question about energy

I always feel like there is another person with me- sometimes more than one person. They don't really bother me. I can honestly say I never feel alone because I know they're there. I feel the negative and positive energy. The negative energy really scares me, but the positive energy almost makes me feel like I'm protected.


When I was a toddler, I used to tell my parents I talked to my grandma (deceased before I was born). I don't even remember saying it, but my parents do. Maybe I'm playing games with my mind.


Anyone have an idea what's going on?

 

You seem pretty sure about whats going on? Why question yourself.

 

I'm with buttrfly - you're the one in the best position to know what's going on. Ask the universe for answers instead of asking us, and keep your eyes, ears, and heart open and expectant for the answers to come.

 

i know exacly what your saying, i feel the exact same things. i feel like i have positive energies that follow me and protect me i think maybe the positive energy i feel is my deceased aunt or maybe an angel, but also i feel negitive energies and i think some ppl like you or me are just more open minded torwards those things, more sensitive to things around us and we make our own negative energies that connect to negitive things in our lives. like when something bad happens big or small like a fight with somone you live with for example, do you feel that negitive energy more intensley? or do things happen like do you hear things that scare you or see things that scare you? i learned when those things happen to ignore them and not think about it or be scared of it, and the feeling or activity melts away, you need to jus learn to balance things out between good and bad. because when you get scared the negitive energy overcomes the positve. i dont think your playing games on your mind. your mind is just open to more which is good. you should try and connect with your mind on that level and accept those things

 

There is one mind and one energy. There is no night and no day, there is oscillation. The oscillation may be small and static, right or wrong, or the oscillation may be large and have uncontested fidelity, everything precious.

 

You know dope, I think you're great, but ummm it looks to me like what you're doing here is trying to teach a graduate course to first-year undergrads... In fact, sometimes I feel like one of those frosh myself.

 

You never know when you might witness a shooting star when gazing at the night sky. The dark adjusted eye can detect a single photon. I am certain you are having no difficulty that a few moments of friendly conversation will clear up.

 

Good point.

I remember reading a novel theory of the origin of the universe stating that the physical universe itself is a result of an oscillation that created the singularity from which the universe is in the continuing process of exploding. But that's just an interesting side note.

Another thought on this is that everything negative has the seed of positivity. Or vice versa, I suppose...but so far, with regard to spiritual encounters, I don't think I've ever felt a negative influence that didn't disperse with a good laugh.

 

Exactly. Positive and negative perform in the way that we prescribe. If we cannot comprehend this, then everything contributes to doubt.

 

Hi. Allow me please, for the brief moments i'll be around, to attempt to clarify just one or two "technical" details, that i have been immersed into for some time, which do not interfere in any way with the overall constructive meanings and message you are conveying.

The photon is not a single unit in the traditional sense, neither wave or particle, as [erroneously] assumed (cf. Double-slit experiment) by current [rotten] mainstream physics (and cosmology); it has has no rest mass (0) as it is not matter, but the rotation of a small cubic structure of the fluid crystal-like structure (cf. H. Aspden, 1998) of Space, the (A)ether. Being not matter, it does not travel in the volume of Space, but what we perceive as the photon may be better said to be a [sequencial] tiny partial change (rotation-spin) in the structure of Space itself, from a [new] physics viewpoint, at hand.

Hope this may be helpful. Cheers.

 

Thank you very much. We detect then, slightest change of pitch?

 

You're welcome! Pitch? (my English lacks some critical vocabulary). What we detect [in the detectors] is the pattern (diffraction, interference) created by the disturbance/distortion/displacement caused in the invisible structure of Space(aether) by the 'photon-spin' unit (a small 3x3x3 cubic part of that same aether structure), and which has been [erroneously] interpreted [cf. Copenhagen interpretation] as the [paradoxal] wave-particle duality behaviour of the photon [traditionally conceived as detached massless "single unit"/elementary particle] in the experiments (i.e. the double-slit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment#Quantum_version_of_experiment).

I'll see afterwards if i can come up it with the authoritive-like [new] physics source on this subject. Late now, Cheers.

Back, found it meanwhile!: http://www.aetherscience.org/www-energyscience-org-uk/essays/ese13.htm.

Also, still related, the following paper: http://www.aetherscience.org/www-energyscience-org-uk/essays/ese04.htm, as it points out really critical theoretical physics findings on the fundamental interactions [of the physical universe: matter being (re)created and framed by the Aether], involving α -- the fine-structure constant, photons and bosons.

Anyway, sometimes i let myself to be carried out by these 'things'. (i am far from being able to thoroughly understand all its aspects, but i know i am able to grasp the large idea and many of the key points).

The notion, i was intending to present is that our whole conception on the Physical Universe is about to change, i.e:

- there's no vacuum (void space);
- the volume of Space is not empty, non-existent or abstract;
- there's no bing bang (a smeared-out singularity illogically coming out of nothing, ex-nihilo, with a subsequent physical "explosive" expansion [inflation]);
- there's no space-time: 3d+1dimensions (even less wild [physical] time travels, as in "back to the future"), but the threedimensional Space is twofold, that is, that there are two intermeshing worlds, both having three space dimensions, the material world that we can see and the etheric, unseen ghost-like underworld, that we can sense by phenomena which standard model physics has been unable to explain, notably gravitation;
- Gravity is not a geometric feature but an [inverse] electrostatic force;
- btw, time -- which is not linear, it is not just ciclical, but Spiral (from the physical viewpoint) -- is not any of type [measurable] dimension but the duration aspect of Motion, that follows a pre-defined logical [of the Logos] sequence [sequences of events],
- etc.

Current wild theories and theorists have been already for a long time unable to comply with the observations of Nature (either on Earth or in outer Space) and with the results of the experiments in laboratory (cf. NASA "baffling" pioneer and flyby anomalies in 2008, PVLAS Experiment "strange" crystal vacuum in 2007, Riverside "unexpected" electrostatic spin discovery in 2003, etc.)

In fact, imho, Mother Nature's (re)creation processes, simple in the overall, occurs as the Alchemyst has stated: Igni Natura Renovatur Integra.

A good starting point, most probably the most complete among us currently, from the Science viewpoint can be freely found here (there's more, but these are my choice):

http://www.aetherscience.org/www-energyscience-org-uk/ov/ov004.htm (light introduction)

http://www.aspden.org/books/2edpoc/2edpoccontents.htm, 2003 (the work)

:http://www.aspden.org/arp/2005arp3.pdf, 2005 (specific account)

:http://www.aspden.org/arp/2005arp4.pdf 2005 (specific account)

http://www.aspden.org/books/pwecent/pwecent2005.pdf (historical overview)

All an all, the seeds planted by the Genius of Trinity, under the auspice of the Invisible (!), are already here. Yet, though i may certainly be wrong, i sense currently there may not be any mortal around able to grasp all the far-reaching implications of the CHANGE to come in these core fields of Science, physics and cosmology (though these are not the only ones).

Most probably (?), the outcome will start to bloom 9 degrees [astrological] from now on...


Thank you for the patience and attention you have devoted to these words. Your and our readers feedback [constructive] is welcome, dear thedope. Best regards.
"over & out", for the time being

 

fmk, I took a look at your first link, and was pretty much immediately over my head. I took two years of physics and two years of calculus in college, and these introductory studies don't come even close to permitting me to make the least bit of sense out of what Aspden was talking about. His theories are interesting, but it's apparent to me that this forum is not suited for discussing such nuances of theoretical physics. Perhaps YOU are a theoretical physicist who can follow Aspden's reasoning, but if so I would guess you're the first such person to appear on this forum, at least during my tenure here.

Without being able to evaluate the validity of his theories directly, we're left with three choices: (1) Evaluate his theories based on the opinions of experts who DO understand theoretical physics, (2) Accept his theories without evaluation, or (3) Reject his theories without evaluation.

Based on my extremely brief and limited Internet research, I've surmised the following:

- Aspden was probably a genius who apparently in his early years managed to make theoretical predictions in physics that were later substantiated by experiments.

- In his later years Aspden's work was apparently rejected by mainstream physics journals, for reasons I have so far been unable to determine.

- One commentator who was familiar with Aspden's work and apparently had expertise in theoretical physics remarked that in Aspden's work that criticized Einstein's relativity theory, Aspden "obviously" did not understand relativity theory to begin with. This same commentator gave Aspden credit for brilliant discoveries in his early career.

- Aspden's theoretical framework appears to reference a cosmology created not by any physicists, but rather by a spiritualist, Madame Blavatsky.

This is an intriguing yet perplexing mixed bag that's extremely hard to evaluate. So I find it equally difficult to judge the validity of his more extravagant theoretical claims.

It's possible that Aspden may prove correct where all the mainstream physicists were incorrect. It wouldn't be the first time in science something like that happened. But based on what I've seen, I have significant doubts.

From my own perspective I find his theoretical reliance on the "aether" hard to swallow. It has a contrived feel to it.

But this isn't the sort of issue I'm going to resolve today, or probably even tomorrow. It's certainly intriguing, I'll give you that.

 

If it makes my house sturdier it is tangible.

You allude to english not being your first language, so while I understand what you are getting at when you speak of 'aether' (sounds like you're talking about einsteinian/quantum 'space-time'), you may not be aware that the term 'aether' refers to something which has essentially been debunked in modern physics through simple experiments.

I believe the most recent and useful interpretation of this theory suggests that what happened was, first there was nothing but Higgs field, energy level of Higgs field is non-static, energy level reaches critical tipping point, at which point Higgs field 'transmutes' into bosons and such. i am unclear about the role of spacetime in this picture, its been a while since ive read this, and its so hard to keep track of all the details

Wait, what? Did you just appeal to a supernatural "other world" to account for natural phenomena yet unexplained? Why not appeal to a fatherly god figure?

Depends on your magnification. It is both of those, and it is also one manifestation of the one force. or we could say it is the penumbra of matter.

 

Yeah, in my personal andhighly unscientific personal cosmology I posit the physical universe being a manifestation of awareness, by which agency psychic/spiritual events could take place and simultaneity of related events in widely separated parts of the physical universe could be explained. However I would guess that the current state of physics is nowhere near the point of being able to address my little pet theory.

However in my dabblings it has been my understanding that gravity is related to a warping of space by matter in some extra-3d dimension or other, rather than to some particle. This makes more sense to me than the particle or even energy model, being as how when you're talking particles you're still trapped inside the relativity box that limits maximum speed to that of light.

Of course if you throw out relativity...but I have yet to see any good reason to do so.

 

Would it ever be? Your theory invokes things like "awareness", which is clearly in the realm of philosophy, or possibly, maybe in the future, psychology.

Heh, I was about to say that physics will never have anything to say about awareness. Maybe in 5,000 years I will eat those words or 5 years.

the warping happens in all dimensions. I recall some experiment where they attempted to find the minimal distance that gravity can act across. I do not remember the outcome but it was very critical to overall cosmology. I believe it works in smaller scales than the Planck.

Actually, time is more affected by gravity than space is; or rather we should say, when measuring the effect of gravity on spacetime, we find greater effects along the time axis. Time is slowed down more than space is stretched.

 

Yeah, it seems hard to believe, but the word "never" has been known to bite quite a few asses.

So if I could live on a massive planet, I might never have to get up and go to work in the morning...

 

assuming work was not on the same planet. in which case who could blame you, what a shitty commute.

 

Thank you very much for your comment dear Mr.Writer. Let us see if i am able to address some of the issues you raise. My wonder, as a retoric question, is to what extent will you be able to recognize and gather the proper material to build solid foundations for this house of yours?

Intro: First, let me assure you that one needs not English language, nor any branch of Science, to be first-hand acquainted with the 'aether'. However, English, as as a common language, is useful to grasp, among other things, the how and why the 'aether' abhors current mainstream scientific field, that is, the current ultra-materialist ideology that frames (in fact, enslaves) the highly developed intellects that attempt to INTERPRET the results coming from observations and experiments; since, as you may already know, what we generally state as the REALITY of things (let's say of the physical Universe) are [currently] but [evolving] conceptions-interpretations of that same reality (not direct reality per se) that are constructed, individually or in groups of individuals, through the filter (accurately, the focus...), that processes the acquired data (in the case of the world of matter, data collected by our physical senses, enhanced by our current technological equipment; bet it an Hubble telescope to look further into the macroscosmos or an LHC apparatus for the microcosmos of the Physical Universe). This [yet unstable] filter is called: the human Mind, guided by the perception of Logic.

a) No, i am not refering to "einsteinian/quantum space-time":
- what a fool of me to be under the impression that the theory of relativity (SR/GR) and quantum theory (QM/QFT,...) were found incompatible since their inception.
- the so-called "space-time" does not exist in the quantum realm (or in the Cosmos), the object of study of quantum theory and experiments is Space itself (with its interactions at fundamental level and intrinsic properties).
- Einstein's theory (relativity, GR/SR) of a curved four dimensional geometric empty space-time (word salad derived from mathematical self-illusion detached from the physical reality of Nature, imho) is a non-existent space, that is, an impossibilitiy, from the point of view i hold, as every physical matter (wether in the macro or in the microscomos) moves within the volume of Space and is framed by the properties of Space itself, studied by quantum theory and experiments.

b) Ah, you mean the MMX et al which ruled out the 19th century concept of the static "luminiferous aether", the medium that was supposed to carry electromagnetic waves? It only means that the properties of this medium, as conceived in the mind of the physicists of that time, was erroneous. But there is [dynamic structured fluid crystal-like] AETHER (cf. the related maths and the physical approach @Aether Structure, pdf file, 2003).

My own predicion, if i may, is that all higgs together will not save the [incomplete] standard model. I am confident the Mr. Aspden's paper on "photons, bosons and the weinberg angle", that i've placed in the previous post, and subsequent work -- derived from his early Aether theory -- is a far consistent explanation of how the masses of the W and Z bosons arise, etc.
Anyway, from the viewpoint i hold, there was no big bang at all, that is, no physical "smeared-out" singularity, neither any inflation nor current growing faster(than light???) expansion (an illusion derived from the interpretion-assumption of what the Hubble constant really corresponds to in the physical universe; and probably you may be aware how inconsistent that assumption has been with the observational measurements in the astronomical field). As i have told before, Nature's process is called INRI.

In fact, when it is described that

« that there are two intermeshing worlds, both having three space dimensions, the material world that we can see and the etheric, unseen ghost-like underworld, that we can sense by phenomena which standard model physics has been unable to explain, notably gravitation;»

it it is not a reference to a supraphysical [distinct] World (which are beyond the scope of Science), but to the invisible structure-side (lacking a better word; yes, there is a proper word: region) of Space itself that frames the matter region of space (as in "the penumbra of matter"); both regions of Space intermeshed constitute what we call the Physical World.
Further, the fluid crystal-like structure of Space, the Aether (also Ether) which is "a sea of glass like unto crystal", is being called in the current still insipid quantum theory: sea of energy, quintessence, zero-point energy, false vacuum (there is no such thing as empty or void space), vacuum fluctuations/virtual particles of vacuum energy (w/ Casimir effect, Van der Waals bonds, etc.), dark matter/dark energy: all these labels "as expressions of our ignorance."

Hope these brief lines of mine may be helpful (should i worry if it would have been better not to 'throw my pearls...'?); nonetheless, do not take my views for granted but if found valuable may it be put to constructive goals, our upliftment.

 

Thank you for your comment too, dear zengizmo. Should you agree, i see no pressing need to provide clarification to the contents.

I have partially quoted your comment since, to my eyes, the above piece shows of yourself an extraordinary quality that i guess is not so frequently found: you are able to maintain, to a certain extent, your mind in the "child-like" fluidic state of adaptability, not imbued with an overwhelming sense of superior knowledge and unfettered by preconceived opinions allowing neither preference nor prejudice to govern; holding what you receive until proven or disproven. (cf. The RCC, 1909)

Now, i need to focus my attention to my professional duties and i'll be absent from the pleasent Hip Forums, at least for the meantime.

Nice to make your acquaintance, dear Disciple friend.