply does one evaluate data, ideas, concepts and opinions as they are received. How blank can one make one’s self when receiving communication. How much does one evaluate, whether conscious or sub-conscious. How does it differ when one compares input to knowledge, instantly, without thought, to comparing input reactively without the ABILITY to think consciously about. This may be a difficult distinction to make but, I believe, a VERY IMPORTANT DISTINCTION. Contemplating data, ideas, concepts, over time I believe is a completely different process. Here lies the difference between KNOWING and THINKING.
    2. Mindfulness is not just an attitude or intention, but an ABILITY that can be increased with knowledge, experience and practice. As one intends to receive knowledge purely and accurately, and with the experience of receiving data, then later observing the wisdom of that data or lack of, then forming new data in a mindful way, one can become better at receiving data purely in present time. As one commits errors in evaluating data, and as one compares new data to erroneous old data, and realizes these errors, one can become wiser about when and how far to go in evaluating data. The ability to not evaluate data, to see it in its purity becomes easier.

    Thank you Vin, for your assistance in my journey toward wisdom. I hope I have added at least some to your vast pool of knowledge.
    Mark

    • Chris Thompson  On November 26, 2013 at 8:48 PM

      Good post.

    • 2ndxmr  On November 27, 2013 at 1:36 AM

      Mark:”How can one imagine a 2 dimensional plane without the concept of an above or below existing around the plane, which would immediately make the image 3 dimensional.”

      It may be that you need to discriminate between quantity and quality.

      The typical concept that comes from the word dimension is a quality (like up, down or sideways) which tends to carry a measure of quantity (“5 feet up to my shoulder”).

      If you wanted a single dimensional world where the only dimension was “up” then you would have a world that consists of a line.

      On the other hand, if your concept of dimension is simply quality, and you define it as such, a one dimensional world where the quality is color is understandable. Now there is no need for an up, down or sideways, there is only instantaneous color. (We could get pedantic here and talk of color being based on quantifiable dimensions of 3 primaries, but we can equally consider the homogenous combination.)

      So if your one dimensional world only had color, or only had sound, or only had the equivalent of tactile, then it is pretty easy to create the mental image of that. That mental image may even be considered to have no dimension yet still be a mockup of dimension.

    • vinaire  On November 27, 2013 at 8:37 AM

      Good show, Mark. Now communicate this to Elizabeth. I am sure she understands this already.

      .

      • 2ndxmr  On November 27, 2013 at 12:11 PM

        V”:…Now communicate this to Elizabeth….”

        Snark, snark. 😉

      • vinaire  On November 27, 2013 at 4:22 PM

        I apologize for my sense of humor for getting in the way of good manners. Elizabeth and I have apparent differences in the methods to reach enlightenment. Those differences need to be aired and resolved.

        I am on to it.

        .

        • 2ndxmr  On November 27, 2013 at 5:55 PM

          I’m sure Atilla will only grudgingly spare your tongue from the underside of his saddle.

          One should always be prepared to die horribly at the dis-humored hands of Attilla. 🙂

        • Chris Thompson  On November 27, 2013 at 6:08 PM

          Horribly!

        • vinaire  On November 27, 2013 at 8:54 PM

          Oscar And Visitor

        • 2ndxmr  On November 27, 2013 at 10:54 PM

          Well at least this little washed-up character has your same pleasant mocha tan. 🙂

          He does look like he’d be the product of an Attilla upbraiding.

  • vinaire  On November 29, 2013 at 6:02 PM

    This is in response to Mark, “Sorry to put forth disagreement, Vin…”
    https://vinaire.me/2013/11/23/theta-mest/#comment-14743

    .

    I believe that absolutes are attainable. What is permanent gain as compared to a release? How does one know if an older confusion is coming back in play or if it is that confusion appearing again for the first time? Can one eliminate confusions forever, or is that even desirable?

    Actually it doesn’t matter. One simply handles whatever inconsistency appears, whenever it appears. With each occurrence and its resolution one gains experience that makes it easier to handle the next occurrence. All one needs is the discipline of mindfulness. Then one simply goes about the business of life.

    When confronted with inconsistency one simply looks at it more and more closely until it resolves. Let the data come into view. One doesn’t have to search or dig into “one’s past track”. As one is being mindful, the data about the inconsistency unstacks and the resolution presents itself with reason and all. Since I have started to practice mindfulness my gains have been enormous. There is simply no effort and the gains keep coming in.

    Once again, here are the 12 aspects of mindfulness:

    1. Observe without expecting anything, or attempting to get an answer.
    2. Observe things as they really are, not as they seem to be.
    3. If something is missing do not imagine something else in its place.
    4. If something does not make sense then do not explain it away.
    5. Use physical senses as well as mental sense to observe.
    6. Let the mind un-stack itself.
    7. Experience fully what is there.
    8. Do not suppress anything.
    9. Associate data freely.
    10. Do not get hung up on name and form.
    11. Contemplate thoughtfully.
    12. Let it all be effortless.

    .

  • vinaire  On November 29, 2013 at 6:27 PM

    This is 2x’s response to Mark, which I think is a good one, “I agree with you that it is necessary to access “the fruit at the top” but the reach of the ladder-of-looking should not be diminished…”

    https://vinaire.me/2013/11/23/theta-mest/#comment-14743

    .

    It is best to “pick the fruits” when they are ripe for picking. At that point they also hang low because they are heavier.

    This method handles one’s unwanted conditions beautifully.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On November 29, 2013 at 7:39 PM

      And like a silo that empties through a hopper in the bottom, the top eventually lowers itself — fruit to be picked without a ladder.

    • MarkNR  On November 30, 2013 at 2:50 AM

      Vin, Chris:
      I have added your principals and philosophies to my methods with great success. Your article on study resolved some uncertainties and validated some things that I ‘kinda’ knew.
      I reviewed several early incidents from a mindful point of view and found some inconsistencies which led me to a more thorough resolution. This was especially helpful in the games universes era where producing confusions was a big part of many games.
      Have I added anything of value to your understanding?
      Mark

      • Chris Thompson  On November 30, 2013 at 11:23 AM

        I don’t know much Mark, I am just mucking around and calling it exploring! hahaha But you are very welcome to hang out and muck around with us!

        Something I am working on is whether I will ever be able to describe the processes going on around or within myself in a better or deeper way than metaphor.

  • vinaire  On November 30, 2013 at 6:13 AM

    Let me remind the participants on this blog of the following policy.

    Discussions and what needs to be avoided

    No “self” should be allowed to enter the discussions… no blaming others… or defending oneself. Please keep to the subject in an objective manner.

    Thank you.

    .

  • vinaire  On November 30, 2013 at 7:15 AM

    Currently, I am looking at the terms THETAN and INDIVIDUALITY as part of L10 process. It seems that many of these terms have to be understood fully to get the most out of L10.

    I shall like to know the various understandings that exist about these terms. Your thoughts are welcome.

    .

  • vinaire  On November 30, 2013 at 7:51 AM

    Here is a nice course for those who are interested in the details of Quantum Mechanics.

    http://online.stanford.edu/course/qmse01-quantum-mechanics-scientists-and-engineers

    However, my interest at the moment is to use Quantum Mechanics to understand the concepts of THETAN and INDIVIDUALITY better. I want to write my next post on this topic. I plan to introduce the Vector Model for SELF there.

    Under this topic all past understandings of soul, spirit, life force, elan vital, ghost. etc. may be discussed. It is quite a large topic indeed.

    .

    • 2ndxmr  On November 30, 2013 at 4:35 PM

      V:”…all past understandings of soul, spirit, life force, elan vital, ghost. etc. may be discussed.”

      I sense a blog with a spooky effect at a distance. 😉

      • vinaire  On November 30, 2013 at 6:08 PM

        LOL! We are getting into really sppoky territory here.

        .

      • vinaire  On November 30, 2013 at 6:08 PM

        One is in danger of as-ising oneself!

        .

  • vinaire  On November 30, 2013 at 9:46 AM

    Attention on SELF, either on oneself, or on the self of others, means to me that something on the subject of THETAN and INDIVIDUALITY needs to be resolved.

    L10 requires that these be resolved. So I shall be using the following procedure to understand these concepts.

    Mindful Subject Clearing

    .

  • MarkNR  On November 30, 2013 at 8:55 PM

    Vinaire:
    What I asked was:
    Are you skilled with a meter? It can be a useful tool. It does what it does, no more, no less.
    As you have gathered from my various comments, it is my method to use all methods to find truth, clarity and ability. I will not avoid any tool which produces positive results in my journey. Also, in my comments, you will notice that I am in it for the long haul. The time it takes to gain the skill to understand what a meter can and cannot do is but a blink of an eye. There were several times when I had found, what I thought, may have been the completion to a particular search, but the meter indicated to me that there may be more. I continued searching, found more and reached a greater understanding of the principal I was examining.
    To rely overly on a single tool would be, of course, foolish. To avoid anything valuable, to me, could be an equal error. Anything I find myself avoiding, I attack with vigor. Many of my greatest rewards have been gained in this manor. I no longer fear death, since I have gone over the attachments to bodies and the loss of them, especially the comm lines established during a life and the loss of them.. Implants were involved, but were not the basis for the related obsessions. I could not have resolved this area without a meter. I could not have resolved this area had I not known when the meter had lost it’s usefulness.
    I will leave no stone unturned and no skill or knowledge unused in my quest.
    These discussions on physics are very useful to me since I believe that to be fully free from the traps of life, one must master every aspect of it. To fully understand the physical universe, I must dig down to the basic intentions of it’s construct.
    Sorry to ramble,
    Mark

    • 2ndxmr  On December 1, 2013 at 12:37 AM

      @Mark
      I agree with what you see as the strengths and limitations of using an e-meter.

      I’ve been toying with the idea of getting one of the computer based meters. The big plus of those meters is the graphic charting of the measured resistance. This could be very helpful in a number of ways, but especially since it will give you a record of any decent sized read.

      My only trepidation is when reads cease to be decent sized. My needle is quite free but I expect one can run into things that will pack it up. At that point the extra visibility that can be had in an analogue needle can be very helpful. I ran into a couple examples of tight needles when I was in training at Flag and even passed my dating drill with a needle that scarcely moved. Picking up on meter motions that were that tiny would not be possible on the computer meter. Knowing that a needle can get that tight, even in a pc that is still breathing, is a sobering thought.

  • vinaire  On November 30, 2013 at 10:31 PM

    Here is my old e-meter, my children dug up from the closet today:

    emeter

    .

    • MarkNR  On November 30, 2013 at 11:06 PM

      Vin: Your meter.
      Just like my Dad’s.
      Mark

    • Chris Thompson  On December 1, 2013 at 12:18 AM

      When did they arrive with relation to your leaving the SO? How much a taste of Scn have they had?

      • vinaire  On December 1, 2013 at 8:13 AM

        (1) I ran into Dianetics and Scientology in 1969.
        (2) I joined Sea Org in 1971
        (3) I arrived on Flagship Apollo in 1972.
        (4) Most of the Apollo crew came to Fort Harrison in 1975-76 when Apollo was de-commisioned.
        (5) I was offloaded from Sea Org as “unfit” in 1983.

        .

    • marildi  On December 1, 2013 at 2:25 AM

      The Mark V was my first meter too. In the mission in 1978, I used it for M-1 co-audit and the NED Auditor Course, which at first was done before the Grades.

  • marildi  On December 1, 2013 at 2:18 AM

    2ndxmr: “By looking at the postulate strictly as an energy condensation and viewing that energy in a way that you understand it, or simply duplicate it, or whatever, it disappears. Along with the charge. Sometimes there is a picture stream, sometimes an additional cog that will be ‘word-able’, sometimes not word-able, but always the feeling of certainty that one more bit of plaque has been chipped off. Sometimes you are left just blown-out and wordless.”

    Thanks for saying that! In my auditing, I sometimes would not state a postulate but would F/N, be VGI’s and have “the feeling of certainty” that I was done with the process. After one of those times, in the session that followed, the C/S had the auditor show me a reference that had to do with postulates being the milestones of case gain (something to that effect). And of course I got the message that I was not doing it right and apparently not getting case gain! That particular C/S must have been rotely applying “F/N, cog, VGIs” because no other C/S seemed to have a problem with it (this wasn’t NED, btw). Anyhow, I managed to push it away until you just now reminded me of it. Thanks for the right indication! 🙂

  • vinaire  On December 1, 2013 at 7:30 AM

    Mark, I used the E-meter as a Word Clearer and Admin Cramming Officer. I found its use to be limited. I could get deeper and considerably more wins from Method 7, 9 and 6 word clearing than Method 4. I was inherently using mindfulness and applying the following (supposedly squirrel) procedure.

    TRAINING: Looking at Knowledge

    I am quite skilled at using the e-meter, but I am also quite skilled at “check out”. I found that I could locate MUs with “check outs” (which I used in conjunction with M7, M9 and M6) that M4 failed to locate. Meter reacts to inconsistencies that a person is vaguely aware of. It does not react to all misunderstoods. Similarly, in auditing, the meter reacts to inconsistencies that a person is vaguely aware of. It does not react to all case factors that need to be straightened out. If you just go by the e-meter you will miss a lot. Hubbard talked out using other pc indicators too, and that is what I did when using “check outs.” That is where mindfulness came in.

    Hubbard wanted to develop a technology, where a person does not have to be an expert in a subject to handle MUs of another in that subject. The technology of “check out” does require that a person be knowledgeable. That is why this technology did not get emphasized.

    But the subject of inconsistencies is an interesting one. The indicator of MU is a vague sense of inconsistency. If that sense of inconsistency is not there then that trail of MU is lost. M6 word clearing sort of addressed this limitation by getting the person to look at and define key concepts. The “check outs” also addressed this limitation but it required a knowledgeable person. Only if one could develop a system that helped bring inconsistencies into awareness without requiring one to be an expert.

    The answer was already there in the logics. It was comparison of two data to determine consistency or inconsistency. An explicit method to discover inconsistencies was then added to come up with TRAINING: Looking at Knowledge.

    The limitation of meter is that it only acts on a vague sense of inconsistency, and if that sense is not there then it would not react.

    .

    • vinaire  On December 1, 2013 at 7:37 AM

      The Church is trying to increase the sensitivity of the E-meter, but that would not solve the problem of a person not being aware of inconsistencies in the first place.

      • Chris Thompson  On December 1, 2013 at 2:21 PM

        Like many types of training in many different technologies, It can take a lot of practice to become proficient to know what to look for when using mindfulness, meditation or other types of auditing.

        • vinaire  On December 1, 2013 at 2:24 PM

          I think that the following procedure will take care of that, but we may have to tweak it a bit more.

          Mindful Subject Clearing

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On December 1, 2013 at 3:33 PM

          Still I have thousands of hours of study under my belt to become the master you see before you today! haha (No really, it takes a long time to learn words.)

    • vinaire  On December 1, 2013 at 7:43 AM

      Besides, when a person knows the technology of inconsistency, he can always locate an inconsistency without dependency on an e-meter.

      Mindfulness is an important element of the technology of detecting inconsistencies. When mindfulness is developed, one needn’t be dependent on the e-meter.

      This is where KHTK is going. It will make a grass-roots movement possible, where Scientology has unfortunately failed.

      .

    • vinaire  On December 1, 2013 at 7:49 AM

      The reasons for failure of Scientology lie in

      (1) Its greed for money and security
      (2) Its greed for individual power and status, and
      (3) Its fear of criticism.

      .

      • Chris Thompson  On December 1, 2013 at 2:24 PM

        In other words, selfishness and exploitation beginning with the Founder, L. Ron Hubbard, are the reasons for its failure as a mental health success.

  • MarkNR  On December 8, 2013 at 2:17 AM

    What…….No comments on Continuous Nuclear Fusion. The one part that I’m not sure of is the ignition system. It seemed simple at the time, but the simple arc may have been an RF arc at a particular freq.
    Mark

    • 2ndxmr  On December 8, 2013 at 11:03 AM

      Your description looked pretty good. You are probably right about the ignition arc being RF.

      I imagine the electricity they pulled out came from the electrons of the plasma.

  • 2ndxmr  On December 9, 2013 at 3:57 PM

    @MarkNR

    Mark:” At the reaction point, the field was modified with combinations of resonant frequencies, harmonics of the vibrations of the subatomic particle vibrations. When the temperature and compression and frequencies were correct, Fuel was injected and ignited with a simple arc. The field was such a shape that most of the heat was pulled forward into a heat exchange chamber.”

    I can’t tell from your description here whether the fuel was pre-conditioned (heated by frequencies) prior to injecting it or you just mis-worded it a bit. I would expect the compression and heating to near ignition temperature to all be done in the magnetic torus.

    Was the heat exchange chamber a section of the torus?

    Was the heat transferred by kinetic transfer? If so, do you recall the transfer material or medium. Back in the ’60s they were playing around with the idea of a liquid lithium heat absorber but I never got the idea back then that they were trying for kinetic transfer. The fusion products would probably be too energetic to be used for direct kinetic transfer in anything Earth physicists have dreamed up so far.

    Was there any EM in the IR range or was the EM all just gamma? Was the gamma just absorbed in shielding or was its energy also transferred by some means into a heat product?

    Was a section of the torus used to bleed off the reaction products to keep from contaminating the fresh reactants?

    • MarkNR  On December 9, 2013 at 10:20 PM

      Hello 2nd, good to speak to you again. Sorry my description wasn’t to precise. I was more of a technician at the time. I had to go in and replace the injector nozzle and ignitor tips from time to time. The chamber was large enough to crawl through a port and work comfortably. The ignitor tips were retractable but would deteriorate on the surface anyway after a time. The injector nozzle had to remain fairly close to the ‘flame’ and would corrode after a while. The chamber was thoroughly washed before service but time was still limited due to residual radiation. The fuel was heated and compressed to plasma prior to final injection in the primary section of the mag field. It was there that the excess electrons were tapped off. There was additional electricity that was drained from the main chamber also. As the protons broke apart and re-formed, there was a soup of more primary particles released.
      The amount of fuel was very tiny, along the lines of grams per hour, and created a small but very hot ‘flame at the reaction point. The heat was simply collected from the chamber walls and the heat transfer was basically through em radiation. IR, light. X and gamma rays. The waste gas was vacuumed off but was a very tiny amount. The chamber was very heavy to absorb the radiation and was cooled by liquid metal, such as mercury and some heating was direct to the coolant via short wavelength radiation. There was additional shielding on the outside surface of the reactor. It took many hours to cool down for service during shutdown to prevent damage. The inside of the chamber had to be scrubbed and resurfaced from time to time.
      The reaction was self sustaining since the plasma, while being compressed with a resonating field would come in contact with the reaction at extremely high temps and would, itself fuse. The field was configured in such a way that the reaction, or ‘flame’ was drawn into the chamber away from the injector and magnets. Everything had to be re-aligned after a service but was done in the control booth.
      Operating the reactor was as much an art as a science. As the reaction was throttled up and down, and as interior temps varied, compression and frequency had to be adjusted. Much adjustment was automatic, but further adjustment was done by the operator as the sound and ‘feel’ of the reaction changed. Explosion was impossible since the fuel simply would not react until it reached the frequency portion of the field.
      Hope this answers some of your questions. Like I said, I don’t have all the details, but this is a good start.
      PS, The designers didn’t have all the answers either.
      Mark

      • 2ndxmr  On December 10, 2013 at 1:14 AM

        @Mark
        Thanks for the extra data. Your description certainly matches the requirements for operation that have been considered in our time and also the expected maintenance points that would be expected but have never been discussed in literature, to my knowledge.

        When I was younger I had a very keen interest in this very area and studied as much info as I could find, within the limits of my math and physics knowledge. I have previously wondered why none of the earlier Earth attempts had not tried to form an electron-stripped plasma prior to injecting it into the torus, considering the extra difficulties forming the soup plasma engendered within the torus.

        I was surprised by your comment of electrons being a reaction product of the fusion process, considering the primary components of your light baryon nuclei are going to be up and down quarks. A positron might have been the electron-equivalent product. Perhaps I am wrong in expecting deuterium and tritium as the primary reactants. Do you think they used heavier nuclei?

        • MarkNR  On December 10, 2013 at 6:11 PM

          Thanks Chris, 2nd.
          The fuel was heated and compressed as it went through from the inlet of the mag field to the reaction point. Most of the fuel was hydrogen (just protons as a plasma) but I don’t recall if it was doped with other elements to enhance the reaction. To much neutron radiation is hard on the equipment and leaves a lot of residual radiation from creating isotopes of other materials.
          The basis of this article was that of frequencies and harmonies in their use in science is very much behind other studies. If you put your hand near the reaction point and the mags got turned on, your hand would explode into jello. The freqs. were all ultrasonic, some in the giga or terahertz range, but there were false multiples (I forget the word, harmonics perhaps) created in the machine that made the place very noisy.
          As earlier, “If you played it the right tune, it would sing.”
          Mark

        • Chris Thompson  On December 10, 2013 at 7:06 PM

          I would love to study waves such as you describe with an eye to shaking a water molecule apart using fewer kW than it currently requires. Hydrogen would make a wonderful combustible and clean fuel if we could obtain cheap hydrogen.

        • MarkNR  On December 11, 2013 at 8:32 AM

          Currently, pebble bed reactors could be built much more cheaply than present reactors, they cannot melt down, there is no release of fuel under any condition short of being bombed, and spent fuel is processed and re used. With cheap electricity, comes the possibility of many cheap clean fuels. All the high level nuclear waste in the U.S. could be placed on one football field 50-100 ft. high.
          Mark

        • Chris Thompson  On December 11, 2013 at 10:16 AM

          Standard electrolysis overmatches the water molecule’s bonding force-for-force to break it apart. Possibly there is another innovative way to “tease” this bond to let go requiring a fraction of the kW power that extant physics requires. On the other hand, many truly smart people have been on this for decades and they must have exhausted looking at ways to do this, haven’t they? Nuclear submarines need lots of oxygen so apply standard electrolysis to the problem to achieve their result. These engineers have obviously looked at this from many angles.

        • MarkNR  On December 11, 2013 at 9:40 PM

          Chria:
          Vibrations, frequencies, wavelengths are one of the basic building blocks of these universes. It’s effects on MEST have not been fully researched. Winged flight is barely 100 yrs. old.
          A friend once told me that matching and conflicting frequencies with celestial bodies was the primary means of interstellar flight. That the ‘engines were made up of irregular pipes, like sausage links, with liquid metal pumped through them to produce very high energy sound. I personally don’t recall, but I do recall that the ships were propelled by something other than action reaction. Frequencies is One group of sciences that is lagging behind electronics and chemistry here on this world. There are others. The art and science of music would well be availed by the physicist.
          Mark

        • Chris Thompson  On December 11, 2013 at 9:52 PM

          Thanks Mark. Action-reaction is only natural means of producing motion that we observe. Yet we see very little. Hubbard proposed a “time-drive” engine for the “Tug One” space ship in MISSION EARTH that belonged to Jetero Heller. This was not an action-reaction engine. My memory is not too good since it has been almost 30 years since I read that series.

        • MarkNR  On December 11, 2013 at 10:10 PM

          Chris:
          I was thinking in a little bit longer time frame than 30 yrs.
          Ron was a very creative writer. One of my favorite ‘inventions’ was the annealing knife. In one mode it cuts, in the other mode it bonded things together. When in annealing mode, if stroked across a surface, it would make that surface electrically conductive along the line it was passed. Clever.
          Mark

        • Chris Thompson  On December 11, 2013 at 10:20 PM

          I loved that tool too. I loved how to disguise the working circuit board, they printed a fake one over the top of the real working one to hide the “transporter” technology. That annealing knife might have been a copy of a pipeline tool that I worked with many years ago that used a big “hook” called a sub-soiler that hooked up behind a D6 Caterpillar and ripped a trench in the ground feeding a coil of polyethylene pipe or roll of power cable or telephone cable and just buried it in the ground with a single pass. Good for the open plains and soft soil.

        • MarkNR  On December 11, 2013 at 10:31 PM

          Chris:
          I have used that machine, only behind a tractor to bury electrical cables on long runs such as highway lighting. It would cut, rather than dig, a narrow trench and feed the pre-filled pipe at the same time. Saved a hell of a lot of time and expense.
          Mark

        • Chris Thompson  On December 11, 2013 at 11:32 PM

          Cool! I love big equipment. You see what I mean, the parallel idea to the annealing knife from the story?

          I loved MISSION EARTH because I thought better than his scientology works that the Sci Fi, he felt and wrote what was on his mind, explained his reasons for the fake history, and how he saw the people that he gathered to him, like it was an outlet for him or something. etc. It made him more real and human, it made me think that he wanted me to know who he was and how he viewed his failures as big. I’ve mentioned this idea about MISSION EARTH before but it wasn’t well received. I think I liked that series better than other people did. And I liked it better than BATTLEFIELD EARTH. It came across less grandiose and megalomaniac, more real, less paranoid than BATTLEFIELD EARTH.

        • MarkNR  On December 11, 2013 at 10:38 PM

          D6 is a big ass cat. As an Electrical Engineer I found I couldn’t sit in an office all day, so I worked at an engineered wood plant for many years where I was out among the machines half the time. I have done electrical work for many years also. I like machines, I believe I explained one of the reasons why in an earlier comment.
          Mark

        • 2ndxmr  On December 12, 2013 at 12:51 AM

          @Mark, Chris:

          As I recall, Tug One was driven by the “Will be, Was” engine. That engine embodies a very interesting concept in that it moved space: instead of moving the Tug through space, it just moved space. (Just!)

          My own experiments with space tends to make me think Ron was either close or right on with that point.

          An observation is that to a marked degree space acts like a medium (like water is a medium) and easily “carries” EM waves. The idea of space being a medium is actually now a pretty much accepted scientific idea.

          What is the form of the medium?

          It may well be that space is a very, very high frequency RF field on it s own. The reasoning here is that it seems to “carry” the EM frequencies (RF) that we are used to (like light) just like a broadcast TV channel carries its lower frequency information (audio and video).

          What we are talking about here is termed modulation. Modulation is how sound is transferred in air, and how a radio signal is transmitted in space. The implication here is that a radio or TV channel is modulating the higher frequency of space and space acts as sort of a wire to bring the signal to a receiver.

          Getting back to a space drive, if we could create an RF signal that was at the frequency of space, then we might be creating a form of space. I say a “form of space” because I expect space in actually a very complex set of frequencies, angles and polarizations – things which we are becoming increasingly familiar with and could describe mathematically to the Nth degree.

          But if we understood the exact frequencies and so forth of space, and if we could generate them (that is a ways away!) with enough power to totally create a local space around an object, we might be very close to the concept of moving space.

      • Chris Thompson  On December 10, 2013 at 10:21 AM

        This is a really interesting and well written post!

    • MarkNR  On December 9, 2013 at 10:40 PM

      Oh, 2nd, also:
      The mag field was more like a big loaf of bread with a hole through the middle horizontally. It could be described as a long box of big donuts squashed together, but with all the covers and equipment, it didn’t look that way. This memory is from this universe within the last couple hundred million years so the rules of physics were the same as they are here and now.
      Mark

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: