Sun Effects on Vacuum (Source of Qi)

What does the sun contribute to the vacuum in terms of energy?? Is it
just photons? Suppose vacuum is composed also of a sea of subtle
energies undetected by convensional physics. How would photon react to
those unconvensional energies? Or rather, is there a photonic
counterpart for those subtle energies like some kind of subtle photons
maybe?? If anyone got a clue. Let me know. The origin of Qi is very
related to this as it comes from the sun. (Note: some may lose
patience with this unending mention of Qi but note its what future
physics will tackle so sit on and analyze and maybe we can nail what
this mystery substance is ).

From extensive esoteric observations from different parties. It was
found out the sun is the source of Qi... as if the photons the energy
of it... however, unknown moving particles in the atmosphere are the
medium thru which this photonic energy gets stored temporarily (it's
called vitality globules). This medium is not ordinary matter since it
can enter physical matter itself much like neutrinos although in a
liquid kind of way. And the photonic energy it stored can't be
ordinary photons but perhaps some kind of virtual photons or organized
structures of energy or pattern. The atmospheric particles that stored
this subtle like photons then enters our body via an entry point
(called chakra but forget this term now if it sounds medieval).
Inside our body, the atmosphere particles (not oxygen of course) are
distributed to every atoms or cells or organs (I can't determine whether
the atoms are the primary target or the energetic matrix of the organ
itself) via the "nadis" or fine web of thread and it imparts its
the subtle photons load or energy structures and the used up
atmospheric particles exit thru our skin producing part of the "aura"
seen by sensitive. On earth itself. The planet has an entry point
(giving the legend of ley lines and vortexes) and these atmospheric
particles with the photonic like energy in it travels inside the earth
and outside charging other living matter like trees. So matter on
earth (living and non-living) are exposed to these atmospheric like
particles that stored photon like thing or energy structures and upon
usage (especially by living things including trees, plants but not
plastic, synthetic matter), expelling themselves back to the
atmosphere for another charge up with the subtle photonic energy
coming from the sun. Again inanimate matter like plastic or glass
doesn't absorb Qi since it doesn't have complex reactions inside like
chemicals. Someone may ask why we don't directly absorb energy direct
from the sun. This is because without the atmosphere etheric carrier
particles (vitality globules). It can't go to every part of the inside
of our body. The sun rays would only only reach our skin. Some may state
this is just oxygen. But it's not because an energy vortex in the
bioetheric body is what absorbs the vitality globules and break them
down into different vibrations and distributing this throughout the
entire body and other chakras (as clairvoyantly perceived. See the
message "Seeing Holographically" for the basis of clairvoyance). The
absorbing and discharging of Qi in man is from moment to moment, like
breathing. Only this liquid like etheric particles get into this
energy vortex of the body and expelling them thru the skin in a
straight liquid like fashion. See illustration of the so called Health
aura here:

[Only registered users see links. ]

It seems the more complex the design of matter, the more Qi it needs
to maintain the organization and interconnections.

Is there any research or possibility that atoms of living things has
more organizational complexity and they need photonic energy or
subtle components of it to remain alive or maintain its function?? If
these photonic like energy (or some unknown energy from the sun) can
interact with the electroweak force, nuclear force, then altering its
Qi parameter can change the expression. This is shown in the china Qi
experiments where extra emissions from Qi practitioners seem to change
the decay rate of atoms, alter the pattern of water structure, etc.

Is there a possibility that the spin of electrons and orbital energy
state needs some external power like some subtle kind of photons or
energy structures in the Aether? like Qi?? Some kind of undiscovered
particles in the Vacuum, like Dirac's sea of electrons.. or sea of subtle
photons, etc. Or are atoms some kind of virtual perpetual machines? Physics
expert would state immediately that its like gravity where it doesn't
require energy but like free energy (the orbital energy state). But is
there a possibility, theoretically even how small it is, that some
form of energy is needed by the atoms to organize all its expression
including its non_local communication properties (that is, especially
when consciousness in-forms it?) by taking the energy from an Aether.

This atomic energy fuel can't be electromagnetic but perhaps some
pattern of structure that can restore the disorganized substructure of
the atoms giving back its structure impacting power to it?? Or perhaps
some believe the nucleus contains virtual protons, which interacts
with this virtual photons (from the sun)... like Dirac's concept of
virtual particles. And Qi or virtual photons charging and discharging
the nucleus can act like a capactor, impacting energy needed by the
atoms to function in some fundamental way (that may be related to
consciousness)? Or perhaps the atom has nuclear potential located
inside the nucleus composing of disordered, unstructured patterns of
virtual substructures, and "qi" or structure virtual photons charging
the nucleus organizing its atomic potential and consciousness
interface mechanism? Or something along this line (the ideas may be
basically wrong but just to give an illustration of what other forms
of energy the atoms may acquire from the surrounding especially when
consciousness in-forms it).

Note also that the above questions themselves may be wrong because we
may be dealing with non baryonic matter. Qi may be like dark matter
and it may interface with matter thru the gravity force or others.
Just imagine the Vacuum may compose not just all those particle
physics virtual kind of things but also subtle components that made up
the atmosphere etheric particles that serve as carrier of the photonic
or some kind of vacuum energy subunit of the sun that is used to
charge up the equally non_baryonic matter in man (bioetheric body). If
this is the case, then its not the ordinary atomic environment that
needs qi but the subtle non-baryonic part of the body. I'm still
determining what is the case and if someone has a clue. Let me know.


c

cinquirer wrote:

Read up on "solar constant".



No. There are neutrinos, lots of charged particles (read up on "solar
wind"), ...



What does "sea of subtle energies" mean?



We can't tell, because you didn't say what these "energies" are supposed
to be.



Do you ask if there are other, undetected fields beside the well-known,
which are quantized, too? If yes, could you *please* try to learn what
standard terms (like energy and field) mean in physics, and how to use
these terms?



If you got a clue what you mean by your buzz words above, let me know.



How do you know? Clearvoyance again?

And didn't you say that Qi is somehow related to consciousness? Do you
want to claim that the sun is conscious or what???



I'm still waiting for some evidence from properly controlled studies for
the *existence* of Qi.



Who didn't bother to use any controls.



How was this done?



Sorry, this sentence makes no sense.



How do you know? Clairvoyance again?



WHAT ON EARTH IS THIS SUPPOSED TO MEAN?



What do you mean by "photonic energy", and why do you act now if Qi were
identical to photons, although above you weren't sure about this?



*sigh* Do you even know what "virtual photon" *means*?



Energy is the ability to do work. It doesn't have a "structure" or
"pattern".



How do you know? Clearvoyance again?



Same question.



Same question.



Same question.



"reactions like chemicals"? Say, will there a day be coming when you
will make sense?



Same questions.



What about the neutrinos?



Same questions.



There was no explanation there, only lots of buzz words and anecdotial
evidence.



Same questions.



Same questions.



Is there any evidence from properly controlled studies that Qi exists??



"energy interacting with forces" makes no sense at all.



Please note the word "seem".



No. This question doesn't make much sense.



I already told you that Dirac's view is long outdated.



What are "subtle photons"?



Ouch!!!



Will there ever come a day when you write sentences one can understand
at once? Physicists claim nothing even remotely similar to this.



What do you mean by "atoms organizing their expressions"?



Why do you think that any fuel is needed? For what?



What "disorganized substructure"?



No. Only virtual mesons, I would say.



If something interacts with virtual photons from the sun, this means
that there is an electromagnetic force between this something and the
sun, plain and simple. This has nothing to do at all with "Qi".



IIRC, this wasn't Dirac's concept.



What do you mean like "charging and discharging"?



Do you mean "capacitor"?



Why on earth do you think that atoms somehow need energy to function?
This makes no sense at all!



Huh???



Huh???



Huh???



Please first give evidence from properly controlled studies that these
effects exist.



Well, yes - photons obviously aren't baryons!



In what way may it be "like dark matter"?



What others?



What does "subtle" mean?



Gibberish with no basis in reality. Apparently "clearvoyance" is all you
can bring up if you are asked for evidence for any of these things, am I
right?



Hence the electrons? All other parts (real particles) of the body *are*
baryons.



Let us know if you have a clue what basic terms in physics (like energy
and field) mean.


Bye,
Bjoern

"cinquirer" <[Only registered users see links. ]> skrev i melding news:69cb3a95.0311122301.14a57ac3@posting.google.c om...

Suppose vacuum is composed also of a sea of invisible blue fairies
undetected by conventional physics. How would a photon react to
a fairy? Or rather, is there a photonic counterpart for those fairies?
If you got a clue, let me know.

Paul

cinquirer wrote:

Gravitation, except the gravitational stess-energy tensor is zero.

[snip]

Suppose your car has a sly elf under the hood instead of an engine.
Why do you keep wasting money on gasoline?

If it does't interact then it doesn't interact. If it doesn't
interact, how and why would you insert it into an equation?

BTW, it really isn't an elf. It is a fairy impersonating an elf.

--
Uncle Al
[Only registered users see links. ]
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!

"Paul B. Andersen" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:bp05hk$iv$[Only registered users see links. ]...
news:69cb3a95.0311122301.14a57ac3@posting.google.c om...
Philip Hose Farmer wrote a short story, where a monk on a boat is explaining
how the radio works. In their world, they believe em waves are fairies
dancing,
and he gives a fine explanatuion of em theory in terms of dancing fairies -
maybe it was
angels - and answers the question how many angels can dance on the head of a
pin.

Then the boat tips over the edge of the world (they were trying to
circumnavigate the globe,
a bit silly on a flat world)

SR

cinquirer wrote:

http://rapfast.petcom.com/~john/magfield.gif

Also look up Orgone.

Uncle Al wrote:
Al doesn't know but he doesn't speculate either.
Garbage in garbage out.
John

Bjoern Feuerbacher <[Only registered users see links. ].uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<[Only registered users see links. ].uni-heidelberg.de>...

Matter finer beyond the gaseous which can no longer be detected
by convensional instruments? Esotericist called it Etheric as they
can see and deal with it using the third eye which science can't see.

Supposed they are etheric or finer than gas, I wonder how photons react
to it. At this point, you would tell me to describe in full detail what
is Etheric. Since physics doesn't study it, I can't use physics terms.


Field is defined in [Only registered users see links. ] as "A region of space
characterized by a physical property, such as gravitational or
electromagnetic force or fluid pressure, having a determinable
value at every point in the region."

So when I mention Etheric Field or Informational Field. I mean
the above although they may not be physical. I'm using the term
generally to convey the concept of "field". If you will strictly
limit it use to "physical" and tell people not to us it when not
mentioning about convensional thing. Then what would people use?
Maybe it is this way that physics try to create a division between
their established science and those extended things that they don't
want to investigate because they have already concluded they don't
exist without any real open mind investigations.

Let's go to Energy.

Energy: The capacity of a physical system to do work.

So just because I'm referring to unconvensional thing as such
etheric means I should use the word "energy" because it is not
proven to be physical and not calculable by physics??

If physics limit the use of the terms to their books only. I
guess what would be a good substitute for "energy" & "field".
I'd think of the substitutes today.



During cloudy sky. Qi is less, the etheric particles called "vitality
globules" are seen to be less. It's as if they need the direct rays
of the sun to be charged up. When charged up, they dance and oscillate.
During cloudy whether, there are less Qi entering the spleen chakra.
When the sky is shiny, more Qi enter the spleen chakra.


Let's not go around the bush. Let me state tht the etheric field is
some kind of interface between physical and higher energies. When
I say higher energies, I mean a higher subtle source of energy (let
me use this for now while I think up a substitute so as not to use
physics term which deals with physical property). This is why we
need the etheric interface, because it's the interface between
physical and higher energies. Now what is the source of these higher
energies. Isn't it that Superstrings has 11 dimensions. Then we can
hypothesize that the higher energies come from those higher superstrings
dimensions. Now you will ask me to show proof. This is the problem with
you guys. It's either we show proof or get lost. Give us time to give
proof (I'll give proof once I understood the physics of Qi and can
build technology that interacts with it). Back to the higher energies.
It's like this. Each of our chakra is connected to one of these
higher energies (that let's say for now comes from higher superstrings
dimensions... you may remind me at this point now to use
"superstrings" or others but convensional physics, but how can I
explain higher energies when I'd not refer to any framework that
can support it that is not supported by convensional physics!). So
allow me to use superstings for now. The hypothesis now is that each
of our chakra is connected to certain superstrings dimension. And
our chakra has seals that prevent our consciousness to tap into
their dimensions. When our consciousness evolves, certain actions
occur in the bioetheric body that opens up these gateways between
dimensions so the yogi becomes no longer just bounded by physical
consciousness but can directly deal with the matter of the higher
superstrings consciousness. And this is the secret of the Initiations
that you heard in occult sources. Therefore one of the purpose of
the Bioetheric body is that it serves as separator of forces. When
one is ready, and the chakra are all open and align, then you can
control the forces of the higher superstrings dimensions and this
is the power we humans can wield. The so called Kundalini is one
of the energy of the superstrings and I have experienced about what
it can do. Now you may jump up your seat by my use of the superstrings
concept. Well. If I'd not use it, how can I explain the higher energies
that our chakras are connected to. Treat chakras as bi-directional
Mini-Rosen Einstein bridges that connect dimensions. You may say
how can I mention the superstrings when it is not yet fully studied.
Well. Let me just say it is a temporarily construct we use to make
analogy of the higher forces that in-forms our biological body.
If you don't want me to use any other terms but just convensional
physics and there are higher energies not described by it, and I
can't use other means of conveying it, then how can I describe or
give analogy of it to you. Do you want to corner me by using limited
science and make me submit. It's like someone in the 15th century
who wants you to describe a radio set using the science of their
century. You can't state electromagnetic field but flying elves that
carry waves or books of information... and they would burn you at the
stake (or in this century, put you in the crackpots corner). Bottom
line is, be open minded and not defend physics armed to the teeth.
Be flexible and accept other hypothesis for further investigation.


I already described above.



It means these etheric particles in the atmosphere can enter our
chakras (fluid vortex) and get into our body direct from the
skin distributing themselves to various parts of our body.


That's why I stared this thread. Because I can't figure out how etheric
particles need sunlight to be charged up and yet it doesn't holds the
normal photons. I wonder if somehow the etheric counter-part of the sun
produces a corresponding etheric photons that couples to the vitality
globles or etheric particles. My best guess now is that the sun light
can oscillate these etheric particles imparting energy to it in the
form of oscillations and it is this oscillations that is supplied to
the body etheric structures to impart energy to it??? Just a hypothesis.
Well. I'm still figuring it out.



That's convensional energy. But conscious energy such as thoughtforms
can do work and it has structure. In my country. Some who dabble
in black magic victimize their victims by producing, amplfying a
thoughtform (or programmable etheric matter) and this can do the
damage in the victims bioetheric body by putting holes in it and
wrecking it. What we Qi healers do is to knit the holes in the
bioetheric body by putting certain violet Qi to it.



This electromagnetic force connection is something I can't quite
get. To discuss it. Let's mention about Ghosts. In my country. The
Qi healers have experiences handling Ghosts too. When a person dies,
the bioplasmic or bioetheric body disengage from the physical. In some
cases, vitalityis so strong that it doesn't dissipate after separation
and it can move separately with a vague memory taken from the bioetheric
portionof the brain that produces resonance of memory in the bioetheric
brain while alive. This means the ghosts many see are not really the
person him/herself but just a separated portion of him. This is why
ghosts are kinda childish and the actions are repetitive because they
are using recordings of a memory and sometimes other entities use the
shells to move around much like people using car to drive. This is
specially apparent in seance and other mediumistic cases. In ghosts.
There are also astral matter interpenetrating in situations where the
emotions and feelings are so strong before death. Ghost ativity is
less when the person succumbs to a slow death where the emotions and
thoughts are slowly dissipated. Now there is something I can't quite
figure out. Ghosts can be seen easily by seers but at rare times,
these ghosts can become visible and be seen by others and they can
even cause physical objects to move. So I wonder how the hell can
their non-baryonic body influence the physical?? There is this
hidden relationship and if one can understand it, then theories
about electromagnetism effects on it can be formulated.


Can particles somehow be vortexes in a sea of Aether? It then acquires
the energy of the Aether to function? Someone mention about
Aethro-kinematics a while ago. Let me read it now and see if it
makes sense or just another mumbo jumbo.

[Only registered users see links. ]

c

cinquirer wrote:

One thing at a time. What's special about the Sun? How
about other light sources, from UVLEDs to a dung fire?

If you are convinced it has to do with some form of
radiated energy other than light, test some others. Get a
smoke detector and (carefully) remove the Americium capsule,
and try to scry or whatever the various radiations coming
from it.

Mark L. Fergerson

cinquirer wrote:

Hint: The word is "conventional".

And what do you mean by "matter finer beyond the gaseous"? Matter
smaller than molecules? Than atoms? If yes, it could be nuclei,
electrons, protons, neutrons (in essence: charged particles in the solar
wind), or neutrinos. All of these can be detected by conventional
instruments.

If you don't mean any of those, please be more specific.

And what has this to do with a "sea of subtle energies"? Make up your
mind. Do you mean energy or matter? And what does "subtle" mean,
specifically?



They *claim* that they can see and deal with it. May I remind you that
I'm still waiting on some properly controlled studies which demonstrate
this?




Sorry, but as long as you don't tell us what "etheric" is supposed to
mean, nobody can tell you how such matter would react with photons.

I could as well say: "Suppose that there is asgelbgregf in the vacuum.
That's some stuff which is finer than atoms and can't be detect by
science. How would it react to photons?". This would make equally much
sense!

Actually, if this "etheric" matter *would* react with photons, we should
be able to detect it - because photons only interact with charged
particles, and we are able to detect charged particles! Hence *if* this
etheric matter exists, it obviously can't interact with photons. (or our
whole descriptions of photons and their interactions is wrong - do you
want to suggest this?)




Right.



Then you can't expect to get answers to physical questions about it!!!

*OBVIOUSLY* physics is unable to describe how something which it hasn't
studied (and which, according to you, can't be studied with conventional
instruments) behaves!



Yes, that sounds like a quite sensible definition for laymen.But the
definition I had in mind was more like "a function of the three space
coordinates". If you want to claim that there is a "Qi field", you first
have to explain how one can *quantify* it - in which units it is
measured, how can it be measured, is it a scalar field, a vector field,
a tensor field, and so on. As long as you can't describe what properties
this claimed field has, you have no right to even call it a field!

Please notice that even the layman definition above contains the term
"having a determinable value at every point in the region". Could you
please tell us how one assigns values to Qi, and how one determines its
value at any given point?



The definition above explicitly said "characterized by a physical
property". So you can't mean the above. And, again, how does one assign
values to Qi, and how does one determines these values? I'm asking you
to give a *QUANTITATIVE* description of Qi, instead of only a
qualitative one (and in essence, you haven't even given the latter one).
As long as you can't quantify Qi, you have no right to say that there is
a "Qi field". The same for "etheric field" and "information field", BTW.

And if these fields aren't physical, why on earth do you expect that
physics has anything to say about them??? Why did you come to this
newsgroup?



As I pointed out above, your so-called fields have nothing to do with
the physical definition - neither the one I gave nor the one you quoted.
So, could you please define for us what "field" means to you?



*YOU* WANTED TO TALK ABOUT THE PHYSICS OF QI!!!



"not mentioning about convensional thing"? Huh? What is this supposed to
mean?



As I already said in another message: if the words you use don't have
the meanings which with they are generally used in physics, then use
others words and define them clearly.



What a nonsense! I'm pointing out that you use words which have clear
definitions in physics with other meanings, and you then point out that
scientists are close minded?!? This makes no sense at all!

Again: if you want to talk about things which aren't included in the
standard definitions, then invent other words, *DEFINE THEM CLEARLY*,
and then use those instead of the standard physic terms! What's your
problem with this very simple way out? I guess your problem is that you
aren't able to define anything clearly - you can only speak about Qi
with vague generalities and New Age buzz words.



Right. That's the standard definition. Now, do you know what is meant by
"work" in physics?



Sorry, I don't understand this sentence at all.

What I wanted to point out is that you aren't using the term "energy"
according to the definition given above, but only seem to have a very
vague concept in mind what "energy" is supposed to mean. If the thing
you are talking about isn't energy, please use another word and *DEFINE
IT CLEARLY*.



What on earth are you talking about? Do you have a problem with the
definition that "energy is the ability to do work"? If yes, why???



Sorry, I don't understand this sentence at all, again.



Oh, so you will think about alternative terms? Thanks! But *PLEASE*
*DEFINE THEM CLEARLY* before using them!

You can even continue to use "energy" and "field", if you like, *IF* you
give a *CLEAR DEFINITION* of what these terms mean when you use them
before using them again!



Which Qi is less? At what point? In which places? Everywhere?

And do you want to imply here that clouds can block Qi, can absorb it?
If yes, this would be absolute clear evidence that Qi interacts with
normal matter, not only with "living things". In other words,
conventional instruments should be able to detect it!

Or do you only want to imply (as you seem to be saying lower down) that
Qi doesn't come directly from the sun, but the light from the sun
somehow interacts with Qi and "charges it up", whatever this is supposed
to mean?
If yes, then again, conventional instruments should be able to detect Qi
- because if light interacts with it, it has to be / consists of charged
particles, and we can detect charged particles with conventional
instruments.

You can't have it both ways: you can't say at once that Qi interacts
with the physical world and is undetectable with conventional
instruments!




So it *is* clearvoyance which is used to detect this "lesser Qi"?

Where are these "globules"? Are they floating around in the air? If yes,
how big are they, how many are there, which is their density, are there
more of them around certain objects (living things, for example), can
their motion be affected by anything, can they penetrate other objects
(IIRC, you already mentioned this somewhere), and so on! There are
*SOOOOOOOOOOO* many questions one can investigate about these "globules"
- you have told us close to nothing about all these properties so far!



What does "charging up" mean here?



Has anyone ever recorded this dancing and oscillating? Has anyone ever
analyzed it? For example, oscillation frequencies, mean free path
length, looking if they make smooth curves or turned around sharply,
looking for reasons which makes them turn around, and on and on! Again,
*LOTS* of questions which immediately come to mind, and about which you
haven't told us anything! Further, you could do studies where you
compare these measured values for oscillation frequency and so on to the
amount of sun light which comes through the cloud, and determine the
relationships between all of these parameters. *That* would be doing
physics! (before whining that physicists always want to quantify things,
may I remind you that *you* came here and asked for physical
explanations for Qi?)



How does one determine this? Again clearvoyance?

And *how much less*? Did you ever measure the intensity of sun light and
the amount of Qi which "entered the spleen chakra" (again: how can one
quantify Qi?), and tried to find a relationship?



Qualitative statements. If you want to find a physical explanation for
Qi, you have to do *quantitative measurements* first!!!



Meaningless statement, as long as you don't explain what you mean by
"energy" and the difference between "physical" and "higher" energies.



"higher subtle source of energy" is not an explanation for "higher
energies". You merely added another undefined word ("subtle"), and
compiled a statement which makes no sense. Something can't be at once an
energy and a source of energy!

BTW, what do you mean by "source of energy"? Is this something where
energy is created out of nowhere, in other words, a violation of the
conservation of energy? Or does the word "energy" you use here have
nothing to do with the physical use of this word?



As said above, you can use this word, *IF YOU DEFINE IT CLEARLY
BEFOREHAND*. Before giving a clear definition of what you mean by
"energy", statements as the one above make no sense. I could as well
say:
"When I say asfedgh ztsggts , I mean a asfedgh hteadgt source of
ztsggts". This makes equally little sense, and gives equally little
information of what "asfedgh ztsggts" means.



Meaningless. See above.



No. Where did you get this from?



*sigh* You have no clue about string theory and even the concept of
dimensions, right?

Saying that "energy comes from other dimensions" is New Age gibberish.
This statement makes no sense in physics. Or do you think a statement
like "the energy in the length dimension comes from the width dimension"
makes sense? This statement is exactly equivalent to what you said here!



No, because we are talking about physics, and there is no proof in
experimental physics. Only evidence. Or, as you are talking about
hypotheses only in the moment, I ask you first for a clear definition of
your terms and a detailed explanation for the reasons to invent this
hypotheses. Why should anyone think that energy can come from other
dimensions, whatever this is supposed to mean?



Wrong. First of all, you have to show clear definitions of your terms,
you have to explain how you arrive at your hypotheses, you have to show
that your hypotheses don't contradict established knowledge (well, if
you have really groundbreaking hypotheses, you may leave this step out
perhaps - but then you have to provide *much* stronger evidence!), you
have to formulate quantitative descriptions of what you claim, you have
to derive predictions from your hypotheses, and *then* comes the
experimental test. Only *then* can anyone ask for proof (evidence).

So far, you haven't even done the first step (define your terms
clearly). So far, all you have is "there are apparently some mysterious
effects which *I* can't explain with *my* knowledge of physics". You ask
us for help, but you don't bother to describe these effects in clear
terms, or to quantify them - instead, you use lots of New Age buzz
words, without bothering to define their meanings, and speculate around
a lot about far-out theories which you don't understand. And you point
out repeatedly that Qi can't be measured by concentional instruments.
And then you expect us to be able to help you developing a physical
theory for Qi??? Wake up!




I gave you some suggestions what you could do, even without instruments,
only using your "clearvoyance" results.Further, Mark has made lots of
suggestions what you could do, too. You ignored his entire post and gave
another sermon which had nothing to do with what Mark wrote.
Essentially, you ask for a physical theory, but you refuse to do any
physics in order to arrive at it!




Still meaningless.



Superstring theory doesn't support "higher energies" either, so why do
you use it? It *can't* support "higher energies", because you *HAVE NOT
DEFINED WHAT THIS MEANS*!!!

And you haven't shown so far that the effects you attribute to Qi can't
be explained by "conventional physics", you have merely asserted this.
Repeatedly. I guess about 50 times not. As if repeating something would
make it true.



I will allow you to use anything you like, as soon as you
1) define your terms
2) first demonstrate that you understand the things you use.

You have already demonstrated that you misunderstand the concepts of
higher dimensions, hence I don't think you should use string theory
already now.



Meaningless. How does one connect a "chakra" (which hasn't a clear
definition) to a dimension? How does one connect *anything* to a
dimension? What is this supposed to mean?

And how many dimensions do you think there are? How many chakras are
there?



It's getting more and more meaningless.

Speculating widely using undefined terms and buzz words isn't physics.
It's New Age bibble-babble.



What do you mean by "evolves" here?



Another term you haven't defined.



What on earth are "gateways between dimensions"? Again, this is not
physics, you aren't using the word "dimension" with its physical
meaning, and hence you aren't using the physical string theory, but only
some vague concept you have about it, which has little to do with what
the theory really says.



What's a "higher superstrings consciousness"?



That's an unsupported claim - but don't worry, this is no problem,
because the claim is not only unsupported, but in fact absolutely
meaningless - because you *HAVE NOT DEFINED YOUR BASIC TERMS*!



What is this supposed to mean? What forces? How does one separate
forcces? And why the "therefore" here? How does this follow from the
things you said before?



What does this mean? What's the physical difference between an open and
a closed chakra? Aligned and unaligned chakras? Oh, chakras can't be
described by conventional physics, right? Then why do you ask us for a
physical explanation again?



Meaningless bibble-babble.

What forces are these supposed to be? Why do they "exist" only in the
"higher superstring dimensions"?

Are you using "force" here with its meaning in physics, or do you again
only have a vague concept of the meaning of this word?



Still meaningless.



No, I don't jump, I only point out that you don't understand the concept
of higher dimensions, not even the meaning of the word "dimension".



I can't answer this, because you didn't bother to explain what "higher
energies" mean and what "our chakras are connected to [them]" means.



This makes no sense at all. Einstein-Rosen bridges don't connect
dimensions ("connecting dimensions" makes no sense with the usual
physical meaning of the word "dimension" - or could you please explain
to me how one connects the length dimension to the width dimension?),
they connect different points in our fourdimensional space-time.



Yes. And I say, too: How can you mention superstrings when you don't
even understand what "dimension" means?



Sorry, I don't understand the analogy. This may be due to the fact that
you don't bother to define your terms...



By defining your terms!



No!

cinquirer, there are lots of words in use in physics now which didn't
exist before they were invented, or which are used with meanings
different from the ones in common language. No one quibbled around when
these terms were invented - because when they were invented, *THEY WERE
DEFINED CLEARLY*. Got me?



If he takes small steps, introduces new terms slowly and explains them
carefully, this should work, although it will take a lot of time.

But I would like to mention here that it is debatable if in the 15th
century even *any* science existed - I would say they didn't even have
the *concept* of science back then! The modern concept of science
started essentially with people like Kepler, Galileo and Newton - some
centuries later.



You can state it - if you explain what it means.



Nonsense.



Depends on your approach. If you use the approach you have demonstrated
so far, they would have rightly ridiculed you (or worse). If you took
small steps, explaining each term carefully at each step, and gave
experimental demonstrations for each new statements or hypothesis, it
should have been no unsurmountable problem.



*sigh*

Asking you to give clear explanations of your terms and to do some very
basic experiments has nothing to do with "defending physics armed to the
teeth".



If you would give sensible hypotheses, I wouldn't mind. But all you
presented so far were unsubstantiated guesses, using far-out theories,
and lots of buzz words, instead of hard experimental, quantifiable
facts. Summarized: you have no clue how to do physics.



Sorry, I didn't see above where you mentioned how do you know this.




How do you know that chakras are "fluid vortices"? In what sense do you
use "fluid" here? It a chakra a liquid? Or does it act like one? If yes,
what properties of chakras are like the ones of liquids? How do you
distinguish this from gas-like behaviour?



How do you know? Clearvoyance again?



Could you *please* explain what "charged up" means? Do you talk about
electric charge or something totally different?

And how do you know that these "etheric particles" don't "hold" the
normal photons?



What's this?



What are "etheric photons"?



So you think indeed that light interacts with these etheric particles?
If yes, as already explained above, they should be detectable by
conventional physics.



"energy in the form of oscillations" makes not much sense.



Thanks that you apparently bothered to learn the difference between
"theory" and "hypothesis".



How? By thinking on it? Or making actual experiments?

As I already suggested above: try doing some quantitative studies on the
relationship between sunlight intensity and "Qi charge"! (or whatever
you want to call this)




What's "conscious energy"? How can one measure/detect it?



Sounds like Voodoo. Any properly controlled tests which show that this
works?



Same question.




Virtual photons are the "carriers" of the electromagnetic force. Hence
if the sun emits a virtual photon and an object absorbs it, there is an
electromagnetic force between the sun and the object. What's so hard to
understand about that?



Ouch!

I tried to be open minded and to act as if the things you claim actually
exist, but sorry, this is getting more and more ridiculous!



How do you know?



What is "vitality", and what does "dissipate" mean here?



How do you know?



How do you know?



Care to point out any seance where not cheating was involved?



What's this?



How do you know?



By all of them? And do all of them describe them in the same way? Doing
the same things, and so on?



Please present evidence for this. Hint: anecdotes and hearsay are not
evidence, even if you have hundreds of them.



If you say so.




Meaningless question. "be somehow vortexes in a sea of aether" has no
meaning, it is just bibble-babble. You have some vague concept in your
mind, but physics doesn't deal with vague concepts, it deals with
quantitative data and testable predictions.



You haven't answered my question: Why on earth do you think that atoms
somehow need energy to function?



I bet the latter.


Bye,
Bjoern