Re: SUSY Universe
Jan 28, 2008 05:02 AM
by christinaleestemaker
susy-2005.dur.ac.uk/PARALELLE/UNIFICATION/TUE/Fargion-khlopov-
Sinister.ppt
I only can see it in a way she creates dark matter herself
Christina
--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Semock" <semockr@...>
wrote:
>
> Whew, now I see why HPB was a chain smoker!
>
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Leon Maurer <leonmaurer@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Jan 21, 2008, at 1/21/0811:15 AM, Philip Benjamin wrote:
> >
> > > Hi:
> > >
> > > Here (bottom) is not a conflict of personalities, but of world-
> > > views in science-garb. One seems to be more of an applied
> science
> > > or engineering and the other of physics.
> > >
> > > Since there is no mathematical basis suggested or formulated,
> nor
> > > observable evidences of any kind. both are just subjective
views
> > > and opinions, not evidential hypotheses or empirical
> observations.
> > > Even if there are some rational equations for the physical
> > > componets of these imaginations, there is no factor
> corresponding
> > > to mind or consciousness possible.
> > >
> > > Since both have the inscrutable enigma of 'Mind"
> or "Consciousness"
> > > in REAL time and REAL space as an imagined achievable
> explicatory
> > > goal, both views take the appearance of 'dealing with
REALITIES'
> in
> > > a field where any immagination is not unothodox, but assumes a
> > > reality of its own. A mirage is REAL physicality, only there is
> no
> > > water in it.
> > >
> > > A Cosmic Egg suggested here is just that, be it Chinese or
> Hindu.
> > > It is nothing more and nothing less. Those 'infallible super-
> wise'
> > > Sages or gods or whatever titles befit the culture and life
> styles
> > > of their devotees, never meant or knew any modern science,
> despite
> > > the claims of notables of the stature of Oppenheimer and Bohm
> and
> > > Pauli to the contrary. These rishis or maharishis meant a REAL
> egg,
> > > only Too Big. It is incredulous to derive any science or even
> > > philosophy out of these conjectures which are so evidently
> > > superstitious and gallingly mindless. All that it does is
making
> > > modern science itself a cosmic egg-head!
> > > Naiveté knows no limits.
> > >
> > No. The Hindu and Chinese philosopher-scientists (as well as all
> > practical theosophists) only use the "egg" as a metaphor --
since
> > they know that there could not be a chicken (phenomenal
universe)
> > without an egg (noumenal universe) or an egg without a chicken.
> The
> > real naiveté is on the part of egg-head scientists who
religiously
> > believe that something can come from nothing, or blindly accept
an
> > imaginary personal godhead who can make miracles.
> >
> > Could we imagine any sentient being, that evolves from our
> phenomenal
> > universe, NOT consisting of both subjective awareness (i.e.,
> > consciousness) and objective substance (i.e., matter-energy)?
Or,
> > could we imagine either of those necessities for independent
> > existence, NOT being inherent (at least noumenally) in
> whatever "egg"
> > gave birth to that universal being -- which, in turn, gives birth
> to
> > all its internal sentient beings of lesser life spans,
> intelligence,
> > consciousness, etc. -- ad infinitum? Isn't it obvious, then,
that
> > this cosmic being must be reflected analogously within every
human
> > being that exists at the peak of sentient organismic evolution?
> So,
> > how could the cosmos, as reflected in every human brain-body, NOT
> be
> > a hologram -- as Bohm-Pribram pointed out? And, if so -- how
> could
> > all its interconnected energy fields NOT be fractally involved
out
> of
> > one common (entangled) zero-point singularity -- that is located
> > everywhere in the gravitational field of physical spacetime?
> >
> > Since conventional science is based on the assumption that
> everything
> > and every experience (both subjective and objective) stems from
an
> > initial matter which exists all by itself -- it's empirical
> > materialistic physics is so limited philosophically, it could
> never
> > see the forest for the trees, or even speculate about the
overall
> > underlying reality with any sort of rational argument.
Therefore,
> I,
> > think Oppenheimer, Pauli, Bohm, Whitehead, Einstein,
Schrödinger,
> > Klein, Pribram, et al, recognized that fallacy in scientific
> > thinking, and had some reasonable arguments to state their
case...
> > Just as the string theorists with their multidimensional
> hyperspace
> > fields, superstrings, M-branes, etc. have some equally logical
> > reasoning as well as mathematics to state theirs (even though
they
> > still can't see the dynamic and informational connection between
> > matter and consciousness, or explain the fundamental source of
> both
> > -- without resorting to epiphenomenalism... Which is a weak cop
> out
> > and just as "superstitious" as believing in a separate godhead
> that
> > creates everything by magic.
> >
> > Since conventional reductive materialist science can't even come
> > close to explaining non material consciousness, its source, its
> > qualia, its will energy, its non-locality, its informational
> > connection to and binding with mind, memory, brain body, world,
> > etc. ... I think my ABC model -- based on consciousness as a
> > fundamental quality of Absolute mother SPACE -- is a reasonable
> > solution to all these problems. Especially when we consider that
> the
> > fractally involved higher frequency-energy order electrodynamic
> > fields radiating from its spin momentum, are the media of all
the
> > encoded and modulated information of consciousness (e.g., mind,
> > memory, body model or map, autonomic instincts, latent learning,
> > knowledge, etc.)... With such *hyperspace* fields -- based on
the
> > obvious holographic as well as fundamental electrodynamic nature
> of
> > ALL reality -- carrying all such information as modulated wave
> > interference patterns on their surfaces.
> >
> > Couldn't this interrelated and entangled hyperspace zero-point
> field
> > system also explain the underlying basis of all commonly
> experienced
> > and repeatedly reported psi phenomena? And doesn't the three
> > dimensional (3-axis) involutions of all such fields of matter-
> energy,
> > also explain the origin of the two forms of analogous dark
matter-
> > energy -- whose added gravitational effects are observed by the
> > cosmologists?
> >
> > What is the fear in the minds of the committed physicalist
> scientists
> > that prevents them from even considering the possibility of such
a
> > rationally logical cosmogenesis, that is beyond all
superstitions,
> > mysticisms. or religious beliefs?
> >
> > On the Cosmic physical level, such fields would extend from the
> ZPE
> > fields in the false vacuum of hyperspace (science's Plank space
as
> > well as intergalactic space) ) down to the lowest order
> > electromagnetic gamma wave field of the brain's combined neural
> > network. Thus, unlike conventional physics, in this model there
> are
> > no explanatory gaps or discontinuities in the overall involution
> and
> > evolution of the universe, from the primal beginning to its
> present
> > state of existence -- with both subjectively and objectively] as
a
> > fundamental unity. At all levels of phenomenal existence,
> > subjectivity (consciousness) without objectivity (matter-energy),
> or
> > objectivity without subjectivity, is unthinkable. If otherwise,
> > science itself would be entirely meaningless. Q.E.D.
> >
> > For a descriptive and illustrated overview of the ABC model,
see:
> > http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/23/13
> >
> > So, let us argue these holistic theories, either pro and con,
> using
> > reasonable and logical conjecture or proof -- but let's not
> > arbitrarily deny them based on groundless preconditioned beliefs
> and
> > opinions, along with irrational and non sequitur ad hominem
> > comments. Any true scientific philosopher or philosophical
> scientist
> > should have a completely open mind to consider all possible
> > explanations of fundamental reality without prejudice.
> >
> > I look forward to whatever such scientists/philosophers might
have
> to
> > say with respect to any unified field theory of everything
> (including
> > consciousness) or my ABC theory in particular.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Leon Maurer
> > >
> > > Best Regards
> > >
> > > Philip Benjamin
> > >
> > > From: HELENDRUMS@
> > > To: leonmaurer@; medinuclear@
> > > Subject: Re: SUSY Universe
> > > Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 23:30:04 -0500
> > >
> > >
> > > No Leon. Like you I derive everything from a singularity.
> Actually
> > > absolute space is derived from a 26d singularity and the space
> of
> > > our universe is derived from 16d singularity. Apparently you
did
> > > not take the time to read my paper. I do believe you can read.
> The
> > > SUSY universe comes from 10d superstring theory, which is
> secondary
> > > to my claim that the compactified space of spins amounts to
the
> > > mind of god.
> > >
> > > The problem with your model is that it is not based on science.
> For
> > > example the electrodynamic field results after three broken
> > > symmetries in physics and is not at all fundamental. The
unified
> > > field is fundamental.
> > >
> > > The nature of megaspace or absolute space is that it only
> carries
> > > the force of gravity, which is clearly mention in my paper. How
> did
> > > you miss that?
> > >
> > > So my model is an extrapolation of known physics whereas your
> model
> > > contradicts known physics. As far as I can tell your model is
a
> > > figment of your imagination. The Cosmic Egg of Hindu Bagavatum
> is
> > > of course my 16d black holes that give birth to all universes.
> > >
> > > You admit that you do not know physics or math yet persist in
> using
> > > scientific terminology incorrectly. But then you are rather old
> and
> > > it's probably too late the change your thinking. I'm afraid
your
> > > model will die along with you. Too bad. If you were not so pig
> > > headed, it could have amounted to something significant
> > >
> > > Best wishes,
> > >
> > > Richard
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Leon Maurer
> > > To: HELEN CHENEY
> > > Cc: Philip Benjamin
> > > Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2008 3:38 AM
> > > Subject: Re: SUSY Universe
> > >
> > > Richard,
> > >
> > > Thank you for finally backing up your continued unexplained
> denials
> > > and refutations of my ABC holographic field/information/
> > > consciousness theory with such a detailed alternative
reductive
> > > physics view of overall spatial reality.
> > >
> > > I'm afraid that I don't have the detailed knowledge of
reductive
> > > physics and its mathematics, or even its jargon, to be able to
> > > follow your presumptions, assertions,and speculative
> > > conclusions... Let alone comment on its seemingly (to me)
anti
> > > Occam's razor, over complexity.
> > >
> > > The problem is that, as usual you base everything on what
> appears
> > > to be a wrong reductive materialist premise... And instead of
> > > seeing the simplicity of starting to build the
multidimensional
> > > enfolded spaces from their bottom up (inside out), and their
> > > natural fractal involution starting from dual parallel rays of
±
> G-
> > > force (of opposite polarity) emanating from a zero-point of
> > > infinite spin momentum -- you derive them by compaction from
the
> > > top down (outside in)... Beginning with the basic assumption
> that
> > > everything starts from a full blown metric and energetic
> megaspace
> > > that is fully evolved and inflated, without any birth or
> genesis...
> > > Out of what? -- I cant imagine... And which your physics can't
> > > explain. Apparently, your SUSY universe appears magically out
of
> > > nothing.
> > >
> > > The problem with all your assertions (that seem to deny the
> > > progression from primal SPACE that I postulate -- which would
> have
> > > to be a continuous fractal involution of electrodynamic fields
> > > starting from an infinite spin momentum -- is that you never
> > > explain the underlying causes, structures, interconnections, or
> the
> > > rational involution and evolution behind the spacial dimensions
> and
> > > "particles" you talk about. For example, what is the nature of
> the
> > > megaspace out of which all other spaces derive? What gave it
> > > birth? and what is the mechanism of such derivation?
> > >
> > > So, rather than nit pick your words out of context, I'll just
> > > comment below wherever I find some statement or conclusion
that
> > > doesn't fit with my simple and direct knowledge of the
fractally
> > > involved genesis of the entire cosmos ... As a unified
> phenomenal
> > > (metric) expression of the all encompassing "megaspace"
> itself...
> > > Starting from its spherically polarized, triune fractal birth
> out
> > > of the infinite abstract motion, or angular momentum of a
> > > "singularity", or triple axial spin of Absolute
*unconditioned*
> > > primal SPACE... Existing eternally as potentially ubiquitous
and
> > > conscious, infinite "singularities" of potential universes --
> that
> > > are beyond all *conditioned* metric space and time, and
> completely
> > > unexplainable by any reductive scientific theory limited only
to
> > > this particular universe ... Even your "branes" could not
exist
> > > unless they were part of a fundamental unconditioned Absolute
> SPACE
> > > that is beyond all scientific speculations. Besides, the
> surfaces
> > > of the ABC fractally involved fields could easily account for
> the
> > > "Branes" in SS/M theory. The difference is between an actual
> > > existence based on genetic fractal field geometry, along with
an
> > > electrodynamics based on fundamental laws of cycles, that can
> > > deduce the final effects -- and an assumed pre-existence, out
of
> > > nothing, based on contrived symbolic mathematical
relationships
> > > that bypasses causal origin, works back or down from effects,
> and
> > > cannot induce fundamental causes -- nor link to consciousness
> > > through a chain of logical informational transformations.
> > >
> > > It is This Primal SPACE that is both the creative force and
the
> > > receptive womb that contains the cosmic eggs out of which all
> > > subsequent universes, with their metaphysical hyperspace and
> > > physical metric space fields, involve and evolve, simply and
> > > directly ... With our cosmos being only one of those infinite
> > > universes... All of which are governed by the same fundamental
> laws
> > > rooted in primal spin momentum.
> > >
> > > Thus, every thing (all multidimensional space-time fields and
> all
> > > matter-energy forms) throughout all spherically manifest SPACE-
> TIME
> > > universes, are essentially analogous and corresponding, in
> accord
> > > with holographic principles -- based on ubiquitous fractal
> geometry
> > > and spin... And are fundamentally conscious at every non local
> zero-
> > > point source of all fractally involved information/energy
> fields,
> > > ad infinitum. This, includes all zero-point fields from the
ZPE
> at
> > > the Planck level to the black hole centers of every galaxy,
> nova,
> > > star, potential star, planet, organism, organ, cell, virus,
etc.,
> etc.
> > >
> > > Therefore, right from the beginning, everything (including
> > > spacetime itself) is electrodynamic in fundamental nature, and
> all
> > > the laws of electricity, harmony, resonance, capacitance,
> > > resistance, etc, universally underly all the physical laws of
> > > nature. As I see it, which incidentally, doesn't contradict
any
> > > valid or *proven* physics -- it's these laws that are also the
> > > roots of all quantum dynamics, and the origin of all cosmic
> matter-
> > > energy fields and their forms and effects.
> > >
> > > All that, of course, entirely reverses your cosmology, in which
> you
> > > say, putting the cart before the horse, that "spin is due to
the
> > > rolling up of a preexistent megaspace" (by a process that
cannot
> be
> > > explained) -- with so many twists, turns, and illogical
> > > assumptions, that I got lost on the first reductive circular
> > > argumentative loop. :-) In addition, the ABC model fills in
the
> > > one thing left out in your theory -- by fully explaining the
> exact
> > > method whereby consciousness, information, mind, memory, and
> matter
> > > are interconnected holographically and electrodynamically
> > > throughout all the phases and planes of hyperspacial (First
> Logos)
> > > field involutions and physical (metric) spatial evolutions --
> that
> > > result, after symmetry breaking on the lower frequency-energy
> order
> > > physical spacetime, in quantum particle waves, stars, galaxies,
> and
> > > myriad forms of sentient forms -- culminating in conscious
human
> > > beings that are analogous microcosms of the macrocosm... Just
> like
> > > the teachings of the Hindu Vedas, the Buddhist Kiu-Te or Book
of
> > > the Golden Precepts, and the Hebrew Kabbala's interpretation of
> the
> > > Pentateuch (Old Testament Bible).
> > >
> > > In addition, this theory leaves room for a "God we Trust" --
> since
> > > the primal beginning or "Singularity" has built into it, a
> cosmic
> > > all seeing consciousness, and an immutable law or governance of
> a
> > > perfectly harmonious nature... So long as individual human
greed
> > > doesn't interfere with it... And by so doing, setting up
> > > disharmonious dissonances resulting in reactive retributional
> > > responses (karma). Thus -- since individual consciousness
> (linked
> > > to its initial higher order triune monad fields in hyperspace)
> is
> > > indestructible and can be expressed anywhere -- we are doomed
to
> > > reflectively re-experience the karma we individually and
> > > collectively make, through endless lifetimes of suffering... As
> the
> > > Buddha pointed out (and the similarly misunderstood Christ
> echoed
> > > three centuries later). So, I'm not much of a fan of a
falsely
> > > based reductive science that continues to feed and condone the
> > > greed -- with its technological assistance that leads to more
> and
> > > more warfare, strife and suffering, and its denial of the
true,
> > > inter-connective nature of fundamental reality... Thus
fostering
> > > the worship of false Gods by those willing to ignore the real
> > > essence of the teachings of their religion's founder and
teacher.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Jan 2, 2008, at 1/2/088:46 AM, HELEN CHENEY wrote:
> > >
> > > Leon,
> > >
> > > Since you is always complaining about my nitpicking your
theory,
> > > below is a rendition of my 26d model based on string theories.
> The
> > > subspace of compactified balls of space may correspond to your
> > > hyperspace. It's somewhat like an aether
> > >
> > >
> > > THE SUBSPACE A 26 dimensional model based on all string
> theories
> > > An idea so simple that one wonders why it has not been stated
> before:
> > >
> > > I. Compactification:
> > >
> > > Most of you understand the basics of superstring theory
> > > That starting with 10 dimensions, for 3 to expand in a timely
way
> > > 6 dimensions have to break up and form tiny balls.
> > >
> > > How does string theory explain where the 10 dimensional space
> came
> > > from, what it is composed of, and why/how the 6 dimensions had
> to
> > > break up and form tiny balls of, presumedly, the same
> fundamental
> > > Space stuff?
> > >
> > > The most obvious question is:
> > > Where did these Planck-scale balls of space go?
> > > And the most obvious answer is:
> > > They did not go anywhere.
> > >
> > > They are still with us throughout the universe
> > > Planck sized balls microscopically scattered
> > > But denser than the densest fluid
> > >
> > > I'll buy that. But it still doesn't tell me anything about
the
> > > real nature of those "space balls" (or should I ask Mel
Brooks?;-
> )
> > > Nor does it explain how they are electrodynamically
> interconnected
> > > with each other, along with the overall mother space fields and
> its
> > > 4-dimensional spacetime?
> > >
> > > String theorists solved the equations of superstring theory so
> > > successfully
> > > that they got a landscape of possible ball configurations
called
> > > manifolds and
> > > are apparently hung up trying to select the point of our
> universe
> > > in that landscape
> > >
> > > I say use OCCUM's Razor and just pick the simplest manifold,
> which is:
> > >
> > > The use of Occam's razor is just a cop out to justify
reductive
> > > materialism, and therefore, the conclusion made is an
assertive
> > > assumption that is not a logically valid or true nature of the
> > > "landscape" or its contents labeled "our universe".
> > >
> > > Assume a spatial configuration of dimensions with 3 dimensions
> > > collinear
> > > That is three coordinate systems lie in the east west direction
> > > And the same for north-south and up-down.
> > > In order for one dimension in each direction to expand,
> > > the other two have to break up and roll up
> > >
> > > Why? What's the basis of that assumption?
> > >
> > > The break up is essential and likely happens randomly
> > > So that at some points in expanding space
> > > The amount of space rolled up is greater than others
> > >
> > > What has any of this to do with an explanation of actual
> reality?
> > > Why does the two other spaces have to roll up for the other to
> > > expand? Unless the cross section of those presumedly
spherical
> > > fields are actually in the form of a figure eight knot -- just
> like
> > > the necessary fractally involved triune Monadic fields of my
ABC
> > > cosmogenesis... Which also line up on each axis of the
spherical
> > > megaspace, as higher order light and dark matter-energy
fields.
> > > But, if so, then superstring theory has to be based on those
> > > fractally involved cosmogenetic fields... And, thus, the
> assumption
> > > that they "break up" and "roll up randomly" is nothing more
than
> an
> > > unfounded presumption to fit the SUSY mathematics.
> > >
> > >
> > > If you can picture it,
> > > the rolling up of each compactified dimension
> > > Produces a spin effect.
> > > Each compactified point contains six loops of subspace
> > > With 6 orthogonal spin vectors in every direction:
> > > north, south, east, west, up and down
> > >
> > > Wouldn't it be far much more logical and parsimonious to
assume
> > > that it's the spin that causes the fields to radiate and
involve
> on
> > > a particular polar axes rather than making the back assward
> > > assumption that its the magically created SYSY fields that
cause
> > > the spin. But, I'll have to admit that the the numbers
> correspond
> > > with ABC theory -- since the 6 rolled up fields on each axis
> > > correspond to the fractally involved inner fields of the
Second
> > > Logos, or the lower physical-astral inner fields of the third
> Logos.
> > >
> > > 10d superstring theory with Occum's Razor predicts that
> > > the subspace is a 3D array of 6 orthogonal spins of variable
> strength
> > > A landscape of spins to carry information on
> > >
> > > None of this makes any sense unless we understand the genesis
of
> > > the so called "subspace". It's much simpler to assume that the
> six
> > > hyperspace 3D fields (of light matter-energy) are inside the
> > > overall 3D metric spacetime gravitational field... In accord
> with
> > > the fractal bubbles within bubbles configuration, as shown in
> the
> > > ABC topological geometry diagrams. This would come to 21
total
> > > directional dimensions of the light matter fields (including
the
> > > overall mother field), and along with the the dark matter
fields
> > > would total 57. In addition there would be a total of 12
inner
> > > fields on the second and third logos of the light matter --
> which
> > > seems to correspond to the 12 psychophysical 12 field theory of
> BEB
> > > -- which, like SS/M theory, until ABC, never had any
> consciousness
> > > consistent logical causal basis to justify it.
> > >
> > > In this ABC view, dark matter-energy fields, except for
overall
> > > spatial gravitional effects, would be entirely passive with
> respect
> > > to the light matter-energy fields -- since they are enfolded
on
> > > different axes of the overall gravitational *mother* field.
> > > However, since it's possible and most likely probable that the
> dark
> > > matter fields have never broken symmetry, and haven't
> precipitated
> > > any mass-energy forms, there would be no possible
electrodynamic
> or
> > > chemical interaction between the light and dark matter-energy
> > > fields -- other than those effects contributing to observed
> > > gravitational lensing, universal expansion, galactic rotation,
> etc.
> > >
> > > It's also perfectly natural that the inner lower order light
and
> > > dark matter fields of the third fractal iteration (or 3rd
Logos)
> on
> > > each light-dark axis, gradually becomes more and more dense as
> they
> > > continue to evolve down to the level of the physical quantum
> > > particle fields, and below that through the ZPE fields in the
> > > Planck dimension. In my view, the only dimensions are the
three
> > > axial or six polar directions or linear extensions in each of
> the
> > > spherical hyperspace fields... Although we might also call
each
> > > level of inner fractal fields, different "dimensions" of
> frequency-
> > > energy phase orders enfolded within the overall mother
spacetime
> > > field. All of these fractal involutions, one inside the other,
> > > etc., etc. -- being entirely analogous and corresponding, as
> well
> > > as contributing to the overall holographic nature of all
> existences
> > > on both sub or metaphysical and physical levels of reality.
> Thus
> > > concluding that mind and memory fields are separate from yet
> > > electrodynamically and holographically (informationally)
> > > interconnected with all brain-body fields.
> > >
> > > So, how can "spin" itself carry information -- when only the
> > > vibrating *spin field* surfaces of the coadunate ABC fields
can
> > > carry the frequency modulated wave interference patterns that
> are
> > > the holographically encoded information underlying both
material
> > > constructions and conscious experience? However if you
consider
> > > the spin moments of the singularity as carrying information
that
> is
> > > directly available to pure universal consciousness at the
> entangled
> > > zero-points of Absolute or primal SPACE -- then that is
another
> > > story unrelated to phenomenal individualized self reflective
> > > consciousness (awareness, will, qualia, etc,) experienced on
the
> > > physical metric plane.
> > >
> > > But there is more: the need for supersymmetry in 10d theory
> > >
> > > II. Supersymmetry:
> > >
> > > Closed loop 26d string theory allows for the creation of bosons,
> > > mainly gravity whereas Supersymmetry in necessary to make
> fermions
> > > or matter
> > >
> > > In 10d string theory at the point of creation of a fermion
> > > A sfermion, a boson, the fermions superpartner, must also be
> created
> > > And for completeness whenever a photon is created
> > > Its superpartner the photino, a fermion, is also created, and
so
> on.
> > >
> > > Physicist do acknowledge that the superpartners are still with
us
> > > and they likely make up what is called Dark Matter.
> > >
> > > As I explained above, the Dark Matter fields have nothing to
do
> > > with the so called "superpartners" -- which could be limited to
> the
> > > light matter fields only, on the physical and astral levels
that
> > > electromagnetically interact, and thus generate quantum and
sub
> > > quantum effects that can be mathematically predicted.
> > > Unfortunately, there's no way that such mathematics can predict
> the
> > > actual nature and cause of the "superpartners" (which I think
> some
> > > scientists consider as antimatter or particles of opposite
> > > chirality). In any event, since string physics is based on
the
> > > same reductive materialism assumptions as quantum physics, I
> don't
> > > give those theories much credence when it comes to describing
or
> > > explaining the true nature of multidimensional spatial reality
> on
> > > the sub-physical or spiritual-mental levels. Therefore, I
> prefer
> > > to go along with Einstein, when he said "God doesn't play dice"
--
>
> > > with reference to indeterminacy theories, and stick with his
> > > original ideas about absolute zero-point singularities,
aether,
> > > black/light holes, curved space, gravitational tension,
initial
> > > symmetry, quantum and photoelectric reality, etc., etc... All
of
> > > which is the foundational basis of ABC theory -- that must
also
> > > underlie all reductive SUSY and string theories.
> > >
> > > Unless the superpartners somehow decay away
> > > They are extremely numerous being equal to the
> > > number of fermions plus anti-fermions before recombination.
> > > Recombination annihilated almost all the physical fermions in
> our
> > > universe
> > > Being so numerous the superpartners must form an almost
massless
> > > dense fluid
> > > Since each superpartner has a global wave function, the fluid
is
> a
> > > galactic BEC
> > >
> > > This conclusion (BEC) makes some sense... But I think its
> > > assumptive basis is far too speculative to be taken seriously -
-
> > > except by physicists trying to justify reductive materialism.
> In
> > > my bottom up view the source of the galactic BEC is based on
the
> > > fundamental cyclic "spin" momentum that endows all primal
> radiant
> > > fields with wave functions (as their fundamental vibrational
> > > frequency). Thus, the initial fields are in a different higher
> > > frequency energy order of primal space and are enfolded
> everywhere
> > > in the Planck space and standing in a parallel hyperspace
that,
> > > besides generating and empowering all fundamental particle
> fields
> > > -- links, informationally, to the light matter-energy space
> through
> > > phase conjugate adaptive resonance processes. Thus, bringing
> > > consciousness into physical conjunction with all material
> substance
> > > fields... The one thing left out of all reductive scientific
> > > theories that wrongly assumes consciousness as an epiphenomena
> of
> > > material or neural complexity.
> > >
> > > III. Numerology
> > >
> > > We are at the point of trying to combine closed loop (bosonic)
> 26d
> > > string theory
> > > With 10d superstring theory (closed bosonic and open fermionic
> loops)
> > >
> > > We need two postulates:
> > > 1. Our universe is a 3D brane in a much larger 3D space
> > > 2. Two-time physics applies to 26d string theory
> > >
> > > That is our universe is a (3D+T) brane embedded in a (3D+T)
> megaspace
> > > So subtracting the 8 expanding dimensions we get
> > > 18 compactified dimensions that I wager come in 3 sets
> > >
> > > One set of 6 compactified balls of space allowed the expansion
> of
> > > megaspace
> > >
> > > And because of supersymmetry
> > > Two sets of 6 compactified balls of space created our universe
> > > One set being associated with our physical universe
> > > And one set more associated with the supersymmetric partners
> > >
> > > In essence each dimension carried a certain amount of phase
space.
> > > In our megaspace model compactification of 2/3rds of the total
> > > initial phase space
> > > allowed the expansion of the other third
> > > But for each universe 6/7ths of the available phase space is
> > > compactified
> > > To expand the other 7th
> > >
> > > Except for the confusion between spatial "dimensions" or
> descending
> > > fractally involved phase orders of frequency energy, with the
> > > metric "dimensions" of extension, and the confusion of the the
> > > initial inner field dualities with the fundamental trinities --
> I
> > > can see how some of this "numerology" corresponds with the
Super
> > > symmetrical fields within fields, within fields, of the ABC
> theory
> > > prior to the breaking of symmetry on the fourth lowest
frequency-
> > > energy order physical plane.
> > >
> > > IV. The Levels of Reality as landscapes
> > >
> > > 1. Space and coincident megaspace (empty)
> > >
> > > 2. Physical Matter (sparse)
> > >
> > > 3. Frictionless fluid of superpartners (quite dense around
> galaxies)
> > >
> > > 4,5,6. Three sets of stationary compactified phase space
> > > With 6 orthogonal spins at each point
> > > Each set carrying different levels of information
> > > (very dense everywhere in the universe)
> > >
> > > 7. And below that, virtual space (perhaps an even denser
> collection
> > > of virtual particles)
> > >
> > > V. Quantum Mechanics of the Landscapes
> > >
> > > The Uncertainty Principle teaches us that
> > > Virtual particles exist in Planck-sized point volumes
> > > And in even smaller point volumes, the unified field
> > >
> > > These virtual particles allow for the transfer of energy
> > > from the wave function to the particle (e.g., photon to
electron)
> > > during wave function collapse.
> > > The likelihood of any point in space collapsing the wave
function
> > > is a random process weighted by the amplitude of the wave
function
> > > because virtual particles are randomly generated
> > >
> > > According to the Conway-Kochen Theorem quantum mechanics
> > > cannot be deterministic due to the randomness of the virtual
> > > particles.
> > > This is called the free will theorem and may be related to
> > > consciousness
> > > if consciousness is the ability to make choices
> > >
> > > But I have always thought that wave functions were
consciousness,
> > > and it may be that wave functions propagate
> > > on the sets of compactified space
> > > like it is an aether
> > >
> > > How could wave functions be consciousness? When all they can
> do,
> > > as all reason and fundamental geometry coupled with
> electrodynamic
> > > phase conjugate adaptive resonance indicates, is physically
> carry
> > > the information or contents of consciousness from the brain
> > > processed EM sensory fields and the higher order memory fields
> > > through the mind field to the zero-point centers of conscious
> > > perception, and the force of willful intent from the
surrounding
> > > zero-point spinergy through the brain to the neuromuscular
> > > system. Rational argument based on pure geometrical logic, is
> far
> > > more predictive of actual reality, both subjectively and
> > > objectively, than such wildly speculative assumptions.
> > >
> > > If so, then compactified space (your hyperspace) is
consciousness
> > > and in addition contains all the structural info to make our
> world
> > > work
> > > as you have said. But our visible consciousness is the result
of
> > > wave collapse
> > > at Planck-sized points of virtual space with the unified (or
> GUT)
> > > field at its center.
> > >
> > > This cannot be entirely true, since consciousness as pure
> > > subjective awareness, will, qualia, etc) could not be caused
by
> > > objective matter or any forms of space time, no matter how
> tenuous
> > > such fields are in hyperspace. Besides, "wave collapse"
> (whatever
> > > that means in actual reality) is no indication of subjective
> > > consciousness. Such pure consciousness can only be the
> functional
> > > aspect of the zero-point of absolute space at the center of
the
> > > source of all ZPE. Call it the GUT field if you will -- but
it
> > > still remains outside of all physical time and space... Since
> all
> > > conscious awareness, on whatever plane of spatial reality,
must
> > > ultimately be referenced to absolute zero. Even though such
zero-
>
> > > point is part of the next higher order phase space (through
the
> > > wormhole, so to speak). Thus, we can say that relative to the
> > > absolute zero of the highest order GUT field, the zero-point of
> the
> > > lower (4th) order physical plane has a micro particular metric -
-
>
> > > equivalent to some fraction of the Planck length, if not the
> Plank
> > > length itself (which should be filled with ZPE fields that are
> > > super-symetrically fractally involved, and make up virtual 3D
> space).
> > >
> > >
> > > I believe that to transfer energy from a photon to an electron,
> > > or any other gauge particle interaction
> > > that the GUT field state must be passed thru
> > > as all particles except gravitons are equal in that state.
> > >
> > > So in my modeling I have derived a subspace of spins
(hyperspace)
> > > and have pointed out the singularity-like nature of virtual
space.
> > > (Your absolute space may be my megaspace)
> > >
> > > Could be -- if your "megaspace" is entirely unconditioned and
> > > exists solely as a source of infinite *Spinergy* outside of
all
> > > metric time and space -- capable of birthing infinite
spherical
> > > universes parallel to this universe. I would say, however,
that
> > > your megaspace is probably my first Logos of cosmic space.
See:
> > > http://members.aol.com/leonmaurer/Chakrafield-spherical-
col_3.jpg
> > >
> > > In addition Barron's 12d world falls out as the two sets of
> > > compactified space
> > > for physical matter and its superpartners.
> > > He claims that both sets are needed for wave collapse
> > > But that would just be to the GUT level
> > > All three sets of compactified space are needed to get to the
> > > unified field
> > >
> > > As I said before, BEB's 12d world can only be part of the
> physical
> > > level of the 3rd Logos, after it completes its three fractal
> > > iterations... Since, his psychophysical dimensions would have
> to
> > > refer solely to that 4th level enfoldment of my megaspace
after
> > > symmetry breaking. This is because so called "wave
> > > collapse" (which in my view is a contrived QM term that has
> nothing
> > > to do with awareness) can only occur at the quantum level in
3D
> > > metric space. But, then BEB has no conception of the fractal
> > > fields of consciousness that exist as ZPE in the hyperspace
that
> > > permeates all objective material forms, and links the neurology
> and
> > > other cellular structures of the body directly to zero-point
> > > consciousness through the medium of those mind-memory
> information
> > > carrying fields. The following illustrations explain these
field
> > > relationships far better than I can in words.
> > > http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/Chakrafielddiag-fig.col.jpg
> > > http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/THOTH_IN_DIAMOND_SAMADHI.jpg
> > >
> > >
> > > But the unified field is only needed to exchange energy
> > > between a graviton and say an electron
> > > So maybe the GUT level is sufficient inside the Planck point
> > > and 12 dimension compactification is sufficient to run this
world
> > > in agreement with Barron Burrows
> > >
> > > Maybe. But, if so, that might only cover the superficial
> objective
> > > aspects of the world. ;-)
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Leon Maurer
> > > To: HELEN CHENEY
> > > Cc: Philip Benjamin
> > > Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 7:48 PM
> > > Subject: Re: SUSY Universe
> > >
> > >
> > > On Dec 21, 2007, at 12/21/077:13 AM, HELEN CHENEY wrote:
> > >
> > > WOW, Leon. This contradicts everything you have ever said
about
> > > consciousness.
> > > What ARE you smokin'
> > >
> > > "consciousness (awareness, will, qualia, etc.) is an emergent
> > > property of neural complexity. "
> > >
> > > Don't you ever comprehend what you read in context?
> > >
> > > That was said in reference to what reductive scientists (like
> you)
> > > believe about consciousness, and the reason why they can't
> > > comprehend the hyperspace reality behind my ABC theory (which
is
> > > NOT "reductive" science) -- based on the proposition that
> > > consciousness necessarily must be the fundamental nature of
> > > ubiquitous absolute SPACE in a holographic universe that is
> > > fundamentally electrodynamic in nature.
> > >
> > > Therefore, all my physics is based on metric space being a
> *plasma*
> > > and gravity being nothing more that an electrostatic force...
> Take
> > > it or leave it, as you will. If that's "pseudo science" --
then
> > > you might as well throw all the plasma, string and M-brane
> > > physicists in the same boat -- since their theories of
cosmology
> > > and cosmogenesis substantially contradict quantum physics,
> standard
> > > model, big bang, inflation, etc.
> > >
> > > So, I won't waste any more time trying to penetrate your thick
> skull.
> > >
> > > P.S. I also hope you don't mind my publishing the ABC
> explanations
> > > in these letters, based on your comments, in my forthcoming
book.
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Leon Maurer
> > > To: HELEN CHENEY
> > > Cc: Philip Benjamin
> > > Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 11:40 PM
> > > Subject: Re: SUSY Universe
> > >
> > > Richard,
> > >
> > > I'm also amazed at how little insight you DO have -- when you
> can't
> > > see that the whole SUSY Universe discussed in that paper is
more
> > > speculative reductive scientific baloney (or should I say
> > > masturbation) trying to prove that matter alone is the cause
of
> > > everything. They'll keep on going -- like the Energizer rabbit
--
>
> > > until it gets so complex no one can understand it. How anyone
> can
> > > even imagine that dark matter has anything to do with
> > > consciousness, without any rational argument that consciousness
> can
> > > even be an epiphenomena of any form of matter, is beyond me.
> > >
> > > It seems that reductive physicists will reach for any straw to
> try
> > > and maintain their blind belief that matter is primary and
> > > causative. Now you are even trying to twist the soul into
being
> an
> > > epiphenomena of dark matter -- when the real "soul" can only
be
> > > absolute consciousness coupled with the highest order field of
> > > spiritual mind, both of which are totally independent of all
> forms
> > > of physical matter, including the brain -- except that they
all
> > > stem from the same fundamental root of primal SPACE that is
both
> > > potentially conscious and infinitely energetic as well as
eternal.
> > >
> > > The whole theoretical reductive science game, in spite of
> > > continually ignoring consciousness as the primary cause of all
> > > change, is just coming closer and closer to the ABC model that -
-
>
> > > without all that contrived and renormalized mathematical
garbage
> to
> > > justify eliminative materialism -- sees the whole system
> starting
> > > with a fractally involving supersymmetry... With the present
> metric
> > > spacetime universe, after inflation and breaking of symmetry,
> > > evolving out of the image information and energy compacted
into
> > > ubiquitous zero point sources of absolute SPACE (acting
> initially
> > > like a BEC "singularity") and subsequently generating
particles,
> > > atoms, molecules, galaxies, stars, planets, moons, etc., in
> accord
> > > with scientific laws... Followed by the evolution of sentient
> > > beings on a suitable home planet... To ultimately form
> mankind...
> > > And then, continually expanding until all forms eventually
> > > dissipate and resolve back into a higher order
supersymmetry...
> > > Until the whole cyclic process repeats on a higher level of
> > > evolution and intelligence based on its gained experience and
> > > knowledge... With all of it having the ideation of human
forms
> > > already built into the holographic image of the entire present
> > > cosmos right from the primal beginning.
> > >
> > > Thus the whole aim and purpose of the "universe" must be for
the
> > > birth and evolution of present mankind -- to fulfill its own
> > > destiny of expanding its own consciousness from one to many
and
> > > back to one again -- while gaining infinite experience and
> > > knowledge in the process -- (at no cost to itself,
> > > incidentally ;-) Whatever the next cycle might portent for
> > > universal consciousness and Mind is beyond the comprehension of
> our
> > > finite minds at this stage of our evolution.
> > >
> > > Read your own Hindu Bhagavad Gita where Krishna (representing
> the
> > > spirit or consciousness of the primal source -- absolute
SPACE)
> > > says, "I create the whole world with one small part of myself
> and
> > > yet remain separate (undiminished)" -- From frontispiece,
> W.Q.Judge
> > > transliteration, Theosophy Company edition. You might also
read
> > > Judge's essay on Chapter 1
> <http://wwwtheosociety.org/pasadena/gita/
> > > eg1.htm#t2>
> > >
> > > So, unless we each -- (as an individual conscious mind beings,
> > > realize our inherent nature and who and what we are) -- join
up
> > > with it... The joke is on us... And, as the Buddha said, we
must
> > > pay the piper and suffer for our own ignorance. :-[ Well
that's
> > > too bad for those that follow the false prophets and lose it
> along
> > > the way.
> > >
> > > So, maybe you should read deeper into the theosophical
teachings
> > > and find out what the human "soul" really is, and why the
> universe
> > > has to evolve in the general direction that ultimately results
> in
> > > human beings on earth having to work out their own individual
> karma
> > > -- or to its living hell be damned... Since the universal
> > > consciousness couldn't give a hoot what happens to the pieces
of
> > > its worthless and expendable matter while they churn around
> > > gathering infinite degrees of possible experiences that,
> > > individually, don't amount to anything more than tempests in a
> > > teapot to the global consciousness witnessing it all. But,
> enough
> > > philosophizing...
> > >
> > > For a picture of how this universal evolutionary cycle
> transforms
> > > from absolute spatial supersymmetry to hyperspatial symmetry,
> then
> > > to total material (metric spacial) asymmetry, to ultimately
> reverse
> > > through symmetry back to the original supersymmetry -- to
repeat
> > > the dual cycle over again on a higher level of informational
> > > knowledge and experience -- see: http://users.aol.com/
uniwldarts/
> > > uniworld.artisans.guild/evolution2.html
> > >
> > > The notes on this diagram need some revision, but nevertheless,
> the
> > > symbolic diagram shows the stages or phases and cycles of
> > > involution and evolution correctly. All we have to do is
realize
> > > that holographic information is paramount and precedes all
forms
> of
> > > matter, and that consciousness is a fundamental quality of
> Absolute
> > > SPACE that is timeless, dimensionless, and everywhere hidden in
> the
> > > center of the hyperspatial information carrying fields
> encircling
> > > each potentially (sensorially) conscious zero-point of
absolute
> > > SPACE in the vastness of metric space-time. Thus,
> supersymmetry,
> > > superstrings, supergravity leads to symmetry, strings,
gravity,
> > > leads to asymmetry, particles, strong and electroweak forces,
> > > etc. ... All, consisting of light matter-energy and two
mirrored
> > > dark matter-energies, existing as separate and independent
> > > holograms at perpendicular angles of spin, having their own
> > > parallel natures, experiences and potential consciousness.
And,
> > > except for a common ± gravity -- totally invisible and
> dynamically
> > > unconnected to each other -- but part of the same overall space-
> time.
> > >
> > > Keeping in mind the holographic nature of everything (and the
> > > analogy and correspondence between all systems governed by the
> laws
> > > of cycles)... Consider that all forms of nature (in our light
> > > matter universe) are the evolving image expressions of nothing
> but
> > > pure information (intelligence)... And, notice that the human
> race
> > > in its present state of evolution (analogous to the overall
> cosmic
> > > evolution) is only at the middle of its V (fifth) root racial
> > > cycle. At this point, its collective knowledge of overall
> reality
> > > would be just beginning to emerge, as consciousness slowly
> begins
> > > to understand its creative dominion over matter... And yet, as
> > > individual self reflective beings, we still don't know how to
> unify
> > > and control or guide matter's evolution without creating
> > > continuously repetitive disorder, based on
> conflictive "scientific"
> > > or empirical thinking, motivated by selfishness... Which, due
to
> > > ignorance of our real nature, results in periodic rising and
> > > falling of social and economic systems... All of which are
> > > inevitably flawed by their separatist materialistic viewpoint -
-
> > > whether religious or secular... With all of it stemming from
the
> > > basic blind belief that each man is his brain-body and
> identifies
> > > with it... When, in reality, they are each nothing more than
> pure
> > > consciousness (mind beings) along with the accumulated
> experiential
> > > information it has gathered around itself since it first
> awakened
> > > at the primal beginning of this universal cycle as an
individual
> > > zero-point ray of the cosmic consciousness coupled with the
> > > analogous fields of its triune higher mind (monad).
> > >
> > > I wonder if anyone who reads my ABC hypothesis has even gotten
> the
> > > slightest inkling of the underlying hyperspace reality that
> > > actually exists... Although, I understand how difficult it
> is
> > > to look at things from the bottom up or inside out...
> Especially,
> > > after convincing oneself that the only way to comprehend the
> world,
> > > or anything in it, is to reductively analyze it from the top
> down
> > > or outside in... With that method based on the self-
conditioned
> > > false belief that the whole must be the sum of its parts, that
> > > matter is the only reality, that everything exists separate
from
> > > everything else , and that consciousness (awareness, will,
> qualia,
> > > etc.) is an emergent property of neural complexity.
> > >
> > > Oh well, as Alfred Newman said, "What me worry?" That's their
> > > problem -- along with every other reductive scientific thinker
> who
> > > can't see the forest for the trees, or realize that the egg and
> the
> > > chicken can't exist independently of each other. :-)
> > >
> > > Have a happy holiday season,
> > >
> > > Leon
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > .
> > >
> > >
> > > On Dec 15, 2007, at 12/15/071:37 PM, HELEN CHENEY wrote:
> > >
> > > I found the reference for the SUSY Universe I mentioned
> > > previously. My model of reality has such a universe as the
> > > particles of Dark Matter. Our universe was coupled to a SUSY
> > > universe during the Big Bang in order to create fermions
> according
> > > to superstring theory and they are still coupled at least by
> > > gravity now. An additional local coupling would be necessary
for
> > > something like a soul consciousness to exist in Dark Matter,
as
> > > suggested by OBE and NDE, and by reincarnation as well as
> revelation.
> > >
> > > Clavelli's SUSY universe seemingly has the structure necessary
> to
> > > support intelligent life that a medium of axions-only lacks.
We
> > > might argue that axions provide the required coupling. But
> because
> > > of Bars papers on Two Time physics, which eliminates the need
> for
> > > axions (no CP violation) and suggests the existence of a
> megaspace
> > > (also suggested by the work of Lisa Randall solving the
> heirarchy
> > > problem), super cosmic reality is likely a great number of
> paired
> > > SUSY and false vacuum (3D+T) universes embedded a (3D+T')
> megaverse
> > > in which essentially only gravity exists.
> > >
> > > The megaspace model is not necessary for purposes of
> understanding
> > > the soul. But something like a medium containing atoms and
> > > molecules of supersymmetric particles that couple to our
> physical
> > > particles is necessary. Perhaps the coupling can be found in
> Bars
> > > (4D+2T) theory, the prototype of a megaverse theory. Or since
> they
> > > are coupled by gravity, perhaps Higgs particles re-couple the
> > > ordinary and superymmetric particles with a force stronger
than
> > > gravity.
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Clavelli "Properties of a future susy universe"
> > > http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0508/0508207v2.pdf
> > >
> > > It looks to me as though this universe, if it could coexist
with
> a
> > > broken symmetry universe, which is the one we live in, would
> have
> > > all the properties required for a soul to exist in.
The
> > > properties sound very much like the descriptions I have read
in
> > > Theosophy about how the soul is rearranged into spherically
> > > symmetric entities after death and how atoms are strongly red-
> > > shifted. Atoms from Hydrogen to Oxygen are stable so DNA can
> exist
> > > for example. Atoms are nuclei with up to two "fermionic
> electrons"
> > > surrounded by a cloud of selectrons.
> > >
> > > Well, look at that. That's the coupling. The supersymmetric
> atoms
> > > contain ordinary electrons. It's an EM coupling, not Higgs. Is
> > > there evidence for bioelectrons associated with the biophotons?
> > >
> > > Sometimes I am amazed at how little insight I have. The message
> has
> > > to be right in front of my nose and I still did not get it
until
> > > this instant. I wonder if it will fly.
> > >
> > > Richard
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Philip Benjamin
> > > To: HELEN CHENEY
> > > Cc: leonmaurer
> > > Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 6:44 PM
> > > Subject: RE: BEC axion medium
> > >
> > > Richard Letter 3
> > >
> > > The recent exp result that neurons contain EM fields that are
5
> > > times more intense than a lightning bolt reminds me of some of
> > > Leon's insights. That level of intensity is likely to come from
> the
> > > ZPE of the false vacuum. SED theory suggests that QM comes from
> ZPE
> > > as well as inertial mass. I suspect that ZPE, (which BTW is not
> a
> > > property of the SS universe, that is it's zero, a true
vacuum),
> > > somehow comes form the megaspace and is relevant to Leon's
> insight
> > > about the source of consciousness. But I wish Leon would remove
> the
> > > layers of seeming scientific terminology with which he hides
his
> > > insight.
> > > _________________________
> > >
> > > What does this intensity mean in practical terms? How long it
> > > lasts? What exactly can it do to generate self-awareness? Or
> > > Computations? Or Cognition? I came aross a speed of over 200
> miles/
> > > hour for the breath/blast of sneezing!!! All these insights
and
> > > imaginations are useful, only if they can be yoked to an
> observable
> > > or perceivable REALITY. How can you solve a "REAL" problem with
> an
> > > imaginary solution.
> > >
> > >
> > > Letter 2
> > > Have you seen Hammeroff's latest about the pilot/autopilot. He
> > > talks of a web. That makes sense to me as something
macroscopic
> > > that could be in quantum coherence or entangled. There may be a
> web
> > > of microtubles. Stuart talked of a dentrite and an axon web.
> > > ___________________
> > >
> > > Yes, he was kind enough to reply me also. He has done a lot in
> this
> > > field. But is he getting anywhere? Why should a WEB of
> microtubules
> > > create anything other than what it is programed to do? What is
> new
> > > about axon-net work? Why should one be Pilot and the other
auto-
> > > pilate? Is it wishful thinking?
> > >
> > > Letter 1
> > > I too used to work in phase conjugate adaptive optics at
> Adaptive
> > > Optics Associates now owned by United Technology. Our work was
> > > secret and predated the open literature papers. In 1975 I got
> the
> > > govt (DARPA) to declassify a paper because they wanted the USSR
> to
> > > increase their funding of space BMD and I became famous for a
> few
> > > days for my paper said that you could propagate an unlimited
> amount
> > > of laser power to space. Of course it was all a spoof. Star
Wars
> > > was a bluff, which I exposed when they got serious about its
de-
> > > loyment in 1987. It was inherently vulnerable. As a result
> Teller
> > > and Canavan invented (they claim) the Brilliant Pebbles system
> > > which is not vulnerable. Also as a result Henry Kendall lost
his
> > > life in a suspicious scuba accident. I had been warned that my
> life
> > > was in danger, but Henry got credit for stopping the deployment.
> > > _____________________
> > >
> > > These are real conscious experiences. You are only describing
> the
> > > experience part. The "Conscious" side must have an
explanation.
> > > Hologram, resonance, ZPE, entanglement may all be part of this
> > > experience. Physicists including Penrose are making a serious
> > > mistake if they get themselves "boxed" in. When the
> box
> > > is Eastern Mysticism, one can easily get addicted to it much
the
> > > same way as drug addiction. That will not help to progress.
The
> > > Eastern mind is very brilliant- a genetic composite of diverse
> > > elements. But sience could not begin and grow there at all.
That
> is
> > > the problem with all addictions. It is unreal and science is
real.
> > >
> > > Consciousness as a nebulous, amorphous,invisible, unidentified
> > > something which is not a THING is not worth pursuing. We have
a
> > > well studied EM field. Could there be a parallel non-EM bio-
> world?
> > > Some of these para normal phenomena reports seem genuine-NDE
etc.
> I
> > > used to avoid them, because there is so much else to read. That
> is
> > > how I missed your web site. Especially, I take those Ghost
> stories
> > > with a ton of salt.
> > >
> > > Consciousness must be a TOTAL BODY phenomenon. It must be
> invisble
> > > and permeating (NON-EM), intransient (NON-ENTROPIC).
> Restricting
> > > it to any specific ANATOMY is a big mistake. Once it was the
> penial
> > > gland, then the Eccles gate, then the microtubules, etc have
> gotten
> > > nowhere. You have to bring everything into the confines of the
> body
> > > and entangled with it. Biophotons also must be factored into.
> The
> > > very fact that Plants are so profuse in biophotons, (animals
> less
> > > and humans the least) is an importnt data so far omitted.
> > >
> > > Happy Christmas & Happy Holidays
> > >
> > > Philip
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: HELENDRUMS@
> > > To: medinuclear@
> > > CC: leonmaurer@
> > > Subject: Re: BEC axion medium
> > > Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:58:15 -0500
> > >
> > >
> > > Phillip & Leon,
> > >
> > > Yes. It seems like something I would write. What stopped me
from
> > > forging ahead was the seeming lack of structure in an axion
BEC.
> > > And then exp investigations that should have detected the
axion
> > > failed.
> > >
> > > OTOH, the Russians claim to detect microleptons (ie. axions)
and
> > > developed a quantum theory of information based on it.
> > >
> > > But then Bars comes along with his 2 T physics that eliminates
> the
> > > need for the axion.
> > >
> > > In addition to all this, the possibility of a supersymmetric
> > > universe that is not a false vacuum with a rich structure of
> > > elements up to at least carbon strikes me as the
> obvious
> > > location of what is called heaven, but I would just call it
> > > supernatural. BTW_ I have temporally lost the link to the SS
> > > universe papers.
> > >
> > > Dark Matter is then this SS universe, one that pervades our
> > > universe. My speculation is that physical processes in our
> physical
> > > universe including consciousness are somehow imprinted on the
SS
> > > universe. Leon would say it in the opposite direction.
> > >
> > > But then Garrett Lisi comes along with his E8 theory which
does
> > > away with the need for supersymmetry. It seems that whenever
you
> > > think you have found a theoretical location for supernatural
> > > experience, it soon disappears, theoretically.
> > >
> > > BTW, Bars was one of the first, if not the first, to suggest
> that
> > > E8 could be the unification theory of everything way back in
> 1980
> > > at Yale even before supersymmetry came along and
> converted
> > > most physicists into string believers.
> > >
> > > So I see Bars as way ahead of the crowd. Like I said in my
last
> > > email, Bars theory could verify Mitchell's claim of a quantum
> > > hologram that stores the history of all physical objects and
it
> > > seems to verify Maldecena's conjecture.
> > >
> > > Anyway, it seems to be no need for axions.
> > >
> > > Richard
> > >
> > > PS. The recent exp result that neurons contain EM fields that
are
> 5
> > > times more intense than a lightning bolt reminds me of some of
> > > Leon's insights. That level of intensity is likely to come from
> the
> > > ZPE of the false vacuum. SED theory suggests that QM comes from
> ZPE
> > > as well as inertial mass. I suspect that ZPE, (which BTW is not
> a
> > > property of the SS universe, that is it's zero, a true
vacuum),
> > > somehow comes form the megaspace and is relevant to Leon's
> insight
> > > about the source of consciousness. But I wish Leon would remove
> the
> > > layers of seeming scientific terminology with which he hides
his
> > > insight.
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Philip Benjamin
> > > To: Ruquist, Richard
> > > Cc: leonmaurer
> > > Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 11:57 AM
> > > Subject: BEC axion medium
> > >
> > >
> > > Richard:
> > >
> > > I just found this:
> > >
> > > "Briefly, if the BEC axion medium exists, it is the likely site
> of
> > > quantum consciousness. The fundamental postulate is that
> > > consciousness is of a quantum nature. Since room temperature
> BECs
> > > are not likely, our physical consciousness is not of a quantum
> > > nature, but is driven by the axion quantum consciousness. Words
> and
> > > will are used to collapse the invisible axion waves into
visible
> > > arrays of axion particles that we perhaps see directly in the
> dream
> > > or OBE state; and which in turn can excite energized physical
> > > membrane dipoles in the awake state."
> > >
> > > Do you recognize this? If you do, why not proceed ahead? Why
> stop
> > > here? Chalmers/Hameroff/Penrose did not get anyehre.
> > >
> > > Philip
> > >
> > > =
> > >
> > > Shed those extra pounds with MSN and The Biggest Loser! Learn
> more. =
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application
