Nassim Haramein's Delegate Program

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Another thing that struck me about the Rogue Valley lecture was the part about the process of "renormalization" in physics.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
This is just the tip of the non-intuitive iceberg of the quantum world. . . .

I believe that you have missed my point.

My point is about mainstream physics and how ridiculous renormalization is in the scenario described.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I believe that you have missed my point.

My point is about mainstream physics and how ridiculous renormalization is in the scenario described.

No I think I got your point exactly. Why is that any more bizarre than other concepts in quantum mechanics like the wave/particle duality of an electron? Or how can a single electron be two different places at the same time (as in the double slit experiment)? Almost nothing about quantum mechanics satisfies our logical sensibilities as we are used to observing the macro world, but it makes great predictions. If renormalization works and makes good predictions, I'm not sure why it's more bizarre than other aspects of quantum theory which also make good predictions but don't make sense to our macro senses.

The following quote has been attributed to a prominent quantum physicist, Richard Feynman: "Anyone who thinks they understand quantum mechanics doesn't understand quantum mechanics". And he probably knew the topic as well as anybody in his day. And as I said it's just a model to make predictions in my view, it doesn't imply we understand the underlying causes of the observations.

[edit on 4-7-2010 by Arbitrageur]

Originally posted by Mary Rose
First you ridicule the statement that a unified theory should incorporate more than physics.

Then you go on to agree with the statement.

No, I never agreed with Haramein's statement, I still ridicule it. I noticed you didn't answer my question about where we find 1.618 in the leafy sea dragon.

Your statement on the other hand has merit to the extent that it implies that other sciences like biology, chemistry, etc, have a foundation in physics. One way of looking at it is that "physics" describes the natural wold at its most basic level, and disciplines like chemistry and biology are really more specialized branches of physics. So of course anything that affects physics like a unified field theory will possibly have implications for chemistry and biology also.

Do you understand how the form of the molecule can be directly affected by physical laws but the form of the organism is directly affected by base pair sequence? What you seemed to perceive as an apparent conflict, really isn't, because the form of the DNA molecule and the form of the organism are two different things, as evidenced by the fact that DNA molecules have similar forms while organisms have different forms.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Nassim said that in the late 1880s we figured out that atoms have electrons.

As is typical of Nassim, that jerk put this foot in his own mouth once again.

The crazy electron keeps on going around in circles around the nucleus of the atom.

1911 is the date, not 1880 (of course the ignorami can't even use Google, - graciously given to them by the caste of the Knowledgeable.)

If you take current natural laws that were written by Newton, the laws of entropy, the electron should radiate all its energy within seconds of the big bang, crash onto the nucleus, and all atoms should have been eliminated.

...and the ignorami also have a huge problem controlling their thought process or what's left of it. Do yourself a favor and use Google or Wiki. Do I really need to say that? Nuclei weren't even created "within seconds" of the Big Bang. Why do you insists on posting nonsense?

So, when the negatively charged electron was found spinning around a positively charged nucleus, at near the speed of light, there was a large conceptual problem.

The only problem here is the perpetual lack of knowledge on you part. To illustrate this painful condition, the electron in a hydrogen atom travels at only 1/137 of the speed of light (roughly). It's one percent. It's one percent. It's one percent. It's one percent. Did I say it's one percent? Hmm.. Do you know what a percent is? Didn't think so.

Quantum physicists saw that protons were all bunched together in the middle of the atom, and the question of how positively charged particles would stick together when they should be repelling each other had to be resolved. They resolved it by creating a brand new force: the strong force. They didn't explain where it came from.

Did they ever "EXPLAIN" to you where the Coulomb force came from? And oh yeah, the Rutherford model -- did it fail?

The largest error in current physics is that they can't deal with singularity so they make it like it's not there.

Actually, I'm coming to like grand pronouncements from people who never did even a semester of problems in quantum mechanics, who struggle to enlighten the rest of us (who did) about the grave problems in physics. It's like a 12 year old in Saudi Arabia who smuggled a couple of Penthouse magazines into his bedroom and proceeds to tutor an Austrian doctor in the art of gynecology.

That's one way of dealing with things one doesn't know how to cope with or explain.

Oh, there are many ways to expose your ignorance and the arrogance that you cultivate to go with that primary characteristics.


[edit on 4-7-2010 by buddhasystem]

--double
post--

[edit on 5-7-2010 by buddhasystem]

Originally posted by beebs
How very fitting that you should use this metaphor as an insult. And yet you shy away from addressing Zero Point Energy. Why is that?

I am reading a .pdf online entitled The Unturned Stone By Harry Massey and Peter Fraser. This book is about the quantum electromagnetic body field and how it relates to healing.

I just came to a passage that made me think of Beebs' posts about Zero Point Energy:

Chapter 2: Information Theory and the Zero Point Field

"To the powerful theories of chemistry and physics must be added a late arrival: a theory of information. Nature must be interpreted as matter, energy, and information."
- Jeremy Campbell, Grammatical Man

The first paradigm shift in the modern understanding of reality occurred when Newtonian physics was modified by Einstein's theory of relativity. Newton saw nature as consisting of many related physical objects in motion. Newtonian physics emphasized entities rather than organization, and local systems rather than their relation to the total field.

In the early 1900's, Nobel Prize~winners Max Planck, Albert Einstein, Louis de Broglie and others startled the scientific world with their discoveries regarding energy. In 1925, de Broglie postulated that the electron, which moves about a positively-charged nucleus in an atom, is not a "particle" but is a nonmaterial "wave." That meant that matter, when reduced to its smallest component, was only energy and that everything in the universe was a state of energy, including the human body.

Einstein showed that the behaviour of a particle is not independent of the field, but is conditioned and determined by it. Field physics recognizes the existence of many fields that contain particles that interact with each other. These range from the tiny gravitational fields within atoms to the vast ones of planetary systems. The Nobel Prize-winning English mathematician Paul Dirac pioneered the first known specimen of a quantum field theory. According to this theory, particles cannot be separated from the surrounding space, which constitutes a continuous field including all of material existence. Matter and light have both particle properties and wave or field properties. Particles are merely condensations in the field, rather like chunks of ice formed in an ocean of waves. Since the work of Dirac, the dual nature of light as wave and particle has been free of paradox for those that can follow the mathematics. Richard Feynman, another Nobel Prize winner, and others expanded on Dirac's work to create the theory of quantum electrodynamics (QED). This describes the interaction of light and matter with remarkable accuracy, and it is these field effects that led Peter Fraser to his revolutionary understanding of the human body-field.

Another paradigm shift has now occurred, once again startling the scientific world --information theory and the concept of the "Zero Point Field." The Zero Point Field is an underlying sea of energy that pervades all of existence. These concepts have formed the basis for new discoveries that have rocked the U.S. Patent Office and major journals including Science, Scientific American and The New York Times. Modern information theory finds at the most basic level of reality neither particles nor waves, only "quantum probability fields" or "information fields," which materialize out of the vacuum whenever we interact with it.

Discovery of the Zero Point Field grew out of speculation concerning the vacuum. According to Dr. Timothy Boyer, writing in Scientific American, in the seventeenth century it was thought that a totally empty volume of space could be created by simply removing all matter, including all gases. Later, in the nineteenth century, it became apparent that this ''vacuum'' actually was not empty but contained thermal radiation, although researchers thought this radiation might be eliminated by cooling, taking the temperature to absolute zero. Since then, however, it has been shown both theoretically and experimentally that there is a non-thermal radiation in the vacuum that persists even if the temperature could be lowered to absolute zero. The ''vacuum'' underlying matter, it seems, is not a vacuum at all but contains particles and waves that spontaneously pop in and out of existence, forming an underlying field.

[edit on 7/5/2010 by Mary Rose]

@Arbitrageur -

Do you also want to bring back the Phlogiston theory?

Nope. But if new evidence turned up I would have to account for it in a new paradigm.

What's WPD stand for?

... Wave Particle Duality... Tell me you haven't been ignoring ZPE as well ... (Zero Point Energy aka vacuum density)

OK where exactly is the 1.618 in this creature, the leafy sea dragon?

Show me where it isn't. That is all I can see. Nature is fractals.

So what gives the leafy sea dragon its shape? It's DNA. And how would a unified field theory affect that? The Unified field theory would conceivably encompass all forces involving the molecular and atomic bonds and interactions regarding DNA and all other organic and inorganic molecules. But it's the DNA of the organism that determines its shape, honed through the process of natural selection and mutations. The unified field theory might help explain things like why the DNA has the form of a double helix shape, but the actual shape of the creature that results from that DNA would not be the direct result of unified field theory, but a result of the sequence of the adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G) and thymine (T) bases in the DNA.

For a reductionist you are not very consistent in your reductionism... You say the UFT can explain the shape of the DNA, but the shape of the DNA can have no effect on the patterns of biology?

The patterns of the ACGT determined through the UFT doesn't correlate in any way to the actual shape of the creature? The cause has no effect on the result? What do you mean by 'the direct result' ... only an indirect result?

I think the structure of DNA is dependent on cymatics from ZPE vibrations. Think of a primordial soup of ACGT that gets vibrated - causing a geometry to form. Makes a hell of a lotta sense to me.

Regarding the raisin bread and inflation... what is inflating... what is the yeast?

It is ZPE or Vacuum density. A field/force/aether. IMO.

No I think I got your point exactly. Why is that any more bizarre than other concepts in quantum mechanics like the wave/particle duality of an electron? Or how can a single electron be two different places at the same time (as in the double slit experiment)? Almost nothing about quantum mechanics satisfies our logical sensibilities as we are used to observing the macro world, but it makes great predictions. If renormalization works and makes good predictions, I'm not sure why it's more bizarre than other aspects of quantum theory which also make good predictions but don't make sense to our macro senses.

Exactly... How to reconcile that with classical particle physics IS TOO CRAZY.

New paradigm must emerge.

For example:

The only problem here is the perpetual lack of knowledge on you part. To illustrate this painful condition, the electron in a hydrogen atom travels at only 1/137 of the speed of light (roughly). It's one percent. It's one percent. It's one percent. It's one percent. Did I say it's one percent? Hmm.. Do you know what a percent is? Didn't think so.

See how this is wrong? How can you measure the speed of a probability cloud. Which is where Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle comes into play with the observer effect.

The 'electron' is not a particle. It is a probability of a wave function manifesting for our observance when we bounce a 'photon'(a level of aether organization, or a stable wave function) off of it.

Electron spinning=classical particle physics.

Which doesn't hold up in QM.

So this conveniently brings us to the brilliant quote that Mary Rose has brought to the discussion, and I quote at length again(read more than once and truly understand... please!):

The first paradigm shift in the modern understanding of reality occurred when Newtonian physics was modified by Einstein's theory of relativity. Newton saw nature as consisting of many related physical objects in motion. Newtonian physics emphasized entities rather than organization, and local systems rather than their relation to the total field.

In the early 1900's, Nobel Prize~winners Max Planck, Albert Einstein, Louis de Broglie and others startled the scientific world with their discoveries regarding energy. In 1925, de Broglie postulated that the electron, which moves about a positively-charged nucleus in an atom, is not a "particle" but is a nonmaterial "wave." That meant that matter, when reduced to its smallest component, was only energy and that everything in the universe was a state of energy, including the human body.

Einstein showed that the behaviour of a particle is not independent of the field, but is conditioned and determined by it. Field physics recognizes the existence of many fields that contain particles that interact with each other. These range from the tiny gravitational fields within atoms to the vast ones of planetary systems. The Nobel Prize-winning English mathematician Paul Dirac pioneered the first known specimen of a quantum field theory. According to this theory, particles cannot be separated from the surrounding space, which constitutes a continuous field including all of material existence. Matter and light have both particle properties and wave or field properties. Particles are merely condensations in the field, rather like chunks of ice formed in an ocean of waves. Since the work of Dirac, the dual nature of light as wave and particle has been free of paradox for those that can follow the mathematics. Richard Feynman, another Nobel Prize winner, and others expanded on Dirac's work to create the theory of quantum electrodynamics (QED). This describes the interaction of light and matter with remarkable accuracy, and it is these field effects that led Peter Fraser to his revolutionary understanding of the human body-field.

Another paradigm shift has now occurred, once again startling the scientific world --information theory and the concept of the "Zero Point Field." The Zero Point Field is an underlying sea of energy that pervades all of existence. These concepts have formed the basis for new discoveries that have rocked the U.S. Patent Office and major journals including Science, Scientific American and The New York Times. Modern information theory finds at the most basic level of reality neither particles nor waves, only "quantum probability fields" or "information fields," which materialize out of the vacuum whenever we interact with it.

Discovery of the Zero Point Field grew out of speculation concerning the vacuum. According to Dr. Timothy Boyer, writing in Scientific American, in the seventeenth century it was thought that a totally empty volume of space could be created by simply removing all matter, including all gases. Later, in the nineteenth century, it became apparent that this ''vacuum'' actually was not empty but contained thermal radiation, although researchers thought this radiation might be eliminated by cooling, taking the temperature to absolute zero. Since then, however, it has been shown both theoretically and experimentally that there is a non-thermal radiation in the vacuum that persists even if the temperature could be lowered to absolute zero. The ''vacuum'' underlying matter, it seems, is not a vacuum at all but contains particles and waves that spontaneously pop in and out of existence, forming an underlying field.

Goodnight and Goodluck.

(just saw that movie BTW)

[edit on 6-7-2010 by beebs]

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I am reading a .pdf online entitled The Unturned Stone By Harry Massey and Peter Fraser. This book is about the quantum electromagnetic body field and how it relates to healing.

I just came to a passage that made me think of Beebs' posts about Zero Point Energy:

You poor dear, I can't even imagine what it must be like to live in your demon-haunted world, you should be reading that Sagan book instead, to learn how to think rationally and separate the meaningful stuff from the malarky.

reply to post by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
. . . it must stand up to scientific scrutiny.

I personally do not trust mainstream scientific scrutiny.

It seems like society has failed you to make you think and say this. Why is it that you don't trust mainstream science?

I don't trust it to be 100% accurate, the history of science is rife with changes based on new observations and evidence. But even if it's not 100% accurate, it seems to be more accurate than anything else that competes with it, that I have seen, including (and especially) Nassim Haramein.

Getting back to that book The Unturned Stone, did you see where the author said this on page 8?

I invite you to review the following list of my physical status while ill:
-......
-Brain function and memory pretty much non-existent"

I regret that anyone should suffer with such severe health problems, and I hope that the author recovers from his non-existent brain function someday, but unfortunately he is still suffering from some lack of brain function as statements such as the following from page 19 indicate:

Holographic phenomena are generated by physicists using a single frequency of coherent or polarized light.

He then goes on to describe the process by which a hologram is made. For a minute I think his brain is functioning until I read this:

The blood also contains holographic qualities

This statement completely contradicts the previous statement he just made about how holograms are formed. He just makes this outrageous claim and then doesn't back it up with a single piece of supporting evidence.

So I'd say he has a ways to go before his brain function is restored to fully-functional from it's non-functional state. He makes a rational comment then follows it with an irrational comment.

He does the same thing in the section on Zero-point energy, making a rational comment on page 13 like

"The Nobel Prize-winning English mathematician Paul Dirac pioneered the first known specimen of quantum field theory."

and then he goes on to make an irrational conclusion on page 14:

"Consciousness, it seems, gives form to reality, rather than the reverse. And in that model, there is suddenly room for prayer, long distance healings, and psychic phenomena".

Personally, I would like to believe in prayer and psychic phenomena, so I don't fault people for wanting to believe these things when I want to believe it myself. But one difference between rational thinking and irrational thinking, is that rational thinkers are forced to abandon the beliefs they would like to have when confronted with evidence those beliefs are false. For example take the Harvard prayer experiment:

The Harvard prayer experiment was a scientific study to qualify and quantity the effects (if any) of prayer to affect people.

With support from the Templeton Foundation, cardiologist Herbert Benson and his colleagues randomly assigned 1802 cardiac bypass patients...

Results
....
Not only did prayer not help the patients, those that were told they were being prayed for experienced more complications.

So being a rational thinker, I'm unfortunately swayed to abandon the hope I had that the power of prayer might be a real effect. I personally would have liked it if the results of this study had come out differently to show that prayer DOES have an effect.

Likewise there is evidence that psychic phenomena are not real, this is something else I would like to believe but the evidence collected from experiments tells me I shouldn't. Now what do believers in paranormal phenomena like phychic phenomena tend to do when presented with evidence their beliefs are false?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur (in another thread)
Confirmation bias

One study showed how selective memory can maintain belief in extrasensory perception (ESP).[29] Believers and disbelievers were each shown descriptions of ESP experiments. Half of each group were told that the experimental results supported the existence of ESP, while the others were told they did not. In a subsequent test, subjects recalled the material accurately, apart from believers who had read the non-supportive evidence. This group remembered significantly less information and some of them incorrectly remembered the results as supporting ESP.

-from Russell, Dan; Warren H. Jones (1980), "When superstition fails: Reactions to disconfirmation of paranormal beliefs", Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (Society for Personality and Social Psychology)

So if you, Beebs, or anyone else are believers in paranormal phenomena, that study shows you might have a tendency to ignore evidence which contradicts your world view. Actually I would still like to believe there's some kind of ESP in spite of all the studies that have shown it's false, so this kind of irrational thinking is something we all have to fight, including myself.

Lastly if you are reading a healing book because you have illness of some kind, I wish you a speedy recovery and the best of health. I've been blessed with good genes and nearly perfect health (I had chickenpox as a kid, and had a few colds and cases of the flu as an adult but not many) so reading books on healing is not normally my thing, I have nothing to heal myself and if I wanted to heal others I'd study medicine, not read a book by a guy who's brain stopped functioning by his own admission.

Actually one of my biggest complaints about modern society is the focus on healing the sick rather than a perspective of wellness, and trying to avoid becoming sick in the first place. I would rather see more of the latter. If we don't get sick there's nothing to worry about healing.

But if I ever did get sick to the point I needed help, I would take advice from a real doctor instead of a faith healer or a quack.

Originally posted by beebs
@Arbitrageur -

Do you also want to bring back the Phlogiston theory?

Nope. But if new evidence turned up I would have to account for it in a new paradigm.

Thank goodness for that, that's actually the way mainstream science works. When we find new evidence to change our views, we change our views in light of the new evidence. That's why we abandoned phlogiston and aether theories.

Naturally when we change our view, we do so because we now think the old view was wrong, but I never understand people who use this to dismiss mainstream science. The latest view based on the latest evidence is the best we've got, even if it's not perfect.

OK where exactly is the 1.618 in this creature, the leafy sea dragon?

Show me where it isn't. That is all I can see. Nature is fractals.

The snout has a ratio of about 3.0, the front and rear projections have ratios ranging from about 3.0 to 9.0, the faux leaves don't have 1.618 ratios, they are all different shapes and sizes. "That is all I can see" What is all you can see? You didn't mention even a single example of 1.618.

For a reductionist you are not very consistent in your reductionism... You say the UFT can explain the shape of the DNA, but the shape of the DNA can have no effect on the patterns of biology?

The patterns of the ACGT determined through the UFT doesn't correlate in any way to the actual shape of the creature? The cause has no effect on the result? What do you mean by 'the direct result' ... only an indirect result?

You know about the double helix shape of DNA right?

Every creature's DNA has the same double-helix shape, right?

And the creatures look different in spite of that, right?

That's what I mean.

Regarding the raisin bread and inflation... what is inflating... what is the yeast?

Well I can show this chart again:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5179db75884a.gif[/atsimg]

That says we are on a galaxy, looking at all the other galaxies moving away from us, just as if we were on a raisin, we'd be looking at all the other raisins moving away from us. So that's the what is inflating.

As for "What's the yeast?", a large part of the answer to that question is, we don't know. Since we can't explain some of our observations we made up a name for the unknown reason called "Dark Energy". Aside from that we think part of the motion might be explained by the big bang. So that's less like yeast and more like setting off a firecracker in the middle of the bread. But the yeast is still unknown.

If you want to learn more about this you can watch Patricia Burchat sheds light on dark matter

Physicist Patricia Burchat sheds light on two basic ingredients of our universe: dark matter and dark energy. Comprising 96% of the universe between them, they can't be directly measured, but their influence is immense.

[edit on 6-7-2010 by Arbitrageur]

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I am reading a .pdf online entitled The Unturned Stone By Harry Massey and Peter Fraser. This book is about the quantum electromagnetic body field and how it relates to healing.

Would the following passage be of help to the discussion?

Nonlocal Information Transfer

For many of the phenomena we have discussed in Section A and in the above examples from the natural world to be possible, instantaneous communication at a distance must take place. A great deal of recent work in physics has shown that this "nonlocal" transfer of information is possible. Simply put, "nonlocal" means that information can somehow be transmitted across space, and time, without any known mechanism (because it must happen faster than the speed of light, which is supposed to the upper limit of motion).

The question of faster-than-light communication really began to be answered when Einstein questioned the fundamental principles of quantum theory in the 1930s. He believed that the quantum theory developed by Bohr and others, now the accepted way of viewing quantum theory, was incomplete and would be improved upon in the future. Along with Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen, in 1935 Einstein proposed a thought experiment that became known as the EPR paradox (after the initials of the three scientists). This questioned quantum theory as it stood and suggested that it implied either action-at-a-distance or faster than light information transfer, both of which these scientists believed to be impossible.

This paradox was neglected for many years, until in 1982 a remarkable experiment was performed in Paris by a research team led by physicist Alain Aspect. This ingenious experiment was based on the EPR paradox and an inequality principle derived by John Bell. The results of this experiment clearly showed that subatomic particles that are far apart are able to "communicate" (in the sense that information about one immediately gave you information about the other, even when the particles were at opposite ends of the universe) in ways that cannot be explained by the transfer of physical signals traveling at, or slower than, the speed of light. Many physicists, including David Bohm, regarded these "nonlocal" connections as absolutely instantaneous.

Bohm and his research student, Yakir Aharonov, had performed an experiment previously in 1959 that supported this view. Now described as the Bohm-Aharonov (AB) effect, they found that in certain circumstances, electrons are able to "feel" the presence of a nearby magnetic field, even though they are travelling in regions of space where the field strength is zero. This is another example of quantum interconnectedness and led Bohm on to his theories regarding implicate order in the world and, by extension, the biological systems present in it.

Another supporter of the implicate order in nature is Benoit Mandelbrot, a professor in mathematics at Yale University. He is largely responsible for the rise in interest in fractal geometry and has shown that fractals are present almost universally in nature. These mathematical functions occur in physics in the description of the extraordinarily complex behaviour of some simple physical systems like the forced pendulum and at the foundations of what is now known as chaotic systems. They also occur in physiology in the growth of mammalian cells, and the differences in broccoli and cauliflower heads can be exactly characterised by fractal theory.

A more recent experiment into quantum entanglement, carried out in 2003, shows that this is still a popular research area. It was reported in June 2003 in New Scientist that researchers in Austria, led by Marcus Aspelmeyer, had successfully sent entangled photons across the river Danube without the use of optical fibres. Quantum entanglement is a property that allows two particles to behave as one, no matter how far apart they are. Measuring the state of one particle instantaneously determines the state of the other, just as proposed in the EPR paradox and validated in the Aspect experiment. Therefore, highly complex scientific evidence is mounting in support of the quantum interconnectedness of the universe.

Sorry maryrose I know its a little off topic, but earlier buddhasystem commented on the verdi scientific pitch being C=256 & A=430, also commenting that he (?) found the info from my own source link. I went on to then correct this apparent error of mine in my own research thread. until today when I rediscover that I was correct about 432 anyway.

just wanted to clarify that

Following Verdi's 1884 efforts to insitutitionalize A=432 in Italy, a British-dominated conference in Vienna in 1885 ruled that no such pitch could be standardized. The French, the New York Metropolitan Opera, and many theatres in Europe and the U.S., continued to maintain their A at 432-435, until World War II.

the 430 is mentioned as used by mozart & the ONLY pitch that old german instruments can be tuned to. and it states that mozart used A=430 when C=256, not that A=432 when C=256 is incorrect, which would suggest mozart WAS incorrect, which is quite easy to accept considering the advancements of available intelligence & knowledge since then.

not meaning to spark any debate..just undoing hasty & erroneous corrections on my part.



by the by, you can see in the above image that 432 is represented & interrelates with the entire matrix, while 430 is not part of it....

-B.M

[edit on 7/7/10 by B.Morrison]

Originally posted by B.Morrison

Following Verdi's 1884 efforts to insitutitionalize A=432 in Italy, a British-dominated conference in Vienna in 1885 ruled that no such pitch could be standardized. The French, the New York Metropolitan Opera, and many theatres in Europe and the U.S., continued to maintain their A at 432-435, until World War II.

the 430 is mentioned as used by mozart & the ONLY pitch that old german instruments can be tuned to.

You got me curious. Have you got a source for that statement? or a source for the quote you quoted?

I know of a few instruments that can't be easily tuned, but I thought most of them could be tuned to 430 just as easily as they could be tuned to 432 Hz? But if you have a source that says otherwise I'd like to read it, I may learn something. I'm no expert in old German instruments.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
You poor dear . . .

For the record, the rest of the post was not worth my time to read. I've learned from experience.

Originally posted by B.Morrison
Sorry maryrose I know its a little off topic, but earlier buddhasystem commented on the verdi scientific pitch being C=256 & A=430, also commenting that he (?) found the info from my own source link. I went on to then correct this apparent error of mine in my own research thread. until today when I rediscover that I was correct about 432 anyway.

Maybe pursuing clarification of this information about sound will turn out to be a piece of the puzzle that is the subject of the thread - the search for a grand unified field theory.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


here you go..

As Pitch in Opera rises, so does debate..

Originally posted by Mary Rose
. . . the search for a grand unified field theory.

"If our universe is expanding, then there must be something that is contracting; there must be a feedback between the expansion and the contraction; the fact that we could start to see an information feedback loop between the radiated side and the contracted side starts to open up a whole new field of physics."

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by B.Morrison

Following Verdi's 1884 efforts to insitutitionalize A=432 in Italy, a British-dominated conference in Vienna in 1885 ruled that no such pitch could be standardized. The French, the New York Metropolitan Opera, and many theatres in Europe and the U.S., continued to maintain their A at 432-435, until World War II.

the 430 is mentioned as used by mozart & the ONLY pitch that old german instruments can be tuned to.

You got me curious. Have you got a source for that statement? or a source for the quote you quoted?

I know of a few instruments that can't be easily tuned, but I thought most of them could be tuned to 430 just as easily as they could be tuned to 432 Hz? But if you have a source that says otherwise I'd like to read it, I may learn something. I'm no expert in old German instruments.

Originally posted by B.Morrison
here you go..
As Pitch in Opera rises, so does debate..

Thanks for the link, I did learn something from it. But I didn't see the part about 430 used by Mozart & the ONLY pitch that old German instruments can be tuned to, nor did I find the quote you cited at that link, did I miss it? I read both pages of that link. Actually the quote sounds reasonable even if I don't know where you got that from, it's the part about 430 being the ONLY pitch that German instruments can be tuned to that I'd really like to learn more about.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
The Unturned Stone By Harry Massey and Peter Fraser.

Nonlocal Information Transfer
. . . Einstein questioned the fundamental principles of quantum theory in the 1930s. He believed that the quantum theory developed by Bohr and others, now the accepted way of viewing quantum theory, was incomplete and would be improved upon in the future. . . . Therefore, highly complex scientific evidence is mounting in support of the quantum interconnectedness of the universe.

Is there agreement that there is mounting scientific support for the quantum interconnectedness of the universe?

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Mary Rose
The Unturned Stone By Harry Massey and Peter Fraser.

Nonlocal Information Transfer
. . . Einstein questioned the fundamental principles of quantum theory in the 1930s. He believed that the quantum theory developed by Bohr and others, now the accepted way of viewing quantum theory, was incomplete and would be improved upon in the future. . . . Therefore, highly complex scientific evidence is mounting in support of the quantum interconnectedness of the universe.

Is there agreement that there is mounting scientific support for the quantum interconnectedness of the universe?

Are there any lurking scientists out there?? I would LOVE to hear from you!

reply to post by Mary Rose

Is there agreement that there is mounting scientific support for the quantum interconnectedness of the universe?

I would say yeah.

Entanglement and String Theory arose to try to explain empirical observations, so its not like they came out of nowhere.

Its just how the interconnectedness is actually working, the dynamic...

The controversy surrounding this topic comes in once you consider the ramifications of this result. Normally under the Copenhagen interpretation, the state a particle occupies is determined the moment the state is measured. However, in an entangled pair when the first particle is measured, the state of the other is known at the same time without measurement, regardless of the separation of the two particles. This knowledge of the second particle's state is at the heart of the debate. If the distance between particles is large enough, information or influence might be traveling faster than the speed of light which violates the principle of special relativity. One experiment that is in agreement with the effect of entanglement "traveling faster than light" was performed in 2008. the experiment found the "speed" of quantum entanglement has a minimum lower bound of 10,000 times the speed of light.[5]

wiki entanglement