Graviphoton

Well... its a theory of quantum mechanics. It's no more sepculation than the improbable parallel universe theory, now is it? Considering there are more than several different top physicists working in the field of the mind, never mind the neurobiologists. The mind is perfectly a subject for quantum physics, as we are told here Andre Linde says ‘’ The general theory of relativity brought with it a decisive change in this point of view [the 3D world]. Space-time and matter were found to be interdependent, and there was no longer any question which one of the two is more fundamental. Space-time was also found to have its own inherent degrees of freedom, associated with perturbations of the metric-gravitational waves. ... Is it possible that consciousness, like space-time, has its own intrinsic degrees of freedom, and that neglecting these will lead to a description of the universe that is fundamentally incomplete?’’ and in a recent conversation with Dr Wolf, he says, ''we need to create a theory of the mind for any notion of a unified theory of everything.'' So the mind is cetainly a quantum subject. Who ever designed the site, has made a grave error in mixing speculation with pseudoscience. If someone started a thread on the Multiverse, it would survive being chucked in here. But here's the rub. The multiverse theory is speculative as well, and untestable.

very well.

Fine. But i am stating hard QM facts. Hard relativistic facts. Surely this is downgraded too much to be put here?

So, scientists cannot speculate? Time is just speculation now? So is reativity? And quantum physics? Even if that is true, the greater part of my post does not speculate, but rather informs how physics persues the understanding of time...

Sorry to hijack one thread, but can i ask, can anyone tell me, if they disagree with the moving of a post, how does one go about to stand their point?

Mmmm. i can't do that... but i can take you to the webpage that uses the hebrew words, if you like?

There is a lot of confusion about time, and what is it around here, quite naturally. I mean, what is time? Is it really a dimension? Is it really a continuum? Does it exist independant of the mind? One rule of quantum physics does exist, which encompasses all of these notions. It is the cornerstone of Copenhagen, and the rulebook of quantum metaphysics -- but don't mistake this thread as a philosophy of time... At the heart physics, is the phenomena of the mind. For ages past, physicists have been aware that the reality at large, the reality we see everyday is not the external world, but a recreation, a representation of that reality. It seems that the world we see is in fact a by-product of some degree of freedom (1). Linde says... Andre Linde says ‘’ The general theory of relativity brought with it a decisive change in this point of view [the 3D world]. Space-time and matter were found to be interdependent, and there was no longer any question which one of the two is more fundamental. Space-time was also found to have its own inherent degrees of freedom, associated with perturbations of the metric-gravitational waves.'' And he continues to say ''Is it possible that consciousness, like space-time, has its own intrinsic degrees of freedom, and that neglecting these will lead to a description of the universe that is fundamentally incomplete?’’ Here, Linde touches on the fact that consciousness has its own dimension -- and dimension is nothing but another term for degrees of freedom. Without delving into the idea of dimension too deeply, the subject for thought here is the independant nature of the reality we experience, and the reality at large. Some interdependant theories treat both as invariant, so if consciousness/mind was removed, any notion of spacetime would be obsolete, and this is actually correct to some respect, as we shall see soon. So we have perhaps two kinds of time. One external and the other internal. Two kinds of space, one internal, the other external. This has been highlighted over the many years of physics, by many physicists... here is one prominent leader of this fact: 'There is always a triple correspondence; 1. A mental image, which is in our minds and not in the external world 2. Some kind of counterpart in the external world, which is inscrutable in nature 3. A set of pointer readings, which exact science can study and connect with other pointer readings To put the conclusion crudely - the stuff of the world is 'mind stuff'. ' Sir Arthur Eddington Frozen Lake Now, it turns out that time is actually a frozen lake (2). If we could observe our pasts, we would see our history all layed out before us, frozen in time like a fly stuck in amber. This means that the past and the future are but illusions of time. Even Einstein made it clear that ignorant fools hold onto the idea that the past and future exist. As we shall see soon, it is only the present time that ever exists. Flux of Time The psychological arrow, one of several arrows of time, is in fact the easiest to understand, based on a few simple concepts. We sense time flow forward. We don't sense any other directionality, other than a sense of forward. Whilst it is purely psychological, it is supposed to reflect the forward nature of reality at large (3). But time doesn't ''flow'' at all. Any notion of ''flow'' must be abandoned, because without an observer, time actually takes on the form of crystalized structures, or discontanious flashes of existence. Not a smooth, continous flow of anything, because this notion is created purely by an observer (4) (5). So ending this part, the time we feel, the internal time, is very different in nature to the time external of the mind. Past, Present and Future: Nothing But An Illusion And the observer finally brings into the picture a notion of what was past and what is still to come. As Einstein informed us, past and future are an illusion... a dillusion of the mind. I suppose its a way to keep our minds from insanity, from collecting too much information at one time. If we didn't have this steady existence, we would not be able to function correctly. The only time that ever exists, is the present time. Any notion of past you might have, is in fact a storage of memory. Or put more elegantly, the present is a collection of the past. But since the present time is the only time that ever exists, then the past and future can't exist. But this isn't quite true, because relativity in theory predicts time travel -- so would't that imply that the future and past are happening right now? There are two solutions accepted in phsyics. One being parallel universes, and the other stating that the future is in fact a present state as well. I hope these things clear up any notion of time. (1) - This is why i brought forth the idea that we can apply vectors to the human mind, to help describe consciousness mathematically. With such a limited, yet hostile response, i was really happy to find that the theory has already been speculated, and isn't considered a psuedoscience... despite the decision here that it be moved to psuedoscience. (2) - Brain Greene's ''The Frozen Lake.'' Fred Alan Wolf, ''Parallel Universes.'' (3) - But the forward directionality breaks down at the level of gravitino's and protino's, simple because cause and effect breaks down. Matter in its fundamental form, is perfectly retrocausal. (4) - In a recent conversation with Dr. Wolf, he assures me that time is really built up on starts and stops, whilst when an observer is involved, we sense it flow. I suggest this is related to the binding paradox of consciousness... (5) - This maybe what drove Frank J. Tipler, mathematician and prof of physics to suggest that reality squeezed in and out of existence... possibly in the planck time. Why is this in pseudoscience? It is quantum physics at its best. I don't understand this move.

1. Conclusive results show that our universe is almost flat. 2. The fact that acceleration has speeded up, suggests our universe is open. There is very little doubt among physicists and astrophysicists that the universe isn't almost flat and open. So i do not know where you derived these conclusions. Now, gravity is nothing but distortions in spacetime. You can say that gravity is the product of spacetime distortions, so in a sense you can call them the same. Since relativity, we where not aware that space, time, energy and matter where all interlinked, like four different sides to the same coin... so in a sense, you are right. But you are saying that gravity and time are the same thing, through conclusions based on that gravity slows time down. This conclusion would be wrong. But on the whole, the notion is partially correct. ** If anyone finds that hard to swallow, i can offer proof that not only space and time are one thing, but if you removed all the energy in the vacuum, the vacuum of spacetime would also disappear.

Ok, so i've like, done this. I hope it is appreciated by those who insideously asked for it. I've spent most of the coming hours preparing this. ......................................... Dr Vernon Jenkins Work These are the first seven words put into Gematria: 296 – 407 – 395 – 401 – 86 –203 – 913 37 Rules!!!! All the values give: 2701 2701+1072= 3773 Palindrome and use of 37 and mirror 73 37 is the 12th prime 73 is the 21st prime 12---21… The value of ‘’and the earth’’ centers a configuration of a triangular product. In other words, 2701 make a massive pyramidal shape, with 703 as an insert, with three 666 satalites surrounding 703. There is about 10 different geometrical shapes that can be found from the use of this pattern. Remarkably, John 1:1 which also speaks of the beginning, acts as a plinth… the values of John 1:1 are thus as given: {55,719,58,70,373,31,70,373,58,450,420,134,31,284,58,70,373}, and their sum, 3627 (= 39x93). And when acting as a plinth, creates the 112th triangular figure. 112 is also the gematria to ‘’God JHVH’’ and 373 (found in the values of John 1:1) represent the value for the ‘’Word’’ – and Jesus was the Word. The fact Genesis and John 1;1 have almost identical literature, and corresponding numerical values as 37 x 73 39 x 93 And for the fact they can be integrated into numerous geometrical designs, but more importantly the two, one acting as the pinnacle and the other as a plinth, Dr. Jenkins holds that this must be of intelligent design beyond human capability. I ensure that it is only an intentional design. But John 1:1 is an important collection as well, since it contains a pivotal ‘’Shift Value.’’ What exactly is a shift value? Something I named to highlight the nature of the number when in use. It ‘’shifts’’ the value into a configuration which holds significant pattern. Since 39 is a well established number in John 1:1, it is a strong Shift Value. What is a well-established number? Well, which number pops out at you most…? 16647 Or 70707 The latter of course. It stands to reason that the nature of the repetitious number of 70707 is much more eye-pleasing that a mere 16647. But the nature of my codes, for them to have any significance, must keep creating a set of repetitious results. My find safely does that without any problems. The Seven Phenomena – Dr Ivan Panins' Find This is also at the core of my discovery. I base the use of number 7, from a collection of codes that where discovered by a famous doctor, Ivan Panin. Born in Russia, and a famous agnostic, he decided to search the Bible, using the ancient text to find numerical meaning, and was astounded by his find. Using Gematria and simple deduction and addition, he spent over 30 years of his life, finding cascades of well-integrated designs. One of his finds was in Genesis 1:1. "In the begining God created the heaven and the earth" (Gen 1:1), contains over 30 different combinations of seven. This verse has seven Hebrew words having a total of 28 letters 4 x 7. The numeric value of the three nouns "God", "heaven" and "earth" totals 777. Any number in triplicate expresses complete, ultimate or total meaning. Remember this fact about Genesis 1:1… it is one of the core reasons why I believe values of 70707 and 70777707 appear, and why to make them appear, you must treat the value of 7 as a shift value, as you might notice in the OP, I start the simple deduction of: 37 x 7 39 x 7 Simple, but highly effective if you have followed the work properly. To have 30 different combinations of hidden sevens as Dr. Panin discovered, the statistics of that happening by chance is 1 in 22,539,340,290,692,258,087,863,249. Many today hold that this is proof it cannot be simply by chance. His work actually proves that codes where in use. We know the number seven was infamous in the Bible, because of the amount of times it shows up, especially throughout Revelation. Some proofs are as shows… intentional design it was… There are 21 Old Testament writers whose names appear in the Bible (3 x 7). The numeric value of their names is divisible by seven. Of these 21, seven are named in the New Testament: Moses, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Hosea and Joel. The numeric values of these names is 1554 (222 x 7). David's name is found 1134 times (162 x 7). Crystalized into the structural text of the Bible with sevens are the genealogy of Jesus, the account of the virgin birth and the resurrection. Seven occurs as a number 187 times in the Bible (41 x 7), the phrase "seven-fold" occurs seven times and "seventy" occurs 56 times (7 x 8). In the Book of Revelation seven is fantastically over-used: there are seven golden candlesticks, seven letters to seven churches, a book sealed with seven seals, seven angels standing before the Lord with seven trumpets, seven thunders and seven last plagues. In fact there are over 50 occurrences of the number seven in Revelation alone. Moving on… The statistics If you have three boxes that are computerized so that they generate a number between 1 and 10 ever second for three seconds, then you can statisticate any findings due to the amount of times they appear. So if the number 7 appears three times, then the chances of 7 to occur like this can be found as 7x7x7, or seven multiplied by three. So for seven to appear, the value is that the chance is found to be 1 in 343. The same process can be used by the numbers used or valued from the work I have shown. Without being biased towards the use or state of a number, it needs to be used more than three times to insure it is as correct as can be given. I find that 7, 37 and 39 are most important, and any reverse values such as 73 and 93 can be disregarded. 7 appears 14 times, then the value is 678,223,072,849 37 appears 14 times, giving 901,206,129,599,500,829,968 39 appears in use 13 times giving 482,880,748,567,480,579,719 To have the final statistics that have importance, it gives a total: 1,384,086,878,845,204,482,536 Which means in the OP, I made an error. The new value is 1.3 x 10^20. The new result is due to the fact I have removed all answers of 7x, 37x and 39x because it stands to reason they would exist due to being used with the same figures responsible for them. Why should we believe the codes…? Simply because of the structure and complexity. It would be easier to believe that Equi-Distant Letter Counting, used in the Bible Code Search Engines to be false, than the work just shown. These high powered computers search the Bible for ‘’cross-wordlike’’ structures, and are extremely random, next to the localized nature of the codes I present, and the codes shown by Dr. Vernon Jenkins and Dr. Ivan Panin. Localised, I mean, that it stays within the boundary of seven words… whilst the other search engine splashes out looking for anything. If anything else is needed just ask. (I meant to note as well, in 37 Rules! that the value 2701 is also 37 x 73... but you would know this anyway from the OP)

But the Hebrew word for ''sky'' for instance, would be an actual hebrew word in one of the translations of any one of the first seven words. But since it isn't, isn't this just a case of ''fudging'' new work?

Well... that's just strange. How can the seven words have any other translation? Ecoli The rest of the text? I misunderstand you.

Maybe so. But i am talking about the first seven words of the Torah. There is no mistake there.

What is the difference between two manuscripts, but a difference in literature? That's not good logic to suggest otherwise. If that wasn't your point, then what point where you raising? There are many modern versions of the Bible, as there is old. But each conatin the same opening. To suggest it doesn't is bad form and logic.

Your estranged response just shows you know you where to fault.

I do believe you made a deal our of what ''supposed''' manuscript i used due to translations. Stop annoying me. ''Which copy does this work with? You do know manuscripts vary, right?'' This means that the configuration of literature would be different, meaning it has a different translation. Stopp backtracking and making things up as you go along.

I am going to take excerpts i find most important. Dad... ehem... you called me dense, or suggested i possibly was.

Well, i've been called many names so far. It was natural to retaliate, as i am sure you have seen. But sorry. Your dad Oh but you did. You said ''what translation did you use...'' There is no other translation for Genesis 1:1... and that is how 666 came about. So, yeh, it was Dad.

Your result uses Equi-Distant Letter Counting. I told you in the OP it was a random find at best. My calculations differ greatly. Equi-Distant Letter Counting intentionally and randomly looks for codes in the Bible found in cross-word like configurations, which may have no connection at all, because thay can be situated in such great distances from each other. The codes i produce focus alone on the first seven words, and statistically John1:1, and there is no such process as equidistant counting, but a revealment of codes due to careful positions and choice of Hebrew literature.

Now... i will send work in tommorrow, if i aint too busy that is.

Actually, i think you might find the number is in the Dead Sea Scrolls. It appears four times. One of those times must contain the number. But either way, i'm not claiming anything like you said. I originally claimed intention. Then 666 only came into the pic because Dad was sure there must be some discrepency within translating the first seven words. There is actually no discrepency in translating the words, but only their meaning. For instance, the fourth word cannot be translated. It is given as ETH, and we don't know what this means. And there is evidence. definitive evidence. I have shown the pattern and the simple deduction. Soon you will see a lot more.

And plus, i have to type all the work out... now including Vernons work, because dad can't be arsed to look for himself. I also now have to provide the work i did to debunk any notions only a God could produce such a task. That's a lot of typing, and i wish a bit of patience. That is all. John I am analysing the words as well. I must do, to understand there meaning and placement in the Bible. This was the first job i had to compile into works.

Ecoli Actually, 666 is more likely due to the evident nature of the other findings of 666. Also, the name of Jesus when applied to Gematria values 888, and since Jesus is his nemesis, the logic follows through. And Dad... what is your deal. Get some patience. I said i will post his work in due time. But instead, why don't you de me a favor, and look at his work. As i said, its just lazy on your behalf. Caps...\ ,all i am asking for is time. Thank you.

Mooey My codes are greatly more simple. I am using the first seven words, and 28 hebrew letters. That fact Dr. Panin ( another doctor and agnostic) found over 30 different seven-phenomena codes in the first 7 words. The work i have shown excites the equations. Even his work was statisticated at 1 in quintillions that it be chance. Dr. Vernons work also excites values of 1 in quantillions. Its not enough to say... ''i can find anything,'' because that statement isn't true. Try and find the same codes, with the same importance in any book containing the first seven words, and i bet you will fail to find the same quality.

Your Dad No, it was intelligent because he thought his conclusions through... to logic. ''You've still not shown how.'' I don't see why i should when the work has already been published on the net by Vernon. It's just lazy on your behalf. And, for the seventh time, i did show statistics. Are you blind? Or just ignorant? Neither. But you are dillusional.

Kings would have been part of it. The Dead Sea Scrolls where incomplete, thought to be due to the fact the greater deal of the scrolls had deteriated over the years. And the conclusions are, conclusive in the OP. Any attempt to rally the discussion off-course by, ''what translation are you using,'' was so irrelevant, simply because the interpretation in majorly important phrases like ''in the beginning God created...'' are not distorted. They are the ground base of what they would have learned and printed long ago. Again, use your brain boy. Nit-picking at rememdial things like this are not proving your point. John B Actually, i tend to do an analysis on Latin very soon. I know much latin, so i should make the most of it.