Evidence of Conscious-Backward Through Time Communiction

Reiku

Banned
Banned
Link

From Towards a Science of Consciousness 3, Section 8: The Timing of Conscious Experience (CogNet Proceedings)

Conscious and Anomalous Nonconscious Emotional Processes:
A Reversal of the Arrow of Time?
Dick J. Bierman and Dean Radin

----------------

Dr. Radin found that there was physical effects (electrical stimuli) in patients well-before the event was transpired. As i have recently been writing much more than usual, i am in the process of writing about this very subject discovered by Dr. Radin, and applying it to Cramers Transactional Interpretation of quantum physics.

It seems that at least several seconds before the subjects where resulted to horrific images, the electrical stimulus in there skin had peaked, as though there was some kind of confirmation well-before the event. This is definitive proof of backwards through time-travel, and the nature of what is travelling back can only be explained using quantum time waves of information.

I would also like it known that ever since i have came to SciForums, each and everytime i presented Cramers Interpretation, it was never given high creadit by many here. I hope this view will now change, unless anyone else can provide a better explanation to what is happening to the subjects, other than some psychic experience (which i suppose is a possibility), but i want to remain as scientifically accurate as possible.
 
And there has been extra evidence that such backward time travel is important. Something else i have adopted throughout my time here, was expressing the Wheeler-Delayed Choice Experiment, showing that even that experiment (scientifically varified in 2000-2001), proved that some information had to move back through time. Dr Wolf uses this in explaining yet another neural phenomena which seems that subjects experienced sensory perception before any physical processes, as you will find in his thesis:

The Timing of Conscious Experience: A Causality-Violating, Two-Valued, Transactional Interpretation of Subjective Antedating and Spatial-Temporal Projection1
F. A. Wolf , Have Brains / Will Travel, San Francisco, CA
 
Alphanumeric --

Irony overload... please don't be contradictory. I didn't even see you making any scientific explanation of yourself... come to think about it... apart from your usual derogatory statements and insults, you haven't even contributed your own theories. It's almost like you never progress. In fact, you made a lot of statements in my last post here, but failed to come back with some witty retort, other than your infinitely boring statements of calling me a liar, idiot and mainly a bad scientist. But i am past really caring what you think. You might be able to rally a few to your unjust cause round here, but that's natural of you. You like to set up ''little gangs'' then try and grind them down until they resort saying things they regretted. You have a remarkable ability to do this, and it is something nothing to be proud of.

Crunchy

I am sure there is. By the way, your definition of para-scientist is very oblique. Most physicists have to take into account the theory of the mind, because it is a quantum system itself. But, yeh... i am sure there are some scientists who don't ''normally'' study psychophysics who have reviewed the work.
 
Crunchy

I am sure there is. By the way, your definition of para-scientist is very oblique. Most physicists have to take into account the theory of the mind, because it is a quantum system itself. But, yeh... i am sure there are some scientists who don't ''normally'' study psychophysics who have reviewed the work.

I wasn't able to find one; however, maybe you will have better luck. Dean Radin isn't exactly accepted as a real scientist in the world of science and his para-bias makes me not trust his results.
 
Irony overload... please don't be contradictory. I didn't even see you making any scientific explanation of yourself... come to think about it... apart from your usual derogatory statements and insults, you haven't even contributed your own theories. It's almost like you never progress.
You and I have been over this before. I don't see any profit in posting mindless BS essays. If I want to type up a long PDF then I make sure it's on something viable and mathematically/physically sound. As it happens, I have typed up such things on complex manifolds, Penrose diagrams, the laws of black hole mechanics and several "Q&A sheets" for courses I help teach to undergraduates.

As for my own research I am currently putting the few finishing touches to a presentation I have to give to the entire high energy physics department of my university on Thursday. The last 10 minutes, having spent 30 minutes 'setting the scence', is about my work. Tomorrow I have to waste 2 hours of my day at a 'poster day' where we're all forced to make crappy A0 posters explaining our work, except it's aimed at non-physicists who don't know any maths (ie chumps like you) so I cannot use any equations. Pointless.

Then in 3 weeks time I'm attending a conference on string vacua and giving a talk here too on my work the people who work in the field.

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=20009 is the thread I posted about my work because people like you were whining I never posted anything to do with my research. I am 110% sure it's entirely over your head and so discussing it with you would be pointless. BenTheMan might find some of it interesting, if he can read my handwriting and perhaps a few others here, but considering even the people I share an office with haven't got a clue what I do (nor I them), I doubt anyone outside the area Ben and I work in will follow it.

But if you wish to discuss anything specific in that page, feel free to start a thread about it over in the physics & maths forum and initiate a discussion. Unlike you I don't feel the need to plaster my ramblings everywhere, except when you whine so much I want to shut you up by showing you what actual string theory work involves (and on the scale of it, my work isn't anywhere close to what people like Witten do).
But i am past really caring what you think.
So why do you keep responding? You appear to do the same here as you did on PhysOrg, others have noticed it. You threaten to leave, go away for a week and then come back. Then a week or two later make another song and dance about how everyone dislikes you and threaten to leave again.
hen try and grind them down until they resort saying things they regretted.
I didn't set up 'the Forum mafia' and I don't consider myself part of them. Besides, I don't need a little gang to correct you. For instance, you claimed in another thread to know QED. I bet you don't. I didn't force you into saying that, you said it of your own accord, but I'm certain that if I challenged you to do a very short QED question you'd refuse or ignore it. Or desperately Google for the answer.
You have a remarkable ability to do this, and it is something nothing to be proud of.
And you have a remarkable gift for putting yourself 'in the line of fire'.

Tell me, why do you post all these essays? You obviously have a lot of time on your hands but you're unwilling to sit down with a physics book or maths book and work through them. You ignore the comments of people who have sat down and worked through said books. You get defensive when people studying for PhDs in string theory correct you on your string theory know. You get whiney and insulting when you're corrected on your knowledge (or lack of) of the Standard Model. Even the equations of relativity you fail to grasp.

And the fact you honestly thought that 0=1 was an 'equation of the universe' makes me wonder if you're either just in love with wasting your time or completely barmy. Though you did provide a couple of good laughs to my collegues yesterday who wondered what I was laughing at.

If you aren't 'ignorant to science' do you want to answer a few questions the 2nd years who do their first quantum mechanics course I mark for them did last week? Just a few things on solving the Schrodinger equation, Fourier transforms and computing expectations of various things.

Or do you have a good excuse lined up about why you can spend hours (or, by your own admittance, days) on working out that 1=0 explains the universe but not a few minutes computing the wavefunction for the 1+1 dimensional Schrodinger equation with :

$$V = \infty \qquad x < 0$$

$$V = 0 \qquad 0<x<a$$

$$V= V_{0}\qquad x>a$$

Feel free to answer that one.
 
Actually AN i did more math the other day on 0=1. I found algebraic evidence that it is possible. No i will not do your equations. I wouldn't satisfy someone who wants to ridicule with all factor of impressing themselves.

I spend hours and hours a day on physics. I don't have a single day that passes where i do not work on physics. I know things. Other things i do not. But i hate prancies lightweights who preclude that if someone posts science (ironically on a science website) is found to be seeking attention? Can you answer your own logic...?

Things like ''why do you post these essays,'' just highlights your ignorance of why places like this exist. Don't get me wrong. I have my own website which i post scientific esays to full degree. I am still at college. But i see no reason why someone like you should try and deter me from posting here.

I say i don' care. You reply by replying, ''why do i reply?''

This is a retarded attitude. If you have so many problems with me, and why i even post essays, why bother even saying anything at all? Why don't you sit at home, work out some equations or even working out general science without waisting your invaluable time with me? In fact, i beg you to piss off. You are soooo annoying it is unbeleivable to infinite proportions.

In respect to saying i am going, it might interest you that i have communicational difficulties. Whilst i hate mentioning this in any case, you have now driven me to use this as an explanation to why i can get so heated. I return, because i like a lot of people here. Also, because i like science. No i love it.

And congratulations. It's brilliant that you are giving help to students workings ect ect.... but please don't say it to me in a string of paragraphs with derogatory sentances, because it only proves you have a psychological disfunction where you intentionally need to prove some type of superintelligence. It is quite nerving at best.
 
It seems that at least several seconds before the subjects where resulted to horrific images, the electrical stimulus in there skin had peaked, as though there was some kind of confirmation well-before the event.

This is definitive proof of backwards through time-travel, and the nature of what is travelling back can only be explained using quantum time waves of information.

Eek !! :eek:
 
No i will not do your equations.
Students in their 1st course on quantum mechanics can solve it. Can you just outline how you'd solve it? What assumptions would you make about the wave function? What trial solutions would you use? That'll take 3 lines to answer. You don't even have to put pen to paper.
I spend hours and hours a day on physics
As I said to you in another thread, I have never seen you give any evidence you have working knowledge of physics or maths. Can you provide me with a link to a thread where you answer an actual physics or maths question? Not wordy, something like "Find the potential..." or "If a block of mass m moves at ...." sort of thing.
I don't have a single day that passes where i do not work on physics.
What textbooks are you reading? What lecture notes do you use? Give me some books you're using which aren't pop science books.

What area are you currently concentrating on? You talk about antimatter or field theory processes. What books on QED have you read? You said you know QED. What specifically can you compute? Do you know what gauge fixing is? If I asked you to derive the conservation of electric charge in QED, could you?
But i hate prancies lightweights who preclude that if someone posts science (ironically on a science website) is found to be seeking attention?
I've yet to see you post science. You post your opinion. You attempt to imply you're posting detailed sections of physics. You talk about things which, in mainstream physics, are described by QED or GR but you never post actual QED or GR and any attempt you have to do maths involves remedial levels of token algebra. Remember that post of your on PhysOrg that said (x1,x2,x3) was a metric?
Things like ''why do you post these essays,'' just highlights your ignorance of why places like this exist.
Why do you post such things when you can never justify your work, never accept correction and pretend to grasp things you don't?

This place is a discussion forum but you never like it when people point out your errors. You want praise and nothing else.
I am still at college.
Doing what? You said you spend hours a day doing physics. Are you at university or A level 'college'? When I say 'college' I refer to university because Cambridge has colleges within it's university. When many of my friends say 'college' they mean 6th form 'college'. Which is it? And what are you studying? What level are you are?
But i see no reason why someone like you should try and deter me from posting here.
I'm not trying to stop you posting. I'm trying to stop you posting BS. I offered, in your previous thread like this, to help you learn physics. I'd recommend books or lecture notes and offer to give you help with any problems you had. I'm speaking from exprience, I know what it's like to learn physics. You don't seem to want to learn.

Just today a 2nd year in my QM class came to see me. He is excellent at maths and truely has an inquizative mind and wanted to learn more. I spent an hour talking to him, answering his questions (even though some of them were about his crazy interpretations of time dilation, made me think of your nonsense!), explaining to him how physics courses develop as you get towards research level and then I said I'd be very happy to help him with any proejcts or ideas he wanted to do. I'm happy to do the same with you (though obviously not face to face).

But you don't seem to want to do that because it would mean you'd have to be honest about working through physics and you aren't interested in that.
Why don't you sit at home, work out some equations or even working out general science without waisting your invaluable time with me?
Can't I do both?
And congratulations. It's brilliant that you are giving help to students workings ect ect.... but please don't say it to me in a string of paragraphs with derogatory sentances, because it only proves you have a psychological disfunction where you intentionally need to prove some type of superintelligence. It is quite nerving at best.
I don't claim to have the ability to explain the universe. You do. I don't claim to be able to do things I can't. You do. If one of us has a 'dysfunctional mind', it's you. There's a difference between being reasonable about your level of ability and being delusional.

I can prove I'm good at maths and physics. I'm not amazing but it's undeniable I'm better than most. That's not arrogant, it's just a statement of fact. Out of my friends from 6th form, I was top. Out of my friends in uni, I was middle of the pack. In the string theory world, I'm towards the bottom. I have seen what the top is like and I know I'm not even close. You haven't seen what real physics or maths is and like all cranks you don't realise just how far from it you are. Look at people like Farsight on Physorg. No clue about physics, doesn't read textbooks or papers on the topics he talks about and thinks he's got all the answers.

I have helped people 10 times cleverer than me when they get stuck. I enjoy seeing people experience that "Oh.... so that's how it works!", be they dumb as a chimp or smart as a monkey. That 2nd year had that when I explained space-time diagrams to him today. You just don't seem to want to experience that. Yes, it might mean you accept you'll never be this generation's Einstein, but you can still experience the joy of learning and understanding. Everyone, you and me included, can.

So pull your head out of your delusions and accept your limits. I have. It took me a while and university was certainly a shock when I started, I won't deny it, but I am certainly a lot happier with myself since I accepted it. Maybe you would be too?
 
AN

I'm not answering all of this. When you came here, we already spoke. I told you what again? I said if you ever tried to annoy me, i wouldn't even retaliate like i did before. If this is the level of talk you want to do, i'll only answers questions which aren't thrown on me like some kind of homework test to do do, but can't be arsed, sort of thing.

Phlog

I'll say it again eh? Obviously i missed last time. The stuff you are seeing up there have been scientifically varified. Dr. Radin' experiment was even so hard to beleive at first, several extra scientific projects by different scientists are varified Radin's reults.

This means exactly what i said. It seems to be evidence that we are observing backwards time travel of information. No. Think about it the other way, and you'll see what makes this the other one the logical sense of thought. It is instead the observer experiencing a psychic phenomena, but that is too hard to believe. So instead, the quantum physical interpretation is the most accurate.
 
And eh... AN -- this one really riled you up didn't it?

''
“ Originally Posted by Reiku
And congratulations. It's brilliant that you are giving help to students workings ect ect.... but please don't say it to me in a string of paragraphs with derogatory sentances, because it only proves you have a psychological disfunction where you intentionally need to prove some type of superintelligence. It is quite nerving at best. ”

I don't claim to have the ability to explain the universe. You do. I don't claim to be able to do things I can't. You do. If one of us has a 'dysfunctional mind', it's you. There's a difference between being reasonable about your level of ability and being delusional. ''


Which is real cheap, since i have always said round here that no one can answer for physics, and in the end there is no interpretation (that would mean yours, mine, bobs) that is any truer than the other. But you speak down to people, and this is what makes your flaw.
 
Phlog

I'll say it again eh? Obviously i missed last time. The stuff you are seeing up there have been scientifically varified. Dr. Radin' experiment was even so hard to beleive at first, several extra scientific projects by different scientists are varified Radin's reults.


Got a reference to a peer reviewed journal showing that?
 
I've yet to see you post science. You post your opinion. You attempt to imply you're posting detailed sections of physics.

Oxford defines the word "Pseudoscience" as: "beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method." Meaning it can lack of supporting evidence or plausibility, like scientific evidence. SO, with this said, anything Reiku says is correct. Regardless of whether it's right, wrong, tested, untested.. as long as we're in the Pseudoscience forum, it doesn't matter! :D

NOTE: AlphaNumeric, this isn't a hit at you... I thoroughly enjoy reading the ongoing conflict between yourself and Reiku.



Actually, now that I think about it.. it's a hit to both of you! For hijacking my thread about time traveling flashlights. Bastards. :bawl:
 
Oxford defines the word "Pseudoscience" as: "beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method." Meaning it can lack of supporting evidence or plausibility, like scientific evidence. SO, with this said, anything Reiku says is correct. Regardless of whether it's right, wrong, tested, untested.. as long as we're in the Pseudoscience forum, it doesn't matter! :D

NOTE: AlphaNumeric, this isn't a hit at you... I thoroughly enjoy reading the ongoing conflict between yourself and Reiku.



Actually, now that I think about it.. it's a hit to both of you! For hijacking my thread about time traveling flashlights. Bastards. :bawl:


-----------
EDIT:
-----------

I was just reading a Wikipedia article on Pseudoscience.. basically AlphaNumeric, you're proving ME right and at the same time telling Reiku he is right.

These are signs of pseudoscience:
Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims
# Assertion of scientific claims that are vague rather than precise, and that lack specific measurements.
# Failure to make use of operational definitions.
# Failure to make reasonable use of the principle of parsimony, i.e. failing to seek an explanation that requires the fewest possible additional assumptions when multiple viable explanations are possible
# Use of obscurantist language, and misuse of apparently technical jargon in an effort to give claims the superficial trappings of science.


Lack of openness to testing by other experts
Evasion of peer review before publicizing results

Lack of progress
* Failure to progress towards additional evidence of its claims
*Lack of self correction: scientific research programmes make mistakes, but they tend to eliminate these errors over time.
 
Oxford defines the word "Pseudoscience" as: "beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method." Meaning it can lack of supporting evidence or plausibility, like scientific evidence. SO, with this said, anything Reiku says is correct.


Until he makes a claim such as;

Reiku said:
The stuff you are seeing up there have been scientifically varified.

Then he is claiming the stuff he posts under Pseudoscience, is real science.
 
Back
Top