Messages

Psan - the founders of quantum mechanics (was it Bohm who argued this against Einstein? I think so) considered the very basis to be statistical. Ie that it is impossible to get beyond the statistics, and that they are at the very core of how the quantum world works.

With respect to the zero-point, if you want a techy engineering style book on the subject I highly recommend "Quest for Zero-Point Energy" by Moray B. King. Also, if you folks are students, and heavily interested in over-unity devices, I would nudge you into checking the "student discount" area on Tom Beardens new book err "Energy from the Vacuum" I think its called (check his website for details).
Telos - while there is a lot of disagreement in the scientific community, there is still a majority view in virtually all cases. That is, scientists do act as a large community and its relatively rare to see the fundamental tenants of heir faith questioned from within that community. I would recomment looking into work done by Kuhn on the structure of scientific revolutions (fantastically I was actually taught about his stuff on my course! I was very impressed). You mentioned Big Bang - well most scientists do believe in it, even though (from what I've seen) red shift has been shown to have nothing to do with distance eg binary star systems where one star appears to exhibit large red shift while the other doesn't, etc etc. Science is much more conservative and stiff than most people think. Or perhaps its just that the flows of information make it seem that way? Both, to an extent, I think.

IMO we will see ZPE generators on the market within the next 15 years. Licking my lips I canne'wait! Yummy.



Rob

Yes it is rather tricky to affect and record in real time the spins of entangled particles, but any communication device would likely use some form of more macroscopic entanglement, eg as mentioned using superconductors. And yes the tests you mentioned use random events which correlate, but that by no means means that entanglement is limited to random particle spins - it obviously isn't, as proved by the first article you posted.

The only issue is whether the process of communication itself would break the entanglement (observation=alteration, on the quantum level, but with superconductors...?), however the article indicated this was not the case, since they were still observing the superconducting state using microwave pulses. The article you posted then went on to say that they were going to experiment with other ways which would show how robust the process is to interference:

The researchers obtained evidence of the entanglement indirectly, through the use of microwave pulses that probed the Josephson junctions; future experiments will seek to directly control the junctions and obtain evidence more directly

Whereas other groups have already shown it is robust enough.

I find it most curious that you post an article whose basis seems to rely on using entanglement for communication, and then you go on to argue with me that entanglement cannot be used for communication!!  

Of course I may be utterly wrong, but I await convincing  

I would like to suggest you try to disprove yourself, rather than trying to disprove me. Philosophically, it is impossible to prove a negative, but just one positive results of communication using entanglement is enough to disprove whole gaggles of theorists works that entanglement cannot be used for said purpose.
The patent office is useful for this purpose (see "description"):

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=/netahtml/search-adv.htm&r=23&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&p=1&S1=((entanglement+AND+communication)+AND+quantum)&OS=entanglement+AND+communication+AND+quantum&RS=((entanglement+AND+communication)+AND+quantum)

Here, he seems to be using another cunning way around the problem - that is, using a large mass of entangled photon ejections.
There really is tons more. I just ran across a reference in Nature to forming entanglement over remote distances, so that objection is now also invalid. But I'm sure you can find this stuff out for yourself, right?...

Rob (One Who Does Not Believe In The Impossible!!!!!)

LOL Telos sorry if I sounded harsh I can be quite short cant I? Oh well!    

The guy on discovery science is aahhh badly mistaken IMO. The only issue is forming remote entanglement ie well removed from the local meissner field. Probably need to use resonance (perhaps scalar). I dont see any major theoretical issues with this, could be wrong, but that makes it an engineering problem - lucky, I'm an engineer  
But you are right saying its like they are only one atom! - within the actual entangled superconducting bits there is no "communication", but the devices which utilise these parts are still remote, and are still effectively in communication through the superconductors. Like connencting them with a wire of 0 distance, the hypothetical wire is still a connection.

Entangement has the potential to pretty much annihilate the phone network industry (think peer to peer mobiles, and then think of what the ensuing next gen internet would be like....tasty!!!). Conversely, quantum computers are an extension of computing technology and wont destroy any markets. Maybe thats it. Or maybe he didn't mention it because thats already thought of, wasnt the thrust of the article?

So! You got any leads for getting around the temperature issue? I'm thinking ORMUS or magnets might help.

As an aside, a friend was telling me of the theoetical research which is taking this phenomenon and going to the next level - like collective entanglement physics. He was saying that they found the entanglement spreads out in waves, and how everything is thus connected (oh and similarly think big bang, not that I put any faith in that theory any more, red shift disproven, but hey). Sound familiar???!!!!!!!!??!!?! Even karma is often described as a wave that flows out on the world and bounces back on you.
I am also in the process of reading a book which seems to be taking superconducting properties as the link between the micro and macro world, and going on the derive maxwells equations (ie the basis of electromagnetics   ). Very impressive.

Lines - please do keep us updated!

adios

Rob

meh? Are you arguing semantics with me?

If you had two entangled devices you could affect one and see the effects on another. This would presumably work both ways. Call it what you want, I call it a new form of communication. Same principle in a superconduction computer, just smaller distances.
It would be a shame if the engineering requires getting things to superconducting cold, I've been thinking of ways around this for some time.

Rob

I dont think there are many other possibilities than another dimension! It does seem to prove it.
Fascinating that all three seemed to be entangled together.
Beavis - entangled objects act as single atom, thats kinda the definition of a superconductor, so I dont think you can seperate atoms from the whole of each "macroscopic device" like that.
First step to a quantum entangled trasistor if they are right! That would rock. I'm suprised they didn't mention the communication aspects of entanglement, I think that should really be our first goal.

Rob

Whoa Sparky that ROCKS!! Gotta be the coolest avatar here in that case

with mine, it took me ages of stumbling around the net to find a piccy I could cut out, edit and use as avatar. Months, if I remember right.

Rob

Hey guys, thanks for the replies!! Interesting stuff.

I've been opening up to these things happening for a few years, but have never had control over it, just being something that happens, often coming out of a light sleep in the middle of meditation (or time of not full or altered conscious control). What was interesting was that the other day, I could actually keep the space around the third eye - it felt distinctly clean and, well, open...! So now I might be able to replicate it one day (not yet tho... )

cheers,

Rob

You know whats weird? I went through names randomly comparing them to people, against putting in those peoples proper names, and I thought it was starting to look more accuate with the real names (make sense?).
Although descirptions started to look familiar...

http://www.bostonuk.com/names/names.asp?Name=albert
http://www.bostonuk.com/names/names.asp?Name=thomas
http://www.bostonuk.com/names/names.asp?Name=steven

Hhmm...all the same! Which is interesting because I was comparing Steven (my mates real name) with Albert (as in Einstein, his face came to me when I was trying to think of my 3rd random name to try (first two were myself and brother - about, say, 75-80% accurate with real names, not so effective with dominick or frederickj though!! say, 50% accurate)

But it reminded me of what a mystic once said about how the universe will use any method of divination you can throw(lol) at it...

Rob

"but I've yet to work out how to make my car run on it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "

Look up the Joe Cell!!!      

Rob

"but I've yet to work out how to make my car run on it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "

Look up the Joe Cell!!!      

Rob

Suggest you do some research on ORMUS!! Sorry...

Its not a drug, and monoatomic/diatomic form gold and other m-states bear no resemblance to their metallic form.  They jump into another state of matter specific to metals in which the atoms/small clusters are not interacting with other metal atoms/clusters, classified by a high spin electron state and room temperature superconductivity, amongst other things (anyone here know the significance of that??!!).
Historical significance of ORMUS is vast, ancient egyptian pharoes used to eat lots of it and the bread of the last covenant could quite concievably have been ormus. I my mind at least there is no doubt that this is where alchemy has its physical roots.

This is just a tiny summary of some of the properties of this stuff, its not a simple subject. I didn't really want to focus on this because arguments about whether ormus etc is real because they bore me, like the old UFO debates....<yawn>. Much more interesting to move past that point.

Rob

Read this!

http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/tw/realthing.htm

Bearing in mind what these people were experiencing was some of the most potent ORMUS materials you can get, its still pretty heady stuff.

While the initial reaction to stuff like this is to compare it to the argument that you cant "short cut" to enlightenment, I think I finally figured out the answer with powerful spiritual substances like this. While it does give you a jump forward, that jump is only proportional to what you can conceivably absorb, normally. But here it really is a quantum leap forward, and its with a heavy price tag. So in a way, you still aren't getting something for nothing, it balances if you see what I mean. Similar in fact to people who push themselves too hard to expand their consciousness, go too far and you'll get hurt, even go insane. I've actually woken up in the middle of the night, as different "zones" are opening up (cant describe it any better, happens occasionally), and felt my mind just overloaded, on the point of breaking. Its the same, when it comes right down to it.
Small and easily digestible steps!!

Hope you found this interesting    

Rob

Hey all

Something thats been slightly bothering me for a while - whenever I experience real time sight, that is, seeing through closed eyelids, I rarely seem to be seeing out directly from between my eyes. For instance, the other day, after I finished my exams (4 finals in 3 days, not fun, but I was so knackered it made this I'm talking about easier), I was lying in bed when I notied I could see through my closed eyes and with really quite good detail. I watched my sight faded out then opened my eyes, but the point I would have been seeing from would be about 1-2m infront and above me.
But why? Its so bizzarre......
Its often, even usually like this - I suppose it relatively rare for me to get RT sight out of where my eyes actually are. So do I have some sort of weak extended double infront? Or is my energy extended out infront? Always like this when I am very tired.

Pretty cool though
Sometimes I see things which are not there at all though - like once I saw a whole desktop computer on a table where there was only a laptop. Odd -I think that was my mind inserting that one in there.

thoughts?? Anyone have similar?

Rob

I've communicated with trees before, been given some good advice in the past by an old oak!!

Cleve Backstar, inventor of the lie detector, has written a whole book on using said equipment for low level communication. He showed that plants can pick up on intention to do something before you do that thing, fascinating stuff.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0966435435/qid=1107693076/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/002-5502109-3970436?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Rob

Spot on.

so is that "team" or "mate"??

just curious....

Rob

IMO awareness = consciousness, so that should shift the question to make it more answerable.

I think in your sleep, especially if someone is saying something, there is some kinda "residual" consciousness, but way below usual levels. Thats what I've noticed anyway, meh

Rob

Pod:

Kabalah is not Jewish but Babylonian

Weeeell, I dont think anyone is really quite sure where kabalah first came from, but I have a friend who is currently looking into Egyptian mythology and related who thinks it goes back at least that far. Making links with their creation story, I haven't looked into it past a brief discussion we had, but he seemed pretty sure.

Rob

AAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!hahaha

funny one!!!!! I thought "hey no problem" - but first time I drew the 6 the wrong way around!!

HeHey there!

Spiritual and insane - you'll fit right in

Welcome!!

Rob

Hey mate!

We're all teachers and student here - at least, we try to be   . Best not to think in terms of guru's eh?

What are you going to learn? What do you want to learn about!? There's a lot of stuff going on in thisn old world of ours!!

Anyway, welcome to the forums!!!!

Rob

Does sound like it might well have been something neg induced:
Did it only happen once? Do you remember waking up into it? Was there an almost tangible feeling of fear/dread in the room, were you afraid before you saw the skulls? Any physical sensations?

Rob

Yeah thats interesting, I cant really explain why it should only happen with her around!

My ex often used to say that it always felt like there was someone else in the room with us, used to make her quite uncomfortable.

Aaawww well, see ya's out there in the big wide world one day.
If you ever do get round to the inventing thing, remember to let me know!
Good luck in your travels.
Rob

Doesn't exactly sound like plain coincidence, does it?

How old is the house? Perhaps there are some sad old spirits still hanging around.

Irrespective, I would look into cleansing the room, by whatever means you can. Herbs, regular smudging, orgonite stuff, rearranging the room for better configuration, crystals, *water fountain* (good good), etc etc.

my 2c!

Rob