Dark Matter, Dark Biology & The Invisible Homo Sapiens

Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Dark Matter, Dark Biology & The Invisible Homo Sapiens

 Dark Matter, Dark Biology & The Invisible Homo Sapiens

 .... a new water on my proverbial mill. Finally some scientist started thinking of what I've been telling you all along. Hallelujah!!!

Dark matter may be just as real as visible matter, but a subtler form of matter. The physical (and chemical) properties of dark matter are unknown. Devoid of electrical charges, the dark matter permeates the visible matter without being detected. Will charge-less particles form dark atoms? Will they then interact strongly with each other and with ordinary matter? If subtle dark matter chemistries exist, they may yield subtle bodies and may give us a theoretical basis for the subtleties of the mind. Then, the possibility exists for dark atom structures and chemistries which are parallel to ordinary structures and chemistries, but undetectable. That sounds like the mind stuff. It is conceivable that the confirmation of a chemically active dark matter will have a great impact on science in this century. Mind is admittedly mystifying. It is invisible and undetectable, but is coupled to the physical body, in and through which mind operates. However, a mystery per se need not be metaphysical or mystical.

http://www.biology-online.org/articles/dark_matter_dark_biology.html

What is the point? Nothing much, but a mere Invisible Homo sapiens coupled parallel to the visible human body may exist.

On the contrary, I think this is very important and will have a great impact on medical and othe sciences, culture and philosophies. It will also prove most of what I ever claimed Smiling The invisible body is the important one. The visible physical body is grown into the template of the invisible, it has lesser effect on it than vice versa. Also, health malfunction usually precipitate from the etheric to the visible body.

 

http://noeticcenter.tripod.com/

Dark Chemistry is a discreet attempt to formulate for humans a plausible dark body parallel to the visible body. It is not an attempt to establish either the existence or origin of dark matter. Nothing new is added to the plethora of known and unknown particles or forces. Only, profusely available current data on axions and bonding mechanisms are used to explore this prospect.

That page is quite long and I just stumbled upon it. I will read through it (except of physics beyond the Standard Model) but local thinkers will be interested too. There seems to be a new take on the philosophy of materialism, physics, mind, consciousness, neurology and so on. 

Abstract
Reality is not a mere mathematical function or a metaphysical process. The fundamental objects that populate the real world and their complexities, do last through time. These enduring objects of our subjectivity are not mere patterns of chronological events stored in the transient electro-magnetic realm of neurons and their correlates. However, the composite of stable patterns emerging from sequential processes in the ordinary matter and its wave forms, has only an appearance of permanence, offering an idealist speculation that the reality of mind is a derivative of this apparent constancy. They must be backed up (piggybacked) by parallel, permanent, non-electromagnetic components that will provide the real intransience, to justify fully the basic claims of substance ontology. If dark matter particles (axions) are as diverse, and reactive via gravitons and spin, as are electrons, protons and neutrons are through charge and spin, then a dynamic unity of ordinary matter structures in resonance with those of the parallel dark-matter will offer a logical explicatory framework for mind and mental phenomena, as the reality beyond the ordinary atomic elements. The wave-like properties of dark macro-bodies are significant, since they have relatively negligible masses. Genetics encoded on both dark and luminous bio-systems will naturally select and govern the bonding of dark particles. Mental activity is no more to be perceived as a mystical process. An invisible material substance makes the difference between mind and body, consummating physical reality. That calls for an extraordinary materialism.

I must say, this totally correlates with everything I know about etheric body. Etheric body is literally defined as a body of "energy" or strands of "light" (esoteric euphemism for sub-atomic particles) with numerous centers or vortexes of thereof. Ordinary etheric body of a living person does not feel solid. It feels more like  a softly radiating heat and pressure. The feeling of etheric body of "light" is nebulous, the feeling of etheric matter itself is very definite, down to all the details in structure and shape. But I digress. Read for yourself.

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
This stuff is interesting,

This stuff is interesting, but also highly speculative at this point in time.  It's a hypothesis but it has yet to progress beyond that.  I think some empirically gained data is needed before I adopt a philosophy such as yours.  

Would make for good science fiction though Smiling

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:This stuff is

Ktulu wrote:

This stuff is interesting, but also highly speculative at this point in time.  It's a hypothesis but it has yet to progress beyond that.  I think some empirically gained data is needed before I adopt a philosophy such as yours.  

Would make for good science fiction though Smiling

Yes, it would be a fascinating and original sci-fi. Maybe the problem is, those who know all this fascinating esoteric universe, are also convinced it's real Smiling And imagine how it must be live like that every day. Sometimes I find out things, sometimes things find me Sticking out tongue

I have sent an e-mail to the doc. If he responds, I'll tell him about some resources or people in USA he might find useful. The ideal case would be if he'd get me for a couple months to USA and scan my brain. I perceive my etheric body just as well as the physical one, so it must show up on various scans. 

The evidence is out there, the doc has figured out the physical theory, and the practice is in the Orgone lab in Oregon. Add to that my measurable cerebrum and people like Dmitri Veriscagin's school of teaching people to use their etheric body, and you've got a solid basis for evidence. I wonder what will it do, if these people get some info on each other. They might want to pool their resources and cooperate. Because it seems they're not getting any resources from their governments. 

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


luca
atheist
Posts: 400
Joined: 2011-02-21
User is offlineOffline
h

Pfeh... Noetic sci-fi exists from years. Warhammer 40K and Whitewolf Trinity.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
luca wrote:Pfeh... Noetic

luca wrote:
Pfeh... Noetic sci-fi exists from years. Warhammer 40K and Whitewolf Trinity.
Nope, this has nothing to do with noetic science, quantum mysticism or fiction. 

Dr. Philip Benjamin's work lays the theoretical background, in terms of axion physics. Then there are people like James DeMeo, who can measure very similar things in practice, by some of his devices. Then there are people like me, who can sense something like that personally, by the physical sensitivity of the body and nerve system. 
This looks like a multi-disciplinary problem, where a solution to one question may lie closer in another area of science. Someone should gather a group of these people into a single research facility and find out what the hell is going on and if these things have anything to do with each other.

I just make sure it's all internally consistent, that's the easiest to verify. Then there is external non-contradiction, the second easiest thing to verify. But external confirmation, the actual scientific test, that requires some professionals, equipment, time, money and effort. 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Uhhh, no. Just no.

Looking through this stuff briefly I haven't seen any experimentally testable claims, let alone any predicate on which to base these ideas. Just saying "I think it works like this" and then offering hypotheses from there does not a scientist make. First you perform an experiment or show some math that extends what we already know from experimentation then you form new ideas. You can say "it might be the case that ham sandwiches will one day rule the earth" but without first giving some reason for that to be the case you can't then go on to ask "if so, will they kill us all or make us their slaves?"

 

To address the questions in the link, because I'm a sucker for essay questions:

"1. How can mind invisibly function in the visible physical realm, unless it is also physical?"

It is physical and now quite easily observed, just like the inner workings of a computer. First, there are means of altering neurons so that they bioluminesce when activated. Second, newer high resolution functional MRIs allow us to get a pretty good idea of what the human mind is doing without having to change its makeup. Third, transcranial electromagnetic stimulation allows us to stimulate or inhibit various areas of the brain with increasing accuracy.

The only problem is that, just because you can see the flow of electrons in a system like a computer, it's not obvious what the system is doing. The brain has far more connections than any single computer. It might even have more connections than the entire internet. Moreover the brain isn't digital. Neurons apparently have simple protocols they use to communicate in different ways, which is something we are just beginning to decode. But we are quite certain that there is nothing invisible going on.

If what they mean is "consciousness" rather than mind, that's a whole different ballgame. That's more on the philosophical side than the neuro/psychological science, because consciousness is notoriously subjective and ill-defined.

 

"2. If it is physical why should it not be structured according to known physical laws?"

It is structured according to known physical laws. Again, I would draw a parallel with computer software with the qualification that the software our brains run much more physically apparent. For example, a computer program is stored as a series of charged and uncharged regions of RAM. A brain program isn't so much stored as semi-permanently wired. Brain programs are deleted when the connections atrophy. But that's only part of the story. Individual neurons seem to have something like charge-based-RAM as well, besides the electrochemical potentiation system that dictates when they fire.

 

"3. Will non-electromagnetic matter particles account for the invisible mind as Dark Matter makes up for the missing mass of the universe?  Could they be the axions of the String Theory?"

No; how could they? Everything we have observed about the brain/mind experimentally directly points to a purely electrodynamic model of neurology and therefore mind. There have been no well designed repeatable experiments demonstrating anything to the contrary.

As far as I know axions are part of quantum chromodynamics, which would be part of a layer of complexity above string theory. So the second part of that question doesn't make any sense to me.

 

"4. Can there be Dark Chemical Bonds and dark Chemistries involving Axion configurations (Duets, Octets) and  Axion spins as in ordinary chemical bonds?"

Not if they're non-electromagnetic particles.

 

"5. Will gravitons (negative and positive) substitute for electric charges in that Dark Chemistry"

Gravitons are theoretical neutral gauge bosons, they have no electric charge because gravity isn't affected by magnetism. If they were then we would need to take into account the gravity-altering effects of magnets when building magnetic devices due to the serious difference in strength between magnetism and gravity.

 

"6. Could there be three different Axions (Types I, II & III) of negligible mass, but corresponding to electron, proton and neutron respectively?"

Electrons are fundamental particles, while photons and neutrons are composite particles. Axions would be elementary particles and therefore nothing like protons and neutrons. Moreover, having no electric charge and negligible mass there is no possible way they could be anything like any of the three in any given way. They would be closer to neutrinos, and some have hypothesized that they would flip between being photons and axions.

 

"7. Could it be that plants have only Type I Axion, and animals only Types I & II?"

No. Having already explained how ridiculous the idea of various types is, that question is even worse. Being particles of negligible mass more like neutrinos than anything else they would travel quite fast without interacting with much. So unless you say regularly say things like "the lightbulb has photons" then no.

 

"8. Could it be that Humans have all the three Types of Axions such that an Axion hierarchy of atoms, molecules, cells, organs and an axion body coupled parallel to the visible body exist?"

There's a laughable pattern of biological chauvinism forming here. Axions could not couple to anything because they do not have characteristics which enable coupling. They travel, weakly obey gravity, and that's it. There's a very good reason why they're hypothetical and called "dark."

 

9, 10, 11, and 12 revolve around the same assumption, but aren't interesting enough to answer with anything more than "no" or "that doesn't make any sense."

 

"13. Could that be an adequate explanation of extensively reported paranormal and psychic phenomena in humans and their absence in plants and animals?"

No, and here's why. Humans are the only known organisms which have imaginations, the ability to talk about what they imagine, and the ability to believe in complicated imagined things. It might be that cats suffer from terrible hallucinations and believe that the world is full of horrifying ephemeral monsters, but we'll never know because they are incapable of communicating it to us. They might also be right, and the only creatures on the planet capable of seeing them. Nonetheless it doesn't seem very important because as far as we know the only people who see such things have either taken way too many drugs or are psychologically disturbed.

And if you've ever owned a cat that would sometimes wake up and immediately run at full speed, through the house, and into a closed glass door then that idea might not seem too far fetched.

 

"14. Could it be that Humans can influence plants and animals through the axion interactions?"

There is no repeatable experimental evidence for that, let alone axions themselves.

 

"15. Could this explain the vast taxonomic differences in spite of the close genomic similarities?"

Since we already have a pretty good idea of how that works as it is I would have to say no.

 

"16. Are the following references meaningful?"

No. They are simply the previous questions in the form of statements.

 


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
inspectormustard

inspectormustard wrote:

Looking through this stuff briefly I haven't seen any experimentally testable claims, let alone any predicate on which to base these ideas. Just saying "I think it works like this" and then offering hypotheses from there does not a scientist make. First you perform an experiment or show some math that extends what we already know from experimentation then you form new ideas. You can say "it might be the case that ham sandwiches will one day rule the earth" but without first giving some reason for that to be the case you can't then go on to ask "if so, will they kill us all or make us their slaves?"

I don't know what reasons Dr. Philip has for his hypotheses. But I do. This looks like the first attempt to mathemathically describe the subtle-material component of the world around and living things in particular. These phenomena were already reliably measured by James DeMeo and maybe other scientists. Maybe I should contact Dr. Philip and ask him the same critical questions you ask and point him towards this practical research, which should be his objective.

I think he has no idea what he's doing. He may be up to something, but I'm afraid that it is way too beyond what is currently falsifiable. I'll clarify further.

inspectormustard wrote:
 To address the questions in the link, because I'm a sucker for essay questions:

 

"1. How can mind invisibly function in the visible physical realm, unless it is also physical?"

It is physical and now quite easily observed, just like the inner workings of a computer. First, there are means of altering neurons so that they bioluminesce when activated. Second, newer high resolution functional MRIs allow us to get a pretty good idea of what the human mind is doing without having to change its makeup. Third, transcranial electromagnetic stimulation allows us to stimulate or inhibit various areas of the brain with increasing accuracy.

The only problem is that, just because you can see the flow of electrons in a system like a computer, it's not obvious what the system is doing. The brain has far more connections than any single computer. It might even have more connections than the entire internet. Moreover the brain isn't digital. Neurons apparently have simple protocols they use to communicate in different ways, which is something we are just beginning to decode. But we are quite certain that there is nothing invisible going on.

If what they mean is "consciousness" rather than mind, that's a whole different ballgame. That's more on the philosophical side than the neuro/psychological science, because consciousness is notoriously subjective and ill-defined.

Very well, but with discovery of new forms of matter and their biologic participation we will also have to consider if they extend the functions of mind. And if some already known phenomena aren't in fact caused by that.

Firstly, it seems that the science of orgonomy and Wilhelm Reich were rejected for historical, not for scientific reasons. Albert Einstein conducted one of his experiments and succesfully, but rejected the results due to argument from heat convection in the room. WR sent him back a revised version of the experiment which eliminated this possibility, but there is no evidence that Einstein ever bothered to repeat the experiment. Eventually WR was locked up by accusations from FDA, based on legal arguments, not scientific. 

Secondly, James DeMeo and his lab in Oregon performs such experiments succesfully and publishes the results in journals. He also developed a miniaturized version of WR's measuring device, by which anyone can perform their own experiments. This device is not supposed to react to any electro-magnetic or other already known material properties.
Thirdly, there are my personal observations and perceptions, not yet clinically studied, but subjectively extremely persuasive.

These reasons lead me to conviction, that hypotheses like Dr. Philip's need special attention. 

inspectormustard wrote:
 "3. Will non-electromagnetic matter particles account for the invisible mind as Dark Matter makes up for the missing mass of the universe?  Could they be the axions of the String Theory?"

No; how could they? Everything we have observed about the brain/mind experimentally directly points to a purely electrodynamic model of neurology and therefore mind. There have been no well designed repeatable experiments demonstrating anything to the contrary.

As far as I know axions are part of quantum chromodynamics, which would be part of a layer of complexity above string theory. So the second part of that question doesn't make any sense to me.

The scientists had so far observed a common denominator of all brains - the electrodynamic principles. But due to investigations like that which I already mentioned, we must keep open mind towards extended brain functions, which may not be equally active in all brains. The main problem here is probably getting the right volunteers. 

I take it for granted that dark matter can not be made of the axions of string theory. Looks like Dr. Philip mixes two things together. He combines dark matter which belongs entirely to our dimension (and probably has to do with WIMPs and supersymmetry), and matter of other dimensions described by string theory. I'll clarify later.
 

inspectormustard wrote:
 "6. Could there be three different Axions (Types I, II & III) of negligible mass, but corresponding to electron, proton and neutron respectively?"

Electrons are fundamental particles, while photons and neutrons are composite particles. Axions would be elementary particles and therefore nothing like protons and neutrons. Moreover, having no electric charge and negligible mass there is no possible way they could be anything like any of the three in any given way. They would be closer to neutrinos, and some have hypothesized that they would flip between being photons and axions.

You're right. To me it looks like Dr. Philip got too far in his theories and yet he tries to retain the semblance of our material world of composite particles capable of normal collisions. But I sense a pattern in what he says, potentially a valuable pattern.

 

inspectormustard wrote:
 "7. Could it be that plants have only Type I Axion, and animals only Types I & II?"

No. Having already explained how ridiculous the idea of various types is, that question is even worse. Being particles of negligible mass more like neutrinos than anything else they would travel quite fast without interacting with much. So unless you say regularly say things like "the lightbulb has photons" then no.

 "8. Could it be that Humans have all the three Types of Axions such that an Axion hierarchy of atoms, molecules, cells, organs and an axion body coupled parallel to the visible body exist?"

There's a laughable pattern of biological chauvinism forming here. Axions could not couple to anything because they do not have characteristics which enable coupling. They travel, weakly obey gravity, and that's it. There's a very good reason why they're hypothetical and called "dark."  

 You're right... Biological chauvinism, that's the word! 
Here I doubt that Dr. Philip means the same axions that other scientists mean. 
The reason why I do not throw this into gutter right away is, because as a student of esotericism it very much reminds me of something. He actually seems to describe the substances of etheric, astral and mental body, which is indeed prevalent in plants (etheric), negligible in plants but prevalent in animals (astral) and all three types most developed in humans. 

That's all nice, but currently the only thing we can hope to verify with our technology, is the etheric, or dark-material part. That is already well described and detected by orgonomy and suspected by many mainstream physicists. Hoping to discover the elusive another dimension like astral before etheric matter is quite foolish. Dr. Philip is either too much ahead of his time, or just makes up a lot of stuff. 

inspectormustard wrote:
 9, 10, 11, and 12 revolve around the same assumption, but aren't interesting enough to answer with anything more than "no" or "that doesn't make any sense."

"13. Could that be an adequate explanation of extensively reported paranormal and psychic phenomena in humans and their absence in plants and animals?"

No, and here's why. Humans are the only known organisms which have imaginations, the ability to talk about what they imagine, and the ability to believe in complicated imagined things. It might be that cats suffer from terrible hallucinations and believe that the world is full of horrifying ephemeral monsters, but we'll never know because they are incapable of communicating it to us. They might also be right, and the only creatures on the planet capable of seeing them. Nonetheless it doesn't seem very important because as far as we know the only people who see such things have either taken way too many drugs or are psychologically disturbed.

And if you've ever owned a cat that would sometimes wake up and immediately run at full speed, through the house, and into a closed glass door then that idea might not seem too far fetched.

It doesn't seem far-fetched. I study and practice esotericism and I know people who are basically thinking and talking "cats" that you describe. They are mediums. They see auras around people walking around and auras walking around with no living people inside. They see the plentiful ephemeral life of astral dimensions. And they sometimes see or sense when I stir my etheric muscles in some esoteric exercise. The point is, this ability is pretty much animal in origin, it's tied to primitive, emotional and instinctive parts of brain and nerve system. Such people don't have the proper "coating" of nerves that others have developed to allow for relatively undisturbed evolution of intellect. My people also generally accept that drugs and specially hallucinogens damage this protective etheric coating, which floods the drugged brain with quite disturbing images of astral wilderness. 

One such man, P. Ch., a local infamous practitioner of shamanism, once got locked up in prison. (he poisoned people with high lead content in his herbal teas) When he got out, he said that it was quite a torture, because all the suffering souls were trying to control him. He could not hold anything like chalk or a piece of brick, otherwise his hands would start writing the tragical stories of those who died in that prison on any nearby surface. Needless to say, automatic writing and channeling are common practices in medium community, which I observed myself. 
So don't tell me there are no mysterious brain functions or minds going around without a living brain, because my daily life and neighbourhood is seems to use a different set of natural laws.

 

inspectormustard wrote:
 "14. Could it be that Humans can influence plants and animals through the axion interactions?"

There is no repeatable experimental evidence for that, let alone axions themselves.

"15. Could this explain the vast taxonomic differences in spite of the close genomic similarities?"

Since we already have a pretty good idea of how that works as it is I would have to say no.

Well, I'd need to read up something more on these taxonomic differences.
According to esotericism, etheric body plays a definite role in cellular growth, transmission of nerve signals, vitality, quality of consciousness and so on. But how the hell does that work, I have yet no idea. 

 

But I just found out that a freelancing acquaitance of my group purchased an expensive aura and chakra digital photography device or something like that. We do not agree with everything that he does, so we only cooperate with him on some topics we mutually agree on. And this is one of the cases that might be it.

So basically, he wants to use this device to test various healing instruments or techniques. And I will hopefully get to make an experiment of my own. I'll base it control of energy and manipulating chakras, gradually opening them and firing them up.  Hopefully it will take only several months until I get to the device.
If there will be no difference, it will be one hell of a WTF. And then I'll tell him to buy a different device, like JDM's ELEFM.
If there will be a positive difference, then I'll have a piece of evidence to wave around and poke holes into your narrowly defined materialism. 

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:Firstly, it

Luminon wrote:
Firstly, it seems that the science of orgonomy and Wilhelm Reich were rejected for historical, not for scientific reasons. Albert Einstein conducted one of his experiments and succesfully, but rejected the results due to argument from heat convection in the room. WR sent him back a revised version of the experiment which eliminated this possibility, but there is no evidence that Einstein ever bothered to repeat the experiment. Eventually WR was locked up by accusations from FDA, based on legal arguments, not scientific.

That is because when Einstein modified the experiment himself to control for convection the effect disappeared. Furthermore, we now have methods of directly examining the supposed phenomenon (forward looking infrared) and have yet to see anything like the effects that orgone is supposed to have. 

Luminon wrote:
Secondly, James DeMeo and his lab in Oregon performs such experiments succesfully and publishes the results in journals. He also developed a miniaturized version of WR's measuring device, by which anyone can perform their own experiments. This device is not supposed to react to any electro-magnetic or other already known material properties.

The description of the device's function sounds a lot like what you would see using an inductive probe of the kind I've built with one of those hobbyist breadboards from radio shack.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_sensor

Orgone was supposed to be some kind of "sexual energy," which according to the proposed effects should have been observed in Faix et. al. : http://www-psych.stanford.edu/~knutson/ans/faix02.pdf

Orgone is not equivalent in any way to low-level biological chemiluminescence (biophotonic emissions) - the descriptions are totally at odds. We have observed the latter and have a decent understanding of the mechanism, which can be replicated with sterile chemicals.

 

I think I can cover the rest pretty easily. Personal conviction is not an effective gauge of physical truth, and it appears as though your confidence in the base assertion rests upon variations of the auto-epistemic fallacy:

1. "If X were true then I would know it."
2. "I know X is true."
3. "Therefore X is true."

which cannot be used to as a basis for legitimate assertions.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

OK Luminon, I think that you are way out on a limb with this one.

 

First off, nobody actually knows what dark matter is but we do know what general properties it must have. It must have a gravitational effect but it can't emit or scatter EM radiation. Depending on which theoretical candidate is under discussion, it might react to either the weak force or the strong force.

 

Here is the rub: Chemistry requires the EM force. No EM=no chemistry. That much being said, there may be any number of things not yet discovered which play roles in our lives. There may be things we know about but have not thought of in the right way just yet.

 

For example, neurotransmitters are not very large molecules. Without looking up specific ones individually, I can tell you that we are looking at one to two dozen atoms. It might be possible that low level quantum effects coupled with chaos theory somehow plays a role in our minds.

 

Another thought is based on Kirlian photography. Explanations for that have been proposed over time but in all honesty, none of them are fully satisfying. Why do coins have an aura? Why can you take a pic of a leaf, rip it in half and take another and see the missing part in the second image?

 

Really, it is obvious that we don't know everything. In theory, we can't ever know everything. That being said, grabbing the latest and greatest on the cutting edge of science and saying that even though it is only at the hypothesis stage, it proves that you are automatically correct is a clear abuse of the scientific process.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Sorry I just returned from a

Sorry I just returned from a volunteer summer work camp which lasted all week...

inspectormustard wrote:

That is because when Einstein modified the experiment himself to control for convection the effect disappeared. Furthermore, we now have methods of directly examining the supposed phenomenon (forward looking infrared) and have yet to see anything like the effects that orgone is supposed to have.

What effects would you like? It is supposed to be an aggregate of several new phases of matter. It should be pretty diverse. What about DeMeo measurements, none of that seems relevant to you? I was afraid you'd really disprove some of his experiments, but you didn't seem to read about them at all.

You should look at some newsletters from Orgone Biophysical Research Lab. They report substantial, repeatable results. Do you pay attention?

inspectormustard wrote:
 

The description of the device's function sounds a lot like what you would see using an inductive probe of the kind I've built with one of those hobbyist breadboards from radio shack.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_sensor 

Well, I don't see how's that possible, when there are supposed to be readings according to vitality of that object, not presence of metal. Metal has its function in orgone accumulators (this is why the controls are without metals) but the effect should be unmistakable. Besides that, JDM routinely produces and sells various measuring instruments, it is unlikely he'd made such a mistake and measure something ordinary. 

inspectormustard wrote:
 Orgone was supposed to be some kind of "sexual energy," which according to the proposed effects should have been observed in Faix et. al. : http://www-psych.stanford.edu/~knutson/ans/faix02.pdf

Orgone is not equivalent in any way to low-level biological chemiluminescence (biophotonic emissions) - the descriptions are totally at odds. We have observed the latter and have a decent understanding of the mechanism, which can be replicated with sterile chemicals.

Orgone is not primarily a sexual energy, just like a blood is not primarily a filler for someone's erection. But of course it can stimulate sexual functions, for someone trained like me it is quite easy to direct the "energy" to lower centers associated with sexual organs. No wonder Mr Reich noticed this effect. But just as easily I can direct this "energy" to heart, head, solar plexus, or any other place on the body where I damn please and enjoy or suffer the consequences. It has various effects on vitality according to which part of nerve system is afflicted and how much. 

I don't know if orgone can be related to biophotonic emissions, for that I'd have to undergo some measurements. Stuff like comparing the biophotons before and after energetic stimulation of that body part. Here the subject is etheric body, not the general ambient or atmospheric orgone or whatever it is. 

 

inspectormustard wrote:

I think I can cover the rest pretty easily. Personal conviction is not an effective gauge of physical truth, and it appears as though your confidence in the base assertion rests upon variations of the auto-epistemic fallacy:

1. "If X were true then I would know it."
2. "I know X is true."
3. "Therefore X is true."

which cannot be used to as a basis for legitimate assertions.

I only make observations, subjective and when circumstances permit also objective. Then I search for a similar scientific research. What's so fallacious about that?

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
OK Luminon, I think that you are way out on a limb with this one.

First off, nobody actually knows what dark matter is but we do know what general properties it must have. It must have a gravitational effect but it can't emit or scatter EM radiation. Depending on which theoretical candidate is under discussion, it might react to either the weak force or the strong force.

Here is the rub: Chemistry requires the EM force. No EM=no chemistry. That much being said, there may be any number of things not yet discovered which play roles in our lives. There may be things we know about but have not thought of in the right way just yet.

 

Does the EM force always have to be the same? Do the electrons have to have always equally large entourage of the force-carrying virtual photons? What if dark matter particles can interact electromagnetically on much greater distances, than our particles? Would it make them non-interactive, except among themselves? 
To me it seems to be the case. I don't know if that's mathematically possible or whatever, but denying DM any EM interactions whatsoever seems too radical and does not match my observations.

There must be some sort of interaction, which at the very least takes place in complex living organisms, otherwise people like me wouldn't have any perception of such things. If it's not through EM force I'd be very surprised, but able to accept some other explanation. 

 

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
 Another thought is based on Kirlian photography. Explanations for that have been proposed over time but in all honesty, none of them are fully satisfying. Why do coins have an aura? Why can you take a pic of a leaf, rip it in half and take another and see the missing part in the second image?

Really, it is obvious that we don't know everything. In theory, we can't ever know everything. That being said, grabbing the latest and greatest on the cutting edge of science and saying that even though it is only at the hypothesis stage, it proves that you are automatically correct is a clear abuse of the scientific process.

 

We don't need to know everything. We only need to search for answers why these are these phenomena (observed by people like Wilhelm Reich, Semjon Kirlian and countless others who used similar technology or physical perception) so similar both to old descriptions of etheric body and new research of dark matter. 

We need to put together various information even from subjective sources, because if this kind of matter participates on our living processes, then even our bodily perception may be a very relevant instrument of detection. (after due training, of course) It would also mean that searching for measurable and interacting dark matter in empty, lifeless spaces is meaningless. What if better chances are with detection in or around trained individuals? 

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

Well, by it's very nature, dark matter does not interact with regular matter electromagnetically. If it did, it would absorb and re-emit EM energy. Then it would not be dark.

 

Allow me to go into a bit more detail.

 

In theory, we should be able to estimate the mass of a galaxy by observing how it rotates. The center of a galaxy should rotate much faster than the edge. The difference in rotational speeds should allow you to calculate the mass.

 

As a check on that, we should also be able to come up with a mass estimate based on the average size of stars and the average distance between them. However, the two numbers never match up. In fact, the estimate from rotation comes up about 400 times the number from star counts. Also, the rotational data shows that stars at the edge of galaxies are actually rotating so fast that the galaxies would tear themselves apart unless the galaxies are embedded in a cloud of external matter that can't be seen.

 

In addition, we also see an effect known as gravitational lensing. From General relativity, we know that a large mass can bend the path of light from what would otherwise be a straight line. Now in some clusters of galaxies, we can see that the light from galaxies further away still is lensed far more than any calculation of the masses of the clustered galaxies could account for. It is as if there is some large and invisible mass resident in the cluster which is doing the job.

 

As I said above, whatever that is, the light is shining through it bu not interacting with it in any way. If there was any kind of interaction, whatever the mass is would heat up and begin to glow on it's own.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

 

Well, by it's very nature, dark matter does not interact with regular matter electromagnetically. If it did, it would absorb and re-emit EM energy. Then it would not be dark.

Allow me to go into a bit more detail.

In theory, we should be able to estimate the mass of a galaxy by observing how it rotates. The center of a galaxy should rotate much faster than the edge. The difference in rotational speeds should allow you to calculate the mass.

As a check on that, we should also be able to come up with a mass estimate based on the average size of stars and the average distance between them. However, the two numbers never match up. In fact, the estimate from rotation comes up about 400 times the number from star counts. Also, the rotational data shows that stars at the edge of galaxies are actually rotating so fast that the galaxies would tear themselves apart unless the galaxies are embedded in a cloud of external matter that can't be seen.

In addition, we also see an effect known as gravitational lensing. From General relativity, we know that a large mass can bend the path of light from what would otherwise be a straight line. Now in some clusters of galaxies, we can see that the light from galaxies further away still is lensed far more than any calculation of the masses of the clustered galaxies could account for. It is as if there is some large and invisible mass resident in the cluster which is doing the job.

 

As I said above, whatever that is, the light is shining through it bu not interacting with it in any way. If there was any kind of interaction, whatever the mass is would heat up and begin to glow on it's own.

Yes, but there is a lot of unidentified radiation in space that needs a mother. ARCADE experiment detected excessive radio waves. WMAP haze is in return a mysterious microwave radiation. And to make DM more real to you, looks like it was detected that it can collide with nucleus of our particles. 
To me it looks like the definition of dark matter as aloof and inert phenomenon no longer fits. 

Perhaps the best modern source on etheric world is Benjamin Creme. He's an etheric sensitive like me, only probably much more. Creme describes, as he succesfully felt the orgone in orgone accumulator. (theoretically I too should be able to distinguish a charged orgone battery from a fake model) Creme writes quite a lot about the dark matter, orgone, etheric world, etheric body, Reich and the related topics. (he directly stated that the ARCADE experiment detected two higher etheric levels of four, the same thing that Reich discovered)

If you're interested in the subject, there's a lot of information to be found when you search the term on the magazine website. You can of course take it as a cultural study, but keep in mind that here the subjective bodily instrument may be the best thing we have right now to detect the objective etheric or dark matter, as I already stated. 

Apparently, the major theme of Creme's writings is, that the higher planes, including etheric world are much more friendly to life and highly inhabited. Another major principle is, that our dense-physical world is the world of effects, not causes, which come from higher planes. Another theme is, that nuclear fission makes impact on etheric levels also and in return, ravages the health of humanity. (which should be another entry point for scientific etheric studies)  When you realize these general themes, it should make more sense. There are of course more principles described (like whole planets and suns that exist in etheric matter only) which are interesting to compare with new scientific discoveries. 

 

Q. When will humanity begin to recognize the fact of etheric matter?
A. Very soon. Already our scientists – especially those working in the field of astronomy – have become aware of some kind of matter which they do not understand. They know it is there. Their calculations tell them it is there but they cannot see or experiment with it. They call it ‘dark matter’. That so-called dark matter is in fact the etheric levels of matter.

Q. When will this take place?
A. If they opened one of the books of the esoteric teachings written by Madam Blavatsky, Alice Bailey, Helena Roerich or even myself, and read enough about matter and the state of the etheric physical planes they could have the answer in one afternoon. Instead, they build a huge cyclotron which took 25 years to build and cost millions to make in order to prove the reality of dark matter.

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
 I recently stumbled upon

 I recently stumbled upon Miroslav Provod's website, which is pretty much the same research as Prof. James DeMeo, in the field of orgonomy. His approach is focused on the etheric aspect of static electricity and it is also interesting from the electrotechnic point of view. It's another practical, hands-on approach to the research, more evidence that there is something about it.

 

I still keep with the etheric body theory, supported by research of scientists like Prof. James DeMeoMiroslav ProvodHarry Oldfield and my daily observations. The mystery is though the way how etheric body interacts with our dense matter. Etheric levels of matter seem to have a lot in common with special properties of static electricity and atmospheric phenomena. 
DeMeo's Experimental life-energy field meter is based on the ability of etheric body or field to absorb a weak "displacement current" field, projected by the attached electrode. The greater absorbtion, the greater and stronger is the etheric aura and the greater vitality the person or object has. 

The idea is, that the etheric body is the greater vehicle of consciousness, vitality and sensoric perception than the dense body itself. The dense body is a precipitation of the etheric body, the cells follow etheric body in their growth, but the body is also vitally dependent on etheric vitality. There seems to be an electro-magnetic interaction between the two. Or rather, the line between the etheric and dense world is blurry, when it comes to electric fields, static charges, light and basic or exotic particles. The dark matter may be electro-magnetically interacting after all, just not the way we thought. Some already existing phenomena may instead be attributed to it, like the already mentioned anomalous space radiation. 

When a person is capable of etheric perception (here I mean touch, not sight) I don't think that the awareness or sensoric perception must be received by the brain from its etheric counterpart only. The etheric body underlies all nerve system, it might be able to inject impules of perception directly into neurons. A simple test on a sensitive person should reveal if the nerve pathways in body are used, or the etheric double somehow feeds the perception directly into homunculi areas in brain.

Frankly, I'm not sure if this interaction is basic enough to be called quantum level. After all, it occurs on the large scale of whole body. But every atom has its etheric component, though smaller than living things.
This is remarkable due to nuclear fission, where this etheric double of an atom is released in form of dangerous etheric radiation with extremely long distance effects and eventually poisons less or more the whole planet. The result is a great increase in neural degenerative diseases like Alzheimer's and decrease in immunity. But James DeMeo and other scientists independently observing nuclear tests are not the only ones who noticed.

British esotericist Benjamin Creme describes the effect of nuclear explosions on planetary ethers:

In the late 1940s, through a study of Wilhelm Reich's work (1897-1957) (see photo), and the use of the orgone accumulator, I became consciously aware of, and extremely sensitive to, energy currents; so much so that eventually I could tell when an atomic bomb had been exploded in the Pacific or wherever. Across these thousands of miles, I registered the shift in the etheric currents caused by the explosions. Inevitably, a day or two later, would come the report that America, Russia, or Britain had tested a "device" of such and such a size. 

 

But as for other things, I have recently performed an experiment on a girl I know. My favorite kind of experiment Smiling It was the same simple experiment as some years before, which was also succesful. I took both her hands into mine. I concentrated and poured energy into her, through hands, auras, heart centre, etc... As for technical details, last time I just poured the energy in by force and the subject got herself a vertigo. This time I used heart chakra and specially the energy carrying emotion of love, this technique is easy to use without getting exhausted myself. Normally it's used for support and healing. 

In a moment, the subject (a cute girl) started smiling with closed eyes. I initially thought nothing is happening to her and she thinks the situation is funny, or something. So I asked her why she doesn't feel anything, or does she? She said yes, with ecstatic look in her face and shining eyes. So I continued for a couple of minutes and then tried to get some answers out of her. She said it was beautiful, but she never felt something like this before, so she couldn't describe it. She said only, "I'd like to learn how to do this." I suspect some emotion was felt (or maybe sexual arousal?), due to the different energy used. Orgone isn't called orgone for nothing.

Well, could I go to claim Randi's million of dollars with that? Smiling Get me a few honest and curious skeptical chicks as subjects or in the worst case, lend me your own hairy paws yourself and we'll see how sensitive are you to the etheric energies.
If not, well, I'll have something to impress girls at the bar Sticking out tongue

 

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.