Schumann Resonances, Electro Magnetism, and the Brain.

reply to post by fulllotusqigong


First off, I agree about there being relevance with these things, but I was really hoping to get buddhasystems view on it.

I also agree that we have to include the "quantum realm*" in any discussions that are taking us to the edge of what we perceive. *Quantum realm referring to whatever we are observing on the super micro scale. The seeming paradoxes may simply be representative of attempting to view something which is too far beyond our physical scale.

I dont have links for the following, nor studies. Just my opinion. It also gets a bit paradoxed up, and riddle-y, and off topic So Ill keep it short. Or, shorter.

I feel the quantum realm and the physical universe are separated, physically, by space-time. Where these boundaries break down we would see a singularity. Theoretically, this is indicated by the idea that a wave, without time as a factor, is a circle. The circle contains all of the boundary conditions for the wave, and its derivatives (sin, cos, tan, blah blah). When the mechanics of space-time are introduced, the information contained within the circle starts to oscillate over time. The "start" to this process would be what we understand through the big bang theory, and all subsequent processes taking place within the physical universe would be set by the boundary conditions set by that event. However, since we are also dealing with an arena beyond time, the connection of all of these different physical processes is a single link (singularity). I feel the overall shape of this process is illustrated well enough with the toroid/vortex, but I would make it a bit more specific like roughly this. Slightly different, but the difference is important in my mind. This is because, at least with shapes, we are left with specific results from specific patterns.

So, in this context, what is happening at the "center" may indeed be part of the same singularity, but due to the wave/physical structure of half of the system, it happens in different.. "places" at the beginning and end of a cycle. In this way, I think it is more accurate to look at it as little big bangs, rather than black holes. When we are not dealing with space-time, and the duality (or wave) it introduces, this is technically a moot point. But, as said, half of the system IS subject to these mechanics. These little "big bangs" are seen by me to be magnetism being "slowed down" as it enters the mechanics of space-time. This then creates light, which then fractals out into every-thing over time. This also implicates that magnetism is not necessarily subject to the physical rules of space-time. It also implicates that we might be able to see "carry-over" particles when this process is done very quickly, like with lightning. Okay, maybe one link

The black holes, on the other hand, are representative of the end of the cycle of the light. Again, for what we observe as the quantum side of the system, this is a moot point, but that is only half of the system. In the other half (what we observe as the physical universe), a black hole and big bang are two independent, but not separate, parts of the cycle. I hope this at least made some sense. Its a brief overview of a very in-depth topic, and I am not always clear spoken

And in looking at it, this isnt shorter, much less short! Ah well. Hope it was at least interesting for ya!

Originally posted by buddhasystem
And how exactly do they "elude" us? And why is supposedly due to "mechanics"?

"We dont know how or why, we just know that it does it." We can identify the patterns but not the mechanics.

Beyond that, I say:

You had ample opportunities to present your thoughts, but you failed at that.

I am always open for good explorative discussion, if you happen to change your mind.

Originally posted by sinohptik
So, in this context, what is happening at the "center" may indeed be part of the same singularity, but due to the wave/physical structure of half of the system, it happens in different.. "places" at the beginning and end of a cycle. In this way, I think it is more accurate to look at it as little big bangs, rather than black holes.

I am very interested in the subject of black holes, because within the research that I've done there is such contradiction. Some of my sources seem to think they make sense, in conjunction with a white hole, but others seem to think they're a ludicrous concept.

reply to post by Mary Rose


I find it interesting too. I think that the behavior that we witness is indicative of "something." However, everything that we pursue has to be done within the context of human understanding (which is reliant on the brain). Because of this, I have my doubts about us truly understanding what is at the edge/beyond our own perspective. And the behavior explained with the idea of black holes is not just at the edge of our perspective, it would (mathematically) be at the edge of the universe itself. However (BIG however!), that does NOT preclude us from experiencing these things. I think this exact dilemma has been presented, historically, in pretty much all major religions (did I just say the "R" word?). We see non-duality, where one is encouraged to "overcome" the duality of the physical universe. We see the "holy trinity," which easily represents the idea of a dualistic physical universe (two sides of the trinity) balanced out with the "All" of God. All these beings explored the same universe, so I do not think it is far-fetched to suggest these are simply different human contexts for the exact same thing (the universe). It would make sense that correlations would not be that difficult. I think there are key parts missing to these religious contexts though.

Please keep in mind, due to the paradoxical nature, such explanations are tenuous at best. Though, it seems that to get it to do that to create black hole behavior, there needs to be a process that tears the boundary of space-time. So, we should only see these things after a process of immense scale or energy and no other time. Due to the direction of the flow, and scale, of something like lightning (or a coil) it should never theoretically "create" a black hole. In this explanation, the black hole and lightning both "eventually" connect to the same singularity but they are as distinct as say, a binary star system where both stars orbit around the same center. They (black hole/light) are "gates" to the boundary of space-time, but are themselves still both strictly physical processes which are subject to the balance of duality. I feel this is indicated by the observation of oscillations in black hole behavior that we can observe. I link that article specifically, because it hints towards there being a lower limit for something like this to be stable. To me, this corroborates the above ideas.

In trying to work my words out, I feel it is more accurate to say that at the center of All Things is a singularity, but a black hole is just indicative of a process that "broke" the limit, due to scale, and the mechanics of entropy into the singularity is increased by orders of magnitude.

I hesitate to present too much about this, because I feel it starts to veer off-topic. I just have a bad habit of doing that, and am trying to work on it

What do you think?

Originally posted by fulllotusqigong
Stuart Kauffman's pdf on quantum chaos consciousness

A copy and paste from the second page:

Third, and critically, if we distinguish between a quantum system and its enviroment, quantum or quantum + classical, phase information may be lost from the quantum system to the quantum envornonment and not be recoverable. This process, as described in earlier blobs, in called "Decoherence".

In need of an editor, wouldn't you say? (I count 4 errors.)

The .pdf looks really interesting but I find it difficult to overlook stuff like that and just keep reading, although it is apparent, after spending some time deciphering, what Kauffman meant to say.

Originally posted by sinohptik
"We dont know how or why, we just know that it does it."

You elected to change the scope of discussion. You see, in no way, shape or form does Rodin explain the laws of electromagnetism. He personally believes in the idiotic notion that he's able to "implode space-time".

You are right in that we don't know WHY the fields we observe (and reliably calculate, so there is no "elusive" behavior in that) possess the qualities that we find they have. That applies to every fundamental interaction we observe in nature, that's why it's called fundamental. However, relevance of Rodin to that issue is zero.

Dr. Fran De Aquino, physicist, says HAARP can manipulate spacetime through gravity shielding

A brilliant physicist published a revolutionary paper citing 30 other scientific papers that reveal HAARP has incredible powers far beyond what most investigators of the high frequency energy technology suspect. Dr. Fran De Aquino asserts a fully functional HAARP network, activated globally, can not only affect weather and geophysical events, but influence space and gravity…even time itself! Now the network is almost complete with the activation of the newest HAARP facilities at the bottom of the world: the desolate and alien Antarctic. Will the masters of HAARP become the masters of time too?

From the paper:

By increasing or decreasing the frequency,, of the ELF radiation, it is possible to increase ELFPfTΔ(See Eq.(16)). In this way, it is possible to produce strong localized heating on Land or on the Oceans. This process suggests that, by means of two small Gravitational Shieldings built with Gas or Plasma at ultra-low pressure, as shown in the processes of gravity control [22], it is possible to produce the same heating effects. Thus, for example, the water inside a container can be strongly heated when the container is placed below the mentioned Gravitational Shieldings.

So....

Based on the phenomenon of reduction of local gravity related to the Gravitational Shieldings So and Si, it is possible to create a device for moving very heavy loads such as large monoliths, for example.

His website

Originally posted by fulllotusqigong
Dr. Fran De Aquino, physicist, says HAARP can manipulate spacetime through gravity shielding

Let's take a look at this quality link (wink, wink). The "warped" cloud so proudly presented there is a pine tree branch, this photo made rounds on the Internet and was in fact discussed here on ATS in this thread. Enjoy the thorough debunking of this incredible bullcr@p (for a change someone did all the work, so I can just sit back, sip a margarita and laugh at the fools who believe in that sort of nonsense).

Link to Google Street View (artifact)

Oh, and I loved the "HAARP criss-cross picture". Informative, right? Except 70% of Earth's surface is water. This would make for lots and lots of giant artificial islands... Which we see every day, n'est pas?

Originally posted by buddhasystem
. . . sip a margarita . . .

You sound like you've had one too many.

reply to post by sinohptik


I think you are an original thinker, which is refreshing.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
. . . sip a margarita . . .

You sound like you've had one too many.

Not really. If you heard me talking about six-sided triangles and quantum frequencies, I would have to agree.

And what you are saying is hypocrisy. I posted a clear link to Google Streets photo artifact that the stupid nuts are posting as an example of HAARP function. Sorry my contribution weighs more than yours.

reply to post by Mary Rose


Yeah so far no comments on the actual paper by the physicist. haha. Typical B.S. as usual from the B.S.er.

Originally posted by fulllotusqigong
reply to post by Mary Rose

 

Yeah so far no comments on the actual paper by the physicist. haha. Typical B.S. as usual from the B.S.er.

Read the thread on the paper, I posted there. Read slowly. Once again, I forgive you your choice of form of address which I find very inappropriate. You can't comment on physics because you know none, whether you call me bulsh!tter or not.

And it's quite telling that you don't protest the utmost cr@p posted in the link you quoted, but you do protest the truth.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Your tone negates any contributions you make.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Your tone negates any contributions you make.

Well maybe it applies to those readers who aren't capable of reading the content[/].