"Quantum Hotel"

[Elizabeth Helen Drake]

Ahhh! SPLASH! Now that was great!

Trickfox had just entered a wonderful ,thought provoking, post on "Meeting Dr. Brown" which was WAY to big for that category so I have proposed a brand new pool for a continued discussion.

Trickfox's original post is here:

viewtopic.php?p=671#671

...and there you will find links back to this topic for further discussion. Take a look at what he has said and please continue here. There is so much to say!

Martin almost immediately asked the question about quantum computers. (That to understand the massive amount of information we would have to process wouldn't we need something that could operate far beyond our normal computers now?) I suspect the answer is a resounding yes, but I am not the computer expert in this crowd so I leave all of that open to you guys. The pools here! Jump on in! The water .... however deep it might get .... is going to be FINE! Elizabeth
Elizabeth

[Trickfox]

Splash, ok I'm here too. (Trickfoxes love to dog paddle in warm springs at night and look at the stars)

OK, now.... Two things.

First, I was a bit too arrogant in that last post. I made a bunch of either/or statements about how foolish and shallow people are.

I forgot my own rule and failed to mention that perhaps things are just THE WAY THEY ARE, and there is no real issue of "foolisheness", only that of "relevancy".

According to the proponents of "LINK THEORY", things find themselves working because people are just suppose to try different avenues that don't work over and over again, before finding out "why" things that do work "will eventually succeed".

I have already gone that route myself and I feel closer to acheiving success because of it. Please take this into consideration when you see me ranting on so arrogantly about things.

Secondly, It's our very own Neenie who has responded with a most challenging relevancy issue. (good one Neenie)

Is the FISH included in the set of "possible variables" which construct the squiggly line?

If so, there is a chance that the pea will never reach the bottom and the squiggly line will continue to move up and down and in all direction because it is no longer sinking. it is stuck inside the moving fish and taking all sorts on unanticipated twists an turns upwards, so it is no longer under the influence of gravity only.

That means that our conic section below the surface will probably NOT be able to contain the data necessary to retrace the time lines of the moving pea object.

The new limits would have to include the complete area of the oceans where all fish live.

If you add the next though; "But if a fisherman catches the fish that swallowed the pea object" , -then you would have to add "the limit of where man can travel" into the equation, and then the motion of the earth, then the motion of the solar system -on and on, in limits.

Let us narrow the limits a bit by including the condition that life does not exist to interfere with the normal developing entropy of the pea object.

After all life is a system which is expending energy from the outside right?

Now Martin has mentioned a subject which will require several more hours of disscussion and will eventually lead to a specific section of mathematics which is too sensitive to talk about in public forums . I shall therefore stick to using "Brown boxes" to describe complex math issues and we will call these Brown boxes "number crunchers".

Let me re-read a few of my references to make sure and get exact terms right then I will go into Quantum Gates, Shore's alogarithm, and other ideas.

Andrew, if you see any issues relevant to Brown's journals , please jump in there and correct me, -or better yet, -if you wish, go ahead and quote Brown's work regarding it's relevancy because you know those journals far better than I do right now. I just want to make sure I understand it exactly as Dr. Brown did, and a resounding opinion would help.

Back in while folks. Thanks for your compliments, I'm still learning myself and I hope it's a never ending journal of discovery, and most of all please remember that I too stand on the shoulder of Giants like Dr. Brown, and Dr. Einstein.

Trickfox



[/quote]

[Victoria Steele]

Excellent post Neenie. Knocked my socks right off.

And she has a royal point guys. What about the fish?

OK ... that extends the range, Trickfox said. And even if that fish gets eaten and the transponder remains intact inside the hollow pea ... then ... its probably a bigger fish, with a larger range .... and say he does get caught up by a fisherman and eaten by some human somewhere ..... then what about the range? You have to assume that human is capable of nearly going everywhere on Earth (and elsewhere, if you happen to be the right fish dinner to the right astronaut... so theoretically ... everything and everywhere comes into play. And thats a whole thought train to consider.

We can't just go blithely along making assumptions that in a non- laboratory setting ... if you release a little pea here ..... and watch it ever so carefully that it will do ANYTHING CLOSE TO WHAT WE EXPECT. AND THATS A VERY GOOD LESSON FOR ALL OF US.

I love your set up though Trickfox and am looking forward to getting back to it. There is much to consider BESIDES the above!

Thanks Neenie for one of the best moments I have had in months! Victoria

[Elizabeth Helen Drake]

Trickfox, Neenie and all others.

I just had sort of a mystical brainstorm. (Is there such a thing.?)

Dr. Brown was extremely fond of saying that everything in the Universe was connected.

And then Trickfox offers a very interesting experiment with several twists and turns in it .... how, given enough sophisticated equipment. This poor little hollow pea with a transponder in it.could be carefully tracked and its path could be mathematically predicted ......... Dropped into the ocean ..... tracked carefully by satellites and precise instruments, backed up by what would have to be the most advanced computer EVER designed in human development. Everything should be explained by advanced math. The twists and the turns predicted by all the equations ... everything following rules ..... AND THEN THE FISH EATS IT.

Now I laughed until I cried .... and then I started thinking seriously about what that would mean and it flowed into exactly what Victoria said .... given the right set of circumstances, that little pea could end up ANYWHERE. SO, IN THE END .... SCIENTIFICALLY AND NOT JUST MYSTICALLY MAYBE EVERYTHING IS CONNECTED.

And then I had another strange mystical thought. Perhaps we are not the only ones which have had their experiment tweaked by unexpected life forces. There is always the chance that something will interfer with a perfectly set up set of figures (FOR any intelligent force).. and perhaps in many ways we ourselves are the random fish?

Did anybody make any sense out of what I just said?. I won't blame you if you didn't but its just something I needed to share with the discussion. Elizabeth

[Trickfox]

SO, IN THE END .... SCIENTIFICALLY AND NOT JUST MYSTICALLY MAYBE EVERYTHING IS CONNECTED.

That is precisely what "Link Physics" predicts.

What is needed to make sense of it all is "random associative symbolic processing" to seek beautiful and naturally compex systems we call FRACTALS. (it's just a type of supercomputer program)
We use this program to develop a clear picture of the singularity of a concept in reality.

In our scenario the singularity begins with the concept of the string "Singularity/pea/fish/man/earth/solar system/galaxy/Singularity", -which is a complete string of connected events having six degrees of seperation. The complexity is expressed from the micro to macro-cosmic scales.

Yet it remains as the single line of the complex path of the singularity.
In other words the concept is that the pea is just going round and round in several motions anyway isn't it?

You can extend the string in the fourth direction to make tunnels, however when seen on the edge It's just looks like a string that vibrates at different frequencies and dimensions and begins splitting off and forming up seperately in two rings, or combinning with another. This is a model called "String Theory".

More on this later.

Before we go into Quantum computers, there are certain terms I would like to propose to use to qualify and/or quantify future concepts we use in the study of "Post-Quantum Physics". I will quote Dr. Sarfatti's work in part of this.

We will introduce concepts previously talked about called "Reverse Entropy" this pertains to a violation of the second law of Thermodynamics.
the Entropy/Enthalpy concept.

I would also propose to use the term "A priory" knowledge to describe "unconceived pre-existing ideas" comming from pure chaos and discordia. -(like guessing the correct number on a super big lottery ticket)

Just wanted to drag these out ahead of time.
Questions anyone?

Back in a day or so.

Trickfox.



.

[Elizabeth Helen Drake]

Trickfox,

I am hanging in here and I LOVE the information that you are so carefully putting out there for us ...... but please sir ..... slowly ..... can you tell me what you mean exactly by ...random associative symbolic processing" ...

I THINK I know what that is .... but I want to be sure that you and I are on the same page because we are having to use ENGLISH here .... (I suppose that I could have said .... but we are using FRENCH , given your background .... but any man constructed language is bound to give us trouble when trying to understand this stuff . Am I close to being on the right path here?

"Random" ...ok .... I got that, I think .... (though there is alot to be said for things LOOKING random but not actually BEING random) ....""associative" .... linking one thing to another? ......."symbolic "...... something that stands for another..... transferring more message .... a meaning ....... as in the fish symbol on a bumper ..... what that might mean to some folks ...... or the skull and crossbones on a flag of a ship in the West Indies ......
"processing" .... being able to put all of that together and come out with something that makes sense .... or a combination of elements to create a whole produce ..... as in "processed cheese" Hey Trickfox .... thats as far as I have gotten. We still on the same page here? Can't wait to go further. Don't forget to look over your mental shoulder, I'll be there .... somewhere! Elizabeth

[grinder]

Trickfox what a neat discussion.

But I have a comment. (who, ME?)

Here goes.

You said "Let us narrow the limits by including the condition that life does not exist to interfer"

So what you are saying here that IF you put this whole experiment in sterile lab conditions which are under the complete control of the experimenter ..... then .... you could work all this math out to the end result? and the pea would end up where you predict?

But ..... what place does that have in reality? grinder

[Victoria Steele]

Elizabeth, Trickfox and all! welcome grinder

grinder, you are right! Lab experiments are closely regulated and they have no room for the random element that we call simply "life"

As in "shit happens! thats life!"

You folks might want to re-read Elizabeths next to last post because she says something there that is very interesting. At the end of her post she asks if anyone out there has understood what she has tried to say. Its odd and it might just be credited to "womens intuition" but I think I understand where you are going with this Elizabeth and this is FASCINATING.

Doing the old ....." repeat what I think you have said "....." to be sure that I heard it right" .... I believe you are drawing a parallel here between the little pea in the ocean story ..... with the fish ...... and PERHAPS another experiment by ANOTHER INTELLIGENCE where we as the human life force are the random fish element. still with me here everybody?

In a situation with a life force involved (us, folks) it has to be assumed by THAT OTHER INTELLIGENCE that anything can happen and it really has no ability (or right) to remove the random elements just to make the experiment work the way perhaps the plan is.

So Elizabeth, am I even halfway close to what you were thinking? Victoria

[Angela Bloomstrum]

Victoria, Elizabeth

And if there were another intelligence at work in this "experiment"

If it understood that there was a "developmental path" that was somehow meant to be followed. And it had a lifeforce to deal with during this "experiment" ........... theoretically of course ....... would it have the right to turn its experiment to a "clinically sterile" situation? Or would it have to learn to deal with the schools of bright colored fish .... which have no concept of what is going on in the large picture, but are simply having a pretty good time being bright colored fish ......... now ....... here comes this danged little hollow pea ...... hmmmmm .... experimenters above who have dropped the pea are probably going .... no, no .... no no.... leave it, leave it! But you KNOW that Neenie was quite right .... fish can't resist that. gobbling up little round things is just what they DO. they can't have it in front of them and not eat it. So then what happens to the boys "topside"? Mass panic probably ... doesn't matter how smart THEY are .... the danged fish just ate thier pea pod. Its all a cirlce my friends, all a circle. Angela

[Trickfox]

Trickfox

But ..... what place does that have in reality? grinder

That is the question I was waiting for.

The answer is; At the moment, the official policy regarding the issue of LIFE is: It is real on earth ONLY.

The rest of the Universe is a sterile environement free from all forms of sentient being! and that my dear friend is surely completely wrong.

Surely the pea object has been swallowed and passed around all over the place near the solar system of interest.

It's a matter of selecting the cycle of relevancy with singularity.

The solar system where the pea object is located lies in THAT direction.

THERE is the singularity of life, surounded by sterility and the singularity of the pea object itself. It is simply moving around and around without observing any natural predictable behaviour.

The only is issue that is important here is the fact that we should have been using electro-gravitation communication sciences and listening to sidereal changes in the kinetics of mater to listen for life everywhere.

The propositions brought forth by Gregory Hodowanec are not without merrit. It is totally possible that we have been using the wrong kind of instruments (electromagnetics) to try to locate intelligent life in the Universe.

The Random Associative symbolic processing I mentioned earlier is a possible mathematical method to sort-out Biodynamic energy in mitogenic signals to detect the presence of necrology, necrosis, or simply DEATH. At this point I will add for Elizabeth's sake the fact that between the fish symbol and the skull&bones symbol lies the yin yang and "true balance".


I't like being able to detect a clearless odorless tasteless poision in water.
If we seek to play in the water, It's a good idea to test it first

It would be a helpful tool to have this kind of control when someone has to play with fire to exploit it's benefits and control it's furry.

One thing is for sure, as very distant observers we can sure point in the night sky with the right instruments and see the little pea moving around in some sort of "living fashion" because it appears to be surrounded by a sterile empty space. Finally we will see the exception. The one we call the "Reality" of extraterrestrial intelligent life.

Trickfox

[Trickfox]

Hey Trickfox .... thats as far as I have gotten. We still on the same page here? Can't wait to go further. Don't forget to look over your mental shoulder, I'll be there .... somewhere! Elizabeth

Elizabeth, you are exactly where you should be: -looking at the symetry of LIFE/DEATH and seeing the yin-yan balance point. I also noticed that you see the gender symetry also. Someone mentioned "a woman's intuition" and the "nuturing instinct".This is one half of the gender symetry.

IN each case an issue meets it's opposite in a mirror . The mirror here is the key factor. It gives us a reference for comparison.

At this point in time, I shall reference a scientific paper introduced on the 10th of March 2003 by Matej Pavsic called "Clifford Space as the Arena for Physics".

The abstract of this paper describes our notion of a "Non-Minkowski time continuum" in which the relevancy of any "symetric issue" becomes the the center of mass coordinates.
( a few minutes later) Wow... I just found the same thoughts being expressed in a paper by Kosirev called "On the Possibilities of Experimental Study of the Property of Time". (1967)

In both of these notions of the universe, the mirror is a "poly-dimensional window" into which we can view "that which is" and "that which could be" at the same time. We see the microcosm that meets the MACROCOSM at singularity. 1+I=2 (two -being the only other a-priory relevant integer)(I being defined as any construct of information).

Like two gentle bubbles of "reality" meeting at a "circular portal" which we have called a "mirror". In this concept "there is no outside" simply "singularity".

I may have a poor opinion of Michael Jackson's eccentricities but I most certainly love the song "Man in the mirror". Specially the line that says "if you wanna make the world a better place, take look at yourself (in the mirror) and CHANGE".

Now let's go back to "reverse entropy" and the violation of the second law.
Is it possible that LIFE draws it's energy from the existence of death?
After all, acording to some very well educated individuals, Life energy gets it's power from "outside the system".

Under the definition used herein "the singularity" surrounds two bubbles of reality which meet at the circular shaped portal which we call a mirror. There is "no outside" and the other side of the mirror is another bubble of reality that we call-the outside.

In my humble opinion that is exactly what Clifford space defines.

So..... While everyone is busy working in Newtonian space using electromagnetics and Einsteinian/Minkoskian Timespace, Clifford spacial mass coordinates assumes the vector relationships as being the only relevant issues. It is a purely introspective point of view having an order of cardinality defined by "the being itself".

The pea object is THERE (in that unit vector). It is Alive because we see it "living" in a steril environment which holds no life (empty space).

Imagine the implication if Hodowanec's hypothesis is correct but he has not found the math necessary to quantify the variable in Gravito-electric scalars.

Now we must take a closer look at the work by George Lawrence, Cleve Backster, and "someone named MJR" and the experiments that some have called "Plant Murderer" detection. We may begin to see a basic symetry evolving out of biogenic radiation. We may be capable of harnessing the information from several biogenic sensors. Such information can then be processed through the Random associative symbolic processing to filter the basic necroptic information indicators.

We now have a tool to assist in the exploration of "controlling unknowns".
The trick is to stay on this side of the mirror during the exploration phase.

The energy flow for LIFE is from dark to light. The energy flow for death is from light to dark.

Let the fury of nature illuminate the darkness, draw your strength from the exploration of the unknowns, seek beauty in the discordia of beings, reach a balance, live long and prosper.

Trickfox

[Elizabeth Helen Drake]

Trickfox,

As always an elegant message that deserves much attention and I intend to get back to it as soon as possible but I do have one thing to mention. I do know ONE THING. Nature never wastes anything. You can call it by all of its technical names , conservation of energy or whatever ..... but nature never wastes............. so I do see a truth in life drawing from death .... and death drawing from life. Transformation from one material to another and I believe from one dimension to another. Its actually quite a comfort to me because I trust that truth.

Given me a little bit to chew on here, as always .... delicious! ...... back soon ........ Elizabeth

[Trickfox]

PASCAL (who has not posted so far) just sent this to me.
Thank you Pascal!

ESA Announces Gravity-Modification Breakthrough

The European Space Agency announced the results of an experimental test in which a superconductor rotating at 6,500 rpm is shown to gain acceleration as the result of what is believed to be a gravity-modification effect.

Kirkland, WA (PRWEB) March 29, 2006 -- The European Space Agency announced on March 21st the results of an experimental test in which a superconductor rotating at 6,500 rpm is shown to gain acceleration as the result of what is believed to be a gravity-modification effect. As reported by the ESA, "The experiment demonstrated that a superconductive gyroscope is capable of generating a powerful gravitomagnetic field, and is therefore the gravitational counterpart of the magnetic coil. Although just 100 millionths of the acceleration due to the Earth’s gravitational field, the measured field is a surprising one hundred million trillion times larger than Einstein’s General Relativity predicts."

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2006/3/prweb364473.htm

Gee, there goes another asymptotic limit!

Darn it, -that means Minkowski continuum is not correct either, don't it?

What on Earth is going on with the foundations of reality folks?

Trickfox[/i]

[Paul S.]

I posted a link to this story on the front page of the ttbrown.com website last week:

http://www.yubanet.com/artman/publish/a ... 3448.shtml

Same story, no?

Who is Pascal? Somebody monitoring our discussions from France? Cool.

Reality? It just ain't what it used to be. It never was.

--PS

[Trickfox]

Same story, no?

Yup it's the same story.

Pascal signed up before I did.

I contacted him and we have been communicating bilingually.

I write in English he writes back in French because its easier for the both of us to expresss ourselves.

Pascal may not have read everything on your webpage. I remember now that you did have it there along with other important facts.

It's just that so many of these issues are comming out rapidly from so many different sources that my head is spinning.

I'm also looking up the posts on Jean-Louis Naudin's website on "Lifters" and they have their own click of sorts. 3 or 4 dailly posts on the forum.

Paul you Pascal are both correct about the importance of these experiments.

Trickfox