Sadhguru on the Higgs Boson (God Particle)

Whoa! That man has some solid wisdom which I could totally 100% relate to!

reply to post by RhinestoneCowboy


He certainly does. Too bad many ignorant folks just write off such wisdom as 'psuedoscience'. I think that term is completely ridiculous.

The Higgs particle was not discovered last year. It was re-discovered last year. The particle was originally described in 1959 (about five years before Higgs and others even conceived of it) with a yogic form of remote viewing called 'anima' in Sanskrit:
www.smphillips.8m.com...
If you want to know what is the real "God particle" in the sense of the particle being the subatomic manifestation of the divine, then study this:
www.smphillips.8m.com...
and understand that it is a subquark state of the E8xE8 heterotic superstring. The proof of this has been available to the public for over 33 years but has been ignored because the proof is too technical for most people except theoretical physicists to understand, and the latter don't want to destroy their careers by endorsing the research. Quarks were described paranormally in 1895 - nearly 70 years before physicists Gell-Mann and Zweig hypothesized their existence. Leading parapsychologists, Fellows of the Royal Society and Nobel Prize winners in physics know about the scientific proof of this claim but are too scared to talk about it in public in case their public endorsement of an astounding proof of the existence of ESP destroys their reputations.

reply to post by micpsi


I mostly skimmed through that, but it is very interesting. I wonder why I have never heard of it.

Originally posted by micpsi
The Higgs particle was not discovered last year. It was re-discovered last year. The particle was originally described in 1959 (about five years before Higgs and others even conceived of it) with a yogic form of remote viewing called 'anima' in Sanskrit:
www.smphillips.8m.com...
If you want to know what is the real "God particle" in the sense of the particle being the subatomic manifestation of the divine, then study this:
www.smphillips.8m.com...
and understand that it is a subquark state of the E8xE8 heterotic superstring. The proof of this has been available to the public for over 33 years but has been ignored because the proof is too technical for most people except theoretical physicists to understand, and the latter don't want to destroy their careers by endorsing the research. Quarks were described paranormally in 1895 - nearly 70 years before physicists Gell-Mann and Zweig hypothesized their existence. Leading parapsychologists, Fellows of the Royal Society and Nobel Prize winners in physics know about the scientific proof of this claim but are too scared to talk about it in public in case their public endorsement of an astounding proof of the existence of ESP destroys their reputations.

What's the physical basis of whatever-this-is? Is it information? Is it momentum? Is it based on change?

What is its own quantum expression? It must have a quantized indivisible unit expression, since it obviously does the rinse-repeat structure/complexity thing, so what is its quantized indivisible unit expression? All I see is highly developed geometric illustrations that represent complex arrangements of basic shapes, with terms that mean absolutely nothing to someone who speaks the English language suggesting that these Spirograph doodles mean something that's also not actually described in a way that anyone can translate into normal English. I've had plenty of exposure to widely used physics terms, and even a lot of fairly obscure physics terminology, but if those specific labels have any correlation to the physics terminology in use across the rest of the planet, then it's not evident.

To be honest, I'd be surprised if you could actually explain any of it in your own words, or in words that exist within the English language. It's pretty, but geometry is like all those other methods of examining the nature of set logic. It's just a human crafted written language that works better for some than for others. There's nothing sacred about geometry.

Originally posted by NorEaster
There's nothing sacred about geometry.

It is no more sacred than anything else -- infinitely.