Tom Chavez

I’ve never run into the problems Al describes about the IPMC. That helps explain your agitprop about ‘global elite’, ‘population control’, and ad hominem attacks on Al Gore, AOC, etc. Al writes that he considers climate change anxiety to be dysfunctional. Tell that to the people living on the coasts of Bangladesh, Miami and New Orleans. Congress has passed legislation signed by President Trump instructing our military leadership to plan for climate change threats to national security. Don’t let your political anxiety outweigh scientific objectivity. 

Academic and scientific institutions attempt to select, support and develop the best experts by peer review, etc. Industry, government and military depend upon these institutions. Their authority is derived from their expertise, knowledge and results. American scientific and educational institutions are admired and emulated around the world.

Cliff Harris and Randy Mann are not recognized authorities. I’m not saying they are wrong, but I don’t see the evidence to support their view. One may prefer their view for political reasons. American institutions have achieved superiority with a policy of keeping politics out of science as much as possible.

Gregg, as for reality “being objectively independent of what humans think it is”, I would parry that reality is interactive. We all participate in creating reality. Some aspects are susceptible to human influence and some are not. In quantum mechanics the observer influences the observed. Similarly, our thoughts, words and deeds can influence and change the course of human affairs. 

In quantum mechanics position, momentum and direction of spin are considered to be not only unknown, but to not exist in any definite state until they are measured or observed. Observation causes ‘collapse of the probabilistic wave function’ into a definite state. The subjectivity of the observer influences the result, as shown by numerous studies, such as the ‘mini-PK’ experiments conducted by Robert Jahn of Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Laboratory at Princeton University.

An individual may challenge the consensus or status quo, and create revolutionary change as did Jesus Christ, Hitler, Buddha, Mohamed, Karl Marx, Thomas Jefferson, Gandhi, etc. They created new consensus, at least among their followers. Democracy is based on consensus. 

Obviously, one shouldn’t accept consensus blindly. I disagree with the prevailing consensus on Darwinian evolution. Since 1961 it has been known that the number of possible nucleotide chains is far too great for natural selection to work in the time available (this is called the combinatorial problem). In the recent decade it has become obvious that mutations powerful enough to produce a new species are invariably deadly. The idea that natural forces can create information sufficient for a human genome wildly contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. Archeology and geology offer abundant evidence that modern evolutionary theory is wrong. But a majority consensus refuse to discuss or look at the evidence.

We are each individually responsible for our own choices and actions, and the inevitable subsequent reactions. It behooves us to inform ourselves, to keep an open mind, and to practice introspection, self-control and equipoise. We are in a complicated but rational reality of causes and effects, and we are the architects of our own destiny.

Off my soapbox.

Laurel Hoefer (Gerla)

Allen, well said. Thank you for clarity without too much scientific gobbledygook..

Tom Chavez

Creation of Sexual Reproduction by Intelligent Design

On the sixth day God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him. God named him Adam. But Adam was lonely. When God realized that Adam wasn’t happy, He asked him why. Adam told God that he was lonely. 

God thought about that and then told Adam, “Son, I’m going to give you a companion. She will cook and clean for you, bear your children, and never wake you in the middle of the night to help care for the children. She will not nag, she will not whine, and she will serve you hand and foot without complaint and with sweet words and a smile on her face, and she will be called woman.” 

Adam asked God what this would cost him. God answered, “An arm and a leg.” Adam thought about it and said, “What can I get for a rib?”

Tom Chavez

Sexual Reproduction and the Theory of Evolution

The standard definition of a species for sexually reproducing organisms requires that members of the same species can mate and create fertile offspring. Different species cannot interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Species are divided into varieties. Varieties, unlike species, can interbreed freely and produce fertile offspring. Darwin agreed with this definition.

The crux of Darwin’s argument is that varieties can gradually become species through breeding: “Varieties are species in the process of formation, or are, as I have called them, incipient species.” In the first chapter of On the Origin of Species, “Variation under Domestication,” he implies that with enough time and crossbreeding species could be bred until they become a new species. 

In his second chapter, “Variation under Nature,” Darwin argues that nature  can breed varieties until they become species by a process of natural selection.

As it turns out, Darwin was wrong about how much change actually occurs in varieties. We now know that nature has placed limits on how far a species can change. By breeding dogs, we can produce varieties of dogs, but we can’t produce a cat or a muskrat. Breeding simply shuffles and recombines already existing traits (genes).

The American botanist and plant breeder, Luther Burbank (1849–1926) stated: “I can develop a plum half an inch long or one two and a half inches long, with every possible length in between, but I am willing to admit that it is hopeless to get a plum the size of a pea or a grapefruit.”

The noted French zoologist Pierre Grassé (1895–1985) agreed: “In spite of intense artificial selection (eliminating any parent not answering the criteria of choice) over whole millennia, no new species are born. A comparative study of sera, hemoglobins, blood proteins, etc., proves that strains remain within the same specific definition. This is not a matter of opinion or subjective classification, it is a measurable reality. The fact is that selection gives tangible form to all the varieties that a genome is capable of producing, but does not constitute an innovative evolutionary process.”

In 1982 Francis Hitching wrote similarly about selective breeding: “It is now absolutely clear that there are firm natural limits to what can be done. Remarkable achievements can be made by crossbreeding and selection inside the species barrier, or within a larger circle of closely related species, such as wheats. But wheat is still wheat, and not, for instance, grapefruit. Between 1800 and 1878, the sugar content of beets was raised from 6 to 17 per cent. A half century of further breeding failed to make any difference.”

Darwin’s notion that varieties could turn into species was wishful thinking and not based on actual evidence.

The other thing that Darwin got wrong was the mechanism of inheritance, and this soon became obvious as the science of genetics advanced. Natural selection alone is not enough to create a new species. Natural selection cannot create, it can only select from among the varieties created by breeding. If breeding does not create something new, natural selection cannot select it.

Darwin believed that the variation needed for his theory would be provided by external influences on the organisms. He thought that cows udders would become larger when they were regularly milked, and that this change could be passed on to offspring: “There can be little doubt that use in our domestic animals strengthens and enlarges certain parts, and disuse diminishes them; and that such modifications are inherited.” 

However, this idea is now known to be incorrect. We may lift weights and develop muscles like steel, but our children will not be born with larger muscles. In some cultures women enlarge their lips and earlobes, but their daughters are not born with bigger lips or earlobes than girls in other culture.

Darwin was wrong in assuming that either environment or natural selection creates new characteristics. Natural selection simply eliminates those individuals that don’t have the favorable traits already.

Just when Darwin was publishing Origin Gregor Mendel (1822–1884) was studying the laws of inheritance. He performed extensive experiments crossing different varieties of plants and noting how their characteristics were passed from one generation to the next.

Mendel concluded that heredity involves a transmission of constant factors that determine an organism’s traits. Although the factors can be mixed and matched during reproduction, they remain discrete and unchanging from one generation to the next.

A simple way to understand the difference between Mendel’s and Darwin’s views is to think of a deck of cards. By shuffling the deck one can combine the cards in a variety of ways, but no new cards will arise in the process. This was Mendel’s correct view of inheritance. Darwin, on the other hand, incorrectly imagined a process of pangenesis that changed the cards into new cards.

Mendel’s laws of genetics have been established for over a century. But evolutionists still recycle erroneous Darwinian ideas. In 1993 the American biologist Christopher Wills wrote: “The force that seems to have accelerated our brain’s growth is a new kind of stimulant: language, signs, collective memories—all elements of culture. As our cultures evolved in complexities, so did our brains, which then drove our culture to still greater complexity. Big and clever brains led to more complex cultures, which in turn led to bigger and cleverer brains.”

This kind of imaginative speculation continues to promote evolution as a kind ideological propaganda in the guise of science. Darwinism has permeated society and the theory has left the realm of hypothesis and moved into the realm of an ideological “established fact,” something not to be doubted.

In 1967, the Wistar Institute hosted a conference called “Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution” attended by mathematicians and evolutionary biologists. The mathematicians argued that it is statistically impossible that complex organs, such as the eye, could have evolved by a series of small random mutations; there hasn’t been enough time in the earth’s history for those mutations to have occurred. This is called the combinatorial problem.

The biologists accused the mathematicians of “doing science backwards.” Evolution, they said, is an established fact; the eye had evolved. A leading evolutionist at the conference, Ernst Meyer, said, “Somehow or other by adjusting these numbers we will come out alright. We are comforted by the fact that evolution has occurred.”

Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould wrote: “Einstein’s theory of gravity replaced Newton’s, but apples did not suspend themselves in midair pending the outcome. And human beings evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be identified.”

Of course, we can directly observe apples falling, but we do not observe a common ancestor for apes and humans, nor humans being born of apes. It is a fact that humans are biochemically and physically more similar to apes than other species. But having a shared ancestor via evolution is a theory, not a fact. It may be plausible to those who have a materialistic worldview, but it may nonetheless be false.

In his 1990 book, Evolution and the Myth of Creationism, Tim Berra compared fossils to a series of automobile models: “If you compare a 1953 and a 1954 Corvette, side by side, then a 1954 and a 1955 model, the descent with modification is overwhelmingly obvious. This is what paleontologists do with fossils, and the evidence is so solid and comprehensive that it cannot be doubted by reasonable people.”

Of course, everyone knows that cars are designed in advance by intelligent designers. Their similarity is not the result of an unguided Darwinian process. What Berra actually showed is that resemblance between species might be due to design. But because he was so convinced of the fact of evolution, he saw even a contradictory example as evidence for evolution.

In short, evolution became dogma in Darwin’s time and has remained dogma ever since. Although there is abundant evidence against evolution, most evolutionists refuse to look at the evidence and instead have taken on the task of finding mechanisms to account for what they already accept as a fact.

Gregg Wilson

Tom Chaves,

In regard to your thoughts on Darwin's theory of evolution, I am in complete agreement with you.

The hysteria about carbon dioxide is complely owned by Al Gore. Big Al lost all credibility a long, long time ago when he claimed he was a combat veteran of Viet Nam. Currently, he is encompassing religion into his crusade against carbon dioxide. "If the facts don't convince them then belief and faith will."

We cannot change the fundamentals of Reality. If so, then the Wright brothers could have thought that a bath tube will fly and it would! Instead, they obeyed  the facts of Reality and built an airplane which they flew. You can change our future within the bounds of Reality.

Can we change gravity?

Consensus has proclaimed that gravity is attractive. One small problem. Isaac Newton said it was not attractive.

I quote Isaac Newton "That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without mediation of anything, by and through which their action and force  is conveyed from one to the other, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man who has in philsophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it."

The problem would be solved by Le Sage of Switzerland in 1745.

So consensus does not determine Reality.

Diane Paulson

Thank you, Tom Chavez

Tom Chavez

Gregg, you can't be serious. LeSage postulates that the shadows two nearby bulky bodies make in the omnidirectional stream of aetherial corpuscles cause an imbalance in the net forces leading to their mutual attraction. 

Newton would not hypothesize what causes gravity. He commented in his second edition of Principia: "I have not yet been able to discover the cause of these properties of gravity .... It is enough that gravity does really exist and acts according to the laws I have explained, and that it abundantly serves to account for all the motions of celestial bodies."

Einstein explained that gravity corresponds to changes in the properties of space and time caused by massive bodies, which in turn change the straightest-possible paths that objects will naturally follow. This effect was initially confirmed by observing the light of stars or distant quasars being deflected as it passed the Sun.  

Therefore, Einstein said, you can't blame gravity for falling in love.

Maybe gravitons.

Marty Ellison

Tom,     “In short, evolution became dogma in Darwin’s time and has remained dogma ever since. Although there is abundant evidence against evolution, most evolutionists refuse to look at the evidence and instead have taken on the task of finding mechanisms to account for what they already accept as a fact.”

This sounds to me like a religion.

Gregg Wilson

Tom Chavez,

You should take a more critical look at what Le Sage proposed. Perhaps you could read Pushing Gravity, which examines Le Sage's proposal. The best article within is written by astronomer Tom Van Flandern.

It is true that Isaac Newton said that he did not know the how, why and what of gravity - which indicates that he did not think that his Universal Law of Gravity demonstrated that gravity is attractive. Actually he said so in my quotation of him. Attraction by two bodies distant from one another is magic.

In our atmosphere, the distance traveled by one molecule before it hits another is extremely minute. Therefore, our atmosphere rapidly fills in a vacuum. That is not the case with proposed gravitons (a universal flux of gravitons throughout the Universe). In depth examination of gravitons is that their mean free distance before they hit one another is vastly more that a light year.

So between the Earth and the Moon, there is cylinder (funnel) in which there is a deficit of gravitons traveling between the Earth and the Moon, because both the Earth and Moon have mutually blocked gravitons on their outward sides. Thus there is a net imbalance in the graviton flux and the two bodies are pushed toward one another. No magic.

Einstein's claim that space time are bent, curled, whatever is nonsense. The experimental results about light being bent around the Sun is adequately explained by other factors. The dimensions of space and time are not objects but properties of Existence.

Al Peffley

Pretty heavy stuff guys, but you are having an interesting debate and dialog. Marty, you are right in saying Darwin's evolution discussions and theories became a "religion" to many athiests who wanted to push the idea of a creator of the universe out of their mind and life. I remember reading an article written by Darwin where he said that he never intended to make a religion out of his studies. He said his intent was to discover the way living systems change over time and any connections that may be possible between species.

Since I chose the "art" (not science) of developing transportation systems, defense systems, and space systems for humans' use through technology development projects over continuing by biological sciences career, I have focused my professional work life on non-living hardware and software systems. Everything created in these aerospace projects by humans was intended for the human race. That said, artificial intelligence command & control and integrated robotic systems advances are making headway in performing simple tasks more accurately and faster than humans can do those tasks. The combination of human subject matter experts and advanced robotics systems in verification and validation proof testing for complex scientific solution hypothses can hopefully decrease the time and resources it takes to prove new laws of science (or correct mythical law beliefs.)

We are always learning and improving our perception of reality by being inquisitive, disciplined, and open-minded (hopefully.) Those who make emotional interpretations of theoretical (sometimes consensus-driven) studies into a religion often can be close-minded to verified & validated observations of physical and social interaction "reality". Those who use scientific information (processed and summarized data) and statistics for control of society are often egotistical power-seekers, not objective scientists in their field(s) of acredited academics. Enstein may not always have been correct, but he was reported to be a humble person who genuinely cared about people of the Human Race. Albert was not a societal manipulator (from what I have read about his life and his quotes on life.)

Religion is a man-made social system here on earth, not a byproduct of God. There is no such thing as "Mother Earth" or "Mother Nature" (in the cult of Agenda 21), but only a form of religious cult term to avoid the use of the term "Divine Creator" used commonly by people of faith in many cultural religions. I choose liberty and freedom as a freeman over political world cults. It's my right as a child of God (defined as "I AM".) A human chosing to be part of AM NOT is a product of free will, which we all have the liberty to decide for ourselves. In the end, we all die physically alone unless we believe otherwise -- it's our cultural right as Americans of the Human Race. We are the dominent "animals" on planet earth. If we are divided and full of evil, we most likely won't be the dominant species.

The United States of America is defined as a "Republic" form of governing, not a democracy. Read what the Founding Fathers wrote about democracies (especially Thomas Jefferson.) We have a Republic based on (God-given) individual rights of good will and freedom to live productively that is unique to the world -- even with its human flaws, lets strive to keep it that way!

Cheers,

Al

Tom Chavez

Marty, it depends upon the meaning of religion.

My dictionary defines religion to be the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

Materialistic evolution doesn’t accept divinity, so it is not a religion in that sense. I think of it as a mistaken hypothesis or, for those who are more faith based, a delusion. It is not really science if they refuse to look at opposing evidence.

Einstein said that religion without science is sentiment or fanaticism; science without religion is blind. I agree with that.

Tom Chavez

Gregg, 

Einstein predicted that light would be bent by a large mass like the sun, and this was proven true. That’s pretty incredible right there.

He also predicted gravitational waves, and scientists had enough confidence in his theory to build billion dollar LIGO detectors in Washington, Louisiana and Italy to detect them. And that has proven successful. Accurate prediction is strong confirmation of theory.

Both gravitational waves and the bent path of light near massive objects are compatible with warping or rippling of space-time “fabric”, which is how most scientists describe gravity. Thus, the earth warps space and forms a gravity well, out of which we must climb to leave the planet.

The graviton is theorized to be the carrier of the gravitational field, just like a photon is the carrier of the electromagnetic field. But such a graviton is also impossible to detect with modern technology. Its existence is unconfirmed.

You suggest that gravity is caused by a flux of gravitons between earth and moon, but how would that account for the attraction or, as you call it, the ‘pushing together’ of every thing on earth—grains of sand, mountains, people, etc.—toward the center of the earth? Especially if, as you say, the mean free distance between gravitons is vastly more than a light year?

Gravitons are expected to travel at the speed of light, as do gravity waves and light. If there is more than a light year between them, it would be quite a while between subsequent gravitons. What keeps everything down on earth between gravitons? 

What are the ‘factors’ which you claim account for the bending of light around massive objects? And how would gravitons create gravity waves in your theory?

Tom Chavez

Al, you offer some pretty heavy statements. Allow me to suggest some alternative views.

You write: “Religion is a man-made social system here on earth, not a byproduct of God.” 

I think of religion as the “laws of God”, for example, the ten commandments which were given to Moses by God, and revelations in sacred literatures like the Bible, Torah, and Vedas. The essential instruction of religion is to love God. For example, Srimad Bhagavatam states: “The supreme dharma (duty or religion) for all human beings is that by which one attains loving devotional service to the transcendent Lord. Such service must be unmotivated (by selfish desire) and uninterrupted, in order to completely satisfy the self.” Any system which helps one to attain love of God is religion, and that which is useless for developing love of God can be religion in name only.

Of course, people distort and hijack religion for political, economic and other selfish ends. But to reject all religion for that reason is to throw out the baby with the bath water.

You write: “There is no such thing as "Mother Earth" or "Mother Nature" (in the cult of Agenda 21), but only a form of religious cult term to avoid the use of the term "Divine Creator" used commonly by people of faith in many cultural religions.”

One Greek philosopher said, in our body we find small amounts of liquids, solids and gases; and in the greater world we find huge quantities of these things. Similarly, in our body we have small quantities of intelligence and consciousness, and in the greater world we can expect to find great quantities.

Most spiritual traditions teach that there are many kinds of higher beings like angels, archangels, demigods, Gandharvas, apsaras, and a Supreme Lord. For example, in Greece, China and India people believe in a moon god, sun god, etc. The Vedas say that each planet is predominated by a conscious being. So, why not Mother Earth? In the Vedas Mother Earth is quoted as saying, “I can bear any heavy weight, except that of a liar.”

We are all children of God and part of a great spiritual family. Consciousness is conserved, it has no beginning or end. Empirical evidence for this is found in out-of-body experiences, near death experiences, and past life memories. The soul is eternal. Where there is consciousness there is soul. Matter has no consciousness. Every living entity is a creature of God, and should be respected as such.

We consider ourselves American human beings, but that is only a temporary designation of the material body. When we leave this body, such designations lose meaning. Beneath the material covering we are actually spiritual beings, part and parcel of the Supreme Spirit. Human life is an opportunity to get out of the cycle of transmigration, the cycle of birth and death.

Real evolution means to attain our original spiritual nature, in a divine realm of eternity, knowledge and bliss. No one wants birth, disease, old age and death. These sufferings are forced upon us by our karma. We should use our intelligence to learn how to free ourselves from suffering. Every animal eats, sleeps, mates and defends. We waste our human opportunity if we only use our life for these animal propensities.

Cheers!

Gregg Wilson

Tom,

Both you and Einstein give yourself away when both of you refer to the space-time fabric. There is no fabric. The ordinates space and time are dimensions of Existence. Without them, there would be no Existence. But

Existence exists.

If you want to argue against that axiom, then make it damn quick, because you do not exist.

Let us go to the Michelson-Morley experiment. They measured the speed of light in two orthogonal directions.  Their measured difference was 9 km/sec at ground level. There is a great conceptual error by Michelson-Morley and scientists in general. The speed of light waves is not going to be the speed of the meduim that light waves pass through. Later the experiment was conducted on top of Mt. Wilson and measured 10 km/sec. Later experiment through the COBE satellite indicated that the Earth is moving at 365 km/sec against the light carrying medium outside of galaxies.

So the "ether" does exist and light is a wave, not a particle. The concept of light being a wave satisfies all experiments done on light. The particle theory fails to to explain several light experiments.  The photon is not a carryer of light. (It does not exist) So now we have a light carrying medium.

Einstein's prediction about the Sun bending light waves - in a medium does not prove his assertion that the dimensions are somehow bent. Gravtational waves? Not proved at all.

If gravitons traveled from the Sun to the Earth at the speed of light then they would have "aberration", which means that they would arrive too late at Earth. The Earth and all the other planets would wander away from the Sun and there would be no solar system. The direct indication is that the carrier of gravity has to be vastly faster then the velocity of light.

The distance between gravitons is not a light year. The mean free distance a graviton can travel is more than a light year before it impacts another graviton. Countless trillions of gravitons would be impacting the Earth every second.

When a graviton enters the Earth, it loses velocity as it passes through normal matter. On its way out it would lose more velocity. Thus gravitons leaving the Earth would have a much lower velocity than gravitons arriving at the Earth. There is your gravitational difference between up and down.

We cannot see a proton. Why would we see a graviton, which is orders of magnitude smaller.

We have arrived at the issue of peer review and consensus. Both these actions protect old ideas from new ideas. The old ideas are enshrined and must not be doubted.

Gregg Wilson

Hi Al Peffley,

I am in total agreement with you. Yes, Thomas Jefferson was opposed to "pure" democracy and for a constitutional republic with a bill of rights. Don't quit your postings. You are preaching to the choir.

Gregg Wilson

I will discuss the light carrying medium. Just as water has H₂O as the overwhelming constituent, the light carrying has to have its own constituent. Astronomers have called it elysons. They have no inherent velocity but "float" in the medium.

Way out in space, the light carrying medium exhibits a temperature of 2.73^oKelvin. This due to the fact that gravitons impact the elysons.

When we have a body such as Earth, Moon, Sun - the gravitons push the light carrying medium up against the body. The medium becomes denser, the closer it is to the body.

It is already known that light waves become slower in water, etc. The light waves become slower in a more dense, light carrying medium. So the Sun has denser light carrying mediun close to it. The light waves - which are waves - slow down in the denser medium. Therefore, light waves are bent around the Sun and we see stars that would normally be behind the Sun. There is no need for spacial dimensions to be bent, curved in order for light waves to be bent.

The dimensions of space and time are not objects or substance. They cannot be bent, curved, whatever.

Al Peffley

Tom, I perceive now that  we are closer in spiritual faith beliefs than I surmised from your previous posts during this discussion. I doubt Daniel Webster would have imagined how the english language definition of "religion" has been distorted and "interpreted" by people and organizations (who apply for and obtain a non-profit IRS status -- LOL), or use the term "religion" to attract new members to their often devisive social programs and social media following list. The term religion is misused as much as the term "race" to divide and conquer social groups for control purposes. Yes, I have faith that God loves all people, but our free will keeps the Divine Creator at distance or rejects God altogether. I believe we are all part of the same supreme spiritual being entity (that we commonly call the Creator, Father, or God), and that our soul is the link between the body and the spirit. The spirit in you sets you free from worldly control zealots, humanists, and oppresive totalitarians. I am a Christian by choice and experience, not by my past environment or family tradition.

Gregg, keep singing in the "Choir". You have by far exceeded my basic level knowledge of physics.

I worked on design and development teams in high power laser weapon systems technology programs. You and Tom are discussing particulate and energy unit theories and applied physics studies at a detailed level. You are far beyond my basic involvement in micro-particulate/unit of energy explanations or academics concerning light, gravity, quantum theory subject matter, etc. I have witnesed directed energy processes where energized solid state diode array, gas dynamic, eletrodynamic, and chemical lasers have produced power beams of measured and documented photon energy (up to the megawatt output category of projected energy beams.) Particle beam generators are similar, but don't produce photon energy or diffuse while going through clouds (spread out with distance in damp atmosphere conditions) like lasers -- they are a mobile, highly-specialized linear accelerator device. Explosive EMP devices usually produce area effects on objects and vulnerable electronics (similar to the observed effects from Sun spot/storm events on electronics and people in space outside of our atmosphere.) They are not transmitted energy pulses in a focused channel of power. Some axioms of physics are involved in directed energy events, or we could not produce expected and measurable event effects and outcomes. We learn about light and directed energy from these systems.

Universe scale astrophysics science theories and axioms are beyond my academic studies and professional knowledge base. We use the earth's gravitational attributes (field?) and mass effectively to "sling shot" space vehicles onward to the Moon and solar system planet destinations like Mars and Jupiter. This system launch and maneuver technique aleady has been physically proven through space transportation system trips to the Moon (Apollo Program and observaton saltellite missions) and Mars (Mars Explorer robotics delivery and observation satellite missions.) Why the sling shot mission energy boost works is a matter of my curiosity and expanded knowledge of cause and effect for mission results. However, astrophysics was not in my field of view to accomplish my tasks on advanced NASA/DoD Space Transportation mission studies and programs. I am a large scale, system design architecture person -- I studied the complicated attributes and integration options at the system of systems "Forest" level, and often not in the details of the scientific definition of particulates in the structures and electronic parts of subsystems [I corrected this sentence structure, hopefully, to be more understandable...].

Gentlemen, I have great respect for your acquired knowledge and interests in the pure science of applied physics and in astrophysics. I think Einstein was a great scientist. He is reported to also have been a believer in a Supreme Being Creator who loves the human beings [He/She] created. Free will and the option of choosing evil actions always get in the way of fully achieving human race unity here on the earth, as we each perceive it. Live life to the fullest, practice love for your good will neighbor, and be a person of good will. Oorah!

(Please pardon my typos...)

Cheers

Tom Chavez

Gregg,

I am not knowledgeable in science, except for studying brief summaries from authorities. I just repeat what I learn from them; it’s not that I deeply understand, know the math or have done the experiments. Einstein won a Nobel prize and is admired by most scientists. I’ve heard that his theories have been confirmed by many different observations and experiments. 

The American scientific establishment accepts that gravity waves have been detected, as predicted by Einstein’s theory. You say not so. If you had relevant articles in a peer reviewed science journal, or a Nobel prize, I would be impressed that scientists have recognized your theory and I might take your view more seriously.

Your speculations may be correct, and Einstein may be wrong. But based upon what little I know, I accept the consensus scientific authority. If you are right in your speculations, I hope you win a Nobel prize for showing that Einstein got it wrong!

Good luck!

Gregg Wilson

To Tom, and Others,

It is not my goal to discredit Einstein, etc. I do not believe in anything. I either know or I don't know. I pursue an objective path of facts, reason, logic. I have made mistakes.

I am going to tiptoe into Religion.

Existence exists. That is not theory or law. It is an axium. It cannot be refuted (unless you are full blown bat shit crazy). This means the the Universe has always existed and will always exist.

That means that any religion that claims that God created the Universe is going a little too far. However, you can have a God within the Universe. I am not talking little god.

According to science, the Earth has been around for 4.5 billion years. Life on Earth has been around since ~3 billion years ago. It makes sense to me that God would not focus on non-life but on life. There have been five major extinctions in the past ~500 million years. There has been a rebirth of life after each extinction. In particular, new species have appeared. This causes Darwin's evolution theory to fall flat on its face. A complex, new DNA code arising each time on its own is ridiculous.

So we do have a "God" who replenishes life on Earth. This means that God has a lifespan of hundreds of millions of years and obviously knowledge and power beyond anything we can even dream of. No little god.

Religion is an extremely personal and sacred matter to each individual. I will not intrude any further.

Tom Chavez

Existence exists. Illusion also exists. 

You have made mistakes. You are subject to illusion. 

“We used to think A, but now we know B.” After some time, “We used to think B, but now we know C.”

Consciousness is the key. Scientists take great care to insure that their chemicals are pure without contamination, that their instruments are as refined and precise as possible. But what about their consciousness?

Some scientists hardly believe, let alone know, that consciousness exists. They say it is an epiphenomenon of the brain. What really exists is the brain, and consciousness is an illusion, not a reality. This is a mistake.

Quantum mechanics replaces classical determinism with the probabilistic wave function. For example, an electron has no specific location until it is observed. The two-slit

experiment establishes that the electron is in the form of a wave until it is observed. Then the wave function “collapses” and the electron manifests as a particle at a particular location.

There are several interpretations of what this means. The orthodox interpretation among physicists, although vague, is called the Copenhagen interpretation. The central tenets of this interpretation are that 1) we only have access to the results of observation and it is pointless to ask about the deeper quantum reality behind those observations, and 2) the observer need not be conscious but can be any macroscopic measuring device, such as a geiger counter.

Mathematician John von Neumann, inventor of game theory and author of The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, objected to the Copenhagen practice of dividing the world into two parts: indefinite quantum particles on one side, and measuring instruments which obey the laws of classical mechanics on the other. Von Neumann argued that the entire physical world is quantum mechanical. The measuring apparatus and the brains and senses of the scientists must become part of the wave function or state vector.

As physicist Henry Stapp writes: “Whereas the Copenhagen approach excluded the bodies and brains of the human observers from the physical world they sought to describe, and renounced the aim of describing reality itself, von Neumann demanded logical cohesion and mathematical precision, and was willing to follow where this rational approach led.” —Mindful Universe, 142. New York: Springer, 2007.

Nobel prize winning physicist Eugene Wigner wrote: “It will remain remarkable, in whatever way our future concepts may develop, that the very study of the external world led to the conclusion that the content of consciousness is an ultimate reality.” —”Remarks on the Mind-Body Problem,” Quantum Theory and Measurement, edited by J. Wheeler and W. Zurek. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983)

Conclusion: Consciousness “collapses” the wave function and actualizes the smear of possibilities into a concrete reality. The observer’s consciousness is integral in this process. 

Okay Gregg, you tiptoe gingerly; I’ll dive in! (Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.)

The best science of consciousness that I know of is given in the Vedic literatures of India. The eight-fold yoga system according to Patanjali:

1. Yama or ethical standards and integrity: 

• ahimsa: non-violence (implies vegetarian diet)

• satya: truthfulness

• asteya: not coveting or stealing others belongings

• brahmacharya: celibacy, or engaging in sex only for procreation

• aparigraha: non-possessiveness, non-greed

2. Niyama: Self-discipline and spiritual practice

• saucha: cleanliness within and without

• santosha: contentment

• tapas: austerity

• svadhyaya: studying sacred texts

• ishvara pranidhana: surrender to the Supreme Lord

3. Asana: physical postures

4. Pranayama: control of breath

5. Pratyahara: withdrawal of the physical senses from material sense objects

6. Dharana: concentration and focus of intelligence within

7. Dhyana: uninterrupted one-pointed concentration

8. Samadhi, the ultimate goal: “In the stage of perfection called trance, or samādhi, one’s mind is completely restrained from material mental activities by practice of yoga. This perfection is characterized by one’s ability to see the Self by the pure mind and to relish and rejoice in the Self. In that joyous state, one is situated in boundless transcendental happiness, realized through transcendental senses. Established thus, one never departs from the truth, and upon gaining this he thinks there is no greater gain. Being situated in such a position, one is never shaken, even in the midst of greatest difficulty. This indeed is actual freedom from all miseries arising from material contact.” —Bhagavad-gita As It Is by A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami

To know the Absolute Truth (Existence) is the goal of human intelligence. First we need to know, Who am I? By a little thought, purity and introspection one can realize that, I am not the temporary physical body. I am a conscious spiritual entity, part and parcel of the supreme spirit whole. 

When the sun rises one can see the sun, himself, and everything else. Similarly, when one begins to understand God, he can begin to understand himself and everything else.

Gregg Wilson

Tom,

I do not debate religion. I have never joined a religion because it requires me to believe, not think.

That is not acceptable.

Tom Chavez

Okay, let's keep God and religion out of it.

Faith should be evidence based to be reasonable. I have not seen Mt. Everest, but I believe that it is the tallest mountain on earth, based upon evidence provided by authorities. We accept that water is a combination of two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen although we have not performed the experiment. Similarly, most of what we know we learn from teachers and other authorities.

"We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain ignorant."—Benjamin Franklin

Today I would like to offer evidence that our reality is composed not only of the gross physical particles and energies commonly studied by modern science, but also includes subtle mental and spiritual energies corresponding to paranormal and spiritual phenomena. The evidence I provide is from recognized authorities in science.

Alfred Russell Wallace was cofounder, with Charles Darwin, of the theory of evolution by natural selection. He conducted decades of research into spiritualistic phenomena, sometimes in the company of Nobel physicist Sir William Crookes. Wallace wrote: "I ought to state that for twenty-five years I had been an utter skeptic as to the existence of any preter-human or super-human intelligences, and that I never for a moment contemplated the possibility that the marvels related by Spiritualists could be literally true. If I have now changed my opinion, it is simply by the force of evidence.” 

Sir William Crookes received the Nobel Prize for physics in 1911, for his discovery of the element thallium. Crookes was also elected President of the Royal Society, England’s most prestigious scientific body. He gave this account of a séance with D.D. Home (May 22, 1871), attended by himself and Wallace: "The table now rose completely off the ground several times whilst the gentlemen present took a candle, and kneeling down deliberately examined the position of Mr. Home's feet and knees, and saw the three feet of the [3-footed] table quite off the ground. This was repeated, until each observer expressed himself satisfied that the levitation was not produced by mechanical means on the part of the medium or any one else present." 

Every student of physics knows the story of the Curies. Their investigations of radioactivity earned them the Nobel Prize in 1903 and helped set physics on its modern course. But hardly anyone knows that they were heavily involved in psychical research. Along with Dr. Charles Richet, and other European scientists of the early twentieth century, they participated in investigations of the Italian medium Eusapia Palladino.

Pierre Curie, letter to Georges Gouy: “We had a few new séances with Eusapia … those phenomena exist for real, and I can’t doubt it any more.  It is unbelievable but it is thus, and it is impossible to negate it after the séances that we had in conditions of perfect monitoring.”

Camille Flammarion (1842-1925), founder of the French Astronomical Society, carried out extensive research into clairvoyance and apparitions. Flammarion concluded: “All these observations prove that a human being does not consist only of a body that is visible, tangible . . . it consists, likewise, of a psychic element that is imponderable, gifted with special, intrinsic faculties, capable of functioning apart from the physical organism and of manifesting itself at a distance with the aid of forces as to the nature of which we are still ignorant.” 

Lord John William Strutt Rayleigh (1842-1919) received the 1904 Nobel Prize in physics for his discovery of argon. Rayleigh was attracted to psychical research by the writings of Sir William Crookes. He was cautious in drawing conclusions, but he never disavowed any of the positive experiences he recorded. Rayleigh accepted the presidency of the Society for Psychical Research in 1919. In his presidential address he said, “I have never felt any doubt as to the importance of the work carried on by the Society . . . Our goal is the truth, whatever it may turn out to be, and our efforts to attain it should have the sympathy of all, and I would add especially of scientific men.” 

Charles Richet, who won the Nobel Prize in physiology in 1913, carried out decades of research into psychical phenomena. He participated with the Curies in the investigations of Eusapia Palladino. With Charles Richet, Oliver J. Lodge, a famous English physicist, participated in experiments with Eusapia Palladino and was  convinced her phenomena, in this case, were real. During the First World War, his son Raymond was killed on the battlefield. Afterwards, Lodge claimed he was receiving verifiable communications from him through mediums. Lodge wrote: “I have made no secret of my conviction, not merely that personality persists, but that its continued existence is more entwined with the life of every day than has been generally imagined . . . and that methods of intercommunication across what has seemed to be a gulf can be set going in response to the urgent demand of affection.” 

The testimony of such scientists, noted for their their skill in experimental design and observation, when taken in combination with modern parapsychological research, provides good reason to suppose that there is more to the human organism than the physical body visible to our eyes. It would appear that a complete picture of the human being must also take into account subtle mental energies and a conscious self distinct from the body. When embodied the conscious self can make use of subtle mental energies to manipulate matter in ways transcending the normal laws of physics. And when detached from the body, the same self can apparently make use of the same subtle mental energies to communicate with selves still embodied. 

In the 1970s Helmut Schmidt left the Boeing research laboratory in Seattle to concentrate upon psi research. He introduced random number generators (RNG) based upon unpredictable radioactive decay of strontium-90. Using RNGs, Robert Jahn and the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research laboratory generated a huge database of trials testing psi powers of volunteers. A statistical meta-analysis of all the RNG data, published in the prominent journal Foundations of Physics, found the odds against chance at over a trillion to one. “The replication rate was as good as that found in exemplary experiments in psychology and physics.”—Radin, Dean and Roger Nelson, “Evidence for Consciousness-Related Anomalies in Random Physical Systems.” Foundations of Physics 19, No. 12 (1989); 1510-11.

Carl Sagan, astrophysicist: “There are three claims in the ESP field which…deserve serious study: (1) That by thought alone humans can…affect random number generators in computers, (2) that people under mild sense deprivation can receive thoughts or images ‘projected’ at them, and (3) that young children sometimes report details of a previous life.”—The Demon Haunted World, 1995, p. 302.

“The living entity in the material world carries his different conceptions of life from one body to another, as the air carries aromas. Thus he takes one kind of body and again quits it to take another. Taking another gross body, he obtains a certain type of ear, eye, tongue, nose and sense of touch, which are grouped about the mind. He thus enjoys a particular set of sense objects. The working senses are superior to dull matter; mind is higher than the senses; intelligence is still higher than the mind; and he [the soul] is even higher than the intelligence. The foolish cannot understand how a living entity can quit his body, nor can they understand what sort of body he enjoys under the spell of the modes of nature. But one whose eyes are trained in knowledge can see all this.”—Bhagavad-Gita As It Is by A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami

Gregg Wilson

Tom,

You have listed a number of "important" people who have - generically speaking - testified that deep reality is unknowable. You have listed more "important " people who have testified that parapyschology, magic, whatever are real.

Testimony is not hard evidence.

Al Peffley

I won't even attempt to go down that paranormal events and claravoient proof rabbit hole. I do believe there are more dimensions to reality and existence than we normally perceive. Some human beings are gifted with a more direct link to invisible supernatural events and relationships with the "Trinity's" assistance, as we Christians call our spirit and soul relationships to the Supreme Being Creator (that Jesus called "Father" translated into English [or "God", in the Old Testament writings].)

I have personally experienced and remembered spiritual vision moments that are sometimes "out of body" events. I have seen things that appear in my consious sight and then disappear out of sight in various settings and times of day. I have out of body levitation dreams at times. The subconcious mind has management programs, memory functions, capabilities, and powers to perform body functions without the concious mind's immediate directed thought preparation or control. I have read that the total mind capabilities that our body is created with at birth are judged as highly underused by many masters of biological/zoological science, neurologists, medical researchers, and biochemists.

I have found the book entitled "The Power of Your Subconcious Mind" by Murphy (I've given many copies to friends) has proven to be very valuable to me in improving my own life condition, physically and spiritually. It's suggested mental exersizes and subconscious mind training, along with the case study examples in the book, have been very meaningful in my life's personal relationships and conduct after a friend recommended the book to me in 1996. Applying Murphy's recommendations may not give others the same results or satisfaction but it's easily acquired "food for thought", literally! It does not replace the Bible for my own guidance to achieve happiness in my life. "Circumstances are what they are but I chose my attitude towards it!" My choices and faith define my life. Without constantly evaluating my own choices & perceived "reality", my life is not productive and relatively joyful. None of of what Murphy postulates and describes in his book is contrary to my own Christian faith or my acquired education in life (by academic or personal experience means.)

I have one supreme authority for law and rules of life, and it is not psychic mediums. If a person believes good and evil creatures' powers exist beyond human control and can operate in our perceived dimension, then one must be careful not to be deceived by potentially evil information sources that can levitate physical objects and create enticing visions. Those supernatural visions and events (not normally perceived by the human senses and objectively-verified through disciplined study) must not distract us from more important things in life than our self-proclaimed academic prowess. I am striving to embrace and understand what true love is for one another and what I can do to perform more unselfish contributions to other human being's peaceful and respectful coexistence here on Planet Earth. Hint - It's not related to UN Agenda 21...

Heavy topic stuff, for sure! Have a safe and sane holiday weekend. It was fun to discourse on these topics.

Regards,

Deplorable Al

Tom Chavez

Al, I appreciate your observations and particularly your conclusion about the importance of love and dong good to others. Well expressed from the heartfelt platform. I'm more down here on the dry intellectual platform looking up at you with admiration.

Gregg, your philosophy seems to start with statements, which you call ‘axiums’, “Existence exists” and “Existence is eternal.” In mathematics the word used is axiom, which I assume is what you mean by axium. 

If by Existence you mean “all which exists’, then your first axiom is true by definition and is really a tautology, “all which exists, exists.” Your second statement, “Existence is eternal” is an actual axiom, in my opinion, because it says something more about existence than the mere tautological fact that existence exists.

I have a similar approach, except instead of calling it ‘Existence’, I call it ‘Reality.’ And I also have a similar statement, “Reality is eternal,’ but I don’t take that as an axiom.

I use logic, by applying a different axiom, which I call the axiom of rationality: “Reality is rational,” meaning that reality or existence follows laws of cause and effect. This is an assumption, based on our experience of causes and effects in the material world. From this axiom of rationality I derive your statement that Existence is eternal, as follows.

If Existence were not eternal, then it had a beginning before which nothing existed. In that case, we have to say that Existence came from nothing. This is not logical. A cause should be sufficient to explain an effect of which it is the cause. Nothing is not a sufficient cause for Existence. Therefore, existence has no beginning and is eternal.

The axiom “Existence is rational” logically implies “Existence is eternal” as a corollary.

However, according to quantum mechanics, some aspects of existence are random, like decay of a radioactive particle. Randomness implies there is no cause or, at least, that the cause is inaccessible to us, even theoretically.

In fact, Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle and Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem imply that our scientific knowledge about the material world is always inexact and incomplete.

Moreover, empirical induction, or reasoning from observation of experiment results and natural phenomena, cannot give fully reliable conclusions because our observations are also incomplete.

After examining many swans we may conclude that “all swans are white.” Since we have not seen all swans, our conclusion is tentative, theoretical or hypothetical. Our statement that “all swans are white” is really just a reasonable assumption. In fact, there are black swans, we just never saw them.

Scientists theoretically accept that all scientific conclusions are tentative, although they often act as if scientific theories or laws are absolute dogma not to be doubted. 

My conclusion is that the empirical inductive nature of science is defective and unable to give reliable absolute truth about Existence. Logic and science are useful but fallible tools for obtaining knowledge. 

Are we doomed to ignorance? Or is there another method of obtaining knowledge? 

Vedic philosophy calls the inductive empirical method of modern material science the “ascending method.” Gradually we build up our knowledge base by adding more and more knowledge. But, no matter how far we go, this method only gives incomplete and inexact knowledge.

Aside from the ascending method, there is a “descending method” of obtaining knowledge, from higher sources or authorities not subject to the limitations of human intelligence.

For example, the mathematician Gauss, the chemist Kekulé, and the composer Mozart all described experiences in dream, revelation or inspiration in which wonderful information or music was presented to their consciousness, as if it were a gift out of the blue, without the normal logical or intellectual effort. 

In Vedic philosophy there are techniques for purification of consciousness with the purposeful aim of connecting with sources of inspiration and revelation. This kind of “descending” method is complementary to the inductive ascending method. 

The descending method obtains or derives knowledge from higher aspects of existence which may not normally be perceived or recognized by persons with undeveloped consciousness and intelligence, including paranormal and transcendental aspects.

Finally, we should recognize that we can never fully understand the Absolute Truth because it is infinite and inconceivable. The can be illustrated by logic, using the method of redutio ad absurdam.

The redutio ad absurdam method assumes what we want to disprove, and then shows that this assumption leads to a contradiction. It was used, for example, by Cantor to show that the infinity of natural numbers is smaller than the infinity of the real numbers.

Let’s assume that we can collect all true statements about Existence into one (very large) book, the Book of All True Statements. Now, consider the statement: “This is a true statement which is not in the Book of All True Statements.”

The Absolute Truth is inconceivable and unlimited. Yet, the ultimate object of all knowledge and science is to understand the Absolute Truth. The more we understand, the more we realize how little we know. Or as Isaac Newton put it, “What we understand is a drop, what we don’t know is the ocean.”