What is Real?

 Posts: 173
 Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 6:26 pm
 Location: KY
Re: What is Real?
My inside self is a physical form of dark shadow. It has mass. It's the immortal part of me. It's difficult to communicate with inside self because language is reversed.
 SciRPG
 Posts: 48
 Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 6:06 pm
 Contact:
Re: What is Real?
Plasmatic wrote:Ive seen the video and she should see her brothers doctor as far as im concerned. So your saying that love is akin to the nature of quantum things? is that right?
Just bringing this up as a note to the above quote.
My original reason for ever investigating "Unexplained" phenomenon was an experience I had about 20 years ago... I have to attribute this search bringing me over here to EU btw, and its quite stunning to say the least to have this video presented, and having this Jill Taylor explaining the stroke experience she had as IDENTICAL to my own experience (without the actual stroke).
I will have to say, in response to this quoted question, that the word LOVE is a rather crude way that weakly describes the event of "experiencing through God's eyes". Even "eyes" is an abstract description.
In my own experience about 20 years ago, I awoke one morning and sat up in my bed, readied my mind on thinking about all the things I needed to do that day.
Suddenly everything around me started coming apart, it was like many panes of glass sliding away from all sides (up, down, around, behind, direction became nonexistent to my mind), layer by layer, revealing energy compassing everything.
I don't know how long I was in that state, I don't even really remember coming back, it was vague. I do know that I felt like Jill did, trying to compress all that I was back into my brain.
Now, this is a completely rough description of the event as there are no real words that could ever describe it, as I can say that there is no real words for describing the feeling the state of being all that "energy".
Thanks to Junglelord for posting the link, it answered the question I had held within myself for 20 years and finally ends my quest in uncovering what happened to me. Now I can focus more on other certain things about the experience.
Now if we can let everyone experience the same event, I would say we would have a very peaceful time for several months, perhaps years (until the Illusion of the material world gains hold again).
I know what she is saying is true. Yes, there are likely those who are so strongly brainwashed into believing only the "physical" spectrum is important and that have adopted the Atheistic view, whom may experience this event themselves and reject the every event as some hallucination. However the event itself is quite powerful and lifechanging, the human mind is so conditioned that there is always that doubt in what they had experienced.
For me it latched on and stayed with me. Yes, it's hold weakened as "time" progressed, I knew it was a calling, perhaps showing me this was to make me do something, or be something more? But I knew I would struggle with it, I wasn't ready for it, I wasn't ready to change my ways to a higher road...yet.
I guess having kids now changed that, so now I will do what I can, I've seen the potential, I've seen that life goes on, I'm energy, I cannot be destroyed, only transfered. I am you, you're me, the energy is one. Our left brain makes "us" appear as individuals, It's got that frightening Star Trek "borg" element, its not actually frightening (only frightening to your left brain, quite a battleground for us Humans)
~~Richard K~~
3D SciFi Illustration
3D SciFi Illustration

 Posts: 49
 Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 4:30 am
Re: What is Real?
Hi All
I have been following this one discussion with great interest the question rest and falls on the Cogitio and I will explain why Cartesian mechanics is all wrong at a later date.
In order to answer the question What is Real I think we need look no further than the circle. Why the Circle? Because in both Maths and Metaphysics the Circle represents Everything and Nothing a Paradox that most people cannot get to grips with.
All Physical Models of the Cosmos are based on Maths it all started out from a Singularity which is represented mathematically by the number Zero.
Everything is Nothing.
David A. Chalmers Physicist
All around I see Nothing pretending to be Something,
Emptiness pretending to be Fullness.
Confucious Chinese Sage
Aphorisms are like koans they help us break down our own pre conceived ideas and negative programming.
Some really good Aphorisms for you to think over.
All that is True, by whomsoever it has been said has its origin in the Spirit.
Thomas Aquinas
The observer  which is pure consciousness  is permeating the whole universe and, here is the first bit which you might find a little hard to accept at first  the act of observation creates the object under observation. Wow this is a deep one, it implies that if there were no observation there would be nothing to observe. Consciousness itself is creating the manifest universe.
Tycho Photiou
The Void is absolute zero; chaos forming all possibilities. It is Absolute Consciousness; much more than even Universal Intelligence.
Mellen Benidict Thomas
If you look at zero you see nothing;
but look through it and you will see the world.
Robert Kaplan
Zero is the eternally existing nothingness that contains within it the potentiality of everything.
Kenneth Meadows
Some scientists have proposed the idea that the universe is a quantum fluctuation of nothing. But what causes the nothing to undergo a quantum fluctuation?
Tycho Photiou
I find it interesting that the number zero has no value and yet it is the most powerful of all numbers, and mathematics, as we know it, couldn't exist without it.
Tycho Photiou
A circle represents a boundary (a point on a plane a fixed distance from a fixed point, the upper limit of a rotated vector)It only represents infinity when the movable point is zero, and the fixed point is negative
Infinity is an upper limit, and zero a lower limit (scalars)
Any number greater than zero divided by zero is infinity.
Zero is the eternally existing nothingness that contains within it the potentiality of everything.
Kenneth Meadows
Ok, now for some simple maths that demonstrate my premise
we all know that:
e^(i * pi) = 1
(if not, wiki it, it's Euler's identity) of course, that means,
e^(pi * i) = 1
which means,
(e^(pi * i))^2 = (1)^2
which, of course, means,
e^(2 * pi * i) = 1
right?
(I derived that for all that don't know the mathematical reasoning it's true. It's simply a unit vector at theta equals 2*pi, which of course is simple 1.)
But, watch what happens when I take the ln of both sides:
ln(e^(2 * pi * i)) = ln(1)
which implies,
2 * pi * i = 0 !!!
dividing both sides by pi*i, this implies,
2 = 0 / (pi * i)
which means that,
2 = 0 !!!!
I find it interesting that the number zero has no value and yet it is the most powerful of all numbers, and mathematics, as we know it, couldn't exist without it.
Tycho Photiou
I have been following this one discussion with great interest the question rest and falls on the Cogitio and I will explain why Cartesian mechanics is all wrong at a later date.
In order to answer the question What is Real I think we need look no further than the circle. Why the Circle? Because in both Maths and Metaphysics the Circle represents Everything and Nothing a Paradox that most people cannot get to grips with.
All Physical Models of the Cosmos are based on Maths it all started out from a Singularity which is represented mathematically by the number Zero.
Everything is Nothing.
David A. Chalmers Physicist
All around I see Nothing pretending to be Something,
Emptiness pretending to be Fullness.
Confucious Chinese Sage
Aphorisms are like koans they help us break down our own pre conceived ideas and negative programming.
Some really good Aphorisms for you to think over.
All that is True, by whomsoever it has been said has its origin in the Spirit.
Thomas Aquinas
The observer  which is pure consciousness  is permeating the whole universe and, here is the first bit which you might find a little hard to accept at first  the act of observation creates the object under observation. Wow this is a deep one, it implies that if there were no observation there would be nothing to observe. Consciousness itself is creating the manifest universe.
Tycho Photiou
The Void is absolute zero; chaos forming all possibilities. It is Absolute Consciousness; much more than even Universal Intelligence.
Mellen Benidict Thomas
If you look at zero you see nothing;
but look through it and you will see the world.
Robert Kaplan
Zero is the eternally existing nothingness that contains within it the potentiality of everything.
Kenneth Meadows
Some scientists have proposed the idea that the universe is a quantum fluctuation of nothing. But what causes the nothing to undergo a quantum fluctuation?
Tycho Photiou
I find it interesting that the number zero has no value and yet it is the most powerful of all numbers, and mathematics, as we know it, couldn't exist without it.
Tycho Photiou
A circle represents a boundary (a point on a plane a fixed distance from a fixed point, the upper limit of a rotated vector)It only represents infinity when the movable point is zero, and the fixed point is negative
Infinity is an upper limit, and zero a lower limit (scalars)
Any number greater than zero divided by zero is infinity.
Zero is the eternally existing nothingness that contains within it the potentiality of everything.
Kenneth Meadows
Ok, now for some simple maths that demonstrate my premise
we all know that:
e^(i * pi) = 1
(if not, wiki it, it's Euler's identity) of course, that means,
e^(pi * i) = 1
which means,
(e^(pi * i))^2 = (1)^2
which, of course, means,
e^(2 * pi * i) = 1
right?
(I derived that for all that don't know the mathematical reasoning it's true. It's simply a unit vector at theta equals 2*pi, which of course is simple 1.)
But, watch what happens when I take the ln of both sides:
ln(e^(2 * pi * i)) = ln(1)
which implies,
2 * pi * i = 0 !!!
dividing both sides by pi*i, this implies,
2 = 0 / (pi * i)
which means that,
2 = 0 !!!!
I find it interesting that the number zero has no value and yet it is the most powerful of all numbers, and mathematics, as we know it, couldn't exist without it.
Tycho Photiou
 StevenO
 Posts: 894
 Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm
Re: What is Real?
The Universe does not start at zero, it starts at one and that puts zero and infinity on equal footing.
The exponential function is periodic in 2*pi*i, that is a mathematical shortcut that is no physical reality and the reason the Physicists had to invent particle 'spin'.
The exponential function is periodic in 2*pi*i, that is a mathematical shortcut that is no physical reality and the reason the Physicists had to invent particle 'spin'.
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.

 Posts: 49
 Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 4:30 am
Re: What is Real?
The Universe does not start at zero, it starts at one and that puts zero and infinity on equal footing.
The exponential function is periodic in 2*pi*i, that is a mathematical shortcut that is no physical reality and the reason the Physicists had to invent particle 'spin'.
Of course it does, we live in a binaray universe which is why some philosophers and scientist believe we are living in a giant simulation.
The exponential function is periodic in 2*pi*i, that is a mathematical shortcut that is no physical reality and the reason the Physicists had to invent particle 'spin'.
Of course it does, we live in a binaray universe which is why some philosophers and scientist believe we are living in a giant simulation.
 StevenO
 Posts: 894
 Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm
Re: What is Real?
Hi WhiteNight,whitenightf3 wrote:Of course it does, we live in a binaray universe which is why some philosophers and scientist believe we are living in a giant simulation.StevenO wrote:The Universe does not start at zero, it starts at one and that puts zero and infinity on equal footing.
The exponential function is periodic in 2*pi*i, that is a mathematical shortcut that is no physical reality and the reason the Physicists had to invent particle 'spin'.
Forgot to welcome you to the forums! My apologies...jumped too quickly on one of my favorite topics.
Unfortunately the universe has some properties that make it unsuitable for simulations. Waves and coupled differential equations are a few. It is also unsuitable to be binary, since exp(x) can never reach zero.
I could agree with a universe that is based on the circle though. As long as it is not a perfect circle
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.

 Posts: 49
 Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 4:30 am
Re: What is Real?
Hi Steveo
Thanks for the welcome of course mystics have always taught that there is only One. The One mind manifesting as the many. Reducing everything to One utilises Occam's Razor everything else all words, all labels are superfluous they stop you realising who you really are.
Your body, your mind and your soul (spirit) are one. In this, you
are a microcosm of Me___the Divine All, the Holy Everything
the Sum and the Substance.
Neal Donald Walsch
Thanks for the welcome of course mystics have always taught that there is only One. The One mind manifesting as the many. Reducing everything to One utilises Occam's Razor everything else all words, all labels are superfluous they stop you realising who you really are.
Your body, your mind and your soul (spirit) are one. In this, you
are a microcosm of Me___the Divine All, the Holy Everything
the Sum and the Substance.
Neal Donald Walsch

 Posts: 173
 Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 6:26 pm
 Location: KY
Re: What is Real?
I am a part of my inner body, but inner body is more than me. Inner body is eternal, having always been in existence as thought.
Zero is where I and inner body meld into one. Zero is where physical balances with the universe. Zero is where heaven is found. It's the perfect balance of positive and neutral in the core that keeps negative on the outer perimeter, unable to penetrate but needed to provide contrast and bonding for the inner circle of perfection.
Also, there's a negative extreme where the negative is in the inner core using the positive on the perimeter to provide the contrast and bonding needed to maintain balance.
Positive is power of self. Negative is power over others.
It can be a very unemotional state of existence for negative in the extreme. Exact opposite for the positive extreme. Bliss, joy is as natural as breathing.
Regardless, power, however it's directed is found within the extreme that some would call zero point, or what I define as the easiest existence using the least amount of energy due to the perfect balance and spin.
We do not self destruct at zero point.
Zero is where I and inner body meld into one. Zero is where physical balances with the universe. Zero is where heaven is found. It's the perfect balance of positive and neutral in the core that keeps negative on the outer perimeter, unable to penetrate but needed to provide contrast and bonding for the inner circle of perfection.
Also, there's a negative extreme where the negative is in the inner core using the positive on the perimeter to provide the contrast and bonding needed to maintain balance.
Positive is power of self. Negative is power over others.
It can be a very unemotional state of existence for negative in the extreme. Exact opposite for the positive extreme. Bliss, joy is as natural as breathing.
Regardless, power, however it's directed is found within the extreme that some would call zero point, or what I define as the easiest existence using the least amount of energy due to the perfect balance and spin.
We do not self destruct at zero point.
 Antone
 Posts: 148
 Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2008 5:28 pm
 Contact:
Re: What is Real?
Interesting observation. I have also noted that the circle is philosophically interesting for many reasons. One of the main ones for me is because of the various ways that it can serve as an analogy for the various types of absolute and relative aspects of reality.whitenightf3 wrote:....What is Real I think we need look no further than the circle.
The way I see it there are a number of valid ways to understand [leftness] and [rightness] with respect to a circle.
One method divides the circle into two conceputal lines that meet at the topmost and the bottommost points on the circle. Now, for any point we can pick (except for the topmost and bottommost oneswhich belong to either both lines or neither line) we can say with theoretical certainty whether that point belongs to the
or the
. I call this the Absolute method becausae (but for the two exceptions) every point has only one of two possible values:
or
. There are no relative values between these two absolutesexcept for the exception points which are paradoxical in nature.
A second method acknowledges that (in reality) there is only a single [circular line] and that it is the same line regardless of whether we are thinking about [rightness] or [leftness]. We cannot limit any portion of this [circle] to exhibiting [only rightness] or [only leftness], because the [circle] is a wholeness that either [possesses both aspects in equal measure] or [possesses neither aspect]. What we can do, however, is to think of the parts of the [circle line]... or in other words, we can think of each individual point that make up the line. This, however, creates a bit of a problem, for now each and every point can be said to be [more or less left] and [more or less right] than the two points adjacent to it. This means that each and every point must have a different and unique value of leftness or rightness. Because of this, I call this the relative method.
One consequence is that now the leftmost and rightmost points become what we might refer to as [absolute left] and [absolute right]. Mathematically, we can say that the [absolute left point] is [100% left and 0% right]. And vice versa for the [absolute right point]. All of the points between these two absolute locations must possess a scaled value for [leftness] and [rightness]. One way we can define that scaled value for each quality is as [~A/D], where [~A] is the [point in questions distance from the reciprocal quality] and [D] is the diameter of the whole circle, or in other words, [~A] is the distance from [one absolute point] to the [point in question], and [D] is the distance form [one absolute point] to the [other absolute point].
Suppose, for instance, that our circle has a diameter of exactly [10 units]. This is the distance from one absolute point to the other. The topmost point would be at exactly [5 units], from either side, so if we wish to measure its leftness we would create the following ratio: [5/10] which reduces to [1/2], which is equivalent to [50% left]. The point that is exactly [7.5 units] from [absolute rightness] would create the ratio: [7.5/10], which reduces to [3/4], or [75% left].
Since the total percentage of [leftness] and [rightness] must equal 100%, we know that the first dot was also [50% right] and the second dot was also [25% right].
This implies two things:
1. It is not necessary to list both aspects.
2. It doesn't matter which aspect we list, because they are functionally equivalent.
Another way the circle works as an analogy
It is worth noting that the [absolute right point] is only absolutely right with respect to the other ponts in the circle.
Thus, calling it absolute is paradoxical, because it is both absolute (with respect to the circle) and relative (with respect to other points not in the circle) all at the same time.
If we think of the [point] that the [absolute point] is being compared to as being on another circle, then there are two basic ways that we can define the relative nature of these two points. These involve changing the spacial/locational aspects of the circleso I call them Spatial Relativism.The first imagines a new circle that is centered on the same centerpoint, but it is larger than the original circle. In such a case, the [leftmost point of the new circle] will necessarily be to the
A second method acknowledges that (in reality) there is only a single [circular line] and that it is the same line regardless of whether we are thinking about [rightness] or [leftness]. We cannot limit any portion of this [circle] to exhibiting [only rightness] or [only leftness], because the [circle] is a wholeness that either [possesses both aspects in equal measure] or [possesses neither aspect]. What we can do, however, is to think of the parts of the [circle line]... or in other words, we can think of each individual point that make up the line. This, however, creates a bit of a problem, for now each and every point can be said to be [more or less left] and [more or less right] than the two points adjacent to it. This means that each and every point must have a different and unique value of leftness or rightness. Because of this, I call this the relative method.
One consequence is that now the leftmost and rightmost points become what we might refer to as [absolute left] and [absolute right]. Mathematically, we can say that the [absolute left point] is [100% left and 0% right]. And vice versa for the [absolute right point]. All of the points between these two absolute locations must possess a scaled value for [leftness] and [rightness]. One way we can define that scaled value for each quality is as [~A/D], where [~A] is the [point in questions distance from the reciprocal quality] and [D] is the diameter of the whole circle, or in other words, [~A] is the distance from [one absolute point] to the [point in question], and [D] is the distance form [one absolute point] to the [other absolute point].
Suppose, for instance, that our circle has a diameter of exactly [10 units]. This is the distance from one absolute point to the other. The topmost point would be at exactly [5 units], from either side, so if we wish to measure its leftness we would create the following ratio: [5/10] which reduces to [1/2], which is equivalent to [50% left]. The point that is exactly [7.5 units] from [absolute rightness] would create the ratio: [7.5/10], which reduces to [3/4], or [75% left].
Since the total percentage of [leftness] and [rightness] must equal 100%, we know that the first dot was also [50% right] and the second dot was also [25% right].
This implies two things:
1. It is not necessary to list both aspects.
2. It doesn't matter which aspect we list, because they are functionally equivalent.
Another way the circle works as an analogy
It is worth noting that the [absolute right point] is only absolutely right with respect to the other ponts in the circle.
Thus, calling it absolute is paradoxical, because it is both absolute (with respect to the circle) and relative (with respect to other points not in the circle) all at the same time.
If we think of the [point] that the [absolute point] is being compared to as being on another circle, then there are two basic ways that we can define the relative nature of these two points. These involve changing the spacial/locational aspects of the circleso I call them Spatial Relativism.The first imagines a new circle that is centered on the same centerpoint, but it is larger than the original circle. In such a case, the [leftmost point of the new circle] will necessarily be to the
of the [leftmost point of the original circle]. The second case involves a [new circle that is entirely to the right of original circle], the [leftmost point in the new circle] would still be to the right of the [rightmost point in the original circle]. Thus, [absolute left in the new circle] is [further right] than [absolute right in the original circle]. I think of these as the Dimensional aspect and the Locational aspect, respectively.
Two more ways of comparing points involve cases where we change the position of the observer. So I call them Perspective Relativism. The first case is the Vertical Opposition aspect, which involves imagining a person who is standing on the opposite side of the circle. Even though the point itself doesn't change its spatial position, for that other person, what I'm calling [absolute leftness] would be [absolute rightness]. Similarly, if the person were located at the [rightmost point and looking towards the leftmost point] what I'm calling the [leftmost point] would be their [topmost point]. I call this the Horizontal Opposition aspect.
While this is all pretty basic (and obvious) stuff, I believe we can find numerous analogous scenarios scattered throughout reality. For example, comparative adjectives such as cold, colder, coldest fit perfectly with this analogy. The phrase [the coldest temperature] has no meaning without some context, such as [the coldest temperature all day]. Which is probably warmer than [the coldest temperature all year].
Two more ways of comparing points involve cases where we change the position of the observer. So I call them Perspective Relativism. The first case is the Vertical Opposition aspect, which involves imagining a person who is standing on the opposite side of the circle. Even though the point itself doesn't change its spatial position, for that other person, what I'm calling [absolute leftness] would be [absolute rightness]. Similarly, if the person were located at the [rightmost point and looking towards the leftmost point] what I'm calling the [leftmost point] would be their [topmost point]. I call this the Horizontal Opposition aspect.
While this is all pretty basic (and obvious) stuff, I believe we can find numerous analogous scenarios scattered throughout reality. For example, comparative adjectives such as cold, colder, coldest fit perfectly with this analogy. The phrase [the coldest temperature] has no meaning without some context, such as [the coldest temperature all day]. Which is probably warmer than [the coldest temperature all year].

 Posts: 49
 Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 4:30 am
Re: What is Real?
The universe we live in is a perfect sphere. God stands at the center followed by the heavens. At a distance Ru of 15.9145 billion light years stands a spherical surface upon which all the galaxies reside. The universe ends at a distance 2Ru. Our galaxy is one of billions. As we move to (1/2 )Ru the light speed drops in half and the first heavenly universe exists. There are billions of galaxies there as well. As we move closer to God we find another heavenly galaxy of (1/4) Ru. Then we move to the third heaven at (1/8) Ru. Beyond that is God. At light speed zero the mass of God is infinite. Emanating from God at light speeds 1024C and 2048C. These form the soul of man and are the means by which we pass through the pit of hell at the center of our galaxy to the heavenly world.

 Guest
Re: What is Real?
Hi everybody, my first post following many weeks of lurking.
How real is mass? Using Aether Physics terminology and my own words I see it as:
Mass, given a quantity, is a measurement of inertia, it is not a measurement of weight, weight is dependent on the force of gravity.
Mass is one of the dimensions of primary angular momentum, a building block of physical matter.
Mass also a dimension in momentum, force, pressure, resistance, potential and magnetic flux.
Mass always exists as a dimension/effect because something is happening which requires the effect/dimension of mass to exists to allow that something to occur. Mass on it`s own does not exist. It is a nonmaterial structure allowing material function to occur.
Once our minds understand pictures like this, our universe`s coherence flows allowing us to grow.
Cheers
How real is mass? Using Aether Physics terminology and my own words I see it as:
Mass, given a quantity, is a measurement of inertia, it is not a measurement of weight, weight is dependent on the force of gravity.
Mass is one of the dimensions of primary angular momentum, a building block of physical matter.
Mass also a dimension in momentum, force, pressure, resistance, potential and magnetic flux.
Mass always exists as a dimension/effect because something is happening which requires the effect/dimension of mass to exists to allow that something to occur. Mass on it`s own does not exist. It is a nonmaterial structure allowing material function to occur.
Once our minds understand pictures like this, our universe`s coherence flows allowing us to grow.
Cheers
 junglelord
 Posts: 3693
 Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
 Location: Canada
Re: What is Real?
Welcome. I like your way of thinking. Mass is the most difficult problem in the standard model. The proper dimensional analysis with quantum constants and their structure reveals their function. I now believe in a primary force called the Gforce that is what we all call "energy" when people talk about fundamental energy. In fact the term "Energy" is the product of dimensional analysis and not in and of itself fundamental. Force is fundamental. Energy is a product of dimensional analysis. Mass never changes and remains constant and is fundamental but also non material. Mass and energy are not equal in APM.
The proper identification of mass and energy is the most fundamental thing APM taught me when speaking to others.
Without the proper identification of these terms, they can be talked about in a way that seems like its intellectual, but actually is a dog chasing its tail and non sequitar. In APM electrons and photons exchange primary angular momentum, not energy. This is very important. We must see this, and I know I always had this nagging me at the back of my head too, as in my mind they were exchanging spin. Well that is actually true.
Proper dimensional analysis allows one to reorganize the current data into a cohesive branch of physics that is a truly UFT with 3 fundamental forces in a 5D space resonance. The relationship of electric charge to the standard model by quantifing Electrostatic charge as a fundamental force is a stroke of genius for APM, but a sign of total oversite by everyone else. I always thought it was mixed up. I feel really stupid for not seeing it, although I had this problem inside my head with ES vs EM not being properly explained but rather grouped together. I have always been drawn to 5D Klauza Klein work. The unification of these two ideas was waiting there in my head, which seemed like a huge synestasia when I saw it as I read APM. I know these items are what was not allowing me to fully grasp the public standard model at a deep level of connection. The disconnect with this fundamental division between ES and EM not being taught and never including charge in space, makes all of us quite dumbed down, in my opinion. Infact to have had a diploma and 10 years in the field of satellite and military sonar systems, how I never put charge back in space, dispite what I read in Astronomy Monthyly is quite embarassing.
EM strong charge governing the nucleus has been the best reorganization of the standard model. This allows the relationship between ES and EM to govern the "weak nuclear force". This leaves us with gravity. A three force model that is developed from the quantum constants that already exist and show that the underlying symmetry between Coulombs Constant and Newtons Constant is there, pointing to the Rotating Magnetic Field of the Aether Constant which leads us back to the Gforce. APM is very elegant and worth keeping as a viable alternative to any other model alive today. I do not see why a alternative theory always throws most peoples shorts in an uproar on other forums, but thank goodness it is allowed here.
The proper identification of mass and energy is the most fundamental thing APM taught me when speaking to others.
Without the proper identification of these terms, they can be talked about in a way that seems like its intellectual, but actually is a dog chasing its tail and non sequitar. In APM electrons and photons exchange primary angular momentum, not energy. This is very important. We must see this, and I know I always had this nagging me at the back of my head too, as in my mind they were exchanging spin. Well that is actually true.
Proper dimensional analysis allows one to reorganize the current data into a cohesive branch of physics that is a truly UFT with 3 fundamental forces in a 5D space resonance. The relationship of electric charge to the standard model by quantifing Electrostatic charge as a fundamental force is a stroke of genius for APM, but a sign of total oversite by everyone else. I always thought it was mixed up. I feel really stupid for not seeing it, although I had this problem inside my head with ES vs EM not being properly explained but rather grouped together. I have always been drawn to 5D Klauza Klein work. The unification of these two ideas was waiting there in my head, which seemed like a huge synestasia when I saw it as I read APM. I know these items are what was not allowing me to fully grasp the public standard model at a deep level of connection. The disconnect with this fundamental division between ES and EM not being taught and never including charge in space, makes all of us quite dumbed down, in my opinion. Infact to have had a diploma and 10 years in the field of satellite and military sonar systems, how I never put charge back in space, dispite what I read in Astronomy Monthyly is quite embarassing.
EM strong charge governing the nucleus has been the best reorganization of the standard model. This allows the relationship between ES and EM to govern the "weak nuclear force". This leaves us with gravity. A three force model that is developed from the quantum constants that already exist and show that the underlying symmetry between Coulombs Constant and Newtons Constant is there, pointing to the Rotating Magnetic Field of the Aether Constant which leads us back to the Gforce. APM is very elegant and worth keeping as a viable alternative to any other model alive today. I do not see why a alternative theory always throws most peoples shorts in an uproar on other forums, but thank goodness it is allowed here.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

 Guest
Re: What is Real?
Great to meet you junglelord and BRAVO for your magnificent post.
GForce=intelligent. We are part of an intelligent universe blessed with our own intelligence, fully capable of recognising, hence interacting/communicating with this wonderous environment. Understanding the physics is as much about understanding ourselves as about knowing "it".
Thank you for your continued translation of what you "see" into words/pictures which are undertood/seen and tested by the many.
Step by step.
GForce=intelligent. We are part of an intelligent universe blessed with our own intelligence, fully capable of recognising, hence interacting/communicating with this wonderous environment. Understanding the physics is as much about understanding ourselves as about knowing "it".
Thank you for your continued translation of what you "see" into words/pictures which are undertood/seen and tested by the many.
Step by step.
 junglelord
 Posts: 3693
 Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
 Location: Canada
Re: What is Real?
Great to meet you too. I remember coming to the conclusion about 8 years ago that "energy" is equal to information. It is more apropo to say the Gforce is intelligent now that I have a different understanding of the proper terminology and the dimensional reference frame.
Cheers
Cheers
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

 Posts: 4433
 Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm
Foundation of Physics
 May we discuss APM etc here? I'd like to start with this foundation though, at least for me.
 The Foundation of all Science, including Physics, has to be Consciousness, because that's where we are and where all of our observations, memories and thinking are. Science means knowledge, which means knowing, which means consciousness. It seems to be straightforward to show the following.
 A little observation shows that:
CONSCIOUSNESS = PERCEPTIONS, EMOTIONS, THOUGHTS and SUBCONSCIOUS;
Aspects of CONSCIOUSNESS = MOTION and FOCUS;
PERCEPTIONS = OBSERVATION = SIGHT, HEARING, FEELING, TASTE and SMELL;
THOUGHTS = Willful, Logical Manipulation of MEMORIES;
SUBCONSCIOUS = MEMORIES, REASON, WILL and DREAMING;
MEMORIES = Impressions of PERCEPTIONS;
SIGHT = Visual Field = LENGTH, AREA, VOLUME, COLOR, FORM and MOTION;
FEELING = INERTIA, FORCE, PRESSURE, HEAT, LENGTH, AREA, VOLUME, FORM and MOTION;
MOTION = CHANGE = VELOCITY;
etc.
 Since Space seems to be detectable only via Sight, Feeling & Hearing, which are Perceptions, I'll call it PSpace.
PSPACE = LENGTH, AREA and VOLUME = MATTER and VACUUM;
MATTER = SOLID, LIQUID, GAS & PLASMA.
 Is any of that unclear? I think the above are all directly observable facts, which are aspects of reality, but I think we could proceed without first agreeing to any of the above.
 So, next, I hope we can determine what science, EU and APM can add to all this, or to any other foundation that anyone starts with.
 The Foundation of all Science, including Physics, has to be Consciousness, because that's where we are and where all of our observations, memories and thinking are. Science means knowledge, which means knowing, which means consciousness. It seems to be straightforward to show the following.
 A little observation shows that:
CONSCIOUSNESS = PERCEPTIONS, EMOTIONS, THOUGHTS and SUBCONSCIOUS;
Aspects of CONSCIOUSNESS = MOTION and FOCUS;
PERCEPTIONS = OBSERVATION = SIGHT, HEARING, FEELING, TASTE and SMELL;
THOUGHTS = Willful, Logical Manipulation of MEMORIES;
SUBCONSCIOUS = MEMORIES, REASON, WILL and DREAMING;
MEMORIES = Impressions of PERCEPTIONS;
SIGHT = Visual Field = LENGTH, AREA, VOLUME, COLOR, FORM and MOTION;
FEELING = INERTIA, FORCE, PRESSURE, HEAT, LENGTH, AREA, VOLUME, FORM and MOTION;
MOTION = CHANGE = VELOCITY;
etc.
 Since Space seems to be detectable only via Sight, Feeling & Hearing, which are Perceptions, I'll call it PSpace.
PSPACE = LENGTH, AREA and VOLUME = MATTER and VACUUM;
MATTER = SOLID, LIQUID, GAS & PLASMA.
 Is any of that unclear? I think the above are all directly observable facts, which are aspects of reality, but I think we could proceed without first agreeing to any of the above.
 So, next, I hope we can determine what science, EU and APM can add to all this, or to any other foundation that anyone starts with.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest