Harmonics, resonance, and interference

[unmike]

http://www.interferencetheory.com/index.html

 

Working on an art project for my ladyfriend, I stumbled across this link. Many hours of reading and research later, I'm baffled but intrigued at the concepts involved, especially the implications it has when coupled with holographic theory.

 

I'm especially curious what drewhempel thinks...

 

Any other bums poked around this site, or even read the book?

[~jK~]

http://www.interferencetheory.com/index.html

 

Working on an art project for my ladyfriend, I stumbled across this link. Many hours of reading and research later, I'm baffled but intrigued at the concepts involved, especially the implications it has when coupled with holographic theory.

 

Any other bums poked around this site, or even read the book?

 

Sound, Color and Chakras Video try it while meditating to see the effect.

Edited September 7, 2010 by ~jK~

[metal dog]

These images from that website reveals a very deep and ancient mystery...hidden and contained not only in the Western Magickal Traditions but also in those of the East.

 

 

Edited September 5, 2010 by metal dog

[Trunk]

The theory is over my head, still interesting excerpts.

Thanks!

 

[al.]

These images from that website reveals a very deep and ancient mystery...hidden and contained not only in the Western Magickal Traditions but also in those of the East.

 

 

 

This reminds me of something special a group of archeologists discovered on the east coast of England about 5 years ago- an ancient sacred site containing a large tree that was buried upside-down, with its long roots extended to the sky. There was some significance to the time it was dated and how it brought the pre-historic English peoples into a new perspective.

Maybe this is not the thing to be writing about casually, but are you aware of this symbolic structure in other places?

a

[metal dog]

It has been found just about everywhere...it was global.

What we have been led to believe is history is a lie.

The knowledge is kept in the lodges and secret societies at their highest levels.

 

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

 

China

 

* In Chinese mythology, a carving of a Tree of Life depicts a phoenix and a dragon; the dragon often represents immortality. A Taoist story tells of a tree that produces a peach every three thousand years. The one who eats the fruit receives immortality.

* An archaeological discovery in the 1990s was of a sacrificial pit at Sanxingdui in Sichuan, China. Dating from about 1200 BCE, it contained three bronze trees, one of them 4 meters high. At the base was a dragon, and fruit hanging from the lower branches. At the top is a strange bird-like (phoenix) creature with claws. Also found in Sichuan, from the late Han dynasty (c 25 – 220 CE) is another tree of life. The ceramic base is guarded by a horned beast with wings. The leaves of the tree are coins and people. At the apex is a bird with coins and the Sun.

 

This discovery of a sacrificial pit at Sanxingdui is most interesting. It is a cosmology.

 

Then there are the pyramids of China...the largest being twice as large as anything in Egypt.

http://web.utanet.at/mahain/Pyramids_in_China.htm

 

And to cap off those two discoveries, I would recommend a thorough perusal of Wayne's discoveries of how the geometry of several earth temples have the same geometry and the Mars Cydonia complex...and a connection to the Pleiades.

http://www.thehiddenrecords.com/

http://www.thehiddenrecords.com/newstarmaps3.htm

http://www.thehiddenrecords.com/davinci.htm

 

Although I cannot agree with all that he has written here Wayne expounds on his own personal beliefs as related to the ancient motifs of the tree of life and what it may mean...

http://www.oneism.org/

 

As relative to this thread, when the Bible speaks of God creating with the Word...I believe it should read the Sound.

 

(The Bible contains a lot of truths, but has been altered to such a degree it is difficult to sift through it. The worst thing to do is regard the Bible as a book of history especially concerning the history of a select group of Semites, or Chosen People. The real holy elites were the sages of old and were global, not confined to just the middle east and they intermingled and traveled over borders extensively. Spreading the wisdom of the snake and dragon, but not to be confused with Satanic overtones. This was later done to demonize the truth and draw people toward a religion of a thought monopoly.)

Edited September 5, 2010 by metal dog

[DalTheJigsaw123]

Great thread!

And that image of people in the circle is amazing!

It's going to be my wallpaper background!

[Creation]

Thanks for sharing this unmike.

 

There is a zeitgeist manifesting very strongly these days, where people sense that Western culture, for all it's achievements, is in many ways rotten, backward, and empty, and they hear about chaos theory, fractals, zero point energy, etc. and it strikes a chord with them, and their imagination gets going, thinking that looking at the world in light of these ideas is going to fix the backwardness and fill the emptiness. After years of doing this myself, I have come to the conclusion that this is fundamentally a case of mistaken identity. The allure of these ideas is that they give a sense of order, harmony, and unity in diversity but also wonder, hopefulness, and limitlessness. The mistake here, as I perceive it, is to identify the presence of these these wonderful feelings with the presence of ideas, that is, the mental construct or picture one has of the world. People have been making this mistake for all of human history (I still make it all the time, even as I point it out in others), but these days it is becoming more and more common to do it with (pseudo)scientific ideas. On second thought, that has been happening since the beginning of modern science, but it seems like it has changed recently, like more is being brought into the fold due to the increase of spiritual consciousness and the move away from strictly materialistic or strictly mind-matter dualistic philosophies.

 

(That paragraph was very hard for me to write to my satisfaction...I hope my meaning managed to come through)

 

So I have mixed feelings about this site.

 

I am very interested in his stuff about music theory (the story about John Sheridan was priceless!), but I am not qualified to say if he is really on to something there.

 

In the realm of physics, it seems to me that he seems fond of throwing around scientific terms that he clearly does not understand, sometimes in ways that make no sense at all. This tends to happen when an imaginative person reads popularizations of science and fills in the details with all their own fancies and fantasies. (It is especially clear that he is doing this whenever he mentions lattice QCD). I did this all the time when I was younger. Now that I have learned some serious math and physics, I look back on those days fondly, but I see such behavior for what it was.

 

I am less inclined to sympathy when he starts talking about the conspiracy of the Roman Catholic Church to cover up ancient knowledge of harmonics. I lose my patience whenever something sound too much like a Dan Brown novel. I strongly suspect this is at best an exaggeration, but even if it did happen to some extent, I think it is not as big a deal as he makes it.

 

 

On the other hand,

 

Reading this gives me a sense of the paradigm shift that is coming. A new paradigm of thought that will completely change the way people relate to the world mentally. It will be HUGE. I feel this coming very strongly, but most of the stuff talking about zero point energy, crystals and harmonics and pyramids, and the connections between modern physics and esotericism that I see does not seem to me to really capture the spirit of it. This site, to some extent, for reasons that I do not fully understand, does. Perhaps it is the sense of integration of so many diverse ideas and disciplines into the fold. I think that unifying the currently fragmentary nature of human knowledge will be one of the chief characteristics of the coming shift.

Edited September 6, 2010 by Creation

[Ramon25]

[Creation]

By the way there are some very accomplished physicist or experts in related fields who promote esoteric idea’s being combined with physics. Its funny how people throw around their supposed knowledge of hard physics as if the mainstream scientist had ALL the answers.

...

Pseudo scientific is a word I am really starting to dislike.

...

You also dont know if the catholic church tried to cover anything up, you cant presume they did not, on the other hand that does not mean they did. Also it doesnt matter what you THINK about the conspiracy theory, as its clear you have any real knowledge of the issue, so how can you have an opinion?

After some 20 emails between us you say something like this to me? In the same sentence you imply that I don't actually have knowledge of hard physics, and then suggest that I claim mainstream science has all the answeres (which I most certainly don't)?

 

Wow, bro. Your really laid me out...

 

:lol:

 

Seriously Ramon, the above quotes strike me not as a reaction to what I said, but a reaction to your projection onto what I said. If you will just project all your pet peeves onto me and argue with those, is it worth my energy to reply to you? Well, we were once friends, so for friendships sake, here are some things to ponder.

 

Can you name a single accomplished physicist who promotes esoteric ideas being combined with physics? Or did you just hear that they existed? Perhaps you heard someone suggest connections between modern physics and mysticism and you inferred that there were accomplished physicists who promoted it?

 

OK, hopefully you will take that as an invitation to only make claims that you are sure you can back up, and not as me trying to show you up. What I really want is to set a tone of intellectual integrity here, not get in a fight.

 

I will name one such accomplish physicist: David Bohm. But he is the only one I know of. Others (Bohr, Heisenberg, Wigner) have suggested that certain philosophical ideas like Berkeley's "To be is to be perceived" are implied by quantum physics, but the connection between such philosophizing and the living esoteric traditions of the world is not something accomplished physicists are rushing to take. Now, spiritually minded people hear about this and make the connection themselves. Whereas physicists might muse about philosophy a bit, but at the end of the day the general attitude is, "Let's get back to doing real science." That is why Bohm's ideas were ignored by most physicists. Just so you know, I respect David Bohm more than any other physicist of his generation.

 

I am very aware of the stifling and oppressive environment that exists in the modern scientific establishment. That is one reason why I gave up on my dream of getting a PhD. in math. I also believe, as you do, that the laws of physics as presently understood, are incomplete and are subject to revision (and indeed, will certainly be revised in the future). But I am also aware of the tremendous amount of nonsense out there coming from people who don't really know what they are talking about. Do you have an idea of what I am talking about? Have you experienced that? Perhaps someone telling you their theory about kundalini based on something they read in a book, but you, having been through kundalini, can clearly see that they do not really understand what they are talking about. But if you tell them this they and all their friends jump down your throat, saying "You're just repeating establishment dogma!" And you are thinking, "Um, is this person serious?"

 

I think perhaps you root for the underdog, as do I, so you are more sympathetic to the guys outside the establishment, but remember there are two sides to the issue.

 

About the Church issue...Once again you accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about leaving me wondering why you think you know what I know. If this guy wants to claim there is a conspiracy he can, and I admit that it is possible and I am not qualified (and neither is he) to say definitively one way or another. But I have my reasons for saying what I did, completely separate from the annoyance I feel toward Church cover up conspiracies. The main thrust of his argument is that the Church banned the use of the tritone in Church music, and he places great importance on the tritone and thinks the ancients did too, therefore the Church must have covered it up. Can you see why I might think this guy is just being overly imaginative? The Church did cover stuff up, but that doesn't mean that people should go off and see cover ups everywhere they look.

 

Here are some things to consider from my store of lack of knowledge of what I am talking about.

 

Musical knowledge was lost during the collapse of the Roman Empire because basically all culture was lost. Before this cultural collapse, a Christian philosopher named Boethius wrote a treatise on music in the pagan tradition and style (because that was all that existed) so the Church was not completely suppressing the pagan music tradition at that point. Now fast forward to when culture started seeping back into Europe. People were starting to experiment with the elementary laws of harmony. Try an experiment. Listen to the intervals perfect fourth, perfect fifth, major third, minor third, and tritone. Which of these sound conspicuously less "nice" than the others? The medieval musicians thought it was the tritone (so do I, but you should try it for yourself). So they said, "We don't want this in Church music, because it is discordant." Whence the conspiracy? Now fast forward several hundred years, when Western music has developed quite a bit. Composers began to understand that the tritone can be very useful. With their more sophisticated sense of musical harmony and style, they understood that there is more to music than nice intervals. But in very simple music, like what the medieval Church musicians were working with, it is completely understandable to make the tritone taboo.

 

Of course, it doesn't matter what I THINK about his conspiracy theory, because it's clear I have no knowledge of the issue. How can I even have an opinion on the matter, right?

Edited September 6, 2010 by Creation

[joeblast]

I read through the site page and was thinking...this seems to be just the type of book I wont finish because I invariably only wind up finding intellectual curiosities that merely equate to subtle additions of knowledge, not conveying any deep transformative principles that will actually help one in practice.

[metal dog]

I am less inclined to sympathy when he starts talking about the conspiracy of the Roman Catholic Church to cover up ancient knowledge of harmonics. I lose my patience whenever something sound too much like a Dan Brown novel. I strongly suspect this is at best an exaggeration, but even if it did happen to some extent, I think it is not as big a deal as he makes it.

 

I would reconsider this regarding the Roman Catholic Church covering up ancient knowledge and to what degree they have done so.

 

In fact, this is the one group who has/had the ability to conquer, steal and sequester most of the knowledge of the ancients and maintains control over great secrets. Some of my greatest teachers confess that it was the intrusion of the church and their orders (particularly the Jesuits) that "milked the minds of the shamans" and took the knowledge for their own and use it for their sorceries. The religion of Rome was known to assimilate into itself aspects of all the pagan religions it would work to replace as it was the easiest way to conquer competing belief systems and assimilate other into itself.

 

The personages that shaped the public agendas of Hitler and top SS Nazis (The Aryan Pan Germanic Black Sun Vril Cult...constructed by agents of the Vatican were a manipulative devise to arouse the pride and passions for control over the masses of Germans and "Aryan" Europeans, not necessarily what Hitler or the top Nazis believed) were Franciscan and Jesuit monks. Although giving inconsistent and contradictory statements about religion Christianity, Catholicism and Jesus...

 

In 1941, according to the diary of Nazi General Gerhart Engel, Hitler stated "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."

 

This is not conspiracy, but has been picked up by the conspiracy genre. Dan Brown has done this a disservice, but that is his role.

This history is immense and profound.

Edited September 6, 2010 by metal dog

[Creation]

Hi metal dog.

 

I gave my reasons for not believing this particular Church cover-up conspiracy in my previous post.

 

The Catholic Church has done some nefarious things. OTOH when I look at it from their perspective, a lot of the things they did don't seem as nefarious as our modern perspective makes them out to be.

 

I try to keep an open mind and see multiple sides of every issue.

 

In general I am not knowledgeable about Catholic conspiracy theories and the arguments for and against them. It does make sense that pagan knowledge was suppressed, but also much of it was incorporated. The hows and whys of all that is quite a complicated affair, spanning many centuries. Even with my love of history it seems wearisome to me to try to unravel it all. If you know of a well researched but engaging book that presents a balanced viewpoint on the subject, please do pass on the name.

[metal dog]

I try to keep an open mind and see multiple sides of every issue.

 

Understood and thank you for your response.

This is good.

 

But sometimes the moral imperative demands a hard look and a discriminating decision. To cut down on the trauma and the body count.

 

Here was something else that was relegated to sham "conspiracy theory" for many decades. Covered-up quite effectively by the current Pope when he worked the desk responsible for protecting and perpetuating the actions of child molesting priests. In other words, he got promoted.

 

And this is just LA, never mind the horrors internationally.

 

The Church's stance in defense (paraphrased)..."We do so many other good deeds around the world with our money (mostly stolen) surely this is a minor issue we can police internally. God Bless"

 

Catholic Church Settles Los Angeles Sex Abuse Cases for $660 Million

Sunday, July 15, 2007

 

LOS ANGELES — The nation's largest Catholic archdiocese has settled its abuse cases for $660 million, by far the largest payout in the church's sexual abuse scandal, The Associated Press has learned.

 

The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles and the plaintiffs reached the deal Saturday, said Ray Boucher, the lead plaintiff's attorney. The archdiocese and the plaintiffs will release a statement Sunday morning and hold a news conference Monday, he said.

 

An anonymous source with knowledge of the deal placed its value at $660 million, by far the largest payout in the church's sexual abuse scandal. The source spoke on condition of anonymity because the settlement had not been officially announced.

 

The amount, which would average a little more than $1.3 million per plaintiff, exceeded earlier reports that the settlement would be between $600 million and $650 million.

 

Some Roman Catholic orders — the Servites, Claretians and Oblates — will be carved out of the agreement because they refused to participate, the source said. The settlement also calls for the release of confidential priest personnel files after review by a judge assigned to oversee the litigation, Boucher said.

 

The settlements push the total amount paid out by the U.S. church since 1950 to more than $2 billion, with about a quarter of that coming from the Los Angeles archdiocese.

 

It wasn't immediately clear how the payout would be split among the insurers, the archdiocese and several Roman Catholic religious orders. A judge must sign off on the agreement.

 

The release of the priest documents was important to the agreement, Boucher said, because it could reveal whether archdiocesan leaders were involved in covering up for abusive priests.

 

"Transparency is a critical part of this and of all resolutions," he said.

 

Tod Tamberg, a spokesman for the archdiocese, did not immediately return a call seeking comment late Saturday. Previously, he said the church would be in court on Monday.

 

Plaintiff Steven Sanchez, who was expected to testify in the first trial, said he was simultaneously relieved and disappointed. He sued the archdiocese claiming abuse by the late Rev. Clinton Hagenbach, who died in 1987.

 

"I was really emotionally ready to take on the archdiocese in court in less than 48 hours, but I'm glad all victims are going to be compensated," he said. "I hope all victims will find some type of healing in this process."

 

The settlement is the largest ever by a Roman Catholic diocese since the clergy sexual abuse scandal erupted in Boston in 2002. The largest payout so far has been by the Diocese of Orange, Calif., in 2004, for $100 million.

 

Facing a flood of abuse claims, five dioceses — Tucson, Ariz.; Spokane, Wash.; Portland, Ore.; Davenport, Iowa, and San Diego — sought bankruptcy protection.

 

The Los Angeles archdiocese, its insurers and various Roman Catholic orders have paid more than $114 million to settle 86 claims so far. The largest of those came in December, when the archdiocese reached a $60 million settlement with 45 people whose claims dated from before the mid-1950s and after 1987 — periods when it had little or no sexual abuse insurance.

 

Several religious orders in California have also reached multimillion-dollar settlements in recent months, including the Carmelites, the Franciscans and the Jesuits.

 

However, more than 500 other lawsuits against the archdiocese had remained unresolved despite years of legal wrangling. Most of the outstanding lawsuits were generated by a 2002 state law that revoked for one year the statute of limitations for reporting sexual abuse.

 

Cardinal Roger Mahony recently told parishioners in an open letter that the archdiocese was selling its high-rise administrative building and considering the sale of about 50 other nonessential church properties to raise funds for a settlement.

 

A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge overseeing the cases recently ruled that Mahony could be called to testify in the second trial on schedule, and attorneys for plaintiffs wanted to call him in many more.

 

The same judge also cleared the way for four people to seek punitive damages — something that could have opened the church to tens of millions of dollars in payouts if the ruling had been expanded to other cases.

 

After taking a long and deep look into the history and actions of this organization and its many Orders...my mind has never been more opened.

 

Apologies to the topic relevancy...I digress and humbly move out of the way.

Edited September 6, 2010 by metal dog

[Ramon25]

After some 20 emails between us you say something like this to me? In the same sentence you imply that I don't actually have knowledge of hard physics, and then suggest that I claim mainstream science has all the answeres (which I most certainly don't)?

 

Wow, bro. Your really laid me out...

 

:lol:

 

Seriously Ramon, the above quotes strike me not as a reaction to what I said, but a reaction to your projection onto what I said. If you will just project all your pet peeves onto me and argue with those, is it worth my energy to reply to you? Well, we were once friends, so for friendships sake, here are some things to ponder.

 

Can you name a single accomplished physicist who promotes esoteric ideas being combined with physics? Or did you just hear that they existed? Perhaps you heard someone suggest connections between modern physics and mysticism and you inferred that there were accomplished physicists who promoted it?

 

OK, hopefully you will take that as an invitation to only make claims that you are sure you can back up, and not as me trying to show you up. What I really want is to set a tone of intellectual integrity here, not get in a fight.

 

I will name one such accomplish physicist: David Bohm. But he is the only one I know of. Others (Bohr, Heisenberg, Wigner) have suggested that certain philosophical ideas like Berkeley's "To be is to be perceived" are implied by quantum physics, but the connection between such philosophizing and the living esoteric traditions of the world is not something accomplished physicists are rushing to take. Now, spiritually minded people hear about this and make the connection themselves. Whereas physicists might muse about philosophy a bit, but at the end of the day the general attitude is, "Let's get back to doing real science." That is why Bohm's ideas were ignored by most physicists. Just so you know, I respect David Bohm more than any other physicist of his generation.

 

I am very aware of the stifling and oppressive environment that exists in the modern scientific establishment. That is one reason why I gave up on my dream of getting a PhD. in math. I also believe, as you do, that the laws of physics as presently understood, are incomplete and are subject to revision (and indeed, will certainly be revised in the future). But I am also aware of the tremendous amount of nonsense out there coming from people who don't really know what they are talking about. Do you have an idea of what I am talking about? Have you experienced that? Perhaps someone telling you their theory about kundalini based on something they read in a book, but you, having been through kundalini, can clearly see that they do not really understand what they are talking about. But if you tell them this they and all their friends jump down your throat, saying "You're just repeating establishment dogma!" And you are thinking, "Um, is this person serious?"

 

I think perhaps you root for the underdog, as do I, so you are more sympathetic to the guys outside the establishment, but remember there are two sides to the issue.

 

About the Church issue...Once again you accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about leaving me wondering why you think you know what I know. If this guy wants to claim there is a conspiracy he can, and I admit that it is possible and I am not qualified (and neither is he) to say definitively one way or another. But I have my reasons for saying what I did, completely separate from the annoyance I feel toward Church cover up conspiracies. The main thrust of his argument is that the Church banned the use of the tritone in Church music, and he places great importance on the tritone and thinks the ancients did too, therefore the Church must have covered it up. Can you see why I might think this guy is just being overly imaginative? The Church did cover stuff up, but that doesn't mean that people should go off and see cover ups everywhere they look.

 

Here are some things to consider from my store of lack of knowledge of what I am talking about.

 

Musical knowledge was lost during the collapse of the Roman Empire because basically all culture was lost. Before this cultural collapse, a Christian philosopher named Boethius wrote a treatise on music in the pagan tradition and style (because that was all that existed) so the Church was not completely suppressing the pagan music tradition at that point. Now fast forward to when culture started seeping back into Europe. People were starting to experiment with the elementary laws of harmony. Try an experiment. Listen to the intervals perfect fourth, perfect fifth, major third, minor third, and tritone. Which of these sound conspicuously less "nice" than the others? The medieval musicians thought it was the tritone (so do I, but you should try it for yourself). So they said, "We don't want this in Church music, because it is discordant." Whence the conspiracy? Now fast forward several hundred years, when Western music has developed quite a bit. Composers began to understand that the tritone can be very useful. With their more sophisticated sense of musical harmony and style, they understood that there is more to music than nice intervals. But in very simple music, like what the medieval Church musicians were working with, it is completely understandable to make the tritone taboo.

 

Of course, it doesn't matter what I THINK about his conspiracy theory, because it's clear I have no knowledge of the issue. How can I even have an opinion on the matter, right?

 

U are correct, I think it was a projection onto what you said. I apologize. I also didnt say ANYTHING about YOU just what you said and your opinion, I think they are different. Also I didnt say you did not know hard physics. its more like a " I know what mainstream physicist think so If it doesnt fit its pseuodo science" attitude I was picking up. It was a couple of days and I have been going through a large energetic shift that I am still trying to incorporate. either way, No excuse tho, I do apologize. Trully. I hope we can still be friends. I was out of line and Am embarassed.

 

Oh physicist OR experts in realted fields

 

Fred alfred wolf

amit goswami

ervin lazlo

bruce lipton

roger penrose

nassim haramein

Ulrich Winter

Karl Pribram's

 

I can send You a few more if u like...

 

So U think that this guy the music dude, Has nothing real to offer that the universe cannot be explained in musical terms?

 

I think at some level it can, considering everything has frequency and that resonance, synconization ect are part of the fabric of the universe. Ur thoughts?

[Creation]

Hi Ramon.

 

I love you. Just so you know. Our friendship was never in question.

 

Now, the only name on that list that is particularly well regared in theoretical physics circles is Roger Penrose, who I respect almost as much as Bohm because of his willingness to go outside the mainstream and emphasize how phsycis needs to change, but I don't think he has ever made the jump to mysticism.

 

Some of the other guys are at least professors of physics though. So, you are correct, there are some real deal physicists that have made the mystical connection.

 

I think at some level it can, considering everything has frequency and that resonance, synconization ect are part of the fabric of the universe.

I happen to agree with you. This is a beautiful idea that I have thought a lot about.

 

But from the perspective of hard science, it is VERY HARD to go from an idea like this to a full-fledged mathematical theory with predictive power. What people who are not trained in physics don't understand is what it means to have such a full-fledged theory. There can be no hand waving, the theory must have equations that accurately account for precise measurements of the properties of the relevant objects.

 

So the thing is to get from the idea to the full theory.

 

The example of Einstein is particularly instructive on this point. It took him something like 8 years of working his ass off to get from his insight that gravity is related to the curvature of space to the complete mathematical theory that we call general relativity. No cakewalk, huh? Later, building on the work of Kaluza and Klein, he became enamored with the idea that a 5 dimensional space with the 5th dimension being a very small circle existing at every point in spacetime, could account for gravity, electromagnetism, and quantum mechanics all in one fell swoop. This is a very appealing idea. I mean WOW! But he worked on it off and on for 20 years at least and no matter how hard he tried, or how much the idea appealed to him, he simply could not get a full fledged mathematical theory that really unified all those things in the way he thought it should.

 

So if Einstein worked for 20 years to make his pet idea work and couldn't do it, what does that say about everyone else with a cool idea ?

 

Have a good one bro.

[Creation]

What people who are not trained in physics don't understand is what it means to have such a full-fledged theory. There can be no hand waving, the theory must have equations that accurately account for precise measurements of the properties of the relevant objects.

You know, I was thinking about this and I realized that physicists might sometimes loose their sense of wonder at the fact that this has ever been done at all. The first person to do it was Isaac Newton in the 17th century.

 

I can just see a Taoist sage, when presented with the idea of such a mathematical theory like Newton's or Einstein's, saying "So what?" And if confronted with the modern idea of a Theory of Everything that would be a mathematical theory of all observed physical phenomena, he would probably erupt in hysterical laughter.

Edited September 7, 2010 by Creation

[Ramon25]

You know, I was thinking about this and I realized that physicists might sometimes loose their sense of wonder at the fact that this has ever been done at all. The first person to do it was Isaac Newton in the 17th century.

 

I can just see a Taoist sage, when presented with the idea of such a mathematical theory like Newton's or Einstein's, saying "So what?" And if confronted with the modern idea of a Theory of Everything that would be a mathematical theory of all observed physical phenomena, he would probably erupt in hysterical laughter.

LMAO, I agree he would be like "u need all that to tell you what I understood by sitting at the park? That u dont understand anything?" haha oh well. Also hey Amit Goswami is pretty well known, he wrote one of the main text books on the mathematics of quantum mechanics used at the moment. Cool dude... I agree with you on many mdern physicist who have lost that side of them that can only revel in the mystery, validating it as an equal to logic, Sad...

 

Oh this is an edit, I wanted to add, that you are correct in that turning such an idea into a theory with equations, that could fit together and work out elegently while accounting for the all the presumed laws of physics while uniting them would be trully difficult. But maybe we dont need that...

Edited September 7, 2010 by Ramon25

[TheMusicGuy]

LMAO, I agree he would be like "u need all that to tell you what I understood by sitting at the park? That u dont understand anything?" haha oh well. Also hey Amit Goswami is pretty well known, he wrote one of the main text books on the mathematics of quantum mechanics used at the moment. Cool dude... I agree with you on many mdern physicist who have lost that side of them that can only revel in the mystery, validating it as an equal to logic, Sad...

 

Oh this is an edit, I wanted to add, that you are correct in that turning such an idea into a theory with equations, that could fit together and work out elegently while accounting for the all the presumed laws of physics while uniting them would be trully difficult. But maybe we dont need that...

 

You're right we don't need all that to understand the essential elements of nature. The study of nature and thus self has lost its way in modern science. We are taught by our schools and churches that seeking answers in nature is pointless (even evil) and that the only good and right thing to do is learn to manipulate nature without understanding. This is the legacy of Rome.

 

Take me instead to the Temple of Fractal Resonance ... I want to sign up.

Edited October 22, 2010 by TheMusicGuy

[TheMusicGuy]

I'm the music guy discussed in this thread, so thought I could help explain harmonic interference theory to clarify what it is and what it's not.

 

First would be that it is not strictly "science", but instead natural philosophy. Science is a process of dissection and finding differences with the goal of controlling nature. Natural philosophy is the opposite process of unifying and finding commonalities in order to understand nature and connection to self. Harmonic science is then primarily a natural philosophy that crosses boundaries, which is why it is not accepted into the science method.

 

My theory describes music perception as a reflective Gaussian derivative pattern matching process evolved into the body and brain. There are a set of 34 principles describing this and some predictive metrics for common emotional qualities triggered by interference patterns in sound and vision. It extends holonomic brain theory into the area of auditory cognition and applies the Gaussian derivative as a focusing function in the holonomic model. This is then further supported by two other rising theories: Harmonic Resonance Theory and Adaptive Resonance Theory.

 

The theory is extended into various geometric models, which ultimately leads to a single harmonic field something like a scalable quantum field. This field is an orthogonal standing wave lattice that can contain both auditory and visual objects just like our brains do, measuring degree of coherence in different patterns. Practically speaking, this model can be simulated in a neural net for machine recognition of organic properties. It can also be used to classify living organisms withing the broader context of cosmological evolution and coherent self-organizing properties throughout nature.

 

So while all this comes from the realm of natural philosophy, it does have applications along with certain philosophical implications. The scientific method only gets us so far.