Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.


Expand Messages
  • tom9401
    Or if one chooses to talk about positive charges attracted to negative charges, then each of those fields of energy may have some sense of awareness as to
    Message 1 of 43 , Oct 31, 2008
      Or if one chooses to talk about positive charges attracted to negative charges, then each of those fields of energy may have some sense of awareness as to where the other field is, a sense of identity distinguishing itself and a sense the identity of a different field.

      Or if one wanted to talk about the individual points within the field and their sense of identity, their sameness and its own difference from the other points.
    • Leon Maurer
      ... There is no such ting as a field going to infinity. All radiant energy fields must begin at the spinergy (spin momentum) of the singularity. The actual
      Message 43 of 43 , Feb 16, 2009

        On Jan 29, 2009, at 1/29/095:19 AM, yanniru@... wrote:


        Your definition of the word "singularity" is apparently not the conventional one.
        Normally a singularity is a point where the fields go to infinity.

        There is no such ting as a field going to infinity.  All radiant energy fields must begin at the spinergy (spin momentum) of the singularity. The actual infinite G-force (potential mass-energy) singularity is the exact center of origin of the spin momentum spiral vortex triple loop -- which is outside of all metric time and space... i.e.; Unconditioned absolute space substance of infinite duration and infinite latent G-force.  

        A BEC is not a point nor are the fields infinite.
        So apparently our disagreement over the existence of singularities is a matter of definition.
        Just semantics.

        Yes, I guess so -- although I never said a BEC is a point... Just that it must be composed of an infinite number of absolute zero-points -- which, in themselves, are not a part of the metric space of the BEC.  Thus, any BEC could be considered as composed of an infinite number of entangled "singularities"... With the ubiquitous absolute space at each of those points being a subset of an even higher order infinite-set space, ad infinitum.  Thus, we could say that metric space may NOT be infinitely infinitely divisible -- but relative absolute space, underlying the entire metaphysical cosmos, could very well be . ;-) ..

        I did not imply that information is lost in the GR singularity at the center of a black hole.
        What I said is that Maldacena derived an exact solution for eternal black holes
        and in comparison to the Geolution, showed that the GR solution was approximate.
        Therefore the information loss is due to the math approximation
        and there is no information loss in the exact solution, as Hawking now admits.

        The only real "exact" solution, would NOT still come down to the fundamental state being an individual metric particle (that has no underlying static spatial cause or anchor).  Therefore, Maldacena's solution is as flawed as all mathematical solutions of quantum physics --none of which can be consistent with pure unrenormalized relativity physics and its infinities and singularities. Also, Hawkings still admits he hasn't the faintest idea what occurred at the primal beginning before inflation.

        But much more interesting to me is that the exact solution Maldacena found,
        is a collection of quarks and gluons in thermal equilibrium at the Hawking temperature in AdS space.
        AdS space is like the inside of a proton or neutron where the quarks have asymptotic freedom.
        That is they are relatively forcefree until they try to escape. Then the gluons become like a hard boundary.
        AdS space also has like a hard boundary except it is given by a gravitational potential.

        What is a "hard boundary" made of?  Or, does such theories assume that the universe is composed of actual "particles" that are separate from the metric spacetime they vibrate in?  The joke is that you sound like you think gluons and quarks are real solid particles, that are separate from the absolute space underlying them.  Maybe, that's why physics is so fuzzy at the edges, and can't decide whether there's 3, 12, 26, 64, or any other limited dimensions, and thinks that consciousness depends on wave collapse and other obscure metaphors. ;-) 

        However, I certainly understand that physical space at light speed "c" has an apparent "hard boundary" where its light velocity does its quantum phase jump to the higher order astral light field.  

        The problem with all the extant quantum and cosmological theories (including Hawkings, Maldacena, and all the string and QFT theorists -- is that they can't get any further than that boundary... And even beyond the astral field, the microlepton, axion and tachyon theorists who apparently are dealing with the supposed astral particles, meet the solid boundary of the next higher phase change into the mental fields, etc.  

        The "singularity, is even beyond the next highest order spiritual field on the physical plane -- where the lowest order of the fractal evolved fields of the cosmic planes begin, ad infinitum... And on up to the absolute plane of the potential multiverse.  So, it's no wonder the physicists have to consider the smallest particle in their world must have finite mass-energy.

        So Maldacena essentially found that all black holes are super-sized protons (or neutrons if uncharged).
        And it follows that protons and neutrons do not contain singularities, nor do black holes.
        However, I can understand that if in your insight, you can see black holes,
        hey would look like they contained infinite singularities in their centers.

        So, what is the condition of the empty space between the protons and the neutrons?   Or, (if, as Wolff and others prove or postulate, they are spherical standing waves of fundamental space) -- what's the condition of the absolute space at their exact harmonic field centers of origin?  

        No matter how you shake it or contrive it mathematically, nothing can come from nothing.  And, that *something* at 0°K would have to be "empty" of all form, linear motion, or successive time...  Since absolute spin can only be the infinite non linear cyclic motion (in opposite angular directions) of that fundamentally inert and static absolute space-substance itself.  Incidentally, that "substance" is only "absolute" relative to the metric space we observe it from.  IOW, as the wise Vietnamese philosopher Mac Truong says, "the absolute is relative, and the relative is absolute."

        Thus, as I see it, the basic formula of ALL existence and life must be 0=∞... And both consciousness and protomatter come long before our 4th lowest order physical (aether) realm of the cosmos and its 2+6+6 initial fractal involved hyperspace fields appear (even long before the neurological systems evolve) -- that some limited focus and narrow minded thinkers in this forum base their otherwise rootless theories of "psychophysical psychoanalysis"  and "integration-differentiation meaning" on. ;-)  Not to say that such theories haven't some value in getting along on this plane of existence.  But how can they explain anything about the real nature of reality -- even beyond the physics of this plane of reality they are limited by?

        Anyone wishing to see how the real world originates and occurs, and how consciousness actually works, check out:

        And, if there is any disagreement, please feel free to offer an alternative model of cosmogenesis that is equally consistent with and doesn't violate any of the fundamental laws of BOTH relativity and quantum physics -- as well as being the fundamental basis of all string, superstring, M, QFT, LQG, microlepton, holographic paradigm, biogenetics, and other theories of physics and biology currently in advanced development... And which also includes potential p-consciousness (i.e., awareness, will qualia, etc.) as a fundamental subjective quality of ALL phenomenal existence. (Unless they can PROVE consciousness emerges from or is an epiphenomena of matter.)



        -----Original Message-----
        From: Leon Maurer <leonmaurer@...>
        To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 10:53 pm
        Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] or?

        Richard (Yanni),

        Every part of a BEC field is a "singularity, " since each part down to the zero-point of its origin contains all the information in every other part.  Thus, a BEC itself, at absolute zero (°K), would indicate that the "singularity" is located everywhere throughout ALL of spacetime, between O and ∞ frequency/energy.  

        And, you did imply in one of your earlier posts that if the energy/information of the black hole would fall into its zero-point center -- which from a scientific standpoint is non existent -- the information  would be irretrievably lost.  

        I just used such an implication to explain that, even then, the information  could not be lost -- since it would simply transform into a higher frequency/energy phase order cosmic hyperspace informati on field.  < /div>

        Note that I am basing this on the ABC model's geometry indicating that there is a difference between the highest order hyperspace fields of the cosmos and the analogous higher order hyperspace fields on its physical plane.  

        Also, there is also a difference between the fundamental frequency of a radiant energy field (in any hyperspace dimension surrounding any physical form) and the lower frequency of the modulated information it carries.

        None of this denies, however, that the spin momentum associated with every zero-point 'singularity"  on the lowest order material level of the "physical" plane of the overall metaphyical cosmos may be of a different finite mass/energy as well as "particle" dismeter.

        So., apparently, you still are nit picking.  

        However, judging by such inconsequential comments and lack of contradictory arguments -- you either haven't studied the ABC theory or read my posts carefully enough --  or you substantially agree with its premises and conclusions.  Since I respect your physical as well as metaphysical knowledge and understanding (in contrast to some others who have arbitrarily, using ad hominem arguments, criticized my theory, without logical reasoning -- I might take that as a compliment. ;-)


        On Jan 26, 2009, at 1/26/096:17 AM, yanniru@aim. com wrote:


        What is a BEC "singularity"
        That sounds like a contradiction in terms.

        Also, there is no information lost from a black hole.
        You apparently did not read my post,
        at least not very well.


        -----Original Message-----
        From: Leon Maurer <
        leonmaurer@aol. com>
         MindBrain@yahoogrou ps.com
        Sent: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 11:40 pm
        Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] or?

        On Jan 25, 2009, at 1/25/098:32 AM, yanniru@aim. com wrote:


        I am glad you asked about theories that prove that singularities cannot exist because Juan Maldeacena has derived one way back in 2001.
        http://arxiv. org/PS_cache/ hep-th/pdf/ 0106/0106112v6. pdf It is mathematical. So you probably cannot understand it.

        A more comprehensible article appeared in Moshe Razali's blog recently
         http://diracseashor e.wordpress. com/2009/ 01/15/maldacenas -information- paradox/

        It turns out that if a black hole contains a singularity, then there will be information loss in black holes. Hawking had a famous bet with Kip Thorne that this was the case. Based on Maldacena's theory, and an extension of it by Hawking, Hawking lost that bet. Here is Hawking's paper:
         http://arxiv. org/PS_cache/ hep-th/pdf/ 0507/0507171v2. pdf where he decides that info is not lost.

        What Maldacena did was to solve for the inside of an eternal black hole exactly. He found a collection of quarks and gluons. He also showed that the Einstein solution containing the singularity was approximate for the eternal black hole.


        Since all those calculations refer only to the 4th lowest frequency energy phase order of our physical s pacetime -- they have no relation to the higher order hyperspace fields -- whose spin momentum origin exists beyond the energy level of the densest sub quantum particle-wave form.  Admittedly, however, the singularity for the physical spacetime universe observed or described mathematically -- would necessarily be finite mass (although near infinite in absolute terms, never quite reaching 0°K). 

        All it takes to visualize and understand this, is the fractal involved hyperspherical geometry, starting from any zero-point center of the BEC "singularity" (non-metric spin momentum)... As pictured in the ABC cosmogenesis diagrams.
        As I have repeatedly explained before -- there is no possibility  that any renormalized mathematics can describe the nature of the three higher order hyperspace fields on the 4th lowest level=2 0physical plane, or the even higher order fields of the eternal cosmos itself.  

        Since the source of any part of this physical/material holographic universe (at its ubiquitous zero-point) that contains its total spin momentum (or the total mass of any black hole) is located at its zero-point center of phase change -- where the energy transmutes to the higher order astral plane -- the point of that mutation is a "singularity" analogous to the one referred to in GRT.  

        Therefore, the information *apparently* lost from the metric physical world (at the zero-point center of any black hole) still continues to exist, as higher frequency-energy wave interference patterns, on the higher order (astral) plane.  

        According to the hyperspherical geometry and electrodynamics of the ABC model -- all information on one phase order level can be transformed to an adjacent h igher order electrodynamic field (or its harmonic inner fields**) by phase conjugate adaptive resonance.

        So, none of your physics based mathematics can discover anything or make any claims, pro or con, about the real nature of the metaphysical- physical "total space" of our metric universe.  Nor can it refute the existence of a 'singulari ty" at the exact zero-point center of every black hole, as well as every sub quantum and quantum particle, atom, molecule or any other ponderable material form or EM field in the universe.

        Judging solely from the ABC Fractal field hyperspherical geometry, coupled with the fundamental laws of electrodynamics and information storage and transmission, governed by the cyclic laws inherent  in spin momentum -- there is no question in my mind that the universe is a hologram, and that all the information for its entire structure from particles through galaxies to human beings, is contained in the singularity of every zero-point, located everywhere throughout the total metric and non-metric spacetime.   Thus, the universe fulfills the ancient occult catechism that says, "Its center is everywhere, and its circumference nowhere." 

        On addition, it's also obvious that consciousness is (in order to explain a ltered states, all psi phenomena, non local qualia, as well as all aspects of human psychology) -- a fundamental, a priori quality of zero-point (0° K) absolute space -- located everywhere in the Planck (false) vacuum, at the ZPE source of all sub quantum and higher order hyperspace fields on the cosmic physical level.

        So, let's see if anyone else agrees that our discussions about all this is (as Baron Burrows claims in his usual mean spirited personal attacks) "posting interminably about nothing" ;-)  

        Best wishes,
        Leon Maurer

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Leon Maurer <leonmaurer@aol. com>
        To: MindBrain <MindBrain@yahoogrou ps.com>
        Sent: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 1:52 am
        Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] or?

        On Jan 23, 2009, at 1/23/099:14 AM, yanniru@aim. com wrote:


        Leon: So, ABC is only a hypothesis of the fundamental origin of everything --
        Yanni: Yes, a hypothesis and not a theory capable of prediction, 
        particularly since the hypothesis is based on singularities th at are not allowed i
        n physics.

        As usual, besides nit picking a statement out of context -- you are confusing mathematical theories that make "predictions" based on reductive logic, with a "theory" of holographic cosmic origin and consciousness  -- based on deductive logic rooted i n a "hypothesis" that all things are interconnected. .. Which needs no mathematical proof other than the logical fractal hyperspherical geometry of primal radiant force fields that cyclically originate from the spin momentum of a singularity (representing this entire cosmos) in eternal abso lute space.

        So, what is to prevent such a deductive theoretical idea from "predicting" everything that any inductive theory can?... Especially, if such prediction is based on the same fundamental electrodynamic and geometric laws of nature as those inductive theories.  e.g.; Einstein's relativity theory. along with its underlying hypotheses (1) of the unity of mass and energy, and (2) that all of spacetime originating from a singularity of infinite force (besides his quantum theory of lig ht) came long before he was able to mathematically codify them... (And then, it took over thirty years to conclusively  prove most of it).   

        Well, my  ABC holographic theory of cosmogenesis and consciousness is in the same category as Einstein's theories were when he first imagined and was able to explain them in word images... That, incidentally, I could fully understand, as a curious kid of around 9-10, when I overheard him explain it to a group of my father's friends -- none of whom were scientists or mathematicians.  (My father, incidentally,  was among the group of textile industry businessmen who sponsored Einstein's immigration into the states in20the mid thirties.)  They arranged for him to live on Fifth avenue in Manhattan before he moved up to Princeton, but he still kept the apartment, where he stayed on his frequent visits to NYC. 

        So, find something to say about the ABC theory, either pro or con, that isn't just inconsequential mutterings about the meaning of words taken out of context, or stop this endless nay saying without any reasoned foundation.  

        Besides, what scientific justification do you have that proves "singularities" (such as those accepted by Hawkings and others) are not real things in themselves?  Just because you say "physics doesn't allow it" makes no sense, and is as meaningless as the rest of your authoritative pronouncements. 

        Leon Maurer

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Leon Maurer <
        leonmaurer@aol. com>
        To: MindBrain <
        MindBrain@yahoogrou ps.com>
        Sent: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 11:39 pm
        Sub ject: Re: [Mind and Brain] or?

        Okay.  If the shoe fits.  But, along with Einstein, Maxwell, Schrödinger, Pauli, Dirac, Planck, etc. -- we could add all the math of current QF, QED, string and M theories, among others from, Bohm, Pribram, Wolff, Lisi, Greene, etc., etc,. that are consistent with the ABC cosmogenesis (at least at it's fourth lowest order physical/material level). 

        But, you still haven't come up with any theory that contradicts the ABC hy pothesis (or confirms it) as requested.  

        And, since my hypothesis is based on a proposition that consciousness is a subjective function of absolute zero-point space which also contains infinite potentially objective spin momentum -- the resultant fractal geometry of cosmogenesis and the genesis of all particles, starting from that ubiquitous zero-point (as shown in my geometric diagrams) speaks for itself. 

        Further, if we deductively carry all that forward under the obvious assumption that the cosmos is nothing but information carried as holographic wave interference patterns on radiant electrodynamic fields, and all particles (on the fourth physical world) are standing waves of that energy) -- all else follows... And, we can then predict, based on the fundamental laws of electrodynamics, all further properties and evolution of physical matter-energy observed and described (but not explained) by mathematical physics.

        So, ABC is only a hypothesis of the fundamental origin of everything -- explained by a logical, holographic geometric progression of ubiquitous interpenetrating hyperspace fields -- leading to the present experiential material world, prior to its subsequent analogous involution and evolution based on its information. .. NOT a theory of physics, that is limited solely to the fourth lowest frequency-energy phase order (physical/material) world of science.  Therefore, since it is expla ined fully in words and pictures, it needs no further mathematics to make predictions.

        It's20now up to the practical physicists to work out their own mathematics that links the physical world to that infinitely energetic geometrically and electromagnetically based informational source of everything.

        Leon Maurer

        On Jan 22, 2009, at 1/22/097:54 AM, yanniru@aim. com wrote:

        Leonj: So stop your nut (sic) picking, and put up or shut up. ;-)
        Yanniru: That is exactly what we all want from you. 
        You claim to have already predicted new things in physics.
        But you are the one who does not put up.
        PS: Why not just use Dirac's equations for electrodynamics.
        They contain infinities

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Leon Maurer <
        leonmaurer@aol. com>
         MindBrain@yahoogrou ps.com< /A>
        Sent: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 2:17 am
        Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] or?

        Leon:If you are looking for algebraic equations -- they are already written

        Yanniru: If they are already written, just copy them over for us, 
        but mainly the one's from which you made those predictions

        I never made the predictions from those pu blished equations -- since they have all been doctored

        (Message over 64 KB, truncated)
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.