## Physics Subject Clearing

##### [Reference: Mindful Subject Clearing (MSC)]

.

From Wikipedia:

Physics (from Greek φυσική (ἐπιστήμη), i.e. “knowledge of nature”, from φύσις, physis, i.e. “nature”) is the natural science that involves the study of matter and its motion through space and time, along with related concepts such as energy and force. More broadly, it is the general analysis of nature, conducted in order to understand how the universe behaves.

This is an open thread where the fundamentals of physics shall be discussed. This post shall be added to with meaningful ideas as the discussion develops.

The fundamental concepts seems be the following (Note: we shall be using SI units):

### Mass – kilogram (M), Length – meter (L), Time – second (T)

From these we derive the following concepts in mechanics:

### Work, Energy – Joule (ML2/T2), Power – j/s (ML2/T3)

In Mechanics, two fascinating concepts are Motion and Inertia.

.

In Electricity, I am looking at the following concepts:

### Charge – Coulomb (C), Current – Ampere (I), Voltage – Volt (V)

The most fascinating concept is that of Charge.

3. #### Charge produces electric field and voltage.

.

A more fascinating concept is that of field from Wikipedia:

Maxwell, at first, did not adopt the modern concept of a field as fundamental entity that could independently exist. Instead, he supposed that the electromagnetic field expressed the deformation of some underlying medium—the luminiferous aether—much like the tension in a rubber membrane. If that were the case, the observed velocity of the electromagnetic waves should depend upon the velocity of the observer with respect to the aether. Despite much effort, no experimental evidence of such an effect was ever found; the situation was resolved by the introduction of the theory of special relativity by Albert Einstein in 1905. This theory changed the way the viewpoints of moving observers should be related to each other in such a way that velocity of electromagnetic waves in Maxwell’s theory would be the same for all observers. By doing away with the need for a background medium, this development opened the way for physicists to start thinking about fields as truly independent entities.

A charge produces a field. A brief acceleration of the charge produces a disturbance in the field that propagates at the speed of light. The animation provided at the preceding link is insightful.

When we look at this animation, the viewpoint is covering the whole extent of motion without moving itself. This may be considered the “viewpoint of the universe” with respect to actual propagation of light in cosmic space. The “velocity of the observer” does not enter the picture.

We run into problem when the viewpoint is reduced to that of the “body of the observer” and much smaller than the size of the universe. Now the “velocity of the observer” enters the picture.

Einstein assumes that the viewpoint is limited to the body of the observer and, therefore, the viewpoint has a velocity. But when we expand the viewpoint to the size of the universe then no “velocity of the observer” is necessary.

The special theory of relativity seems to depend on the assumption that viewpoint can have a velocity.

.

In mindfulness, there is no viewpoint separate from what is being observed. So, the “velocity” of the viewpoint is the same as the velocity of what is being observed.

Science is observing the universe. So, the correct viewpoint is that of the universe. A universe is all that exists.

The net velocity of the universe shall be indeterminate because there is nothing else to compare it to. The net velocity of the universe relative to itself shall be zero.

So, the velocity of a scientific viewpoint shall be zero.

In other words, the velocity of the scientific observer shall be zero relative to the resultant velocity of the universe. From the viewpoint of the scientific observer, the maximum velocity of light shall always be c.

.

The velocity of a wave on the surface of the pond depends on the properties of water filling that pond.

The velocity of sound wave depends on the properties of the medium, such as, air, in which it is travelling.

The velocity of the light wave also depends on the properties of the medium, such as, glass, in which it is traveling. The problem has been that light can travel in space where, apparently, there is no medium.

The medium in outer space is not made up of atoms and molecules. It is made up of the “field” that also exists within an atom, but much concentrated.

The vacuum of space seems to be a field similar to the field existing within the atoms of matter.

.

Albert Einstein stated in 1920: ”We may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an Aether. According to the general theory of relativity space without Aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this Aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.”

To me, this medium is a universal field. This field has indeterminate motion because there is nothing else to compare its motion to. Its motion is zero relative to the universe as a whole. Therefore, this field also acts as the universal frame of reference for all the velocities within the universe.

It requires some primitive form of energy to disturb this field. A disturbance of this field gives birth to space and time with the manifestations of electromagnetic radiation. This disturbance has a frequency. This frequency increases as more energy is pumped in.

At some point frequency causes discreteness (wave packets, photons) to appear. These photons may not have mass, but they have inertia (resistance to motion). This inertia occurs because the speed of the disturbance cannot be increased beyond that allowed by the physical properties (permittivity and permeability) of the field.

As more energy is pumped in, this inertia acquires the appearance of mass. Thus, the following evolution seems to take place:

### >>> atoms and molecules

Thus, expansion of this space-time universe occurs as energy of some primitive form gets pumped into this field.

.

Here is how this conjecture is developing:

10. #### And, so we have a universe of objects with forms.

This model explains why Michelson-Morley’s experiment shall detect no “aether wind.”

.

Conjecture #5 above postulates, “Increasing frequency generates increasing inertia.” Thus the speed of the electromagnetic radiation shall be slower at higher end of the frequency spectrum compared to the lower end. This seems to be confirmed by the following article.

High Energy Gamma Rays Go Slower Than the Speed of Light?

And also by Wikipedia entry: Markarian 501

.

Conjectures #3 and #4 above may be expressed further as follows:

The universal field may be viewed as “Disturbance = 0″. The frequency is 0. The space (wavelength) and time (period) associated with this field are infinite. This is like a theoretical absolute for space and time.

The next level of disturbance is “Disturbance = 1″. The frequency is 1 (20) Hz. The space (wavelength) and time (period) associated with this disturbance has finite value yet to be determined. These would supply some constant units of space and time.

The next level of disturbance is “Disturbance = 2″. The frequency is 2  (21Hz. The space (wavelength) and time (period) associated with this disturbance would be half of the constants determined above.

The next level of disturbance is “Disturbance = 3″. The frequency is 4 (22)  Hz. The space (wavelength) and time (period) associated with this disturbance would be quarter of the constants determined above.

The nth level of disturbance is “Disturbance = n″. The frequency is 2n-1  Hz. The space (wavelength) and time (period) associated with this disturbance would be 1/2n-1 of the constants determined above.

And so on.

.

The “disturbance” parameter for visible light of frequency 4 x 1014 to 8 x 1014 shall be approximately 49 to 50 compared to the “disturbance” parameter of 1 for a 1 Hz electromagnetic wave. The “disturbance” parameter at the upper end of the electromagnetic spectrum would be about 66-67.

The velocity of light is 3 x 105 km/sec. The velocity of electromagnetic radiation of low level “disturbance” shall be greater than the velocity of light because it has much lower inertia (resistance to motion). The opposite shall be the case for high level “disturbances.”

The “disturbance” levels beyond 70 shall be those of particles with mass variety.

The layer of “Disturbance = 0″ shall have infinite velocity. This would be the layer of fundamental spacetime, which would gradually transition to electromagnetic type disturbance.

Electromagnetism may start from “Disturbance = 1″ but the velocity at this low level shall be much higher than the velocity of light.

Beyond “Disturbance = 67” electromagnetism may gradually transition to disturbances of particles with mass variety such as the electron. Here the velocity shall be much lower than the velocity of light.

Thus the universe seems to be made up of layered “disturbances” that are expanding at different rates. The lower level “disturbances” are expanding at much higher rates than the high level “disturbances.”

.

• vinaire  On January 11, 2014 at 12:47 PM

How did Coulomb measure the charge when he came up with his famous law? He must have measured the charge somehow independently of force of attraction between charges.

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 2, 2018 at 5:25 PM

Wish you a very good year!!!!! but why are you reading my post?? we have nothing in common… absolutely nothing,,, not even being a human because by now what I have learned-realized through my confrontation of lies I have leaned so far—- brought me to the understanding that I am not one… be well.

• vinaire  On January 2, 2018 at 5:28 PM

Wish you a very good year too. I don’t think I am reading your post because you haven’t been in my universe.

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 2, 2018 at 6:45 PM

the link when I have pushed it has taken me to your blog. no problem

• vinaire  On January 11, 2014 at 9:22 PM

The special theory of relativity seems to depend on the assumption that observer can have a velocity. Is this assumption correct?

Here is excellent animation of what happens in an electric field when a charge accelerates.

http://www.tapir.caltech.edu/~teviet/Waves/empulse.html

This acceleration causes a disturbance in the electric field that travels at the speed of light.

When we look at this animation, the viewpoint is covering the whole extent of motion without moving itself.

Therefore, isn’t the “velocity of observer” an arbitrary assumption?

[See further details in the post above.]

• vinaire  On January 12, 2014 at 7:41 AM

In mindfulness, there is no viewpoint separate from what is being observed. So, the “velocity” of the viewpoint is the same as the velocity of what is being observed.

Science is observing the universe. So, the correct viewpoint is that of the universe. A universe is all that exists.

The net velocity of the universe shall be indeterminate because there is nothing else to compare it to. The net velocity of the universe relative to itself shall be zero.

So, the velocity of a scientific viewpoint shall be zero.

• vinaire  On January 12, 2014 at 4:42 PM

Or, we may say that the awareness from the scientific viewpoint is instantaneous. It does not depend on the speed of light.

.

• vinaire  On January 12, 2014 at 7:52 AM

In other words, the velocity of the scientific observer shall be zero relative to the resultant velocity of the universe.

.

• vinaire  On January 12, 2014 at 7:54 AM

From the viewpoint of the scientific observer, the maximum velocity of light shall always be c.

.

• vinaire  On January 12, 2014 at 8:20 AM

The velocity of a wave on the surface of the pond depends on the properties of water filling that pond.

The velocity of sound wave depends on the properties of the medium, such as, air, in which it is travelling.

The velocity of the light wave also depends on the properties of the medium, such as, glass, in which it is traveling. The problem has been that light can travel in space where, apparently, there is no medium.

The medium in outer space is not made up of atoms and molecules. It is made up of the “field” that exists within an atom, but much diluted.

What we think of as space, is actually this field.

.

• vinaire  On January 12, 2014 at 1:06 PM

If we take the universal viewpoint then the idea of simultaneity boils down to when the light waves from two different events intersect at a location in space. Obviously, what appears to be simultaneous at one location won’t appear to be simultaneous at another location.

We can have a universal location and a universal time from a universal viewpoint (universal frame of reference).

• Chris Thompson  On January 12, 2014 at 6:33 PM

I don’t understand why you think this.

• vinaire  On January 12, 2014 at 8:36 PM

Please state the inconsistency as it appears to you.

• vinaire  On January 12, 2014 at 4:38 PM

The Theory of Relativity starts making a lot more sense if we replace the “velocity of the observer” by “the velocity of awareness”.

The “velocity of awareness” is same as the “speed of light”. There is the moment of change, and then there is the moment when the observer becomes aware of that change. The difference between these two moments is determined by the speed of light (in the universal field of space).

We can look at both these moments (the moment of change, and the moment of awareness of that change) simultaneously in the universal frame of reference. This is because, in this frame, we are dealing with thought, which is not dependent on the “speed of light.”

This universal frame of reference introduces the element of “instantaneous thought” into the Theory of Relativity.

Now this is getting to be more interesting.

• Chris Thompson  On January 13, 2014 at 9:42 PM

c seems to be a velocity, not just a speed.

Speed / Time = Velocity = c

Relativity seems to describe a constant relationship rather than only a speed. I am trying to understand the ramifications of this, how it relates to time dilation, and not keep getting hung up on speed.

• vinaire  On January 13, 2014 at 9:46 PM

Velocity is a vector while speed is a scalar.

Velocity = speed + direction.

Speed is the magnitude part of velocity.

• Chris Thompson  On January 14, 2014 at 1:40 AM

Did you understand it?

• vinaire  On January 14, 2014 at 5:33 AM

Speed / Time = acceleration, and not velocity.

We’ll discuss it in our session on Skype today evening.

• David Cooke  On January 12, 2014 at 11:26 PM

You make a very good point about Einstein’s assumption of a viewpoint limited to the body of the observer. The textbook diagrams showing relativity of simultaneity constrained by the speed of light collapse if we take a viewpoint large enough to include both the points under consideration.

An observer outside the MEST universe, or bigger than that universe, would be in a universal frame of reference – i.e. a static.

• vinaire  On January 13, 2014 at 7:04 AM

Welcome to this blog, David, and thanks for your comment.

One can only go as broad as the universe in “real” terms when constructing a viewpoint.

I do not know if the universe has a boundary, but when one models beyond the universe one gets into the domain of “imagination”.

There is nothing wrong with imagination. That is where creativity seems to lie.

STATIC to me would be a universal viewpoint with respect to itself, which can be real and not imaginary.

.

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 16, 2014 at 1:13 PM

In 3 occasion in sessions I have found my self outside of the MEST Universe.. and where I was there was only intangible infinite -ness as I ”’looked”around I have seen one point a light but it was just a tinny dot.. As I pondered what that dot could be I realised that it was the Universe the MEST.
What I was aware of I still would call that my viewpoint-experience since I was aware of what I have seen as a Entity. In my reality if one is aware of, have knowledge of something than that knowledge which one is aware of belongs to self… but again I do not have a clue who else is aware at the same time of what I am experiencing=being aware of.
By now I am aware of that we.. any one can be aware of only their creation, what their experience is and cant say that others or the Universe too knows that… that would be assuming, guessing what others could know.

• vinaire  On January 16, 2014 at 1:45 PM

I don’t think that I understand what CREATION is.

.

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 16, 2014 at 1:52 PM

your experience… what any person experience in any given moment.

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 16, 2014 at 1:56 PM

your feelings, sensations, what you are aware of.. they would not exist if you would not put it there. the touch, smell, weight, colors, any sensation when you are in presence of your grand son. this is a example.

• vinaire  On January 16, 2014 at 6:00 PM

Does one pick it up from one place and put it in another? This makes one a conversion unit.

• vinaire  On January 1, 2016 at 6:26 AM

Creation is probably a [type of] change in awareness.

• vinaire  On January 13, 2014 at 1:41 PM

When one is observing multiple objects, one may see all those objects moving from one’s own frame of reference, which is assumed to be the body. Basically, The Theory of Relativity assumes the frame of reference to be an object within the universe. In my opinion, if one takes the viewpoint of the universe, it will make the observation much simpler. I plan to review the Theory of Relativity from the viewpoint of the universe.

.

• vinaire  On January 14, 2014 at 6:00 AM

Isn’t the speed of sound in air is also constant in all frames of reference, just like the speed of light?

The only difference is that sound cannot propagate in the vacuum of space. But the same math should apply to the wave nature of sound and light.

So, the contraction of space and time seems to depend on how we mathematically construct frames of reference. With the theory of relativity physics may be getting into the field of mind here.

• Chris Thompson  On January 14, 2014 at 2:57 PM

I remain confused on the analogy of “sound vs light waves.” Sound is a compression wave of energy relying on a medium such as air or water and the energy disburses and peters out in a short distance.. Light is a (what?) “electromagnetic” wave. Does EM rely on a medium for transmission? Light attracted Albert Einstein’s curiosity supposedly because it did not require such a medium. Light travels in wave packets. What does this mean? I suppose I do not know. Written another way, do packets of energy travel from stars across vast distances and arrive to be received by our eyes and abstracted into images by our brains? Sound images arrive by movement of the medium and physically jiggle our eardrums before being abstracted or focused by our brains into images. Light waves jiggle metals that they pass by and induce electrons to kick of their orbits. Sounds operate in the macro frame of reference and light operates in smaller bits frame of reference. They seem to be analogous and yet:

1. Sound waves travel different speeds in different mediums and are transmitted more efficiently meaning farther and faster in more solid mediums. A “shock” wave and a sound wave seem to be similar. 2. Light waves travel different speeds in different mediums and are less efficiently transmitted in more solid mediums meaning nearer and slower in more solid mediums. A “shock” wave and a light wave to not seem to be similar.

What does this comparison mean about the analogy between the two? Though these disturbances in our environment are analogous, they do not seem to be very similar and so I do not have confidence that the physical calculations between the two are very similar.

• vinaire  On January 14, 2014 at 7:35 PM

Math tells us that the velocity of waves depends upon the properties of media it travels in. That is as true for light as it is for sound.

The theory of ether was invalidated by Einstein in 1905 because ether was thought to be made up for atoms, and evidence of it was not found. Later in the 20s, Eistein start to talk about ether as a medium for light in space, but this ether was not made of any particles. This ether was made up of a field.

Space has physical properties. Space is a physical entity, but it is not matter. Space is a field.

• Chris Thompson  On January 15, 2014 at 7:05 PM

We have crossed the line where it is no longer useful to make analogies for the physics that underpin the Newtonian Physics layered on top. We are going to have to look until the quanta reveal themselves as they are and not as what they are like.

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 16, 2014 at 1:26 PM

Chris.. love to read about the sound what is…. I never have recalled sound unless had a body which had the hearing instrument.. I recalled when had a body but did not have the hearing instrument installed that is called here deaf-ness .
But one of my interesting recall was when on purpose the hearing was destroyed and one’s universe was once more silent… [Some order of Monks dramatize these at the present time by agreeing to silence]
When one experiences total silence many barriers fall of way and one reality shifts tremendously and with that awareness opens up too [since noise holds ones attention and on this Planet total silence do not exist.]
the noise do hit the body from every direction and the main instrument inside which is the heart keeps one anchored 100% to the body. The heart is the main anchor and when that stops in that moment the Soul is released.
Sounds, hearing, is one of the major anchor for the entity.

• Chris Thompson  On January 14, 2014 at 3:20 PM

Vinaire: With the theory of relativity physics may be getting into the field of mind here.

Chris: It seems that physics has always been in the field of the mind. Our ability to correctly interpret how that occurs is physics.

• vinaire  On January 14, 2014 at 7:39 AM

The concepts of ‘frame of reference’ and ‘viewpoint’ are a reflection of each other across the physics-metaphysics interface.

.

• vinaire  On January 14, 2014 at 7:55 AM

Math associated with Frames of Reference in Lorentz Transformations and Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is actually the math of viewpoint.

That is why Einstein has been so appealing. We are looking at the subjective-objective interface. We are looking at the mathematics of self.

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 14, 2014 at 8:01 PM

”In mindfulness, there is no viewpoint separate from what is being observed. So, the “velocity” of the viewpoint is the same as the velocity of what is being observed.” this I understand and agree to but to the rest my English is not good enough..

• vinaire  On January 14, 2014 at 8:51 PM

Basically, the scientific viewpoint shall be that of the universe from which all the parts of the universe are then viewed. In my opinion, the scientific principles shall be based on the universal viewpoint.

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 14, 2014 at 9:20 PM

looking forward to read your viewpoints and of course the post from others too… but I don’t know if I can comment since I never studied scientific stuff… not this life anyway. if you have question for me which would direct me to find the answer that could be help… but I cant ask since I don’t know what to ask…

• vinaire  On January 14, 2014 at 9:59 PM

I understand your dilemma. But I thinkt that you are young enough to start doing MSC (Mindful Subject Clearing) on Physics.

Let’s start with the word PHYSICS. Look it up in a good dictionary per

https://vinaire.me/2013/12/14/mindfulness-and-word-clearing/

.

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 15, 2014 at 1:38 AM

Dear Vinaire… not interested… I love the magical reality: the universe of Fairies, Gnomes, Little People and Giants… dew drops an end of the grass, flowers …. nature… as you wont be looking into where the Fairies or the Giants originated from since not likely you have interest on those subjects you can understand than that subject of physics don’t belong into my universe, even knowing that the Magical Universe too is energy and nothing more but illusions but still I have love for illusions like that. But thank you anyway.

• vinaire  On January 15, 2014 at 6:37 AM

People who like illusions, live with illusions. But there is nothing wrong with that. One must follow one’s interest.

My interest is to understand what is there.

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 15, 2014 at 11:27 AM

right…and science is not illusion?

• vinaire  On January 15, 2014 at 9:12 PM

Just as there are different types of animals, similarly there are different types of illusions.

.

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 15, 2014 at 11:35 AM

and fairies are not there? millions of articles are written about that subject and interestingly they are painted , drawn by many artists. And most interesting that a person who never seen on artist’s painting of a fairy or a gnome will paint or draw a very similar or replica of those images even the coloring would be the same or very similar. Children believe in these transparent bodied beings and children can see them too!

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 15, 2014 at 12:04 PM

every idea any scientist ever had was at first a thought, and from there that scientist went on to make that ”thought” happen in solid form… they do everything in order to prove that thought is real.. it exist… hehehe… very interesting. what are thoughts? where they originated from? and who is to say that one thought is more real, than other thoughts are? just because that child or me, or millions of others who believe in existence of Fairies our believes are same as any scientist the difference is that we believe totally and nothing can shake our belief but a scientist only believe in something when sees it in ”solid”shape” . now that do say something. you see simply knowing or one must prove that exist before one believes in,there is a big difference in the two.

• Chris Thompson  On January 15, 2014 at 6:07 PM

Elizabeth, Of course we love the magical reality! This is what drives two old geezers like Vinaire and me to study everyday. You think we are in love with paper and pencils? (Well, actually, yes we do love paper and pencils but paper and pencils are also part of the magical reality.) We see magic in everything around us and it takes our breath away. Physics is just a word but it is a word that is big enough to embrace all that is. ~ Chris

PS: I sent off some spit in a test tube to have my DNA tested and mapped to show how my ancestors moved about the world for a few thousands of years. How many humans came and went to finally have me wind up here bloviating on Vinaire’s blog. This seems fun to me.

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 15, 2014 at 6:54 PM

That sounds fantastic… I hope you will post the results! yes… you are right about the magic, what ever we experience is magic.. and there is nothing more to this universe. I guess I just look for magic in different directions… bloody hell, if you two call yourselfs old geezers and your body have not reached 70 yet, where that puts my body..? close to cremation…? But, being intangible and infinite that can not be called old, or young.. or anything at all. My poor little critter had her buster for rabies today, it must be bothering her because she is walking up and down and letting out huge yells! When we were blogging at Geirs I had session on what is light wave and I have seen it first hand how it traveled in space and how the flow lookedlike and what happened to it when the light wave reached the Planet and how those light particles some was integrated into the planets energy but some gotten back to space again and how they traveled -fanned out some particles hit some other surfaces but most of the light melted and become part of space-energy… that is when I realised that darkness don’t exist but to the ”eyes ” only and there is no such a thing as void-emptiness. something’s the ”eyes cant perceive” and those concepts only exist because one is ”looking” but by looking with eyes, well, that do not give the true picture..

• vinaire  On January 15, 2014 at 9:30 PM

True picture comes from using all six senses. Mind is one of the sense organs.

.

• Chris Thompson  On January 16, 2014 at 10:09 AM

#1. You would be called geezerette. Young and feminine form of geezer. #2. Yes, I see a universe full of waves of light in every direction, as you say just not with my eyes but in my mind. If we were able to see all the light that is present with our eyes, it would look very noisy to our eyes, like the inside of a storm. The eyes and ears see and hear only a little bit and that little bit is the human experience. A narrow little bit that prevents our minds from being trying to process too much information about the world. Thus we live and exist in a tiny little sliver of existence. Just my opinion of course except on #1 as you are definitely geezerette and a member of Unknowables as well!

• vinaire  On January 16, 2014 at 1:58 PM

Chris, You may initiate Elizabeth into the rank of UNKNOWABLES.

.

• Chris Thompson  On January 16, 2014 at 4:05 PM

Yes, I believe it is time.

• Chris Thompson  On January 16, 2014 at 4:06 PM

I know that she will be tremendously impressed by our company!

• vinaire  On January 16, 2014 at 6:31 PM

Make sure she understands all about that invisible tattoo that only the Unknowables can see.

.

• vinaire  On January 15, 2014 at 1:19 PM

Fairies and dragons are metaphysical objects. My current research is about studying the interface between physical and metaphysical.

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 15, 2014 at 1:27 PM

yes, I do understand, Oh the interface… where is it.. ? good one.. I look forward reading your reality..

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 15, 2014 at 1:44 PM

question here… if all solid objects are in fact not solid but moving particles as science has established than where the borderline can be if in fact nothing is solid but some objects–bodies are more compact than other objects..??? care to tell me that? I am very interested!

• vinaire  On January 15, 2014 at 9:04 PM

Solid objects are solid.

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 16, 2014 at 1:31 PM

V…””Basically, the scientific viewpoint shal be that of the universe from which all the parts of the universe are then viewed. In my opinion, the scientific principles shall be based on the universal viewpoint.”‘
Human reality is to narrow and limited to view the whole Universe and to understand all what it contains.
Humans, scientist, most of them don’t believe that we lived before, and they are still at the guessing stage wondering if there are other life forms existing. How these humans would have reality of the universe it self?

• vinaire  On January 16, 2014 at 4:57 PM

One doesn’t need to know everything in this universe to have the viewpoint of the universe, I bet you don’t know everything about your body, and yet you can take the viewpoint of the body.

I am less apt to take the viewpoint that I know and the other person doesn’t. To me KHTK Postulate #0 directs me to have a humble viewpoint.

KHTK Postulate #0: There are no absolute certainties.

DEFINITION: Absolute means, “Viewed independently; not comparative or relative; ultimate; intrinsic.”

.

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 16, 2014 at 5:16 PM

no I don’t know everything about the body… that includes how the doctors of different science looks at it and understand how it works.. But I have reality-understanding of bodies of which scientist and doctors don’t have clue of. You search for facts by the method you know and in reality works.. I too do the same and that technology, its use taken me far beyond the human realities and because of that I see the universe differently. You are right, there are no absolute certainties, and there is no absolute truth.. truth: what is? that word it self just describe other considerations and truth is a consideration and no more.. truth as same as any other beliefs, are intangible+ therefore illusions. This is my reality..

• vinaire  On January 14, 2014 at 9:34 PM

When a wave is moving, there is only the wavefront seems to be moving. The particles of the medium do not propagate.

Let’s define motion as follows:

Motion of degree 1 – The particles of the medium propagate forward with a certain speed or velocity.

Motion of degree 2 – Only the disturbance of the medium propagates forward with a certain speed or velocity. The particles of medium oscillate about, but do not move from their average location.

These two motions are of different degrees. They cannot be compared in their speed.

When sound is moving through air, no particle is propagating forward. Later if a particle is propagating forward, we cannot compare its speed to the speed of sound. It would be comparing apples to oranges.

Therefore, saying that no object can travel at a speed greater than the speed of light is comparing apples to oranges.

But there is an exception.

It may be postulated that light waves can get compressed and acquire inertia, and this then becomes the object. Under these circumstances the object would not be able to travel at a speed greater than the speed of light, because the object is simply “light with much greater inertia.”

.

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 15, 2014 at 2:23 PM

sound is energy therefore particles.. am I wrong on this?

• vinaire  On January 15, 2014 at 9:08 PM

Yes. You are wrong per the definitions used in science.

Sound is energy, but energy is not particles.

• vinaire  On January 14, 2014 at 9:52 PM

The speed at which a wave travel through a medium is directly related to the properties of the medium, because that wave exists due to a disturbance of the medium.

I believe that space is something physical. Space is actually a “field” that has physical properties, such as, permittivity and permeability. Light is actually a disturbance traveling through this field.

Let’s view the propagation of light from the viewpoint of the universe. We may visualize a light disturbance moving from left to right, and another light disturbance moving from right to left. They shall be moving towards each other with the constant speed of c, due to the properties of the universal space.

If we postulate that light always travels at speed c, this postulate is not violated if we find the relative speed between the two wave fronts to be 2c.

What experimental observation underlies the conclusion that this relative speed cannot exceed c?

Apparently, this conclusion was arrived at by Michelson-Morley’s experiment. But is it possible that the experimental results were incorrectly interpreted due the confusion in the understanding of universal viewpoint or frame of reference!

I have to look at this more closely.

• Chris Thompson  On January 15, 2014 at 7:13 PM

Vin: At what speed a wave travel through a medium is directly related to the properties of the medium, because that wave exists due to a disturbance of the medium.

Chris: Because of this fact, I am going to begin thinking of these “mediums” as various qualities and quantities of space-time rather than something other than space-time. Maybe c can hold steady from the universal viewpoint when modified by the coefficients of mediums.

Actually, I want to say that is an analogy that I suspect may turn out to very not like what is actually going on. I have to remember I am just learning.

• Chris Thompson  On January 15, 2014 at 7:35 PM

Vin: I believe that space is something physical. Space is actually a “field” that has physical properties, such as, permittivity and permeability. Light is actually a disturbance traveling through this field.

Chris: Yes, I’ve been thinking this for quite a while now. Permittivity and permeability may always have been and continue to be variables of space-time?

• Chris Thompson  On January 15, 2014 at 7:48 PM

Vin: If we postulate that light always travels at speed c, this postulate is not violated if we find the relative speed between the two wave fronts to be 2c.

Chris: Yes, this is correct. But it does not agree with “constant for all frames of reference.”

The Michelson-Morley experiment was an attempt to detect the velocity of the Earth with respect to the hypothetical luminiferous ether, a medium in space proposed to carry light waves. First performed in Berlin in 1881 by the physicist A.A. Michelson, the test was later refined in 1887 by Michelson and E.W. Morley in the United States. The procedure depended on a Michelson interferometer, a sensitive optical device that compares the optical path lengths for light moving in two mutually perpendicular directions. It was reasoned that, if the speed of light were constant with respect to the proposed ether through which the Earth was moving, that motion could be detected by comparing the speed of light in the direction of the Earth’s motion and the speed of light at right angles to the Earth’s motion. No difference was found. This null result seriously discredited the ether theories and ultimately led to the proposal by Albert Einstein in 1905 that the speed of light is a universal constant.

• vinaire  On January 15, 2014 at 9:50 PM

May be the Michelson-Morley experiment was not sensitive enough to detect the difference. Per the reference Scientific American the speed of earth is 390 km/s. Compared this to the speed of light, which is 299,792,458 metres per second. The ratio is 390000/299,792,458 = .0013.

Anyway, I need to study Michelson interferometer to come up with a more definite answer.

.

• vinaire  On January 15, 2014 at 8:37 AM

Sunlight takes about 8 minutes 17 seconds to travel the average distance from the surface of the Sun to the Earth.

This simply means that the disturbance caused in space at the location of the sun takes 8 minutes 17 seconds to arrive at the location of the earth.

Light is a disturbance in the field called space. This is my conjecture.

.

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 15, 2014 at 4:14 PM

If it takes the light to arrive 8min.17 sec.. than that light-energy particles need that much time to penetrated that energy field which is extended from the Sun to the Earths surface but of course that field is invisible, but it has particles of some kind.

• vinaire  On January 15, 2014 at 9:16 PM

An energy field is not made of particles, as particles are understood in science.

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 15, 2014 at 10:02 PM

I am Ok with every label.. no matter what scientific explanation they contain.

• vinaire  On January 15, 2014 at 10:05 PM

There is no problem as long as the label is understood for what it is. Same label understood differently will cause problems.

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 16, 2014 at 2:12 PM

Therefore there are different realities what is on ”energy field” there are awareness levels and Earthly science are still in. diapers

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 16, 2014 at 4:05 PM

If we would believe in science that it holds only the truth than we should have stayed with the belief that Earth is flat.

• vinaire  On January 16, 2014 at 6:03 PM

Why are you putting down science? If you know better then can you express it in a way that others may also understand it?

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 15, 2014 at 4:17 PM

V….. I don’t look at these subjects but your view of the above post makes sense to me.
What is ”universal viewpoint?” I don’t have a clue on that..

• vinaire  On January 15, 2014 at 9:19 PM

A universal viewpoint comes about when you are not viewing things as if you are inside the universe, but viewing things from the viewpoint of the universe.

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 15, 2014 at 9:59 PM

V “A universal viewpoint comes about when you are not viewing things as if you are inside the universe, but viewing things from the viewpoint of the universe””””” Now, how a human could know how the Universe views the Universe… that statement of yours is absurd

• vinaire  On January 15, 2014 at 10:01 PM

A human is just an identity. Why can’t one be the universe?

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 16, 2014 at 2:16 PM

V ”A human is just an identity. Why can’t one be the universe?””
E: if one would be more than a HUMAN than one would not be looking for understanding of the Universe but would know the Universe and would not have the need to question that subject.
HUMANS question, look for answers because they believe that they do not know.

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 16, 2014 at 4:01 PM

My reality that the universe do not view the universe but it is… just it is… thinking is human, so is believing, and questioning and that happens when the one who questions do not believe in that has the knowledge already.
What one is aware of that is the extend of that persons universe.

• vinaire  On January 16, 2014 at 6:13 PM

A universe can be looked upon as an identity. I don’t see why one cannot take the viewpoint of the universe and look from that viewpoint.

• Chris Thompson  On January 15, 2014 at 6:14 PM

V: Light is a disturbance in the field called space.

C: So then the space is disturbed and we abstract “light” or the “light” travels and disturbs our eyes when it arrives to our eyes receptors? This is quite a basic question. Possibly it is an ignorant question and not laid our correctly but with too many assumptions about radiation.

• vinaire  On January 15, 2014 at 9:20 PM

The answer is “Yes” as I see it.

• Chris Thompson  On January 16, 2014 at 10:11 AM

Then we are still working with analogies rather the thing as it is.

• vinaire  On January 16, 2014 at 4:49 PM

It doesn’t matter what you call it. It will be replaced by something better when we have it.

• vinaire  On January 15, 2014 at 9:22 PM

The disturbance travels by disturbing what it touches, until it cannot do so anymore.

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 16, 2014 at 5:54 PM

Right… but what happens to the disturbance when it is blocked by something?

• vinaire  On January 16, 2014 at 7:03 PM

Then the disturbance doesn’t progress any more.

.

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 16, 2014 at 1:48 PM

Ch….”The eyes and ears see and hear only a little bit and that little bit is the human experience. A narrow little bit that prevents our minds from being trying to process too much information about the world. Thus we live and exist in a tiny little sliver of existence. Just my opinion of course except on #1 as you are definitely geezerette and a member of Unknowables as well!

E: long time back, [not in scientology yet] I read it in Time Mag that the scientist concluded that humans only use fraction of what ever and because of that the knowledge which is available not comprehended by humans and their assumption was that humans only use 1% of their capacity to know.
20 years back I had extensive 8 hours IQ test at the University of Washington.
The test result was that they could not measure my IQ because it ”’went over the roof” [professor used that expression] my point here is that since than the knowledge-understanding of the universe increased thousand fold since that test was taken and I still have the same reality that I only know a fraction of what is there to know of the MEST Universe and what more there is to know..
Human realities while one beliefs in such as life and death etc.. dont contain knowledge of other different realities.

• vinaire  On January 16, 2014 at 8:38 AM

Why does the speed of light appears to be constant in all frames of references?

Does it have something to do with the nature of instruments used to measure the speed of light, and the relationship of this speed to awareness?

It seems that the field that exists in vaccum also exists in all atoms, molecules, objects, instruments, nervous systems, etc.

.

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 16, 2014 at 1:51 PM

My reality… the same persons invented the instruments who are aware of the speed of light therefore their awareness is at that level.. Some one with different awareness have different reality about the speed of light

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 16, 2014 at 2:19 PM

And that person with the different awareness will establish and prove that the speed of light moves differently.. Remember, all records in sports have been broken by those who’s reality is different.

• Chris Thompson  On January 16, 2014 at 4:07 PM

E Remember, all records in sports have been broken by those who’s reality is different.

C This is a good point.

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 16, 2014 at 4:14 PM

right… and all inventions come to be because of different reality, and these inventors than collect agreements and than that agreement is being solidified, becomes fact.

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 16, 2014 at 2:34 PM

once it was established that the Earth was flat.. end every one believed that fact.. now every one agrees to that the speed of light travels at that AGREEEEEEED speed.. Than some one discovered that the EARTH WAS ROUND! a GLOBE! WOW… and the person will be cheered who will discover more about the speed of light than the existing present agreement
In my reality science is not very reliable because people continually question that reality and prove it wrong.

• vinaire  On January 16, 2014 at 6:23 PM

Science does not depend on human agreements. Science depends on consistency among observations.

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 16, 2014 at 6:47 PM

Ok… but who decide what is right or wrong?

• vinaire  On January 16, 2014 at 7:35 PM

Is there right and wrong?

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 16, 2014 at 8:34 PM

you are answering a question with question.. you don’t have the answer I take it.

• vinaire  On January 16, 2014 at 8:44 PM

I do not see any right or wrong existing except in a person’s opinion.

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 16, 2014 at 8:47 PM

We have the same reality. right or wrong that concept is strictly human invention.

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 16, 2014 at 6:56 PM

who is doing the observation of these observations? and the conclusions are nothing but agreements… yes, your black cat looks like my black cat… but no way two entity has the same reality, sees the same way, can feel the same way.. that is not possible to know how other perspn sees something. What ever the science proves is exist because of agreement by the scientist and that is assumptions.

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 16, 2014 at 6:58 PM

who is doing the ”observing”? who is comparing the observed?

• vinaire  On January 16, 2014 at 7:07 PM

In my opinion there is nobody doing the observing. This is just how the vectors of considerations, desires, and impulses add up at any moment.

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 16, 2014 at 2:47 PM

Putting faith into science discoveries and believing that those are in fact true… well, first one should really question those discoveries and just how many times discoveries on the same subject exist..[ were changed] and just how much assumption are present in those stated facts… are those instrument are correct.. by who’s defamation they are? The instrument or any other machinery only good and can do as the inventors reality on the subject.
Science.. is not the path one can discover what is the Universe is about.. but looking into science one can understand only how the science works and one can see its limitations .. the limitations are the realities of the scientists. this is my reality about science .. 🙂

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 16, 2014 at 4:11 PM

I am not here to make wrong but pointing out that any truth is a assumption because that has been proved over and over.[ officer, I seen that the light was green. I was positive that I will win the lottery, I felt it!. I knew you loved me.and mean while he had 3 other girl friends] ”Assumption” was a post in Geirs blog also.

• vinaire  On January 16, 2014 at 6:35 PM

KHTK Postulate #0: There are no absolute certainties.

DEFINITION: Absolute means, “Viewed independently; not comparative or relative; ultimate; intrinsic.”

All certainties are relative. This statement does not degrade any certainty we have. It simply means that one can always come up with a better certainty. That is how science makes progress.

Einstein declared the speed of light to be a universal constant. This is a certainty for now, but I believe that there is possibly a wider context in which the speed of light may simply be a special case.

There is no progress possible for a person who believes his certainties to be absolute.

.

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 16, 2014 at 6:49 PM

“There is no progress possible for a person who believes his certainties to be absolute. ”’ we agree on that

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 16, 2014 at 6:51 PM

we agree, because all realities are intangible, just belief of something therefore illusions.

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 16, 2014 at 4:31 PM

V. “True picture comes from using all six senses. Mind is one of the sense organs.”
Humans go by ”senses” they rely on senses what the BODY perceive.. therefor the truth is limited also… no more than what one sense–feels, sees.
MIND? What is the Mind? a separate body?

.

• vinaire  On January 16, 2014 at 6:58 PM

There is NO spirit or thetan.
There is only mind that may gradually be reduced to nothing.
The essence of the mind at any stage my be called the spirit.
So, the spirit changes as spiritual progress is made.
No progress is made during the period the spirit remains the same..
Ultimately, the spirit goes poof! too.
That is Nirvana.
Ha, ha!

.

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 16, 2014 at 7:06 PM

YOU HAVE CONTRADICTIONED YOUR SELF.. HAHAHA 🙂 By god.. you talk from both side of the spectrum! So you say there is no spirit or thatan but than you say the mind can be called the spirit.!!! The spirit goes poof too… and who has reality on that? self? if there is reality on something like that than that reality is only a experience of moving particles but not the entities reality. awareness can diminish even can be believed that there is no awareness, but by god… that is just a consideration same as any other like NIRVANA! How long the Universe is in existence, and when the consideration of ”NIRVANA” was coined? Please…explain!

• vinaire  On January 16, 2014 at 7:13 PM

Yes, Nirvana may be looked upon as a consideration.

It is POOF! of all considerations, desires and impulses.

It is the same order of “contradiction” (from human viewpoint) as saying, “There are no absolutes.”

.

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 16, 2014 at 8:28 PM

V…”It is POOF! of all considerations, desires and impulses”” E; It can be done and it has been done. But the question remains who will have the reality that the Universe went POOF? If some one will have that reality than that will prove that only DOINGNESS CAN GO POOF BUT NOT AWARNESS. and that someone is there so the POOF bit wont eliminate the ENTITY.

• vinaire  On January 16, 2014 at 8:33 PM

No one. The consideration of an entity or self will go POOF too. 🙂

.

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 16, 2014 at 8:44 PM

HOW intangible could go POOOOOOF????

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 16, 2014 at 8:45 PM

YOU ASSUMPTION that POOF thingy… is there other existing agreement to that concept?

• vinaire  On January 16, 2014 at 7:27 PM

Western logic is not designed to understand concepts, such as, “no absolutes” and NIRVANA.

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 16, 2014 at 8:33 PM

There are many who belong to this WESTERN thingy and you are generalising, judging all and most of all believing that those who were born in different location can be superior. ugh!!! I, for example do understand ‘no absolutes’, what that means simply because by now I have confronted and erased the beliefs which were the barriers. limitations of the human mind.

• vinaire  On January 16, 2014 at 8:35 PM

There is no such judgment on my part.

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 16, 2014 at 8:43 PM

than why did you made that statement? only evaluation brings on beliefs like that!

• vinaire  On January 16, 2014 at 8:49 PM

Well, it is an ISNESS. Take a good look at it.

There exists a system called WESTERN LOGIC.

Per that system, “no absolutes” and NIRVANA are thought to be contradictions.

But WESTERN LOGIC is not the only system of logic that there is.

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 16, 2014 at 9:02 PM

By now you know that I have not studied such a concepts as body of logic. all that is just agreed upon considerations.. why would I look into that? I have no idea what you mean by ISNESS.. care to explain?

• vinaire  On January 16, 2014 at 9:07 PM

It means that there exists a system called WESTERN LOGIC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

.

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 16, 2014 at 9:13 PM

you use nirvana as a blanket.. when no other explanation exist than lets pull out nirvana… bah.. 🙂

• vinaire  On January 16, 2014 at 8:31 PM

Einstein sometimes used the word aether for the gravitational field within general relativity, but this terminology never gained widespread support.

“We may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an aether. According to the general theory of relativity space without aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.”

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 16, 2014 at 8:41 PM

OK BOYS… unknowable sounds good to me… since the knowledge I have, the realities are not known by others ..

• vinaire  On January 16, 2014 at 8:43 PM

Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University, had this to say about ether in contemporary theoretical physics:

It is ironic that Einstein’s most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word ‘ether’ has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with ‘stuff’ that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.

.

• Chris Thompson  On January 16, 2014 at 10:36 PM

Laughlin: About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids.

Chris: Well there you have it. Then let’s continue.

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 16, 2014 at 9:30 PM

I looked up the indicated and in my reality absolute and nirvana is not the same..

• vinaire  On January 16, 2014 at 9:37 PM

Of course, they are not the same.

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 17, 2014 at 11:46 AM

Hi guys…. what significance the UNKNOWN you have as in title I was given? interested in your explanation.

• Chris Thompson  On January 17, 2014 at 11:36 PM

It’s the intangible.

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 18, 2014 at 2:59 AM

How you two have come to that conclusion? I have realised that about 10 years back… You might have read the crossing over in my blog and I also could have told of a different crossing of mine verbally to you. Yes, intangible that is little what ever me but not old 🙂 since only bodies get old and stop working.. I have had a cog. about the black energy when I read V. mentioning… I have known about it and have some understanding of it but I did not know it had a name… and that its existence is known to others.

• Chris Thompson  On January 18, 2014 at 8:39 AM

Because it isn’t really like anything else, it’s not really something we can talk about.

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 18, 2014 at 12:17 PM

You right, even what we have here on Planet Earth bring so much difficulty which arises of course from communication. No wonder those who want rest from all that removes them self and move to some remote place or join a group where silence rules or join other groups where with meditation they can push back the results of communication…in my case I used sessions to confront the unwanted and you boys use your method to find peace.

• vinaire  On January 18, 2014 at 12:21 PM

The basic method is the same …… looking to see exactly what is there.

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 18, 2014 at 12:41 PM

Yes… and that is the reason auditing sessions has worked for me… It is simply confronting-facing the issues and that works because that issue is no longer exist when faced.

• vinaire  On January 18, 2014 at 12:22 PM

This is also the scientific method, in which one repeatedly verifies the observations.

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 18, 2014 at 12:43 PM

I don’t doubt since I have seen realities changing for you since You and I been communicating and that is 2 1/2 years.

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 18, 2014 at 1:07 PM

Vinaire… I never seen you writing anywhere in which you mentioned yes, that auditing works or other methods do the same as yours? I wonder why is that.

• vinaire  On January 18, 2014 at 1:13 PM

I don’t like using copyrighted brand names, such as, “auditing”. I like using more basic terminology, such as, mindfulness and the scientific method, which has broader circulation.

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 18, 2014 at 1:28 PM

Ok…. ”mindfulness” is a word which is used by many and scientific method is also a label and sully people have a clue when reading those words what it is, I see your reason….. My sister mentioned that a book has been written about ”mindfulness” she read it., in her reality it was not much, but she is on different path altogether.

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 18, 2014 at 2:26 PM

In my reality the tech: any tech when used if it works should handle all issues,, no matter what those are.. that includes how one feels toward to something, thinks of anything.

• vinaire  On January 18, 2014 at 2:44 PM

Certainly.

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 18, 2014 at 3:47 PM

when issues persist 3 thing can be: the tech is not working or not used the way it meant to be used, or the user really not confronting the issues.

• vinaire  On January 18, 2014 at 4:41 PM

And one should not assume which issue it is until it is clearly demonstratable.

• vinaire  On January 18, 2014 at 1:15 PM

To me, all spiritual help should be free, as Buddha provided out of his enormous love for mankind.

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 18, 2014 at 1:42 PM

Now Vinaire, if that belief you have is the reason you don’t believe in the sci. tech. ? yes, it is expansive what LRH was selling, but those days [73 when I got in] when the Tech was not altered than it was not expansive. and tell me what services provided here on this planet for which the providers don’t charge for? My basic phone bill is \$36.00 loaf of bread is about \$4.00. A middle priced pair of shoes is about \$150.00 ! pound of grapes is \$2.95. I went to a specialist he charges .\$175.00 a hour. How much the lawyer charges or the guy who comes out to repair the dryer? his basic is \$86.00 !!! than comes the part! The VET charged me for one vaccine for the cat \$81.95!!!!!!!! I think the times were a bit different in Buddha time… Take a good look on the internet what Indian gurus charge these day… disgusting. SO Buddha was one man out of millions who did not charge for the spoken words…. but try to by some soft wear, those are words too and how much they charge for those spoken words?

• vinaire  On January 18, 2014 at 2:30 PM

Whatever… I want to keep KHTK free and channel through it all those principles that I have found workable in Scientology and Idenics.

.

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 18, 2014 at 3:23 PM

Now that sounds fantastic…:)

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 18, 2014 at 1:51 PM

I wonder if you have been paid for the work you have given to the company or you have given your knowledge-help free? Blaming LRH is just that and that indicated “”BEING A VICTIM” just because he sold the products that do not mean it do not work. You have issues with policies and that is different. mindfulness should be applied in order to understand those actions of LRH’s.

• vinaire  On January 18, 2014 at 2:34 PM

I have no issues with LRH. He played his game by his policies. I don’t have to play his game.

I’ll do what I like to do.

.

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 18, 2014 at 3:33 PM

Right you are and I do the same. But any one who blames scientology and LRH for anything is a total idiot because one can not play his game that can not be done… we always play our own game only, and those who blame others for anything at all those persons have not taken responsibility for their universe yet.

• vinaire  On January 18, 2014 at 4:39 PM

Because of mindfulness I keep my opinions to a minimum.

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 18, 2014 at 2:04 PM

I find it interesting that you have not sorted out basic issues as LRH and his policies and the group which fallows those beliefs. If MINDFULNESS really works than use on those issues. From the comments you have made in the past 2 1/2 years I can see that they exist. I am not the defender of LRH, I never liked him and I am not a scientologist. I have bought something in the 70’s , a product and I use that product and that is the auditing tech. that is all..

• vinaire  On January 18, 2014 at 2:36 PM

I am not sure what issues you are referring to.

.

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 18, 2014 at 3:27 PM

for those you need to look through the thousands of comments you have made.

• vinaire  On January 18, 2014 at 4:29 PM

If you want a proper answer then you should ask me properly.

.

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 18, 2014 at 4:40 PM

Right… 🙂 . but what is proper for you not necessarily proper in my universe, sooooo in my reality what is proper: going into agreement with on idea… usually a formality which appeals to many persons and they act accordingly in order to belong into that group.

• vinaire  On January 18, 2014 at 4:44 PM

Then we have an inconsistency. I still don’t know the issue here.

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 18, 2014 at 2:18 PM

I have seen recently in Geirs blog comments from one person who is using your method cursing F-ing LRH and the church.. I ask a question here, why those issues have not been handled by the METHOD this person uses? Why the venom not have been removed? It is easy talk of the universe: atoms, protons, energy flows, light years… sure it sound very interesting smart, important and most of all knowledgeable, but why bother to apply ”mindfulness’ on those matters when the basic has not been addressed and those issues finally closed once and for all? Just a question here..

• vinaire  On January 18, 2014 at 2:42 PM

I have no idea who this person is. I also have no idea how many people out there are using KHTK. I do not curse LRH and the Church.

I cannot assume that this person is using KHTK. With proper use of KHTK any issues with LRH and Scientology can be addressed over time.

.

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 18, 2014 at 3:29 PM

It was not you and you seldom use such a language… but he is using your method.

• vinaire  On January 18, 2014 at 4:37 PM

Is he really? Could he be using Scientology, because they talk quite abusively in Scientology.

• vinaire  On January 17, 2014 at 6:49 AM

There has been a lot of discussion about dark energy and dark matter as concepts to explain certain anomalies in physics such as between mass and gravity. Some scientists are starting to see dark energy as a new reference to the concept of the aether.

Earlier, New Scientist reported on research by a team at the University of Oxford seeking to link dark energy and the aether to resolve a problem with gravity and mass.

“Starkman and colleagues Tom Zlosnik and Pedro Ferreira of the University of Oxford are now reincarnating the ether in a new form to solve the puzzle of dark matter, the mysterious substance that was proposed to explain why galaxies seem to contain much more mass than can be accounted for by visible matter. They posit an ether that is a field, rather than a substance, and which pervades space-time.

“This is not the first time that physicists have suggested modifying gravity to do away with this unseen dark matter. The idea was originally proposed by Mordehai Milgrom while at Princeton University in the 1980s. He suggested that the inverse-square law of gravity only applies where the acceleration caused by the field is above a certain threshold, say a0. Below that value, the field dissipates more slowly, explaining the observed extra gravity. “It wasn’t really a theory, it was a guess,” says cosmologist Sean Carroll at the University of Chicago in Illinois.”

Then in 2004 this idea of modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND) was reconciled with general relativity by Jacob Bekenstein at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Israel (New Scientist, 22 January 2005, p 10), making MOND a genuine contender in the eyes of some physicists…

“Now Starkman’s team has reproduced Bekenstein’s results using just one field – the new ether. Even more tantalisingly, the calculations reveal a close relationship between the threshold acceleration a0 – which depends on the ether – and the rate at which the universe’s expansion is accelerating. Astronomers have attributed this acceleration to something called dark energy, so in a sense the ether is related to this entity. That they have found this connection is a truly profound thing, says Bekenstein. The team is now investigating how the ether might cause the universe’s expansion to speed up.

“Andreas Albrecht, a cosmologist at the University of California, Davis, believes that this ether model is worth investigating further. ‘We’ve hit some really profound problems with cosmology Ð with dark matter and dark energy,’ he says. ‘That tells us we have to rethink fundamental physics and try something new.'”

.

• vinaire  On January 17, 2014 at 6:52 AM

I believe that an atom is made up not only of neutrons, protons and electrons, but also of the field among them.

This field extends throughout the universe.

And this field also has mass.

.

• vinaire  On January 17, 2014 at 6:56 AM

I conjectured earlier that mass is related to inertia (resistance to motion). And inertia is related to the frequency of electromagnetic radiation.

Higher is the frequency of the electromagnetic radiation, greater is its inertia and “mass”.

.

• vinaire  On January 17, 2014 at 7:02 AM

When more energy is pumped into electromagnetic radiation, its frequency increases, since the speed cannot increase further.

Since the electromagnetic radiation cannot be accelerated further, the additional energy would appear as increased frequency, inertia, and mass.

.

• vinaire  On January 17, 2014 at 7:18 AM

Albert Einstein in 1894 or 1895: ”The velocity of a wave is proportional to the square root of the elastic forces which cause [its] propagation, and inversely proportional to the mass of the aether moved by these forces.”

.

Well, there is no aether, but there is a field. Electromagnetic Wave is a disturbance in this field. We do not know what causes disturbance, but there seems to be energy being pumped into this field.

But pumping of energy into this field causes the field to be disturbed. This disturbance has a frequency. This frequency increases as more energy is pumped in. At some point frequency causes discreteness (wave packets, photons) to appear. These photons may not have mass, but they have inertia (resistance to motion). With increased energy, this inertia acquires the appearance of mass.

Energy + Field = disturbance >>> wave + frequency >>> photon + inertia >>> particles + mass >>> atoms and molecules

.

• vinaire  On January 17, 2014 at 8:26 AM

This means that there is a more primitive form of energy than electromagnetic radiation.

• Chris Thompson  On January 17, 2014 at 9:12 PM

It could. I like the idea and it seems consistent with the direction the research is headed. I believe we are barely beginning to learn about the quanta. Richard Feynman warned us away from analogies about QM, saying that it isn’t like anything else that we know about. I think this is good advice.

• vinaire  On January 17, 2014 at 8:39 AM

Albert Einstein in 1920: ”We may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an Aether. According to the general theory of relativity space without Aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this Aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.”

.

To me, this medium is a universal field. This field has indeterminate motion because there is nothing else to compare its motion to. Its motion is zero relative to the universe as a whole. Therefore, this field also acts as the universal frame of reference for all the velocities within the universe. A disturbance of this field gives birth to the manifestations of space and time through electromagnetic radiation.

Thus, expansion of this space-time universe shall occur as energy of more primitive form (from unknown source) gets pumped into this field.

.

• vinaire  On January 17, 2014 at 1:58 PM

I have summarized the last few comments and added to the OP.

.

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 17, 2014 at 4:23 PM

In my reality nothing is pumped into any field.. it was there or is there at all time. Stars, galaxies come and go but the dark power is constant since systems are always within the dark power and not other way around.

• vinaire  On January 17, 2014 at 10:30 PM

Paul Dirac wrote in 1951: “Physical knowledge has advanced much since 1905, notably by the arrival of quantum mechanics, and the situation [about the scientific plausibility of Aether] has again changed. If one examines the question in the light of present-day knowledge, one finds that the Aether is no longer ruled out by relativity, and good reasons can now be advanced for postulating an Aether. . . . . . . .We have now the velocity at all points of space-time, playing a fundamental part in electrodynamics. It is natural to regard it as the velocity of some real physical thing. Thus with the new theory of electrodynamics [vacuum filled with virtual particles] we are rather forced to have an Aether”.

.

It seems that the universal field of modern aether is pre-spacetime. Space-time is the first harmonic of disturbance of this universal field, where the frequency is close to zero, and the wave-length is almost infinite. The time sense is determined by the period of this wave, which is almost infinite.

Each subsequent harmonic of the disturbance of this universal field is like a layer of spacetime piled over the earlier layers of spacetime.

Thus, electromagnetic radiation is pretty much like layers of spacetime. I know this is wild. But it seems consistent to me.

.

• Chris Thompson  On January 17, 2014 at 11:48 PM

Yeah, been leaning that way for a while now. Something from nothing lost its appeal some time back. There’s no type or kind of human understanding that would allow for that, so there’s your paradox that I don’t believe in.

• vinaire  On January 17, 2014 at 11:00 PM

It was Richard Feynman who first suggested that the basic partial-differential equations of theoretical physics might be actually describing macroscopic motion of some infinitesimal entities he called X-ons. He suggested X-ons as the unifying concept for description of physical universe, though he did not specify their properties.

.

Conjecture:
(1) The universal field of modern aether is pre-spacetime.
(2) Spacetime is generated from the disturbance of this universal field.
(3) The fundamental harmonic of this disturbance manifests as the basic spacetime, where the frequency of the disturbance is close to zero, the wave-length is almost infinite, and the period is infinite too.
(4) Subsequent harmonics have higher frequencies and shorter wavelengths and period. Each harmonic acts as an overlay of spacetime.
(5) Increasing frequency generates increasing inertia.
(6) At sufficient higher frequncies, inertia generates discreteness, such as that of photon.
(7) At still higher frequencies and shorter wavelengths, inertia generates particles with mass.
(8) There are particles of increasing complexity until electrons, protons and neutrons are generated.
(9) Thus come about atoms, elements, the periodic table, the molecules and compounds.
(10) And, so we have a universe of objects with forms.

.

• Chris Thompson  On January 17, 2014 at 11:50 PM

That’s a mouthful.

• Chris Thompson  On January 17, 2014 at 11:52 PM

A mouthful even for Krishna.

• vinaire  On January 18, 2014 at 7:10 AM

LOL!

We still haven’t found God yet!

• vinaire  On January 18, 2014 at 6:55 AM

This model explains why Michelson-Morley’s experiment shall detect no “aether wind.”

• vinaire  On January 19, 2014 at 7:12 AM

From Wikipedia:

“The Michelson–Morley experiment was performed in 1887 by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley at what is now Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. It attempted to detect the relative motion of matter through the stationary luminiferous aether (“aether wind”). The negative results are generally considered to be the first strong evidence against the then prevalent aether theory, and initiated a line of research that eventually led to special relativity, in which the stationary aether concept has no role. The experiment has been referred to as “the moving-off point for the theoretical aspects of the Second Scientific Revolution”.

“Michelson–Morley type experiments have been repeated many times with steadily increasing sensitivity. These include experiments from 1902 to 1905, and a series of experiments in the 1920s. In addition, recent resonator experiments have confirmed the absence of any aether wind at the 10^−17 level. Together with the Ives–Stilwell and Kennedy–Thorndike experiments, the Michelson–Morley experiment forms one of the fundamental tests of special relativity theory.”

.

• vinaire  On January 19, 2014 at 7:21 AM

Does this mean that motion of objects relative to some universal field was not detected?

But if one takes the viewpoint of the universe (a universal field) one can see object moving in this field.

This seems to be an inconsistency.

• Chris Thompson  On January 20, 2014 at 9:22 AM

This is only modeling. We have the freedom to make many types of models. For instance, ether wind suggests motion of the ether. Then another place a model suggests that the ether in the field holds still. inconsistent.

• Chris Thompson  On January 20, 2014 at 9:25 AM

We could conjecture the field extends to beyond the envelope of the big bang and therefore holds still relative to the big bang.

• vinaire  On January 19, 2014 at 7:28 AM

The expansion of this universe seems to mean the disturbance of this universal field (the electromagnetic radiation) moving outwards in all directions. One may call this to be the expansion of potential awareness.

So this universal field seems to be something pre-existing the universe and its awareness, into which this universe may be able to expand into.

• vinaire  On January 19, 2014 at 7:37 AM

The universe and its awareness is made up of the disturbance of this field. As this disturbance expands through this field, we call it expansion of the universe.

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 19, 2014 at 12:52 PM

Please explain how matter has awareness it self.. or knows it exists.. do matter consider I am aware of ??? just don’t get your logic. how you have come to that ”awareness” reality.

• vinaire  On January 19, 2014 at 1:19 PM

See https://vinaire.me/2014/01/01/khtk-axioms-2/

KHTK Postulate #1: All motion is relative.

With nothing else to compare to one cannot tell if one is at rest or if one is moving at the speed of light. When there are two objects in relative motion there is still no way to tell which object is at rest and which object is moving.

There is no frame of reference that may be considered absolute. Einstein makes “speed of light” as the absolute frame of reference, from which he then derives rest of his theory. I believe that this frame of reference needs to be examined more closely.

.

KHTK Postulate #2: Awareness arises with motion.

All awareness must consist of motion. For example, all objects perceived consist of motion at atomic level. Similarly, there is no inherent awareness, or consciousness, that does not consist of motion within itself.

Awareness is an interesting subject yet to be fully investigated.

.

• vinaire  On January 19, 2014 at 1:24 PM

This initial awareness is without “I” it seems. It is universal awareness.

.

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 19, 2014 at 1:28 PM

in your post you use awareness as responsiveness ? if so, than that lays my MU.

• vinaire  On January 19, 2014 at 1:35 PM

In the beginning there is no who or what to respond to.

• Chris Thompson  On January 20, 2014 at 9:39 AM

Possibly we are looking at an additional dimension.

• vinaire  On January 19, 2014 at 7:39 AM

It is this disturbance itself that generates particles and mass, which then coalsce into stars and planets.

• vinaire  On January 19, 2014 at 7:47 AM

The relative velocity of a planet with respect to electromagnetic radiation seems to be determined by the ratio of their wavelengths. Here the de Broglie’s wavelength for massive planets would have to be considered.

This is just a wild conjecture. It has to be looked into more closely.

• Elizabeth Hamre  On January 21, 2014 at 1:31 PM

You love to correct everything I say.. Yes I am aware that “In the beginning there is no who or what to respond to.” yes very aware that And my awareness is not a bunch of assumption. But why do you continually correct the way I write: express my self? Why do you only recognise your reality and belief that is the perfect way to think a write? You lecture me.. well.. go for it.. but I am out.

• vinaire  On January 19, 2014 at 7:53 AM

If the relative velocity in the universal field is determined by the ratio of the wavelength of light with the wavelength of planet earth, then that would explain the negative results of Michelson-Morley’s experiment.

.

• vinaire  On January 19, 2014 at 7:59 AM

Space and time themselves are created by the motion of the disturbance into the universal field.

The units of space and time for EM radiation seems to be different from the units of space and time for planets.

• Chris Thompson  On January 20, 2014 at 9:36 AM

I agree and no longer seriously promote theories that rely as a basis on inexplicable and “spooky” effects. I am seriously studying the double slit experiment at this time as I see no reason to uncover an apparent inconsistency such as particle-wave “duality” and just accept it without challenge as though the authorities have spoken. It seems we should do better than that if we want to be scientists.

• vinaire  On January 19, 2014 at 8:49 AM

The universal field may be viewed as “Disturbance = 0”. The space (wavelength) and time (period) associated with this field is infinite. Its frequency is 0. This is like a theoretical absolute for space and time.

The next level of disturbance is “Disturbance = 1”. The frequency is 1. The space (wavelength) and time (period) associated with this disturbance has some finite value, which has to be determined. These would supply some constant units of space and time.

The next level of disturbance is “Disturbance = 2”. The frequency is 2. The space (wavelength) and time (period) associated with this disturbance would be half of the contants determined above.

The next level of disturbance is “Disturbance = 3”. The frequency is 4 (2^2). The space (wavelength) and time (period) associated with this disturbance would be quarter of the constants determined above.

And so on.

• vinaire  On January 19, 2014 at 8:12 AM

Louis de Broglie was a French physicist who made groundbreaking contributions to quantum theory. In his 1924 PhD thesis he postulated the wave nature of electrons and suggested that all matter has wave properties. This concept is known as wave-particle duality or the de Broglie hypothesis. He won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1929. The wave-like behaviour of particles discovered by de Broglie was used by Erwin Schrödinger in his formulation of wave mechanics. Louis de Broglie was the sixteenth member elected to occupy seat 1 of the Académie française in 1944, and served as Perpetual Secretary of the French Academy of Sciences.

.

• vinaire  On January 19, 2014 at 9:04 PM

The following article seems to support my intuition that higher frequency equates to higher inertia and lower speed.

http://www.universetoday.com/11889/high-energy-gamma-rays-go-slower-than-the-speed-of-light/

• vinaire  On January 19, 2014 at 10:55 PM

Here are some earlier details of my conjecture.

https://vinaire.me/2014/01/01/khtk-axioms-2/#comment-16001

.

• vinaire  On January 20, 2014 at 8:39 PM

When a particle moves, we see the whole particle moving. We can easily associate the velocity of a particle with its motion.

But when a wave moves, we see only the wavefront moving forward. The whole wave may move like a snake, but, generally, we don’t see it. Maybe the back part of the wave is also moving forward at the same rate as the front part.

Thus, we can locate the particle in space more easily than we can locate the wave as a single discrete phenomenon.

Maybe the wave-particle duality comes about when the total extent moving is comparable to its wavelength. We can locate both front and back ends of the wave, but the ratio of this extent to the wavelength will be much smaller.

• vinaire  On January 20, 2014 at 9:12 PM

The d/λ ratio (diameter divided by wavelength) is likely to be much smaller for an electron than for a hydrogen atom.

• Chris Thompson  On January 21, 2014 at 12:00 AM

Vin: Maybe the wave-particle duality comes about when the total extent moving is comparable to its wavelength.

Chris: Or maybe there is a better explanation than>/em> wave-particle duality. Maybe there is another process at work than “observation” that causes the backwards in time effect that was named quantum erasure. There is nothing wrong with your trying to explain wave-particle duality so long as you aren’t already assuming that there is such a thing as quantum erasure. Is there such a thing? Or has a counterintuitive phenomena occurred and it has been incorrectly recognized, categorized and labeled? The counterintuitive part being due to that we have not observed everything that is going on and trying to explain a result with too narrow a spectrum of data?

• vinaire  On January 21, 2014 at 6:11 AM

Looking at the d/λ ratio, the x-rays and gamma rays shall definitely be quantized, but not the ELF and radio waves.

The higher is the frequency and smaller the wavelength, the more particle like properties shall appear.

• vinaire  On January 21, 2014 at 8:51 AM

Here is an interesting article:

## What Happened Before the Big Bang? The New Philosophy of Cosmology

May 2011 – Hawking wrote. “Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics.”

Dec 2011 – Philosophy of Cosmology established as a new field within the philosophy of Physics.

.

• vinaire  On January 21, 2014 at 9:29 PM

There is no physical principle that can be used to account for the big bang state. Here is an excerpt from the article above.

Standard cosmology, or what was considered standard cosmology twenty years ago, led people to the conclude that the universe that we see around us began in a big bang, or put another way, in some very hot, very dense state. And if you think about the characteristics of that state, in order to explain the evolution of the universe, that state had to be a very low entropy state, and there’s a line of thought that says that anything that is very low entropy is in some sense very improbable or unlikely. And if you carry that line of thought forward, you then say “Well gee, you’re telling me the universe began in some extremely unlikely or improbable state” and you wonder is there any explanation for that. Is there any principle that you can use to account for the big bang state?

• vinaire  On January 21, 2014 at 9:31 PM

A pre-spacetime universal field seems to be more probable.

• Chris Thompson  On January 21, 2014 at 10:53 PM

Well, there was low entropy or no entropy and then suddenly the Big Bang produces the highest conceivable entropy state and that state has been reducing since that time. It is for sure an indicator that we are not yet close to explaining that moment.

• vinaire  On January 22, 2014 at 6:02 AM

Make sure you understand what entropy is. From Wikipedia

The entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems spontaneously evolve towards thermodynamic equilibrium, which is the state of maximum entropy.

Entropy = a measure of disorder. Big Bang requires a great amount of order in the beginning. That is not natural. Where did that state of order come from?

• Chris Thompson  On January 23, 2014 at 6:51 PM

Yes your point well taken thank you. On the other hand, if there were no universe then there were no system, neither closed nor open. Why are you writing this is unnatural?

Also, it seems improbable that the Big Bang occurred in the sense that an explosion occurs today, neither nuclear nor chemical. These explosions with which we are familiar do not result in the expansion of space-time. Also, the Big Bang seems to be continuing doesn’t it?

• vinaire  On January 23, 2014 at 7:23 PM

The article is basically saying that there is no physical principle that accounts for the Big Bang state. It is questioning the validity of extrapolation backwards. That is not very convincing.

I think that we need to look at alternate explanations for why universe is expanding.

• vinaire  On January 21, 2014 at 9:41 PM

I would like to know how the presumption of Big bang has come about in the first place!

A pre-spacetime universal field can equally explain an expanding universe.

• Chris Thompson  On January 21, 2014 at 11:03 PM

Its inception was in the red-shift observed by Hubble. Even this red-shift, presumed to be the red-shift of light emitting stars that are flying away from us has other explanations. However, to carry on with the expanding universe proposed by Hubble’s Law, using The Calculus, the universe which seems to be flying apart has been recalculated backwards in time like running a movie of an explosion backwards to arrive at the beginning. So where is the Big Bang occurring? -Everywhere. And it seems to be still going on. Without a pre-spacetime matrix upon which this could occur, the notion of a “beginning” of spacetime is so counterintuitive as to defy human understanding.

• vinaire  On January 22, 2014 at 6:32 AM

To me the model of “layered disturbance” as presented in the post above, is sounding more likely. The layer of “Disturbance = 0” shal have infinite velocity. Electromagnetism may start from “Disturbance = 1” but it would have a velocity much higher than the velocity of light.

For visible light (with frequency from 4 x 10^14 to 8 x 10^14) the approximate value of “Disturbance” would be 49-50. It is at this level that the discreteness of photon shall be more apparent.

The highest frequency waves are gamma rays (frequency > 10^19). The “Disturbance” of gamma rays would be about 66. There is significant inertia at this level, and the velocity of disturbance would be slower than the velocity of light. At higher disturbances we shall have particles with still slower speeds.

So, the lower level of disturbances have already expanded to much greater extents than the later level of disturbances.

It is a multi-layered expansion of the universe. The expansion rate we are seeing is much less than the expansion of space and lower level disturbance in this universe.

• vinaire  On January 22, 2014 at 8:30 AM

In astrophysics and cosmology, the anthropic principle (from Greek anthropos, meaning “human”) is the philosophical consideration that observations of the physical Universe must be compatible with the conscious life that observes it. Some proponents of the anthropic principle reason that it explains why the Universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate conscious life. As a result, they believe it is unremarkable that the universe’s fundamental constants happen to fall within the narrow range thought to be compatible with life.

.

Life is just another phenomenon in this universe. One does not need to take a life-centric viewpoint.

Just see things as they are. Just be mindful.

.

• vinaire  On January 22, 2014 at 8:33 AM

Cosmology: This is a branch of the philosophy of physics, in which you happen to be treating the entire universe –which is one huge physical object– as a subject of study, rather than say studying just electrons by themselves, or studying only the solar system. There are particular physical problems, problems of explanation, which arise in thinking about the entire universe, which don’t arise when you consider only its smaller systems. I see this as trying to articulate what those particular problems are, and what the avenues are for solving them, rather than trying to translate from physics into some other language. This is all within the purview of a scientific attempt to come to grips with the physical world.

• vinaire  On January 22, 2014 at 8:39 AM

…Physics has definitely avoided what were traditionally considered to be foundational physical questions, but the reason for that goes back to the foundation of quantum mechanics. The problem is that quantum mechanics was developed as a mathematical tool. Physicists understood how to use it as a tool for making predictions, but without an agreement or understanding about what it was telling us about the physical world. And that’s very clear when you look at any of the foundational discussions. This is what Einstein was upset about; this is what Schrodinger was upset about. Quantum mechanics was merely a calculational technique that was not well understood as a physical theory. Bohr and Heisenberg tried to argue that asking for a clear physical theory was something you shouldn’t do anymore. That it was something outmoded. And they were wrong, Bohr and Heisenberg were wrong about that. But the effect of it was to shut down perfectly legitimate physics questions within the physics community for about half a century. And now we’re coming out of that, fortunately.

.

The above is an interesting criticism of Quantum Mechanics and I agree with it.

.

• Chris Thompson  On January 21, 2014 at 10:56 PM

Yes, a better model if it is less inconsistent than the yarn of how an entire universe began from nothing or how the photon goes through both the slits. If we try, we can do better. We just need to re-search the extant experimental data and with a fresh mind and a fresh look re-evaluate what the experimental results could be telling us.

• vinaire  On January 22, 2014 at 6:06 AM

That is correct. Experimental data may be explained in more than one way.

• paleobent69  On January 26, 2020 at 7:47 AM

I’m a homework tutor and I’d like to know which materials I can use for high school and university students.Thanks.