Parallel Universes

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Tombo

Hoi Catmeow Do you like the book?

Quote from: catmeowMy opinion is that the astral planes are not physical.  So I don't think the astral planes are part of a parallel physical universe.  I already gave my reasons which are simplistic but valid:

[catmeow
]


"Physical" is a unclear term. It is actually likely that a parallel Universe does have different laws of nature then our current Universe. This means that that world would be very alien to our known Universe, so the Astral  would fit in.

Quote from: catmeowHowever, I think it is naive to think that the astral (and "higher") planes are part of the physical universe. The overwhelming observed facts indicate that astral planes, and ESP, operate independently of physical laws. For instance, telepathy appears to be independent of distance. It does not observe the normal square-law. Precognition breaks the laws of time. During astral projection we can apparently travel to distant galaxies in an instant, breaking all the laws of physical science.
As far as I am aware, wormholes apart, it is impossible according to  current physical sciences to travel to distant galaxies instantaneously....!   :cry:  

I think you guys have a wrong view about the concept of a physical theorie.
A physical theory is nor right or wrong. It is not possible to prove that a theory is right! Most physical theories we use are known to be wrong, for example Newtons Law of gravity is wrong, one should apply the theory of relativity, but this theory is also only partly right, for example  if we look at very small things it is not valid one must then apply the laws of Quantum Phyics.............
A theory is meant to describe certain regularities in nature  and foretell certain things but sooner or later we discover a incident were it does not work then we need a new more elegant theory which will sooner or later fail again, this has always been the case.
So if the current theories say we can not travel faster then light, so what? ask again in 500 Years!

QuoteAt Telos

I think your argument that the M-theory uses abstract concepts like strings etc. is not valid. Most physical theories use abstract things. Nobody (at least no Physic t)knows what "mass" "a photon"  "force" etc really is. This are just concepts of our brain.It is actually plausible to assume that our brain can not understand the universe therefore it is plausible that more advanced theories about the universe will talk about things we do not understand. However this theories should make concrete predicates we can eventually  test and I'm sure the M-theory does so as well. If it doesn't it would be useless.
" In order to arrive at a place you do not know you must go by a way you do not know "

-St John of the Cross

catmeow

Hoi Tombo

Quote from: TomboHoi Catmeow Do you like the book?
I started dipping into it, and it's an interesting book.  It has actually given me the idea of healing my dodgy knee by using LD.  I've got grade IV cartilage defects in my right knee due to extreme excercise and also last March a skiing injury, which left me with major pain.  But I've been to the "dream knee clinic" four times this week and already it is feeling quite a lot better.  Also, as you may have noticed, I stole my "signature" from one of the quotes in the book!  :)

Quote from: Tombo"Physical" is a unclear term. It is actually likely that a parallel Universe does have different laws of nature then our current Universe. This means that that world would be very alien to our known Universe, so the Astral would fit in.
Yes I was thinking that a lot of the discussion on this thread is getting nowhere because no one has defined what we mean by a "physical" universe.

In my opinion, a "physical" universe is any universe which appears to operate according to the same laws which our own physical universe operates.  At the moment we have two very battle-hardened theories, relativity and quantum mechanics, as you know.  Any universe which obeys these two theories would then be classified as a "physical" universe according to our present state of knowledge.

(It is possible by the way, by modifying some of the constants used in these theories, eg Planck's constant, to have "physical" universes which are utterly different from the one we can observe)

At the moment the astral planes break some of the laws given by these two very battle-hardened theories.  So at present I cannot think of the astral planes as "physical".

It may well be that in the future our understanding of the physical universe changes in such a way that we can then then bring the astral planes under the umbrella of the physical sciences, as you have argued.  And this is quite an interesting prospect.  But for the purpose of this thread, this is NOT what M theory predicts at all.  M theory postulates the possibility of multiple "physical" universes which each obey the current "physical" laws as we understand them.  So it does not, at present, make room for the astral planes.  :cry:

Frank has gone blue in the face repeatedly telling us that the astral and physical planes are simply states of consciousness.  This may indeed ultimately be the case.  In which case both the astral and physical universes would be unified by the theory of consciousness.  Perhaps we ask too much of our physical sciences, and in order to understand alternate realities we should be looking elsewhere?

catmeow
The bad news is there's no key to the Universe. The good news is it's not locked. - Swami Beyondananda

catmeow

Hi Leyla

Quote from: LeylaWhen I am out of body I appear as a non physical ghost. However, I do have a physical body. When I meet higher intelligences they appear to be non physical ghosts. How do I know they don't also have a physical body?

It could be that our world appears non physical to them when they are here, just as our their world appears non physical to us when we are there.

When they are here- they are the ghost in our physical world.
When we are there- we are the ghost in their physical world.
Well this is of course just a play on the word "physical".  If ghosts call their world "physical", it doesn't mean that it is "physical" by our own definition of the word!

catmeow
The bad news is there's no key to the Universe. The good news is it's not locked. - Swami Beyondananda

Telos

QuoteA physical theory is nor right or wrong. It is not possible to prove that a theory is right!

That's ridiculous nonsense. Do you see your world as that unstable and confusing, that your computer works as the result of magic - or because of a successful physical theory of electromagnetism that has been proven over and over again?

QuoteMost physical theories we use are known to be wrong, for example Newtons Law of gravity is wrong, one should apply the theory of relativity, but this theory is also only partly right, for example if we look at very small things it is not valid one must then apply the laws of Quantum Phyics.............

You're demonstrating that our knowledge of the universe is incomplete. Newton's law of gravity isn't wrong - it's just not the whole picture. The only thing that was wrong about Newton was the assumption that it explained everything.

Quote from: http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/Orbits/newtongrav.html
Each object in the universe attracts each other body.

If object A has mass Ma and object B has mass Mb,
then the force F on object A is directed toward object B
and has magnitude

F = G Ma Mb / r2

That equation is used to put rovers on Mars. So that's not a proven theory?

QuoteA theory is meant to describe certain regularities in nature and foretell certain things but sooner or later we discover a incident were it does not work then we need a new more elegant theory which will sooner or later fail again, this has always been the case.

You make it sound like we destroy our theories and then start from scratch. That has never been the case. Science is empirical, it continuously builds on existing knowledge. Theories are provisional, so the ones that work are the ones that stick around. A lot of theories stick around.

You're probably only talking about theories of everything.

QuoteI think your argument that the M-theory uses abstract concepts like strings etc. is not valid. Most physical theories use abstract things.

You guys keep saying this. What other physical theories use abstract things? The only one I can think of is relativity, which uses spacetime as a fabric that folds and makes bumps and curves - but then even that's not that abstact, because we can see light from a star bending around an eclipse, which is actually like seeing space becoming warped..

QuoteNobody (at least no Physic t)knows what "mass" "a photon" "force" etc really is. This are just concepts of our brain.

All concepts are abstract. Since knowledge is abstract, there's no such thing as concrete knowledge, and therefore we'll never truly know the universe. Is that what you're trying to say? In that case, you're making assumptions and philosophizing on them.

Mass, photons, and forces can be seen, measured, probed, observed, predicted, and manipulated. That makes them more than just concepts in our brain, which is all strings and extra dimensions are at the moment.

QuoteIt is actually plausible to assume that our brain can not understand the universe

Brains have been shown to be inferior devices for understanding, given how easily our faculties to learn can be easily damaged and deformed through brain damage or genetic mutation. In the future, we'll probably have to change or augment our brains to be more sturdy.

However, when healthy, our ability to create abstract concepts of already existing phenomena and then manipulate them in our heads before experimenting with the real thing is unmatched. We've gotten this far and continue to make accelerating returns on progress.

So, no, I don't think it's anymore plausible to assume that our brains can't understand the universe than it is to assume that they can. In fact, it's way more plausible to assume the latter. Way, way more plausible.

QuoteHowever this theories should make concrete predicates we can eventually test and I'm sure the M-theory does so as well. If it doesn't it would be useless.

It doesn't, really. And it is mostly useless.

M theory operates under the assumption that the phenomena it predicts (gravitons, sparticles, etc.) are "hard to find." Therefore, we could go on looking for them forever, never find them, and M theory would still be safe - unless we prove that gravity works by some other means and discard the notion of supersymmetry.

String theory would have weight if we saw a graviton, and then watched it disappear as it left our brane.

So, not only would we have to see something that we've never seen before that explains the most familiar force in the universe, we'd also have to catch it in the act of evading us. M theory assumes that what is right in front of us is naturally evasive to observation. I think that's garbage - that just means we've lost our focus and are looking in the wrong direction.

catmeow

Telos

Why don't you say what you think instead of holding back all the time?  :lol:

Are you related to Sheldon Glashow?

catmeow
The bad news is there's no key to the Universe. The good news is it's not locked. - Swami Beyondananda

Tombo

Quote
QuoteA physical theory is nor right or wrong. It is not possible to prove that a theory is right!

That's ridiculous nonsense. Do you see your world as that unstable and confusing, that your computer works as the result of magic - or because of a successful physical theory of electromagnetism that has been proven over and over again?
Only cause something is new to you doesn't make it nonsense! What I say are not my own ideas but actually well accepted ones in philosophy of science. But I won't go into detail here. Do you you know Popper? "When you observe 1000 white swans you still can not logically conclude that there are no black swans"

Quote
QuoteMost physical theories we use are known to be wrong, for example Newtons Law of gravity is wrong, one should apply the theory of relativity, but this theory is also only partly right, for example if we look at very small things it is not valid one must then apply the laws of Quantum Phyics.............

You're demonstrating that our knowledge of the universe is incomplete. Newton's law of gravity isn't wrong - it's just not the whole picture. The only thing that was wrong about Newton was the assumption that it explained everything.

No, it is wrong! If you measure exactly enough you see that it is wrong. But that doesn't make it useless!


Quote
QuoteA theory is meant to describe certain regularities in nature and foretell certain things but sooner or later we discover a incident were it does not work then we need a new more elegant theory which will sooner or later fail again, this has always been the case.

You make it sound like we destroy our theories and then start from scratch. That has never been the case. Science is empirical, it continuously builds on existing knowledge. Theories are provisional, so the ones that work are the ones that stick around. A lot of theories stick around.

That has very well be the case! You assume things that are wrong, sorry but you do not know what you are talking about. theory of relativity was something new not based on older stuff.

QuoteYou're probably only talking about theories of everything.

No I'm not

Quote
Quote
QuoteI think your argument that the M-theory uses abstract concepts like strings etc. is not valid. Most physical theories use abstract things.

You guys keep saying this. What other physical theories use abstract things? The only one I can think of is relativity, which uses spacetime as a fabric that folds and makes bumps and curves - but then even that's not that abstact, because we can see light from a star bending around an eclipse, which is actually like seeing space becoming warped..
QuoteNobody (at least no Physic t)knows what "mass" "a photon" "force" etc really is. This are just concepts of our brain.

The concept of a point is abstract.

QuoteAll concepts are abstract. Since knowledge is abstract, there's no such thing as concrete knowledge, and therefore we'll never truly know the universe. Is that what you're trying to say? In that case, you're making assumptions and philosophizing on them.

No, if you experience something, lets say "Love" you have now, concrete knowlegde what Love is.

QuoteMass, photons, and forces can be seen, measured, probed, observed, predicted, and manipulated. That makes them more than just concepts in our brain, which is all strings and extra dimensions are at the moment.

Einstein himself said that he tried to understand what a photon is for his whole Life but that he still has no clue. Only cause you can manipulate something doesn't mean you understand it. I can manipulate my girlfriend, but I sometimes don't understand her ;-)
Quote
QuoteIt is actually plausible to assume that our brain can not understand the universe

Brains have been shown to be inferior devices for understanding, given how easily our faculties to learn can be easily damaged and deformed through brain damage or genetic mutation. In the future, we'll probably have to change or augment our brains to be more sturdy.

However, when healthy, our ability to create abstract concepts of already existing phenomena and then manipulate them in our heads before experimenting with the real thing is unmatched. We've gotten this far and continue to make accelerating returns on progress.

So, no, I don't think it's anymore plausible to assume that our brains can't understand the universe than it is to assume that they can. In fact, it's way more plausible to assume the latter. Way, way more plausible.

For me it is not plausible.....



QuoteM theory operates under the assumption that the phenomena it predicts (gravitons, sparticles, etc.) are "hard to find." Therefore, we could go on looking for them forever, never find them, and M theory would still be safe - unless we prove that gravity works by some other means and discard the notion of supersymmetry.

String theory would have weight if we saw a graviton, and then watched it disappear as it left our brane.

So, not only would we have to see something that we've never seen before that explains the most familiar force in the universe, we'd also have to catch it in the act of evading us. M theory assumes that what is right in front of us is naturally evasive to observation. I think that's garbage - that just means we've lost our focus and are looking in the wrong direction.
[/quote]

Yeah probably M-theory is garbage I don't know. But I can Tell you your picture of science and progress is also garbage. I thought you are a logical person but it appears to be that you are biased, read some books about philosophy of science an you'll see what I mean, I can give you some hints if you are interested to learn.
" In order to arrive at a place you do not know you must go by a way you do not know "

-St John of the Cross

Telos

Like I said, you're philosophizing. Nothing wrong with that, but philosophy of science is not science.

QuoteBut I can Tell you your picture of science and progress is also garbage.

Are you sure you're not just misunderstanding?

QuoteI thought you are a logical person but it appears to be that you are biased

If someone appears biased it's because they have logic you don't know about.

QuoteFor me it is not plausible.....

I'm not sure what I think of carrying on a discussion with people who have such low expectations for understanding.

Good luck in your studies.

Tombo

QuoteLike I said, you're philosophizing. Nothing wrong with that, but philosophy of science is not science.
Logical thinking is not science? thats a good one! fortunately I do not need you to tell me what science is.
Quote
QuoteBut I can Tell you your picture of science and progress is also garbage.

Are you sure you're not just misunderstanding?

No I'm not sure. But I sure that science is not a steady climb up a hill, this has been shown by many cases.

Quote
QuoteI thought you are a logical person but it appears to be that you are biased
If someone appears biased it's because they have logic you don't know about.

what logic would that be?

QuoteI'm not sure what I think of carrying on a discussion with people who have such low expectations for understanding.

You don't have to..........
QuoteGood luck in your studies.

Thanks! Happy new year!
" In order to arrive at a place you do not know you must go by a way you do not know "

-St John of the Cross

Telos

QuoteLogical thinking is not science? thats a good one!

Sometimes not! You're catching on. ;) Philosophy often involves logical thinking but is not science. Mathematics is the same way. Mathematics uses deductive reasoning, but science uses inductive reasoning.

Isn't that in your philosophy of science books? Funny, that was in one of the first ones I read. Surprized? I was reading philosophy probably before you learned how to read. :?

QuoteBut I sure that science is not a steady climb up a hill, this has been shown by many cases.

Who said it was steady?

Quotewhat logic would that be?

What (specifically) makes you think I'm biased?

QuoteThanks! Happy new year!

Thanks. Same to you. :)


[Edit: Oh, and another thing, what other theories use abstract things to support them, other than string theory and relativity?]

Nay

Hahaha.. this is the same show I watched Leyla.  I thought it to be very thought provoking, and sometimes quite hard to grasp especially with a 4yr clamering all over you making it near impossible to pay attention.

I see that Telos, you don't think they were talking about astral planes, but that is exactly what I got from it when I was watching it.  It could be my simple way of thinking that is making me think that.. I don't know.

Please forgive the way I'm writing out this post, I just now noticed this thread and I'm going through it, one post at a time.  And also forgive my lack of technical jargen, I'll do the best I can.  :)

Telos said:
QuoteBut since you brought up how AP separation feels a little like anti-gravity, it's worth some discussion. If AP worked within M theory, it would have to use gravitons (which we don't know exist) to send information to another universe. So, that would mean that some mechanism within our brain allows us to send, recieve, detect, and decode graviton transmissions. You can already tell what Brian Greene thinks of that. He used a phone in his model, not his brain.
I recall them saying that the gravitons are so dense they can't see them.  There are two sets of scientist racing to create these contraptions that cause impacts, thus hoping to capture a look at a graviton. (oh, geez I hope that is right..lol)  And it was funny because I thought the same thing about feeling the pull of gravity while getting up and out of my physical.  I think the brain is quite capable of doing what you say it can't.

I have to chuckle at myself (now that I've skimmed forward a couple pages) for even attempting to join this conversation, because of my lack of finesse in the scientific and mathmatician world.  

Half way through the program, I turned to my husband and said.. "ya know, if the scientist would just get together with people, like those on the Pulse I believe we could really learn quite a bit from each other."  But I think I understand now why that wouldn't work.  Scientist can't think in simple terms and will always feel superior to us no-brainers.  Not willing to give an inch, and heck... how does one argue with that, when you can't speak the language?

The only reason why I understood half that program is because they showed alot of visuals..ya know?  I'm weird that way.  I can learn and understand alot easier when given visuals.  But after skimming through more pages of this thread just left me feeling deflated and in the dark.

Oh well, this post didn't turn out exactly how I imagined but hey, that's life..lol  and instead of deleted it, I figure what the heck.... If I have to struggle through jargen, my rambling isn't so bad.  :wink:

Telos

You got it right, Nay. Don't worry. Your capacity for understanding is much larger than you think. Everyone's is.

QuoteI recall them saying that the gravitons are so dense they can't see them. There are two sets of scientist racing to create these contraptions that cause impacts, thus hoping to capture a look at a graviton. (oh, geez I hope that is right..lol) And it was funny because I thought the same thing about feeling the pull of gravity while getting up and out of my physical. I think the brain is quite capable of doing what you say it can't.

I hope I don't sound like I think the brain can't do something. I don't claim to know everything about the brain or the universe, and I'm ready to admit when my ideas are wrong.

Quote"ya know, if the scientist would just get together with people, like those on the Pulse I believe we could really learn quite a bit from each other."

I highly agree. However, scientists think and speak in the language of mathematics. The language is constructed around measurement and certainty, so it's a language that can make whomever uses it dubious of those who do not use it. And we do not use it.

Tombo

QuoteSometimes not! You're catching on.  Philosophy often involves logical thinking but is not science. Mathematics is the same way. Mathematics uses deductive reasoning, but science uses inductive reasoning.

Good to hear, 'm still waiting for you to catch on on my ideas though  :wink:

QuoteIsn't that in your philosophy of science books? Funny, that was in one of the first ones I read. Surprized? I was reading philosophy probably before you learned how to read
.  

Yeah I'm actually surprised, Cause you seem to have a hard time understanding me, probably you should re-read the books .-P
Well o.k. Maybe I was unclear with my arguments so I try again:


Quote
QuoteIf object A has mass Ma and object B has mass Mb,
then the force F on object A is directed toward object B
and has magnitude

F = G Ma Mb / r2
That equation is used to put rovers on Mars. So that's not a proven theory?

The theorie says that there is a Law of nature wich states F = G Ma Mb / r2, Law of Nature means that this equation is valid everywhere, anytime.
Now lets assume there is a other Law of nature ,which has not been discovered yet, that states that if the mass are far enough apart, lets say 20000 billion light years then there comes a additional force-component heavely into play. This force is always present but too small to be messured when distances are small. So no matter how many Rovers you put on mars, you'll not discover the fact that the law F = G Ma Mb / r2 is actually incorrect, Not a law of nature cause not valid in any situation. One can expand this line o reasoning on all Laws of nature. Therefore it is not possible to prove that a Theorie on a physical law is right. If you call that philosphy or whatever does not matter. It is not possible to prove a Physical theorie! Or do you think they call the electromagnetic theory, "Theory" out of sheer fun?


Quote
QuoteBut I sure that science is not a steady climb up a hill, this has been shown by many cases.
Who said it was steady?
O.k. steady was the wrong word, but you said that Physical theories build upon each other. This is not always the case. On what theorie was the theorie of relativity build upon?

What (specifically) makes you think I'm biased?

QuoteScience is empirical, it continuously builds on existing knowledge
" In order to arrive at a place you do not know you must go by a way you do not know "

-St John of the Cross

Tombo

Quote from: NayI have to chuckle at myself (now that I've skimmed forward a couple pages) for even attempting to join this conversation, because of my lack of finesse in the scientific and mathmatician world.  

Half way through the program, I turned to my husband and said.. "ya know, if the scientist would just get together with people, like those on the Pulse I believe we could really learn quite a bit from each other."  But I think I understand now why that wouldn't work.  Scientist can't think in simple terms and will always feel superior to us no-brainers.  Not willing to give an inch, and heck... how does one argue with that, when you can't speak the language?

Don't worry about that. If someone (a scientist for that sake) has really understood something he should be able to explain it in simple terms (in my opinion  :wink: )
I once told my girlfriend I believe every body has 100 points brain power, But some have 50 points mathematics while others have 10 but the same may have only 10 points social live while the other has 50 points there. No need for the mathematician to feel superior
" In order to arrive at a place you do not know you must go by a way you do not know "

-St John of the Cross

Nay

I see you found the M theory I was asking about in the other thread..lol. ( I hadn't found this one yet)

QuoteNo need for the mathematician to feel superior

I'm not seeking to feel superior, I just want to UNDERSTAND!  :lol:  :lol:

Nay

FreeChile

Someone wrote "Precognition breaks the laws of time."

If I remember correctly, time is yet another physical dimension as explained by relativity.

For example, two objects can not occupy the same place at the same "time".  In different times, of course they can.

catmeow

Quote from: FreeChileSomeone wrote "Precognition breaks the laws of time."

If I remember correctly, time is yet another physical dimension as explained by relativity.

For example, two objects can not occupy the same place at the same "time". In different times, of course they can.
You're either being pedantic or else you're missing the point?  :?  

Let me rephrase so there can be no misunderstanding:  "Precognition breaks the mathematical rules concerning time as defined by Einstein's theory of relativity".  Or to put it slightly more simply, precognition is not possible according to the theory of relativity.

catmeow
The bad news is there's no key to the Universe. The good news is it's not locked. - Swami Beyondananda

Leyla

QuoteI see that Telos, you don't think they were talking about astral planes, but that is exactly what I got from it when I was watching it. It could be my simple way of thinking that is making me think that.. I don't know.

Not only is it exactly what you got from it, Nay, but it's exactly what the physicists themselves got from it- which is why so many of them are trying astral projection.

(through meditation or chemical short-cuts)

Maybe Telos doesn't think there is a connection. But they do.

And I'm going to take their word for it because it's their theory.

I'll change my mind as soon as Telos gets a Ph.d in Physics.

QuoteThe overwhelming observed facts indicate that astral planes, and ESP, operate independently of physical laws. For instance, telepathy appears to be independent of distance. It does not observe the normal square-law. Precognition breaks the laws of time.

All particles are able to move backward and forward in time, and can even communicate with one another across distances. And we are all made up of particles.

catmeow

Quote from: LeylaThey're one step ahead of you on this. Many of these string theorists are not satisfied merely observing particle collisions in an accelerator, but are attempting to learn astral projection, which they call 'quantum tunneling' so as to better observe the collapse of the wave-function and to communicate with "inter-dimensional disincarnate entities" as they refer to them.
Please name your sources.  Until you do, I'll assume it's the following article, which contains the same text you have used almost word for word:

http://www.brainmachines.com/body_matrix.html

Quote from: Leyla
Quote from: catmeowThe overwhelming observed facts indicate that astral planes, and ESP, operate independently of physical laws. For instance, telepathy appears to be independent of distance. It does not observe the normal square-law. Precognition breaks the laws of time.
All particles are able to move backward and forward in time, and can even communicate with one another across distances. And we are all made up of particles.
No that isn't correct.

By the way, why do you assume that people on this board don't already have PhD's?  :?

catmeow
The bad news is there's no key to the Universe. The good news is it's not locked. - Swami Beyondananda

Leyla

The page looks familiar, I may have read it. Type "DMT" and "physics" into a google search and you will find dozens of such physcists. They are ubiquitous. And they're all writing books.

I take their word as credible, especially since they have experienced both sides of these parallel universes as both scientists and astral travelers.

Why wouldn't I? Or rather, why wouldn't you?

Quote
QuoteAll particles are able to move backward and forward in time, and can even communicate with one another across distances. A
No that isn't correct.

Yes. It is correct.

QuoteBy the way, why do you assume that people on this board don't already have PhD's?

Really? What is your PhD in, and from what University?

catmeow

Quote from: Leyla
Quote from: catmeow
Quote from: LeylaAll particles are able to move backward and forward in time, and can even communicate with one another across distances. A
No that isn't correct.
Yes. It is correct.
Oh no it isn't!!  :lol:

Leyla, according to Einstein's Lorentz Transformation, the time line is smooth, unidirectional and continuous.  We cannot move both forward and backward along the time line.  We can only move in one direction, either forwards or backwards.  He may have got it wrong, but that's what he said.

Both my first degree and PhD are in Electronics.  I did get an 'S' level distinction in Physics however, for what it's worth.

Cheers
catmeow
The bad news is there's no key to the Universe. The good news is it's not locked. - Swami Beyondananda

Leyla

How many years ago did you take this class?

The hard and fast laws of science have a funny way of totally collapsing once you get down on a subatomic level.

I wish I could draw you the diagram I am looking at on pages 184-185 of the Tao of Physics. It says quite clearly that particles do move backward and forward in time, just as just as they can move left and right in space.

"Cheers?" Leyla

catmeow

Quote from: LeylaHow many years ago did you take this class?
Certainly after the book was published in 1975.  Whilst on the subject, it's possible that I am older than you, but in that case I won't hold your youth and inexperience against you....  :lol:

"cheers" is just a friendly greeting in the UK.

In any event I'll get hold of a copy of the book.  Very often, authors attempt to curve fit science to metaphysics, in order to lend false weight to their pet theories, and also of course to sell books.  I'll see if this is the case with this book.

catmeow
The bad news is there's no key to the Universe. The good news is it's not locked. - Swami Beyondananda

Leyla

I have the third edition, updated. 1991.

I don't know if I would go so far as to call Buddhism "metaphysics."

The same information on particles is available in my copies of "Metapatterns," "The Holographic Universe," "and "The Dancing Wu Li Masters."

All are pretty good books as far as Physics goes.

As for my "youth and inexperience," I am 29 and holding  :lol:

Although it should be obvious my writing is not nearly so arrogant in tone as one of these know-it-all teenagers. I would not sarcastically throw about the word "cheers," for instance. That would make me sound haughty and pretentious.

How about yourself?

catmeow

Quote from: LeylaI would not sarcastically throw about the word "cheers," for instance. That would make me sound haughty and pretentious.
Don't understand you at all now?  You thought I was being sarcastic instead of friendly?  :?

catmeow
The bad news is there's no key to the Universe. The good news is it's not locked. - Swami Beyondananda

Tombo

Quote from: LeylaI have the third edition, updated. 1991.

I don't know if I would go so far as to call Buddhism "metaphysics."

The same information on particles is available in my copies of "Metapatterns," "The Holographic Universe," "and "The Dancing Wu Li Masters."

All are pretty good books as far as Physics goes.

As for my "youth and inexperience," I am 29 and holding  :lol:

Although it should be obvious my writing is not nearly so arrogant in tone as one of these know-it-all teenagers. I would not sarcastically throw about the word "cheers," for instance. That would make me sound haughty and pretentious.

How about yourself?

Why don't you use a real book on Physics, instead of a pseudo-Physic-book ? You wouldn't use a Book by Stephen Hawking to read about Buddhism, would you?

And no Particles usually can not travel back in time. A Particle needs to exceed the speed of light travel back in time, for any particle with mass, this would need indefinite energy.
I know Micheal J. Fox did it but you can not!

:lol: CHEERS  :lol:   Tom
" In order to arrive at a place you do not know you must go by a way you do not know "

-St John of the Cross