Mayan Elders view of 5-6 hrs before 2012 and just after

So is anyone willing to try and find any science behind this? I have found lots of stuff but it's going to take quite some time to piece it together... Help would be great!

I found some great info on the cosmic dust from the following gent:
www.etheric.com...

Also torsion waves (possibly part of the superwave that LaViolette writes about)
www.rexresearch.com...

Some more research on torsion waves
www.rexresearch.com...

Good info on DNA, and how it can change through stimulus
www.rexresearch.com...

New England Journal of science discussion about aids in child which subsequently dissapeared
www.nejm.org...

Also I'm not sure if you have heard of the interesting research about Cygnus X-3. I can't remember the paper that I read but if anyone has it, it talks about cosmic rays from Cygnus X-3 which accelerated human evolution during the last Ice Age.

reply to post by Reflections


I will take a look at the other items later, but torsion waves are fake.

Torsion Field - wikipedia

The torsion field concept was conceived in the Soviet Union by a group of physicists in the 1980s. The group, led by Anatoly Akimov and Gennady Shipov, began the research as the state-sponsored Center for Nontraditional Technologies, but was disbanded in 1991 when their research was exposed as a fraud and an embezzlement of State funding

Not only is it baloney, but its old baloney.

reply to post by Reflections


The DNA site is great junk. I love that the most outrageous claims are made without reference. The DNA creating magnetized wormholes is stunningly funny.

The Russian scientists also found out that our DNA can cause disturbing patterns in the vacuum, thus producing magnetized wormholes!

There used to be a form of comedy called double speak(not the 1984 type) in which the person would go from English to nonsense words and back to English without a break in tempo. This is modern double speak. Cleverly funny.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Reflections

 

I will take a look at the other items later, but torsion waves are fake.

Torsion Field - wikipedia

The torsion field concept was conceived in the Soviet Union by a group of physicists in the 1980s. The group, led by Anatoly Akimov and Gennady Shipov, began the research as the state-sponsored Center for Nontraditional Technologies, but was disbanded in 1991 when their research was exposed as a fraud and an embezzlement of State funding

Not only is it baloney, but its old baloney.

You are relying on wiki for accurate information? I'm not sure that wiki is completely accurate, i could go in and change that information and then repost the link so it would say whatever I would like it to say.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Reflections

 

I will take a look at the other items later, but torsion waves are fake.

Torsion Field - wikipedia

The torsion field concept was conceived in the Soviet Union by a group of physicists in the 1980s. The group, led by Anatoly Akimov and Gennady Shipov, began the research as the state-sponsored Center for Nontraditional Technologies, but was disbanded in 1991 when their research was exposed as a fraud and an embezzlement of State funding

Not only is it baloney, but its old baloney.

Maybe you should read up on torsion waves my friend, the principle are used everywhere in todays world.

amasci.com...

From CERN:

A gedanken experiment with this gravitational-torsion wave hitting a ring of spinless particles is proposed which allows us to estimate the contortion of the Earth by making use of data from LISA GW detector.
cdsweb.cern.ch...

If they are referring to torsion waves, I think they are more likely to be trusted than your opinion, I'm sorry to say.
Is there any chance that you can stop saying everything is fake and try to help find other pieces of the puzzle to piece together something that is slightly more coherent than what we already know?

In my view, I'm really not that interested in you trying to debunk any of this, because it's obvious in almost all of your posts that's what you try and do. If you wish to do that, cool keep doing it. I've asked for assistance in research, not your opinion.

I'm interested in finding things that are obviously not in mainstream media, obviously going to be called fraud for various reasons, obviously going to be debunked by any one who likes to believe that what science (mainstream science) tells us is fact and nothing else.

I'll ask for your help here and now, try to understand how DNA works, then read that whole article instead of posting your opinion after a few seconds of reading and let me know what parts you think are true, maybe not what parts you think are fake.

I would like to see what you come up with. I appreciate you taking the time to look at the links I posted, but I see a repeat behaviour from you on many posts, so I'm not sure if this is just your knee-jurk reaction, therefore I am inclined to think that you do this because of your own internal conditioning upon yourself. If you would like to chat more about this, please pm me, I'll be happy to explain.

reply to post by Reflections


The way CERN is referring to torsion is the way physics actually uses the term torsion. It refers to the twisting of an object. Thus, a torsion-gravitational wave is a gravitational wave that is twisting. The torsion wave that you are referring to is physically impossible. It literally goes against the laws of physics.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


Could you explain exactly how?

reply to post by Reflections


So you would falsify the wiki by overlooking the articles referenced in the wiki? I doubt you would.

reply to post by Reflections


While it's been a while since I've done research into Torsion fields I can tell you right now that for them to be real they have to ignore Newton's 3rd Law. I believe this site might answer some of your questions. Please ignore any parts where the grammar is kind of iffy or there are some words you don't understand. The original article is in Russian.

Torsio n Myths

reply to post by Reflections

Maybe you should read up on torsion waves my friend, the principle are used everywhere in todays world.

That is the essence of the hoax. You use real words, but in absurd ways to mollify people into thinking it is real. The pseudosciences have been doing that over a century. The words harmonic, vibration, frequency, energy, etc. are freely used to pretend correctness. Here are some more: photon belt, veridical, projection, field, manifold, ...

reply to post by stereologist


Ok Thanks for your opinion, but to every one else on the thread, just remember neither my view or stereologist's view maybe correct. please read the links and make up your own mind, don't be tainted by my bias or stereologist's.

reply to post by Reflections


If a website set ground rules that are preposterous, then there is no use in proceeding.

For example, suppose that I claim 1 is equal to 2. I can prove that right here.

Let a = b
multiply both sides by a
a^2 = ab
subtract b^2 from both sides
a^2-b^2 = ab-b^2
factor both sides
(a-b)(a+b) = b(a-b)
cancel the (a-b) from both sides
a+b = b
now substitute a = b
b+b = b
2b = b
divide by b
2 = 1

There I did it. I proved 2 = 1.

Anything I do with that result is likely to be as stupid as the proof I just used.

So if a site makes asinine claims like chemicals producing wormholes, magnetized or not, you have to think that this is a hoax don't you? No one has ever claimed to observe a wormhole. It's a hypothetical construct. Yet the site claims right up front they have observed them. Heard of anyone handing out Nobel prizes for the wormhole discovery? I certainly have not heard of it.

reply to post by stereologist


Refer to my second post after you replied on this page. The paragraphs under the last quote.

reply to post by Reflections


So your thinking is that no matter how outrageous a claim is it must have some validity because it is in print.

At a scientific meeting there was a discussion on how to measure objects in a microscope. There were 3 opinions on how to do it. The 3 did not produce the same result. Which is correct? That's where peer review comes in. Even in a simple question as to what is measurable and how to measure it there needs to be a consensus. These 3 came to the decision that 1 person was correct. The other 2 decided that although what they had done was wrong, it wasn't wrong enough to invalidate their studies.

In choosing to think that there is any validity to the torsion field claims is to think that the peer review process that has deemed these claims as false has failed. Not true. The scientific process recognizes that current understandings are possibly flawed. It is a self correcting system. Are torsion waves valid? Not at all.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by Reflections

 

While it's been a while since I've done research into Torsion fields I can tell you right now that for them to be real they have to ignore Newton's 3rd Law. I believe this site might answer some of your questions. Please ignore any parts where the grammar is kind of iffy or there are some words you don't understand. The original article is in Russian.

Torsio n Myths

Thanks for the link, it looks interesting, reading it now.

Also Stereologist, could you tell me how quantum physics explains the non-locality coherence of particles that have shared the same state? It seems that there is a possibility for a torsion field which could support faster than light phenomenon. You see, I could automatically jump on that and say - yes it's a fraud. But that would limit my potential understanding or possible outcome, this is the same as when quantum physicists carry out measurements with a certain outcome in their mind, it would effect the outcome of the test, so to answer you question, I could say Fraud! Hoax! But I'm willing to look at the studies, find others that have done the same, try and understand the mechanics behind it, see if it fits with theories today, or see if it fits with unproven theories, as you see there are many theories today that would seem absurd 100 years ago and I'm willing to give it an open mind for beneficial purposes. This is not saying that I believe everything I read, and I think you can understand that. However, I do find it not very polite of you to slander me, on how I use my terms. I study frequenices, as I must - it's part of my job. I have never suggested in my writings that I am trying to hoodwink some here, refer to my original post on page one.

And just to refer to your statement on the DNA page, you are saying that all of these references materials are falsifying data?

Adleman L.M. 1994, Molecular Computation of Solutions to Combinatorial Problems, Science, 266, 11th November 1021-1024.

Allison S.A., Sorlie S., Pecora R., 1990, Macromolecules, v.23, 1110-1118.

Anandan J. 1992, The geometric phase, Nature, 360, 26, 307-313

Binz E. Schempp W. 2000a Creating Magnetic Resonance Images, Proceedings CASYS'99, International Journal of Computing Anticipatory Systems, 7, 223-232.

Binz E. Schempp W. 2000b, A Unitary Parallel Filter Bank Approach to Magnetic Resonance Tomography, American Institute of Physics Proceedings 517 of the 3rd International Conference on Computing Anticipatory System, editor Dubois D. August 9-14, 1999, Liege, Belgium, 406-416.

Binz E., Schempp W. 1999, Quantum Teleportation and Spin Echo, Unitary Symplectic Spinor Approach. In. Aspects of Complex Analysis, Differential Geometry, Mathematical Physics and Applications, Dimiev S. Sekigawa K. editors, World Scientific, 314-365.

Bouwmeester D. et al., 1997, Experimental Quantum Teleportation, Nature, 390, 11th December 575-579

Clement B.E.P. Coveney P.V. Marcer P. 1993, Surreal numbers and optimal encodings for universal computation as a physical process: an interpretation of the genetic code. CCAI Journal, 10, 1/2, 149-164.

Clement B.E.P. Coveney P.V, Jessel M. and Marcer P. 1999, The Brain as a Huygens' Machine. Informatica 23, 389-398.

Denschlag J. et al, 2000, Generating Solitons by Phase Engineering of a Bose-Einstein Condensate, Science, 287, 7th January, 97-101

Dubois D., 1992, The Fractal Machine, Liege University Press, Liege.

de Duve, C. 1984 A Guide Tour of the Living Cell, volume two, Scientific American Library,

Fatmi H.A. and Resconi G. 1988, A New Computing Principle, Il Nuovo Cimento, 101B, 2, 239-242.

Fatmi H.A., Jessel M., Marcer P.and Resconi G. 1990, Theory of Cybernetic and Intelligent Machine based on Lie Commutator. International Journal of General Systems, 16, 123-164.

Fermi E., 1972, Proceedings. Moscow. Science. v.11.

Gariaev P.P., Junin A.M., 1989, Energy, no10, 46-52. [in Russian]

Gariaev P.P., Chudin V.I., Komissarov G.G., Berezin A.A., Vasiliev A.A., 1991, Proc. SPIE, v.1621, 280-291.

Gariaev P.P, 1994, Wave genome, Public Profit. Moscow. 279 pages [in Russian].

Gurwitsch A., 1923, Versuch einer synthetishen Biologie. Schaxels Abh. Z. theor. Biol. H. 17.

Ho M-W, 1993, The Rainbow and the Worm: The Physics of Organisms, World Scientific, Singapore.

Jessel M. 1954, Une formulation analytique du principe de Huygens, Comptes Rendus, 239, 1599-1601.

Marcer P. 1992, Designing New Intelligent Machines - The Huygens' Machine, CCAI

Journal for the Integrated Study of Artificial Intelligence and Applied Epistemology, 9,4, 373-392. 4, 373-392.

Marcer P. 2000, Hypercomputation, Third International Conference on Computing Anticipatory Systems, CASYS '99, Liege, Symposium 9 on Quantum Neural Information Processing, Journal of Computing Anticipatory Systems, ed. Dubois D., vol. 7, 288-312.

Marcer P. this volume, Quantum Millennium, Quantum Universe, Quantum Biosphere, Quantum Man.

Marcer P. (in press) Anticipation and Meaning, CASYS 2000, International Conference on Computing Anticipatory Systems, AIP Conference Proceedings, ed Dubois D.

Marcer P. and Schempp W., 1996, A Mathematically Specified Template For DNA And The Genetic Code, In Terms Of The Physically Realizable Processes Of Quantum Holography, Proceedings of the Greenwich Symposium on Living Computers, editors Fedorec A. and Marcer P., 45-62.

Marcer P., Schempp W. 1997, Model of the Neuron working by Quantum Holography, Informatica 21, 5 19-534.

Marcer P and Schempp W., 1997a, The Model of the Prokaryote cell as an Anticipatory System Working by Quantum Holography, Proceedings of CASYS 97, 11-15, August, HEC-Liege, Belgium, International Journal of Computing Anticipatory Systems, v.2, 307-315.

Marcer P., Schempp W. 1998, The brain as a conscious system, International Journal of General Systems, 27, 1/3, 231-248.

Maslow M.U., Gariaev P.P., Fractal Presentation of Natural Language Texts and Genetic Code, 2nd International Conference on Quantitative Linguistics", QUALICO '94, Moscow, September 20-24, 193-194, 1994

Patel A. 2000, Quantum Algorithms and the Genetic Code, Proceedings of the Winter Institute of Quantum Theory and Quantum Optics, 1-13 January, S.N. Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta, India.

Perez J-C, 1991, De l'ordre et du chaos dans l'ADN, Science et Technology, April, 36, 40-47.

Pribram K.H. 1991, Brain and Perception; Holonomy and Structure in Figural Processing, Lawrence Eribaum Associates, New Jersey.

Popp F.A., 2000, Some features of biophotons and their interpretation in terms of coherent states. Biophotonics and Coherent Systems. Proc. 2nd A.Gurwitsch Conference and Additional Contributions. Moscow University Press. Ed. L.Beloussov et al., 117-133.

Resta R., 1997, Polarization as a Berry Phase,(The Berry Phase), Europhysics News, 28,19

Rice S.A. 1992, New Ideas for Guiding the Evolution of a Quantum System, Science, 258, 16th October, 412-413.

Schempp W. 1986, Harmonic Analysis on the Heisenberg Group with Applications in Signal Theory, Pitman Notes in Mathematics Series, 14, Longman Scientific and Technical, London.

Schempp W. 1992, Quantum holography and Neurocomputer Architectures, Journal of Mathematical Imaging and Vision, 2, 279-326.

Schempp W., 1993, Bohr's Indeterminacy Principle In Quantum Holography, Self-adaptive Neural Network Architectures, Cortical Self-organization, Molecular Computers, Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Solitonic Nanotechnology, Nanobiology 2, 109-164.

Schempp W. 1998, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Mathematical Foundations and Applications, John Wiley, New York.

Scherbak V.I., 1988, J. Theor. Biol., v.132, 121-124.

Schleich W.P. 1999, Sculpting a Wavepacket, Nature, 397, 21st January, 207-208.

Sudbery T. 1997, The Fastest Way from A to B., Nature, 390, 11th December,551-552

Sutherland J. 1999, Holographic/Quantum Neural Technology, Systems and Applications, an ANDCorporation documented plenary presentation for the 3rd International Conference on Computing Anticipatory Systems, 8-14 August, HEC Liege, Belgium. International Journal of Computing Anticipatory System, 2000, 7, 313-334, [email protected]. and www.andcorporation.com....

Von Neumann J. 1966, Theory of A Self-reproducing Automaton, University of Illinois Press, Urbana and London.

reply to post by Reflections


I did not slander you. I did not state that the use of any particular was the absolute sign of a hoax. Take frequency. I need to know the frequency of certain things to complete my job. I need to know the frequency of certain sampling protocols to compute answers. So frequency or the use of other terms does not mean fraud. It is used improperly to perpetrate frauds, but use of the term does not constitute a fraud.

The problem with these fringe issues is that they are outright frauds or discard issues. They don't get back in the mainstream of science. You might point out that the world is 4.6B years old. That might have been incredible to consider 150 years ago. Look at the book The Time Machine. The time traveler goes 35M years into the future and sees the end of the sun. The book was written in 1895. In 1896 Becquerel discovers radiation. So sure, the estimated life time of the sun was off because of the lack of understanding of nuclear processes. But no one is going to revert to the 35My estimate. No one is going to accept continental drift after plate tectonics was worked out. No one is using the Greek concept of impetus. No one is going to use phlogiston ideas. We move forward. Torsion waves are a claim of the past.

And just to refer to your statement on the DNA page, you are saying that all of these references materials are falsifying data?

No. I said that the most outrageous claims are not referenced. Do you see any references to DNA creating wormholes? Of course not.

The use of references here is like the references on biblical sites. The references do not address the claims made on the page.

Originally posted by stereologist

And just to refer to your statement on the DNA page, you are saying that all of these references materials are falsifying data?

No. I said that the most outrageous claims are not referenced. Do you see any references to DNA creating wormholes? Of course not.

The use of references here is like the references on biblical sites. The references do not address the claims made on the page.

Anyway, enough with us arguing, is there anything that we can productively do to find the science (if there is any) in Drunvalo's information?

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by Reflections

 

The way CERN is referring to torsion is the way physics actually uses the term torsion. It refers to the twisting of an object. Thus, a torsion-gravitational wave is a gravitational wave that is twisting. The torsion wave that you are referring to is physically impossible. It literally goes against the laws of physics.

Ok so you claim this fact about newton's third law and this gravitational wave that is twisting has nothing to do with Torsion waves and you haven't done research on torsion waves for a while. The link from the Russian website was pretty vague, explaining what is and isn't pseudo science. So could you explain to me how Torsion waves (not torsion field) are not real? How does this go against newton's 3rd law?

If this guy is from Guatemala, why is the video shot in the US? It's somewhere near the Mogollon rim. Look it up if you don't know where that is.

He claims a pole shift. That is demonstrably false. So how can he claim that a nonexistent event is connected to a consciousness shift? He can't. It's bunk. Then he claims that an EM is crystallized. What malarkey! A crystal is a material structure. An EM field is energy. The two are not related.

He's a huckster. He's way below the level of Harold Hill. In the end Hill was honest.