The search continues....

When we see a wonderful monument and we say, “Isn’t that pretty?” or something of the sort. For most of my life I have seen things that cause awe and amazement. And in my attempts to explain them I have looked closer and closer. Defining the composition and then breaking that down further to try and explain or find the answers to the questions I was asking. Then, on 11-21-12 while reading the journal of one of our new members I had what alcoholics refer to as a moment of clarity. It’s not that I realized or saw an answer but rather I saw exactly what I was doing wrong. It is easy to pick apart all the inner workings of each individual function while in a forest, but to see what it is you’re looking at you have to back up till you can actually see the forest!

Aristotle told us plants have souls, but cannot feel. The early 20th-century botanist Raoul France of Vienna told us plants move as freely and as gracefully as a prima ballerina, but that we don't see it because of the speed of their dance (the interplay of time). Joseph Campbell in conversation with Bill Moyer's on the PBS special The Power of Myth described the graceful dance of a flowering vine as it wound its way up a column on his porch in Hawaii. As the plant produced its flowering bud it turned to meet the sun. Campbell went on to say that if that movement toward the sun isn't conscious behavior than he did not know what was. The dogma of science claims the plant’s turning to the sun is a simple genetic matter of heliotropism. This is another example of our limited definition of consciousness and our egocentric view toward it. Several hundred years of looking through a straw at the parts of nature and thereby ignoring the whole dance has convinced us that we are the only possessors of consciousness. The problem lies in our tiny definition of the word.

Trapped in our own anthropocentric and dogmatic view of the world we have become insensitive to aspects of the outer world that plants respond to so exquisitely. One need only consider what our current worldview has wrought on our environment to begin a change to a new paradigm where consciousness is universal and cooperation replaces competition.

Cleve Backster argued that plants perceived human intentions, and as Backster began to investigate further, he also reported a finding that other human thoughts and emotions caused reactions in plants that could be recorded by a polygraph instrument. His work was in part inspired by the research of Sir Jagadish Chandra Bose, who claimed to have discovered that playing certain kinds of music in the area where plants grew caused them to grow faster.

Backster's claims were refuted by Horowitz, Lewis, and Gasteiger (1975) and Kmetz (1977). Kmetz summarized the case against Backster in an article for the Skeptical Inquirer in 1978. Backster had not used proper controls in doing his study. When controls were used, no detection of plant reaction to thoughts or threats could be found. These researchers found that the cause of the polygraph contours could have been due to a number of factors, including static electricity, movement in the room, changes in humidity, etc.

As of yet, I have found no conclusive data from continued tests which prove Backster’s claim. I feel as if they were looking for the wrong thing.

Which brings me to where this is all going. We live in a harmonic universe, built upon a unified, unseen foundation of conscious, energy, known as "zero point energy" or "aether." Up until the 20th century, most Western scientific tradition proposed that such an energy force existed, going back to at least the time of the ancient Greek philosophers, and most likely to a far older civilization. The existence of this aether was supposedly proven to be false by the Michaelson-Morley experiment (M-M) at the beginning of the 20th century, and most scientists still believe that it is correct.
Like fishes in the sea, the pressure of this energetic “fluid” constantly surrounds us, though we do not normally notice its presence. In this wealth of new data, the aether is a source of tremendous energy that is in constant vibrational motion, flowing through all objects in the Universe, creating and recreating them every second... just as a candle flame is constantly absorbing new wax and oxygen and radiating new heat and light, but still continues to exist as a measurable "unit." Should this aether ever stop flowing and swirling about with such an intelligent, purposeful behavior, all mass would shed heat, gradually "dissolve" and return to its primordial energy state; the "flame" would go out.

"Physics of the 21st century” tell us that the very building blocks of mass, the atoms and molecules themselves, are not particles at all. Instead, they are ultimately nothing more than spherical whirlpools of energy. I am not the first to propose that the aether itself can provide a tangible, scientific way to define, explain and even engineer the how it all works.

I would like to explore the possibilities of this and work together with others in finding a way to identify, test and document the theoretical.

This sounds extremely interesting. What would you suggest for further reading so that I may understand more fully this aether or zero point energy?

Well, I'm not quite sure what you really want to do but...

is that the same Aether that they used to believe light is made from it? If so, I know a couple of people who made some experiment in which they proved there is no such a thing...

please correct my statement if it's wrong (and well, there is a little chance it be correct, 1:06 AM ... )

Very interesting stuff, this conversation i believe will lead to the type of topics worth discussing- especially if we are taking this as a scientific basis to try to understand better the universe around us.

So here is a video that might extend this conversation, i found it very interesting and was immediately reminded of this guys discovery's after reading Wescli's moment of clarity

Link may not work for everyone- http://vimeo.com/38288818

I have to admit I'm a bit more interested in the whole idea of plant consciousness. I've often wondered where the line is drawn between conscious and unconscious living things, and now I'm beginning to see there may not be a line at all.

It's a perfect example at how relative time really is. For a plant, a day may go by in what would seem to us a minute or two, in which it grows a bit more and quickly angles itself toward the sun. I suppose we may never know just how aware they are.

As for the polygraph tests, I'm a big fan of Mythbusters, and that was one of the myths they tested and busted. It seemed that there was only ever a response from the plant when a tester was in the room with the plant, thus affecting the environment. Remove the person, and all effects go away.

Still, this is fascinating stuff.

I can appericaiate the beauty of that which has no conscience (and that which is illegal too )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPzCCZfl5uw&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im-H3TvM3fU

:huh:

http://www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/General-Discussions/66052-From-a-corner-of-the-library-#66153

Phortis Nespin, that is a good question. Seeing how many in the scientific community have dismissed much of this work as being a sham, what would one consider to be a “good” book? There are several books on it though but I would not read just one (as with anything). Here is a list of three of them: The Energy Machine of T. Henry Moray: Zero-Point Energy & Pulsed Plasma Physics, Practical Conversion of Zero-Point Energy, 3rd Edition: Feasibility Study of the Extraction of Zero-Point Energy from the Quantum Vacuum for the Performance of Useful Work, Tapping the Zero Point Energy: Free Energy in Today's Physics.

Also I am including this video because the gentlemen ties how the aether could work to resolve several unexplainable issues with current working models.



I am also interested in the “consciousness” of plants. And I was taught that plants do have a soul. Example: When we harvested saplings for our sweat lodges we would ask the tree if it was willing to give its life for that purpose. Sometimes it would take me longer to collect the wood then it would take to erect the lodge.

When I read the journal entry it dawned on me that I was looking closer and closer, smaller and smaller for an answer but didn’t know what the answer was I was looking for. What I mean is, how can I identify what I don’t know what I’m looking for? There are several things in science and math that do not follow the norm or break rules. Why? And if there is an aether, what would it look like, or how would we identify it? And this is what the plant consciousness idea leads me too. They were measuring plant responses with tools designed for animal responses. All living things have some kind of energy usage and creation. And it is NOT all electrical. So how do we measure it? Is it a wave pattern that could be read on an oscilloscope? And that lead me to the next line of thought. Since the oscilloscope exists… it would have the same energy running through it. So, in living things the variance in energy outputs or wave patterns could be identified and if shared by all living thing would help to isolate the energy witch would represent the aether.

And this idea could intermingle in several fields and applies to all (depending on its validity) but the first task would be to identify that it does exists somehow.

Of course, I am open to ideas! (And ridicule as I’m sure many of you are laughing and pointing at the screen!) hahhahahhahahhha

I'm not trying to get off the subject here, but just to present a similar theory with difficult measuring capabilities.

I saw a documentary on dark matter. The scientist have to go deep underground in an old mine with a frozen disk of who knows what. The dark matter penetrates all things and when it hits the disk of whatever in a certain way, it measures temperature differentials in order to prove the existence of dark matter.

Plants move toward light so I would think that it must be some form of light wave measurement you are looking for?? When light hits the earths atmosphere, does it produce a sound of some sort that moves in the same direction as the light wave, or is it another form of matter produced by the sun just as the light waves but as a separate entity? Something we have yet to discover?

I should say..that you will discover for your Nobel prize.

I'm not trying to get off the subject here, but just to present a similar theory with difficult measuring capabilities.

I saw a documentary on dark matter. The scientist have to go deep underground in an old mine with a frozen disk of who knows what. The dark matter penetrates all things and when it hits the disk of whatever in a certain way, it measures temperature differentials in order to prove the existence of dark matter.

Plants move toward light so I would think that it must be some form of light wave measurement you are looking for?? When light hits the earths atmosphere, does it produce a sound of some sort that moves in the same direction as the light wave, or is it another form of matter produced by the sun just as the light waves but as a separate entity? Something we have yet to discover?

I should say..that you will discover for your Nobel prize.

Not being a scientist, this thread is over my head. :laugh:

How did the double entry happen?

Phortis Nespin wrote: How did the double entry happen?

I usually just blame Ren....,

LOL!

That is a great video SikikSoulja and it would seem that someone has had a very similar idea and the time to work on it. He even expresses that we need to be looking for “patterns” instead of just particular things to identify this phenomenon.

I am working on a reply to Phortis Nespin at the moment. He asked about searching for a light pattern. Which is an excellent idea! I had been considering what exactly we might be looking for over the last several days… energy, light, magnetic field or perhaps some kind of “heat source” or caloric burn?

As odd as it may sound, because whatever device would be used to identify said phenomenon exists it would share properties with the sought after phenomenon so would there be a way to identify it with the device? That was what leads me to think that we needed to be searching for “patterns” in results… but patterns of what!?!??!

Light is unique in that it has properties of energy and the physical. It can effect things as something with mass does, carry information, flow in waves (as energy does) and be effected by electric magnetic and gravitational fields.

Light
Light is electromagnetic radiation that has properties of waves. The electromagnetic spectrum can be divided into several bands based on the wavelength of the light waves. Visible light (what Our eyes interpret) represents a narrow group of wavelengths between about 380 nm (1 nm = 10-9 m) and 730 nm.


Velocity of Light and Refractive Index
The energy of light is related to its frequency and velocity as follows:
E = hv = hC/Alpha
where E = energy
h = Planck's constant, 6.62517 x 10-27 erg.sec
v = frequency
C = velocity of light = 2.99793 x 1010 cm/sec
Alpha = wavelength
I couldn't find the alpha key so I just wrote Alpha for the wavelength...

The velocity of light, C, in a vacuum is 2.99793 x 1010cm/sec (186,282.4 mps). Light cannot travel faster than this (theoreticly), but if it travels through a substance, its velocity will decrease. Note that from the equation given above-
C = v•Alpha
The frequency of vibration, v, remains constant when the light passes through a substance. Thus, if the velocity, C, is reduced on passage through a substance, the wavelength, Alpha, must also decrease.
We then define refractive index, n, of a material or substance as the ratio of the speed of light in a vacuum, C, to the speed of light in a material through which it passes, Cm.
n = C/Cm

Note that the value of refractive index will always be greater than 1.0, since Cm can never be greater than C. In general, Cm depends on the density of the material, with Cm decreasing with increasing density. Thus, higher density materials will have higher refractive indices.

The refractive index of any material depends on the wavelength of light because different wavelengths are interfered with to different extents by the atoms that make up the material. In general refractive index varies linearly with wavelength.

Materials can be divided into 2 classes based on how the velocity of light of a particular wavelength varies in the material.

1. Materials whose refractive index does not depend on the direction that the light travels are called isotropic materials. In these materials the velocity of light does not depend on the direction that the light travels. Isotropic materials have a single, constant refractive index for each wavelength. Minerals that crystallize in the isometric system, by virtue of their symmetry, are isotropic. Similarly, glass, gases, most liquids and amorphous solids are isotropic.

2. Materials whose refractive index does depend on the direction that the light travels are called anisotropic materials. These types of materials will have a range of refractive indices between two extreme values for each wavelength. Anisotropic materials can be further divided into two subclasses.

a. Minerals that crystallize in the tetragonal and hexagonal crystal systems (as well as some plastics) are uniaxial and are characterized by 2 extreme refractive indices for each wavelength.

b. Minerals that crystallize in the triclinic, monoclinic, and orthorhombic crystal systems are biaxial and are characterized by 3 refractive indices, one of which is intermediate between the other two.
Air, since it is a gas, is isotropic. The refractive index of air is usually taken as 1.0, although its true value is 1.0003.

Reflection and Refraction of Light
When light strikes an interface between two substances with different refractive indices, two things occur. An incident ray of light striking the interface at an angle, i, measured between a line perpendicular to the interface and the propagation direction of the incident ray, will be reflected off the interface at the same angle, i. In other words the angle of reflection is equal to the angle of incidence.

If the second substance is transparent to light, then a ray of light will enter the substance with different refractive index, and will be refracted, or bent, at an angle r, the angle of refraction. The angle of refraction is dependent on the angle of incidence and the refractive index of the materials on either side of the interface according to Snell's Law:
ni sin (i) = nr sin (r)



Note that if the angle of incidence is 0o (i.e. the light enters perpendicular to the interface) that some of the light will be reflected directly back, and the refracted ray will continue along the same path. This can be seen from Snell's law, since sin (0o) = 0, making sin (r) = 0, and resulting in r = 0.

There is also an angle, ic, called the critical angle for total internal reflection where the refracted ray travels along the interface between the two substances.
This occurs when the angle r = 90o. In this case, applying Snell's law:
ni sin (ic) = nr sin (90o) = nr [since sin (90o) = 1]

sin (ic) = nr/ni



Dispersion of Light
The fact that refractive indices differ for each wavelength of light produces an effect called dispersion. This can be seen by shining a beam of white light into a triangular prism made of glass. White light entering such a prism will be refracted in the prism by different angles depending on the wavelength of the light.



The refractive index for longer wavelengths (red) is lower than those for shorter wavelengths (violet). This results in the greater angle of refraction for the longer wavelengths than for the shorter wavelengths. (Shown here are the paths taken for a wavelength of 800 nm, angle r800 and for a wavelength of 300 nm, angle r300). When the light exits from the other side of the prism, we see the different wavelengths dispersed to show the different colors of the spectrum.

Absorption of Light
When light enters a transparent material some of its energy is dissipated as heat energy, and it thus loses some of its intensity. When this absorption of energy occurs selectively for different wavelengths of light, they light that gets transmitted through the material will show only those wavelengths of light that are not absorbed. The transmitted wavelengths will then be seen as color, called the absorption color of the material.

For example, if we measure the intensity of light, Io, for each wavelength before it is transmitted through a material, and measure the intensity, I, for each wavelength after it has passed through the material, and plot I/Io versus wavelength we obtain the absorption curve for that material as shown here. The absorption curve (continuous line) for the material in this example shows that the light exiting the material will have a yellow-green color, called the absorption color. An opaque substance would have an absorption curve such as that labeled "Dark", i.e. no wavelengths would be transmitted.
Sunlight, on passing through the atmosphere has absorption curve as shown, thus we see it as white light, since all wavelengths are present.

http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/geol211/proplight.htm

Light pressure
Light exerts physical pressure on objects in its path, a phenomenon which can be deduced by Maxwell's equations, but can be more easily explained by the particle nature of light: photons strike and transfer their momentum. Light pressure is equal to the power of the light beam divided by c, the speed of light. Due to the magnitude of c, the effect of light pressure is negligible for everyday objects.

There is also an interesting pdf on light here… http://spie.org/Documents/Publications/00%20STEP%20Module%2001.pdf

Irradiance
Irradiance is the power of electromagnetic radiation per unit area incident on a surface. Radiant emittance (radiant exitance) is the power per unit area radiated by a surface. The SI units for all of these quantities are watts per square meter (W/m2), while the cgs units are ergs per square centimeter per second (erg•cm−2•s−1, often used in astronomy). These quantities are sometimes called intensity, but this usage leads to confusion with radiant intensity, which has different units.

All of these quantities characterize the total amount of radiation present, at all frequencies. It is also common to consider each frequency in the spectrum separately. When this is done for radiation incident on a surface, it is called spectral irradiance, and has SI units W/m3, or commonly W•m−2•nm−1.

If a point source radiates light uniformly in all directions through a non-absorptive medium, then the irradiance decreases in proportion to the square of the distance from the object.


If you would like to look more into irradiance here is a good paper on that… http://www.volker-quaschning.de/articles/fundamentals1/index.php

It's gotta be another dimension doesnt it? With things like quantum teleportation, and why gravity works instantaneously at distance.

Adder wrote: It's gotta be another dimension doesnt it? With things like quantum teleportation, and why gravity works instantaneously at distance.

Does what have another dimension? I'm not sure I'm clear on what you're asking...

I mean, there are several "theorized" dimensions and sometimes it seems the further we reach to solve a question mathematically the more dimensions we get!

hahahahahhahahha

this is funny, cuz my girlfriend and i were just talking about this this morning as the cat pawed at her reflection in the mirror to get to 'shadow nienke'. i said according to multiverse theory, it stands to reason that there is an entire universe made entirely of antimatter (with pockets of matter as we have pockets of antimatter here). so something something something cat, i forget the exact thing we arrived at, it was way early.

Wescli Wardest wrote:

Adder wrote: It's gotta be another dimension doesnt it? With things like quantum teleportation, and why gravity works instantaneously at distance.

Does what have another dimension? I'm not sure I'm clear on what you're asking...

I agree that the plant can be conscious, because I think its a subjective assessment based on the objects relativity to the observer. I take that position because for all intents and purposes our brains are too powerful for us to know whether we are the sum of mental processing, or some conscious spark/soul.

If its the sum of mental processing then that makes it easy - its just a survival mechanism to be aware of being aware ie self awareness. So then of course I sidetrack myself and wonder does the belief (of a soul etc) itself represent its own consciousness LOL, or of course if a soul type of entity does exist this also leaves me wondering about higher states or awareness; precognition and higher senses. Such questions probably fertilize the minds to consider any aspect of nature which is beyond time, and being timeless to operate and influence others accordingly. Which leaves me looking at unexplained concepts such as gravity and those quantum things. I feel that the harmonic resonance transfer of information can only explain so much, which leads me to wonder about other dimensions and consciousness.... which starts to incorporate the supernatural aspect of spirituality and gets a bit harder to rationalize. I hate how maths has other dimensions but yea it is offtopic, soz.

Adder wrote: I agree that the plant can be conscious, because I think its a subjective assessment based on the objects relativity to the observer.

...of course if a soul type of entity does exist this also leaves me wondering about higher states or awareness; precognition and higher senses. Such questions probably fertilize the minds to consider any aspect of nature which is beyond time, and being timeless to operate and influence others accordingly. Which leaves me looking at unexplained concepts such as gravity and those quantum things. I feel that the harmonic resonance transfer of information can only explain so much, which leads me to wonder about other dimensions and consciousness....

That was wonderfully put! And these are the same things which have spurred my mind into action on more than one occasion.

Part of me wants to say that it is because of our limited definitions and understanding that we are so hesitant to delve into the socially unaccepted, and explore new possibilities. After watching the Nassim Haramein video I looked up his papers and any research I could find of his. I found his ideas interesting and a different way of looking at things but I regret to say that his math is, at best, questionable. This, of course, does not discredit his ideas… but rather leads to me believe we need more people trying to figure what is actually going on. I have often felt that no matter how closely we look at a thing we will always find ways of looking deeper into it and discovering that the equation goes further than originally guessed. That is what leads me to the search for the missing identifier being a pattern.

I had a (hair brained) theory one time about music… Many of us can not say why it is that we like certain music or why our “tastes vary from time to time. Wondering about this one day, in a physics class, I thought “why does music have to be the creation of the individual?” Could it not be possible that music resides in its own dimension and the artist merely reaches into that dimension and pulls out a tune, harmony, melody or song that others can connect to? Then, some part of our mind, or soul, could share a piece of these dimensions and the song we hear connects us to that dimension. Or, there are several dimensions and each has music that is associated with it and when we hear it we are then connected to an unseen realm we somehow know. Depending on our connection to that place we either like it, dislike it or are indifferent. Just a thought… and off topic!

For days I have been researching in my free time looking for a connecting “thing” that might have been overlooked by others or not given the opportunity to succeed… I am always open to suggestion, ideas or random thought. But a part of me really feels that the connection be found in connecting things that are currently thought to be unconnected.

So I finished reading the report on light. I had a recurring thought...

Light is electromagnetic, the earth has a magnetic field, what if the plants focus the earths positive or negative magnetic field with the opposite light electromagnetic field, causing it to turn toward the source of light? This may be why plant lights in the specific range work better than standard light bulbs for growing purposes?

Like I said, I don't know anything about plants or science so this may be common scientist knowledge, but for me, it sounds like I'm smart??? :huh: