I feel like sharing

I submitted a paper to a science journal. Think I should admit to being telepathically linked to someone to the science community by telling you the level of impact I may have?

 

Telepathy. Do go on...

 

Also, what journal?

 

The human heart, when it loves, is capable of connecting to another human heart. When your mind and heart work together, you endure emotional pain from the transgressions of others against you (normally experienced as anger). This causes most children to create, unconsciously, a "chasm" between their hearts and minds or at the very least between their heart and another's. This chasm grows wider the more you engage in activities, such as fornication and "sin", that deaden your heart and emotions; or when others engage in such activities against you and you fail to forgive them.

Unfortunately for me, I was born with an unknown difficulty that makes socializing difficult when I am emotionally distant. In order to socialize and communicate, I must empathize (or subconsciously mimic another's emotions) another in order understand their meaning. Currently, when I get too focused an any specific task, I end up not doing that. Continuously being aware of another's emotions creates a "chaos signature" for that person (as emotions are in a constant unpatterned state of flux, hence "chaos") in your understanding of them. Since people change, any relationships that endures must also facilitate a constant reconnecting between individuals. A soulmate-type relationship is such so that the chaos of each person "dances" with the other's chaos so that even under duress, the connection endures. This means that you endure great positive emotions when the relationship is good and terrible negative emotions when the relationship goes to hell. All because "you can't live without them."

If you maintain a level of self-awareness so that you fully understand what emotions are yours and what emotions are fostered upon you from the outside (consider the nature of temptation), then the connection and relationships you have with those closest to you are elevated to the next level where you become aware of their emotions, especially when their emotions are strong.

When you learn how to pray and listen to God, and you are teaching yourself the rudimentary components of telepathy. The rules that govern prayer also govern how to communicate mind to mind and heart to heart with others. Rules such as "Charity seeks not her own" and God does not hear the prayers of iniquity.

The scriptural basis is Ephesians chapter 5, where it compares the relationship of the spirit-born believer with Jesus to the relationship between husband and wife. Since we communicated telepathically to the Word-made-flesh (John 1), aka Jesus, when we pray in our hearts, a husband and wife can develop the same relationship, especially if both are willing to fulfill the roles that God intended for spouses. But trust me when I say such a relationship is not for the faint-hearted. The other's transgressions against you can create severely negative emotions and they may not even realize that they are transgressing against you. (Who doesn't grow up believing that they are alone within themselves?)

Physical Review Letters @ http://journals.aps.org/

And TDC was trolling me, wasn't he? (But why waste the work?) Strange, isn't it, how the mind changes when you address a different question?

 

Looks like a pretty solid journal, based on the impact factor and the wiki-page (two rather controversial sources in this case, I admit).

 

Impact factors can be bogus though, being based on citations. I heard of one journal on something obscure like microscopy (or, at least, something that's not routinely heavily cited) however in one year they had an article that was ground breaking and cited over 1000 times (whilst practically all their other articles were only cited under 50) leading to an impact factor for that year which rivaled Nature and Science.

I'm sure that's not the case for Physical Review Letters, I thought I'd just chime in with useless information.

 

"not suitable for publication in any APS journal." Damn. They didn't say why, but I figured out the conflict between my theory and modern science; however, if light can be both a particle and a wave, maybe I can find the reconciliation. Or maybe I am just nuts. Can anyone ever really prove that they are sane?

 

With science you need to do experiments and gather evidence and analyse data to support your ideas. You can't just make up a load of stuff and submit it as a theory and expect journals to publish it. What you're doing is philosophy, not science.

 

Microscopy is mighty important. I think I've spent ~75 % of my whole project looking through a microscope. The remaining 25 % is either reading articles (that's a given) or SHOOTING LASERS and then BURNING ELEMENTS IN PLASMA. AAAAAAAH.

@Xyle : How come you picked that specific journal? Own decision or your supervisors's (assuming you have one)?

 

I prefer MALDI for my laser-assisted fun-time personally.

 

Supervisor? Is that what they call advisers in your college? Or did you mean to say that this work-related? God, I wish this was work-related. No, I don't have access to anyone's counsel. This is merely a hobby. The people around me don't even understand me when I try to explain what the problem is: "'Postulate?' What does that mean?" I suppose that is why I made the mistake of trying to get my theory published.

Why that journal? Because the logic seemed compelling enough that I wanted fast dissemination of the theory. I imagined many people taking the idea forward. It is a mathematical basis for what science currently takes to be a lie. Therefore, my "lie" is powerful enough that if I gave it to people who were looking for justification for their belief system (and I can easily find them online), they would swallow it right up. So if it is as false as modern understanding of science believes it, then it is powerful AND dangerous as it would give these people power. There are theories on Wikipedia that indicate that this class of "lie" even hinders scientists. But if my theory is true and our current understanding of General Relativity is wrong, specifically about the part where position can change the order of events, then I probably SHOULD give it those people so that they can at least propagate the idea forward until someone has the ability to prove it. Such is my dilemma: Is it Lie or Truth?

Part of my problem lies in the nature of human mind that is constantly lied to its body with the numerous illusions that it can experience. A flat universe seems to be one such deception. Think about it, the idea of curved space-time that permits two events to occur in a differing order based on where you are in relation to those events would permit a chemical reaction that occurs differently for two different people. This could mean that two different people observing a reaction would see two completely different substances after the reaction is complete! It is little wonder that General Relativity is so impossible to understand. If you don't believe me, I will find and quote the necessary passages from my college textbook that proves General Relativity says this. And that is why theory can't work: objective and subjective realities are NOT equal.

I had an equation! It was new! Isn't theoretical physics philosophy with equations? Anyways, philosophy is more fun.


Wanna hear the theory, now you know how dangerous it is? I can give you a version that is less than 100 words, too. Really easy reading ... assuming you can wrap your mind around it.

 

Lay it on us, you big tease.

 

Reputable peer-reviewed science journals don't publish articles from armchair hobbyists.

Sorry man. You really wouldn't want them to anyway if you thought about it. There are plenty of other places to share these types of compositions if you feel so inclined.

 

I was trolling inasmuch as my present skepticism has eclipsed the remnants of my teenage fascination with psychic phenomena. The intimate understanding of another's feelings that you have described I interpret as sensory perception, some of which occurring at subconscious levels.
The "chaos signature" you mention calls to mind how neurotic people can put calm people on edge with their frenetic energy.
The "dance' you described leads me to believe that people thus telepathically linked are actually sensually attuned to the other's emotional rhythm.

You mentioned being telepathically linked to somebody in the scientific community. Do you have some specific anecdotes to share that would explain why you feel linked? Are you romantically involved with this person?

 

No I didn't. I queried if I should allow the scientific community know about it. {I wrote "to the scientific community" not "in the s.c."}

No doubt, but what about when you are not present with that person and there is an exchange of information?

I haven't seen my soul mate in ... a long time (I am sure I posted more details in earlier threads)... due to contentious issues that I believe are best resolved by a course of action that SHE must take; hence my aforementioned uncertainty as to my sanity.

Creating an emotional impression that she had read this thread, my soulmate reminded me (on Friday morning while I was still struggling with the question as to what direction to take) of the key part of this passage:
"Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree brings forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree brings forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that brings not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." (Matthew 7:16-20)
And so you know by what right a sinner such as myself can be called "good": My righteous is Christ Jesus my Lord. He took ALL of our sins and transgressions upon him when he died on the cross, and his righteousness is testified by his resurrection in that he rose up from the grave. Death only has power over the unrighteous, and all of creation fell under Death's power with Adam's sin because all was under Adam's dominion (even as the body is under the dominion of the soul that gives life to said body). I received Jesus's righteousness when I came under His dominion and was filled with His Holy Spirit, the testament of the relationship between Jesus and the church that I declared comparable to a husband-and-wife's relationship, therefore also telepathic in nature as the believer becomes attuned to Christ and, as that relationship develops, telepathically linked.
(As I obey Christ, so should my wife obey me. As Christ forgives me of my disobedience even so I must forgive my wife of her disobedience. So then where is the requirement that she obey me? If my soulmate, joined to me by God, can be called "wife," where then is the moral requirement that she obey me and become my wife in the eyes of the law? Betrothed or "promised" is a better word than "wife." However, the promise comes from God; she merely loves me.)

Here then is my fruit borne of my understanding that comes from seeking the LORD (Proverbs 28:5). Sought after and asked for (Matthew 7:7), the truth of it shall be a testament of whether this gift of knowledge (I Corinthians 12:8) given to me is truly of the LORD. All power and authority has been given to Jesus, the resurrected one, (Matthew 28:18) to whom all praise is due: If I be true, then may my words be true for the knowledge of it comes from Christ and not myself for I did not reason it out, rather I sought an artist's inspiration. (Reason came after, as testified to the editors invited by the last paragraph in the submitted letter which is not quoted in this post).

Are not those that believe contrary to the science of their times downtrodden, ridiculed and without power? Why then should I withhold power from those that have "faith ... against such there is no law" (Galatians 5:22-23)? Are not the lesser gods (v1) commanded to "Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked." (Psalms 82:3-4) Now therefore, as APS can bear witness to whom originated this theory, here is my theory which shall give power to the afflicted who have faith in Geo-centrism:

The mass-energy of the universe sans the observer (E') is equal to the total mass-energy of the universe (0) minus the observer's mass-energy (E) {In formula form: E' = 0 - E }. If the mass-energy of the universe is zero, then the mass-energy of the universe sans observer is the negative of the mass-energy of the observer. This signifies that for the objective motion to equal but opposite to subjective motion, the universe MUST have a total mass-energy of zero. [81 words]

Motion as seen by the observer is equal to the motion as seen by an independent view IF the mass of the universe equals zero. Has science EVER witnesses two different outcomes from two different points of view? If not, the General Relativity is unproven, and that is why no man has ever reconciled the Standard Model with General Relativity. (Thankfully for Einstein, his Special Theory of Relativity is the backbone of the Standard Model.)

And as an addition to the submitted theory: The Understanding Necessary to Solve the Grand Unified Theory (Zero-Mass Universe Part II) //Rough draft//
From Why does E=mc²? (And Why Should We Care?) by Brian Cox & Jeff Forshaw (Da Capo Press; pg 210 in the 2010 Paperback edition) "The requirements of gauge symmetry seems to demand that all of the particles in the Standard Model have no mass. This is plain wrong. Things do have mass..." Then later on the same page, "If we try to add mass directly into the master equations, then we are doomed to spoil gauge symmetry. But as we have seen, gauge symmetry lies at the very heart of the theory." The current solution? Higgs Mechanism, a complicated mathematical construct with no logical basis for existing except things have mass. But here is what I propose: The reason there are no further break downs of fundamental particles is that, at the moment of interaction, they have no mass because mass is a function of distance, meaning that mass is nothing more than potential energy generated as the fundamental particles move away from each other.
Distance, as measured with regards to escape velocity, would be the measure of how far two particles could move away from each other. Once escape velocity is achieved, no further mass is added the particle's "rest" mass because once escape velocity is achieved infinity is the distance the two particles could move away from each other. Think of this way, you have two particles at rest with regards to each other, how close to they have to be to each other before more energy than as measured by KE=1/2mv² is necessary to separate them? If those particles are representative of the moon and the earth, the answer is far enough apart that their gravitational attraction is significantly less than the energy to move them. If they are fundamental particles, that distance is about the size of Iron's nucleus. I say that because more energy is needed to create atoms larger than Iron.

Now the advantage of using the idea of "escape velocity" is this theory's impact on Black Holes. As you fall into a black hole, your mass gets converted into kinetic energy. As you mass decreases with regards to the universe, your "size" (because mass is a function of distance -- less mass means less distance between the fundamental particles) decreases from an outside view while seeming to remain constant from an inside view. Because of this varing definition of length, the speed of light will actually change (with regards to the observer entering the gravity well) as your position in the depth of gravity well changes. This because as your atoms get smaller, the planck length of an electron's orbit also gets smaller and the fine-tune constant must adjust everything so that it remains the one univeral constant.
Therefore, because the speed of light is not constant with regards to gravity, the General Theory of Relativity is wrong. And if the General Theory of Relativity is wrong, then my theory that the mass-energy of the universe is zero (which it will need to be if mass is a function of distance) may very well be correct.

Such as?

 

Supervisor, adviser, professor... A person in charge of your academic development in tertiary education (a term I haven't encountered before). I, apperently too hastily, made the assumption that anyone submitting a manuscript to a peer-reviewed journal was either a Master's student, PhD or anything above.

Come to think about it, larger journals must be flooded with articles such as yours, based on a mix of confusion, idée fixe and a general grasp of the basics. I have no idea why you turn to the Scripture to try to solve this problem and geo-centrism was sooo 15th century.

 

We have witnessed different outcomes from different points of view. For example, the satellites which provide the signals for our GPS systems are in a lower gravitational field than we are on the surface of the Earth, so their clocks tick slower. If we didn't take account of this relativistic effect when designing the GPS system, then all the measurements it provides would be off by miles.
Also, your thought experiment with removing the observer from the universe to change its mass-energy doesn't really work because an observer by definition is already removed from the thing it's observing.

And I'll echo Mr TP and recommend you don't mix biblical quotes in with your attempts at science, otherwise you'll immediately be written off as a crank by any legitimate scientists in your audience.

 

What scripture? Here's the science part:

What came before this wasn't science, it was me being me. That is permitted on informal forums such as this one.

Special Relativity, which is included in the Standard Model, permits different rates of time, but that is not what I am talking about. General Relativity, which is NOT included in the Standard Model, permits different SEQUENCES of events, not just different spacings between them. For example, if observer A observes A-B-C, observer B might observe B-C-A. In chemistry, that could created different chemical reactions. In atomic physics, that could create different elements.

 

I believe the differing sequential order only applies to events that are not causally connected. So in the case of a chemical reaction, it would be seen as the same by all observers.

GPS satellite calculations have to take account of both Special and General Relativity. Also, General Relativity has plenty of evidence to support it. If you want to challenge that theory you should come up with an example of something which your theory can explain better.

 

Maybe my interpretation of the second theory is biased in favor of the first. I am finding it difficult to see the universe as curved. Stripped of that, how does the second theory sound?