Retrograder

Well here we go again. This now feels like being in a church. I haven't been to church since I told my parents to stick it, about thirty five years ago. And yet, the only time I feel I am back in church is when I hear evolutionists telling me of the facts! Sorry, I'm really not trying to be rude, but you guys are not very tolerant of others that need a little faith in order to occupy their own ground and stances in ife. And like them, you don't tend to mind your own leaps of faith. You would not tolerate some muslim or christian or hindu talking about their evidence and "facts" this way. Just because it isn't scientific evidence makes no difference. Science doesn't have facts on a lot of pretty important issues. It is trying to understand the world and life through its own theories. Some are great and very rewarding to come to learn about. Others are just plain evangalism. Even though I personally believe ( and yes it is a belief) that evolution does account for a specie emerging from another (and so breaking the hearts of the poor christians that think a book should be infallible, and god has to be restricted by old ignorant views), I know a fact from a theory. One cannot deny micro-evoution, and I don't think it is only non-scientists that use that term, that is a fact. But at the moment it ends there. The rest is theory. If I was having a similar conversation with a die hard christian, and I have a few of those too, they would say "if you do the reading and the learning you'll have a better picture etc etc". They don't have to be scientific, scientists have to be. And that leads us round a circle, toward your respective "churches" and beliefs. I'm happy not knowing for certian. The only certainty available at the moment is uncertainty. The world will know about it when a drop of certainty about who we are and where we came from is obtained. Something has to speak for itself when we say something is a fact. People look at the same supposed evidence and do not draw similar conclusions. Some will be baised, but others that are not even religious will not accept a theory as a fact, regarding the whole idea of evolution, for example. They just won't because they just don't want to BS themselves. Macroevolution is psuedoscience, or protoscience, whatever. It just hasn't been elevated to factual. Perhaps intellectually one can extend their minds to seeing it as inescapable fact. But realistically one has to just admit that the day has not come when enough certainty is there, if one is brutally honest. Some questions just cannot be answered 100%. It may still be possible that aliens created man from the highest specie that lived here on earth at the time. I'm not saying that is true, only that it is still a possibility. And if the future were to present a visitation, and little gray aliens educate us as to how they did it, and told us of other evolutionary tricks up their sleeves, and about the origins of life in their cultures, then we would have to rethink our own supposed facts. So it isn't any good looking into the future and simply saying we know the facts even though we can't see them in plain daylight here due to the time needed to prove certain facts. A portion of what we see has to be based on belief. So why is it a surprise when others have other beliefs to your own? I like science when it is honest. I like a christians when they live their lives trying to love others as themselves. I like a buddhist monk when he laughs in the face of the selfish gene theory, or a rescuer that is prepared to loose their life in order to save anothers. I'd never heard of creationism until I learnt about it on a science forum. I've also seen plenty of evidence of scientism, a slight exaggeration of the use of the word "fact".

Aaaah right. In which case you do have my apologies on that. I'm a long way from having such fundamental beliefs. As I said Pantheism seems to fit how I feel about life and the universe around me. I certainly don't think "god" is a mystical joker, nor has any fear of evolutuion as it appears to evolve. You know that is interesting. My only experience of a science forum before this one was where people are saying exactly the opposite, evolution is a fact and not a theory and human origins are very much a part of that. You see, until that rather distasteful experience I have had a keen interest in evolution, nature, science, genetics especially. I'm a layman on most of it, but interested nevertheless. Well me personally doesn't experience that kind of conflict. Everything I see in nature leaves me agasp with inspiration (although there is an "ugly" cruel side to nature that doesn't always add up). I prefer nature and my own relationship with it, rather than some rotting bit of wood they call a book about God. Doesn't mean I don't see a creator evident within the processes that nature displays. The more I find out about science the more meaning my own "spiritual" connection with it becomes.

Most things come with their dualities. There is something triggering off one extreme against the other. The best things, for me, tend to meet in the centre. I can't dismiss the idea of a Creator, in fact it has to make sense when I really start to think about it. But at the same time, I find it rather strange that a book could contain an totally accurate explanation of one, considering all the cultuiral aspects of the past, for example.. This is why , personally , I'm interested in the idea of Pantheism. It makes sense when one considers the Creator to being outside time (God is Light). The creation is even assumed as a command to "let there be"....whooosh the wavefunction collapses, and the elements group up in their dualities and off it starts. Off what starts? Well that's the thing. If the Creator is outside time, then the "desire" is already fulfilled, and we are actually the ones going through time watching the stages it took for the instant desire to be fulfilled. It took, particles coming togeher, stars being born, planets evolving, life to slowly start emerging, and on and on. This also brings in the idea of reincarnation. It wouldn't help the evolutionary process if one just never died physically. So what is outside time makes its appearances for brief physical moments, during the drama. There needn't be such strong disagreements between the two main sides, evolution verses creationism. But whatever they are now, they will merge together into a complete understanding of the processes involved. It just takes evolution. So yeah, keeping one's kids form school is a little over-reactionary, and won't help the state of this planet one bit.

Actually behind every seeming cliche is a complex function of improvisation.

Oh yeah, that's for sure. Been sat here thinking that there really have been other scientists since Einstein that have had as big an impact on the scientific community itself, but what Einstein had was the public all going around saying "this guy's a genius, E=MC^2". But hardly anyone really knows what that means, nor really know any other work of his. Someone in the field of Genetics or the studies of brain/mind, that cracks a substantial puzzle about life may trigger a significant impact on the public. Or maybe whoever manages to explain gravity. Was reading up on gravity just now, and found this guy's site, who seems to think he's solved the mystery. He'll send you $500 is you can prove him wrong apparently! http://www.strato.net/~crvny/sa03018.html

LOL!..)) If one hasn't, there's no reason to assume one may not make a contribution tommorrow. And just think of all the magnificent mainstream discoveries made the last 50 years in a parallel universe, where the "cranks" are you. Do it for your brothers eh? Dunno, but judging by todays higher standards he or she would have to be some Mind. If there is to be something of the impact the old Einstein had, how would we even react to it? A lot of people have suffered redicule in many fields of study when they attempt to bring a change in perception. Darwin instantly springs to mind. Or that guy that said the earth was round.

To me science seems to be a pretty big field, and probably does have room for the "crackpots". I'd say their participation is as important today as its always been. Obviously there are some pretty aweful theories that some divise that really make one cringe. If it is the same as in playing the guitar, then those little clangers can really inspire one at times, and be the catalyst for one of the best compositions. It seems to be a portion of what considers itself to being the most accurate science that is a little intolerant of the crackpot (just an impression). It's actually understandable, but at closer inspection, is there really much difference in attitude going on? The mind is a strange thing. A crackpot can be as certain of their insight and theory as any mainstream scientist can be. And I already know that a mainstream scientist will say they can produce evidence to back up their theories. Evidence of what though? In the bigger picture, it seems to me we still don't know much about anything. I watched a programme about three years ago regarding 100 years of a certain scientific pioneer (can't remember who). One of the people at the conference basically said that now science knew about 5% of how the brain worked, 7% of something else or other. There is still room for the crank. A crackpot obviously hasn't attended lectures and gone through the paces of having to get work in on time, study endlessly and stressfully to get a pass in their chosen field. Who really has the time to question things the most? I'm not suggesting at all that the crackpot has the relevent skills to conduct many of the sceintific experiments, or think long and hard on a problem in a scientific way. Yet sometimes it is very likely that fresh insight will rejuvinate a long going problem. That insight may come from within the scientific community, or it may easily come from an outside source. In the music world I have never had a guitar lesson in my life, but have been told I'm pretty good and it shocks people that noone taught me to play the way I do. To me that doesn't make sense, because that information is available, and all I needed was the time and the passion. And this is why we need to be more tolerant toward the so called crackpot, who is not seemingly qualified. Information is rampant nowadays, all over the internet. Just be prepared to see an increase in theories, most of which will be crap. Yet a pearl is always a pearl regardless of the source it comes from. As for Einstein, a symbol of genius. A genius footballer from the 50s wouldn't be seen as such nowadays, yet their contribution is set in stone.

Well thanks very much for the responses. I put it together in a rar file because there's about fifteen gif animations that go with the book. However, I could just put the book there on its own, and place the animations in a rar file maybe. The comment about the Calabi-Yau had me looking around to find out what it is about. I'm aware of the superstirng theory regarding the extra minute dimensions, but had never heard the term Calabi-Yau. Anyway, it turns out that the little bit I did understand is regarding the idea of teleportation and wormhole travel. The only drawback seems to be that it is more of a sci-fi kinda way of looking at it. In all, that is one of my main reasons for putting the book on the internet. This idea of information swapping over from either side of the mirror; if one were to use the frequency structure concerned, it would allow information to ping pong accross the mirror point. If the information is there to build the anti-self, or mirror information regarding the frequency of a particular object, then the information can be swapped using what I have found to be specific frequencies that describe that actual unity. So I could say that is a prediction drawn from the results, and offer various ways in which it could be tested. Well, I have placed a pdf version of the book online just now. It isn't going to be written in a scientific way, but hopefully you will find your way to the result I mention within the first few chapters. After that the other examples merely show other approaches that reach the same results. Thanks

Ahh right. I've been led to believe that an electron is a wave as well as a particle. Have tried reading up on it and understanding as much as possible. Saw a video by a "Dr Quantum" the other week that really made me think I undertsood about the behaviour of an electron. Could you explain about the triviality of the wave aspect? Mirroring a formula, at least the ones in the book for now, is reversing the flow of that particular formula. What it has shown is that each side of the formula is only half of the pieces of the puzzle. A researcher who is now a friend did mention this to me: ********************** 1. There is an inherent characteristic found in nature displaying mirror symmetry. One of these must be seen in light of particle symmetries and CP symmetries. We learn that the fundamental birth of all matter, apart for those odd-ball particles which are their own antiparticles, that matter coheres with a mirror substitute. In effect, they cannot pop into existence without leaving behind a mirror-counterpart. This seems to be an intrinsic property of the universe, and if my assumptions are correct, our goal to solve inconsistencies involving the Riemann Hypothesis and other long equations to discover particle behaviour, will and should without a doubt, be related heavily on the birth of 4 and 5, 1 and 9, and many other mirror-like componants. Take this fundamental attribute. There is renormalization, found in quantum electrodynamics. This would mean that you have a very high infinite number which can only be cancelled out by a corresponding mirror value. Also, there was an equal amount of antimatter created at big bang (or so theory goes). On small scales, it is easy to say that the electron or K-Meson have mirror-cousins, but when you take the scale of all matter into consideration, there is a fantastic mirror symmetry displayed. Even a mass renormalization of all the matter and the energy in the universe (E=Mc^2+E=-Mc^2=0). This means that there is yet another mirror like symmetry. Numbers, displayed throughout your book, highlight these importances with great detail. 2. Ekpyrotic Theory, which i am noy ready as of yet to totally dismiss, is also a theory of mirror-like behaviour. It basically states that our universe has a siemese twin, totally equal to our own universe. But the relationship does not cease their. Like two particle, one matter and one antimatter, they will collide and explode into gamma energy. Well, something along very similar lines occured between both these universes. Trillions upon trillions of years pass, before these two universes bounce off each other, exciting all over again the energy and matter used to create the universe, which was of course, gamma energy. 3. And last but not least, we have quantum entanglement to prove very special relationships at very long distances. This shows us that if a state of (i.e. a photon) is found to have a spin up (x,z=1) on observation, then the mirrored particle, possibly thousands upon billions of light years away will suddenly take form of a spin down photon (x,z=-1) ************************** I doubt if I'll ever understand the Rieman Hypothesis. I've made a start by showing that the mirroring technique can be a valid tool that can apply to many more things than I have so far applied them to. I'm not suggesting that it hasn't been applied in various ways, I'm sure it has. What I think I've done so far is mapped out fundamental cycles that would evolve on the mirror side. Further, when the two sides of the mirror are brought together, what it shows is that information from either side swaps over to its opposite side, at a specific axis point continually. That is one of the fundamental charachteristics of exposing what seems to be the duality within a single formula.

Hi I have placed a pdf book online that is about mirroring well known cyclic phenomena within nature. I believe it is a mapping of the mirror side, and potentially, people a lot cleverer than me may be able to incorporate this mirroring technique into other types of formulas. I am primarily a musician, with fairly limited mathematical skills! I have worked on this mirroring process for a good eighteen years now, mainly in spasms as and when the mood occurred. I haven't been able to find sources for a similar kind of work, but it is basically showing the mirror side to well known processes, like harmonics, Fibonacci numbers, musical scales, Phi ratio, Pi, prime numbers, etc. What has led me to continue with the work is that seemingly unrelated grids always give the one result when the two sides of the mirror are brought together and unified at a specific axis. This mirroring technique is not symmetry, where things hit a mirror and bounce back off at angles. The data is about journeying through the mirror. It may be a potential doorway into understanding the properties of a mirror universe for example. Until a few weeks ago I have always deemed my research to be following the rules of science. Some people on another forum that said they were scientists were quite negative about it not being science, so I'd really like other opinions if possible. I have my own personal belief about what the results show, but there is also room for other beliefs, and one shouldn't need to reject it based on what I believe the results are showing. Either way, I've put the info into a pdf book, made a few animations as well, and offering it for free to anyone interested in checking out the mirroring process. Here is the link to the book: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/lggl007/ Cheers, and great to be here. Retro