The Science Establishing the Existence of a Life Force

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: osaitax

Peer reviewed papers is one of the causes of mainstream science being stuck where it is — denying that a life force exists.

Free-thinking, independent researchers have to write books to get their findings published.

This reason above is why my son is turned off by the idea of getting a degree in the field he absolutely loves. I hope he changes his mind.

To quote Tesla again...

"The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence."

-Nikola Tesla

a reply to: artistpoet

Personally I'm really struggling with using the word "time" as being an emission.

I also don't like to study time travel because it gives me cognitive dissonance.

But when I learned about remote viewing years ago, I realized that I have to open up my mind to new ways of looking at things.

originally posted by: MamaJ
This reason above is why my son is turned off by the idea of getting a degree in the field he absolutely loves. I hope he changes his mind.

If you have a son who is in the position of deciding what to do about his education for his life's work, my heart goes out to you.

Maybe your son can educate himself through the new institutions that are possible via. the links available on the internet.

a reply to: ConnectDots

I understand or think I understand to some degree

Science is sorta stumped ... It can not explain satisfactory how the known Universe holds together
Sure it can tag (dark Matter) what it does not understand
and fools the public (mostly inadvernatly) that it is a font of all knowledge

Rather like when Latin was used in Catholic Rituals
The ordinary joe not understanding what the heck the priasts were saying
In an atmoshpere of high jinx

Was it Einstien who said ... that if you can not explain in a way that all can understand you do not know your subject well enough

a reply to: MamaJ

Propose an objective means of measuring the "non-physical" and you would have a point. Otherwise, you're just saying "why won't science take my magical beliefs seriously?". Well, there's a good reason for that.

a reply to: GetHyped

Lol perhaps when science can fully explain what the 97 per cent or so of the Universe is made of and how it works and what instigated it then you would have a point

Oh It is dark matter/energy but we can not explain how it came to be or how it works

There is no need to establish there is a life force ... any fool can see it is so
You can label it any way you wish and create theory's about it

But a simple observation of nature will show you life force for want a better word exists

a reply to: artistpoet

We can objectively measure the effects of *something*, we just aren't quite sure what it is yet. It's certainly not 'non-physical'.

But this is a needless distraction as you haven't answered my question (nor MaryRose/ConnectTheDots whenever that quote is used to justify magical beliefs).

a reply to: GetHyped

Yes other things exist that measurement shows to be so
Which science can not fully explain but does seek to understand

As such for want of a tag "Life Force" can not be dismissed as it is a Universal Law
Which we can see in the humblest and mighty aspects of the Universe

Is this thread just about one persons view or are am I allowed to input my ideas also

With respect
I am not here to defend any ones ideas
I am here to add my own

I apologise if you think I am interupting your conversation with another
I will endevour to make my ideas thoughts general in future

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: MamaJ

Propose an objective means of measuring the "non-physical" and you would have a point. Otherwise, you're just saying "why won't science take my magical beliefs seriously?". Well, there's a good reason for that.

Can you measure your emotions? Can you measure your love for your mother? Are your emotions real or magically made up out of thin air? Can you measure the infinite Universe? Is the Universe there or is it magically produced out of thin air? Possibly the latter.



Gazing into the cosmos or the quantum world is magical from my point of view. It's interactive as far as I can tell.

Giving birth is magical.

Don't be fearful of what you aren't wiling to understand. This is the problem with main stream science. They are like old dogs with their tale between their legs shivering with fear... reminds me of the politicians today.

a reply to: MamaJ

Can you answer the question or not?

originally posted by: artistpoet
Science is sorta stumped ... It can not explain satisfactory how the known Universe holds together
Sure it can tag (dark Matter) what it does not understand

But there is science that accounts for what is coined unseen"dark matter" to shape galaxies so that gravity will work as it is supposed to according to accepted science. The science is the science of Electric Universe cosmology: Electrically charged bodies embedded in a charged plasma.

Science is stumped because of not being inclusive enough.

a reply to: ConnectDots

I am not dis-agreeing with you by any means

But theorys are theorys on either side of the fence until absolutly proven

You may well be right ... I do not know

All I know is what I know by my own observation and proof

As such "Life Force" exists

My interest is in gleaning how it all came to be and how it works
I consider all ideas

I am not to out to attack science in any form
I merely consider it

I have many of my own ideas but am unable to share them in a science forum
For example the idea of non physical
I consider everything is made of something but we do not have knowlege of everything that is
Nor the instruments to measure them or their prime cause for being at all

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: MamaJ

Can you answer the question or not?

SO much about life and within life cannot be measured but we know it exists.

How do we know it exists if we can't measure it?

We know by observation!!!!

originally posted by: ConnectDots
What does not make sense in Figure 9?

It doesn't make sense that evaporating acetone would have a measurable effect in the apparatus shown on what's going on inside a thermal shield that separates it from the acetone, and even if there is a tiny effect that is somehow measured, then it's because the thermal shield is not 100% effective as a shield in which case it would be measuring something along the lines of what was measured in the pioneer anomaly, a slight thermal effect.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

The effect is small. Swanson mentions that Western physics has overlooked the phenomenon probably for that reason. However, Russian scientists have not overlooked it and have studied the torsion physics arising from the work of
Kozyrev, in the 50s, ever since.

originally posted by: artistpoet
My interest is in gleaning how it all came to be and how it works

Probably, that interest in how it all came to be and how it works is what drives inventors to create the instruments of science.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: Arbitrageur

The effect is small. Swanson mentions that Western physics has overlooked the phenomenon probably for that reason. However, Russian scientists have not overlooked it and have studied the torsion physics arising from the work of
Kozyrev, in the 50s, ever since.

The pioneer anomaly is small too, and even mainstream scientists were trying to invent new physics to explain it, but it turned out that no new physics was necessary and that small thermal effects can be measured in some cases when you might not be expecting them.

Maybe if he wasn't talking about plants emitting time some mainstream scientists might have taken him seriously and tried to replicate his experiments, but I don't see how anybody can take him seriously, and even you can't explain what he's talking about with plants emitting time.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I'm not a scientist; I'm a researcher.

And I've learned about torsion physics, which interests me, but I have to look to the Russians to learn about it, which is quite difficult, because I don't think much is translated into English yet, and when I try to listen to English-speaking Russian scientists, I find it most difficult to understand their accent.

Wikipedia is no help, because Wikipedia is part of the problem, as Swanson points out in References:

Wikipedia, (2016). Wikipedia in many subject areas still remains a good source of background information. However, in Russia as well as the United States, there are skeptical interests who seem determined to suppress and undermine important scientific advances, especially those involving new technologies for propulsion and energy (see for example: Lobova, 2013) . Unfortunately, Wikipedia has become one of the worst offenders. Its treatment of the science of torsion is a good example. Torsion science began development in the 1950's by an eminent Soviet astrophysicist, Nikolai Kozyrev, and was further investigated by dozens of Soviet scientists during the next three decades. Good supporting evidence for this can be found in the 1969 book Psychic Discoveries Behind the Iron Curtain, by Ostrander and Schroeder, who interviewed the key torsion scientist Kozyrev in 1968. However, full details of the Russian torsion research program only came to light in the West during the period of 'openness' starting in the early 1990's, when dozens of supporting documents became available. Yet, in Wikipedia's account of torsion, they cite one or more fictitious histories. One claims torsion was invented in the last twenty years by two Russians to make money as an investment scam. Nowhere in its account does it cite the true history, nor does it cite published research by Kozyrev, Ostrander and Schroeder, Lavrentiev, or any of the legitimate scientific researchers.

www.synchronizeduniverse.com...

a reply to: MamaJ

So when you say "The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.", What exactly is your proposition beyond "science won't study my magical beliefs, but..."?