#He really changes some of his views on the Albert one through further research | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

nicklloydnow · 3 years

Text

“These few minutes of dialogue illustrate a popular lay understanding of the science of epigenetics and trauma, specifically the idea that highly stressful events can cause changes to a person’s biology that they pass down to their children and grandchildren. Journalist James Greig recently argued that trauma is the “dominant frame for thinking about unhappiness,” and British epidemiologist George Davey Smith has called epigenetics “the currently fashionable response to any question to which you do not know the answer.” So naturally, transgenerational epigenetic inheritance of trauma has become a trendy idea, especially at the intersection of social justice and wellness circles.

(...)

What kind of information a stressed ancestor passes to their descendants is a “million-dollar question,” Rando says. He favors the view that ancestors pass on “low-bandwidth” or “coarse-grained” information — some general sense of how stressful the world is, essentially. He thinks it’s “unlikely” that ancestors pass on complex or “high-bandwidth” information like specific information about the nature of the trauma. “Certainly a lot of skepticism in the field centers around the fact that none of us have figured out how these systems work,” Rando says, and Bale agrees that “the controversy is in the biology.” “You could get changes in someone’s immune system because dad’s traumatic experience imparted some signal when sperm met egg,” she explains. “We don’t really know what that signal might be, but it could be an important signal that tells the egg something.”

(...)

But perhaps all these questions about mechanisms and effects are premature, and we need to back up to an even more fundamental question: Does transgenerational epigenetic inheritance even occur in humans? Kevin Mitchell, Associate Professor of Genetics and Neuroscience at Trinity College, Dublin, is highly doubtful. “I find that literature completely unconvincing,” he says. “I’ve looked through many of these papers to try to see if there’s anything there, any good evidence for it at all, and there isn’t.”

Mitchell describes these papers as “awful” and says they’re “poster children for questionable research practices.” He’s detailed their methodological and theoretical problems on his blog, Wiring the Brain, in accessible terms (see, for example, his posts here and here). He hasn’t cherry-picked especially bad papers, either, adding that he’s “looked at the most cited papers in the field” in both mice and humans.

One significant problem, he says, is that researchers embark without a specific hypothesis and instead “dredge for statistical significance” by conducting multiple tests, reporting on any difference between groups without correcting for this multiple testing. “It’s basically like, ‘We think something might be happening, let’s take a look. Did we get a hit? Good, we’ll publish the hits. Did we get a miss? Into the bin,’” he explains. “It really undermines the credibility of the field as a whole.”

Mitchell isn’t a lone skeptic, either. John Greally, Director of the Center for Epigenomics at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City, has called transgenerational epigenetic inheritance in humans an “attractive but poorly-founded idea” and criticized studies in the field for being “uninterpretable.” “I’d like to see us be more bold and brave and move from preliminary association studies to definitive studies,” he told Science, “and be open to the idea that there may be nothing there.”

That’s the exact conclusion Mitchell has reached. “When you look into the data, there’s nothing there at all,” he says. “Some critics look at the published data and argue that the effects aren’t so large or long-lasting as to be really meaningful. I’d go further and say there are no real effects there to discuss at all. I don’t see any convincing evidence that transgenerational epigenetic inheritance occurs in mammals, especially not in humans.””

1 note · View note

gbrmoodboard · 4 years

Text

Some Black Holes Erase Your Past and Give You Unlimited Futures

https://www.vice.com/en/article/xw57nw/black-hole-erase-past-infinite-future-cauchy?utm_source=vicetwitterus

"In some cases, one can live forever in a universe unknown."

As detailed in a report published last week in Physical Review Letters, observers entering certain kinds of theoretical black holes wouldn’t necessarily be obliterated—or at least not in the way you’re probably imagining. Instead, an observer’s entrance into these black holes would destroy their past and potentially open up an infinite number of futures. They’d never emerge from the black hole to tell their tale, but that doesn’t really matter—they’d have no one from their past to return to anyway.

There’s a lot to unpack here, so let’s start with some background. You may have heard of this guy named Albert Einstein who, among other things, fundamentally changed the way we thought about space and time when he published his general theory of relativity about a century ago.

Einstein’s general theory of relativity describes gravity as a property of spacetime, a four-dimensional scaffolding that is ubiquitous in the universe. More to the point, the theory described the curvature of spacetime as a function of matter’s mass, energy, and motion. This curvature of spacetime by objects in motion is felt as gravity.

One of the phenomena predicted by the general theory is the existence of spacetime singularities in black holes, a mass that is so dense that nothing can escape its gravitational effects—not even light. For our purposes, a black hole might be imagined as a funnel whose spout tapers to a point of infinite density known as a singularity.

The structure of these singularities is a subject of contention among physicists. We can’t see them because a black hole’s event horizon effectively acts as a barrier between these infinite densities and the rest of the universe. This is a good thing because if we could see the singularities at the heart of black hole—what is called a ‘naked’ singularity—this would destroy the determinism that is fundamental to physics.

The reason that physics can be used to predict things in nature is because the universe is deterministic. What this means is that if you knew the exact starting conditions of the universe, you could theoretically predict exactly how the universe would develop over time from those initial conditions. This would also include your thoughts and actions since, as cognitive scientists like Dan Dennett have argued, consciousness is determined by material interactions among neurons. The important thing here is that determinism means that the past determines exactly one future.

So physicists are presented with a problem: Singularities must exist as a consequence to the theory of general relativity, but observing these singularities seems to be impossible. To account for this discrepancy, physicists rely on two related, but logically distinct conjectures, both originally developed by the physicist Roger Penrose nearly 50 years ago: the strong and weak cosmic censorship hypotheses.

The strong cosmic censorship hypothesis states that there is a boundary within the event horizon of black holes known as the Cauchy horizon that is a limit to the applications of the theory of general relativity. Beyond the Cauchy horizon, the deterministic physical world breaks down into indeterminacy. A consequence of this is that it is impossible for an observer to transcend the Cauchy horizon without being destroyed (more on this later).

The weak cosmic censorship hypothesis, on the other hand, suggests that naked singularities don’t exist in the universe, apart from the Big Bang. Today, Penrose’s weak cosmic censorship hypothesis is widely held to be a necessary condition of the universe by physicists, although its validity is still an open question.

The strong cosmic hypothesis is much more contentious, and the new research published this week offers the strongest refutation of its validity yet. UC Berkeley postdoc Peter Hintz and his colleagues’ paper suggests that there are some types of black holes in the universe that would allow an observer access to the indeterministic universe on the other side of a black hole’s Cauchy horizon.

BLACK HOLES, SON

For the last century, Einstein’s theory of relativity has managed to predict the results of every test thrown at it. Perhaps its strongest validation occurred in 2016, when physicists at the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory managed to measure gravitational waves produced by two colliding black holes for the first time, exactly as Einstein’s theory predicted. Yet general relativity’s ability to describe gravity falters on the threshold of singularities, where the curvature of spacetime becomes infinite.

Let us imagine that we are space explorers again and that we are approaching the type of theoretical black hole studied by Hintz and his colleagues: A non-rotating black hole with an electrical charge known as a Reissner-Nordström-de Sitter black hole. According to the general theory, as we approach the black hole, time begins to slow down due to the increasing strength of the gravitational field. As we fall into the black hole, we would also see all the light and matter falling in as well. Eventually we would reach the Cauchy horizon, an object within the event horizon found in these types of black holes.

The Cauchy horizon can be thought of as the barrier between the deterministic and non-deterministic universe. After an observer crosses this threshold, the past no longer determines the future. An observer crossing this threshold would, as a result, actually see all the energy the black hole will ever encounter over the entire existence of the universe hitting its Cauchy horizon at the same time. This is why the strong cosmic censorship hypothesis states that it is impossible for an observer to pass over the Cauchy horizon—they would be totally obliterated by all that energy.

Yet Hintz and his colleagues realized that this wasn’t necessarily the case, since the universe is also expanding at an accelerating rate. This means that while spacetime is condensing to an infinite point in a black hole, it is also being pulled apart or stretched by the expansion of the universe. So rather than all the energy in the universe hitting the Cauchy horizon at the same time, only a relatively small portion of the energy in the universe makes it to the black hole because that energy can’t travel from the farthest corners of the universe to the black hole faster than the speed of light.

As detailed by Hintz and his colleagues, the amount of energy that will fall into the black hole is only the amount of energy contained within the observable horizon from the black hole’s perspective. This observable horizon is ‘smaller’ than the whole universe because the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.

To see why this is the case, consider our perspective on Earth. Although we can see 13.8 billion years in the past, our observable horizon is actually around 46 billion light years since it includes everything we will see in the future. We will never be able to see ‘further’ than this because the universe is expanding at a speed faster than the speed of light, so the light from objects beyond this cosmological horizon will never reach us and objects on the ‘brink’ of this horizon will eventually fade and disappear from our perspective.

The same is true for the theoretical Reissner-Nordström-de Sitter black hole we are visiting. The accelerating expansion of the universe essentially ‘cancels’ the time dilation experienced while falling into the black hole under certain conditions. This would, in theory, allow an observer to pass through the Cauchy horizon and exist in a non-deterministic world where their past no longer determines their future. For all intents and purposes, crossing this threshold obliterates the observer’s past by opening up an infinite number of possible futures.

Read More: These Physicists Think the Speed of Light Has Slowed

“There are some exact solutions of Einstein’s equations that are perfectly smooth, with no kinks, no tidal forces going to infinity, where everything is perfectly well behaved up to this Cauchy horizon and beyond,” Hintz said. “After that, all bets are off; in some cases, one can avoid the central singularity altogether and live forever in a universe unknown.”

This is all theoretical, of course. Hintz and his colleagues aren’t suggesting that a physicist ever will travel to the inside of one of these types of black holes. In fact, Hintz said, these charged black holes used in the model might not even exist. The reason is that a charged black holes would attract oppositely charged matter and eventually become neutral. Still the mathematical model is useful as a way of studying rotating black holes, which Hintz said are probably the norm.

“No physicist is going to travel into a black hole and measure it,” Hintz said. “This is a question one can really only study mathematically, but it has physical, almost philosophical implications. From that point of view, this makes Einstein’s equations mathematically more interesting.”

(...)

0 notes

bangkokjacknews · 4 years

Text

Is Wikipedia Reliable, Credible, Accurate or Fake?

Is Wikipedia Reliable, Credible, Accurate or Fake? Wikipedia provides Internet users with millions of articles on a wide range of subjects and often ranks first in search engines. But its reliability and credibility fall well short of any reasonable standards.

Anybody using Wikipedia as a research resource should definitely cross-reference their results in at least two other places. In fact, people are now starting to avoid using Wikipedia for anything. And this should not be surprising. According to Wikipedia itself, 'While some articles are of the highest quality of scholarship, others are admittedly complete rubbish. Original Albert Jack content. Use Wikipedia with an informed understanding of what it is and what it isn't.' Okay, well let's have a look at what it is and what it isn't. The Philip Cross Scandal 'Philip Cross' is a so called credited editor of Wikipedia. This means he has access to any page and is able to edit anything he, or she, wants to. The subject of Wikipedia pages does not have any editing access to his or her own pages. If you are reading the Wikipedia page, story first shared by Bangkok Jack, come over and join us, of Joe Bloggs then you know that Bloggs is banned from editing any content in his name. Anything can be written about him, or anybody else, and yet he has no right of reply or correction. Philip Cross has not had a single day off from editing Wikipedia in almost five years. 'He' has edited every single day from 29 August 2013 to 14 May 2018. Including five Christmas Days. That’s 1,721 consecutive days of editing. In the last FOURTEEN years Philip Cross has made 133,612 edits to Wikipedia pages, which is more than 30 edits per day, seven days a week. Journalist and broadcaster Craig Murray has plotted them here

Craig Murray points out that the 'operation runs like clockwork, seven days a week, every waking hour, story first shared by Bangkok Jack, come over and join us, without significant variation. If Philip Cross genuinely is an individual, there is no denying he is morbidly obsessed.' There are three possible explanations. 1. Philip Cross is a spin company, with multiple users all logging into the Phillip Cross account, employed by who knows who and with a clear political agenda. 2. Philip Cross is a paid individual, working FULL TIME to add positive content to some Wikipedia Pages and vile lies to others 3. Philip Cross is a dangerous sociopath. This 'editor' has consistently discredited the reputations of prominent individuals who question and challenge the Left Wing corporate and state media narratives, especially in respect of UK Foreign Affairs or American President Donald Trump. Philip Cross also spends a lot of time improving the reputations (and public information available) of Conservative journalists and media figures, particularly in respect of the interests of Israel. Craig Murray writes that is it 'particularly interesting that Philip Cross‘s views happen to be precisely the same political views as those of Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia. Jimmy Wales has been active on twitter recently being particularly rude and unpleasant to anybody, story first shared by Bangkok Jack, come over and join us, questioning the activities of Philip Cross. His commitment to Cross’s freedom to operate on Wikipedia would be rather more impressive if the Cross operation were not promoting Wales’ own opinions. https://albertjack.com/2018/07/10/the-epidemic-of-stupid/ Interestingly enough Wikipedia’s UK begging arm, Wikimedia UK, joined in with equal hostile responses to anyone questioning Cross.' Former British MP and broadcaster George Galloway has had his Wikipedia page 'negatively edited,' or 'distorted,' by Cross 1800 times. Think about that for a moment - 1800 times. Do you think the Wikipidia entry for George Galloway is accurate now? And Galloway has no right of redress or correction as that is against Wikipedia rules. It doesn't matter which side of the political divide you stand - Wikipedia is clearly no longer a reliable source of information for anybody, thanks to the likes of Philip Cross. The contributor with an agenda always prevails. The idea behind Wikipedia's group editing process is that, story first shared by Bangkok Jack, come over and join us, by general consensus, unreliable contributions and edits will be removed and/or corrected. But usually the contributor who 'wins' is not the one with the soundest information, but rather the one with the strongest agenda. The one who is more persistent and committed. Irish student Shane Fitzgerald, who was conducting research on the Internet and globalization of information, posted a fake quotation on the Wikipedia article about the deceased French composer Maurice Jarre. Due to the fact that the quote was not attributed to a reliable source, it was removed several times by editors, but Fitzgerald simply continued re-posting it until it was allowed to remain. Fitzgerald was startled to learn that several major newspapers picked up the quote and published it in obituaries, confirming his suspicions of the questionable ways in which journalists use websites, and Wikipedia, as a reliable source. Fitzgerald e-mailed the newspapers letting them know that the quote was fabricated; he believes that otherwise, they might never have found out. Fitzgerald demonstrated that if he can 're-write' history that easily then so can everybody else. https://albertjack.com/2018/05/20/only-32-of-the-british-still-trust-the-news-media/ Individuals with agendas sometimes have significant editing authority. Administrators on Wikipedia have the power to delete or disallow comments or articles they disagree with and support the viewpoints they approve regardless of whether they are factually correct or not. For example U.K. scientist William Connelly became a website administrator and subsequently wrote, story first shared by Bangkok Jack, come over and join us, or rewrote more than 5,000 Wikipedia articles supporting the concept of climate change and global warming. More importantly, he used his authority to ban more than 2,000 contributors with opposing viewpoints from making further contributions. According to The Financial Post, when Connelly was through editing, 'The Medieval Warm Period' disappeared, as did criticism of the 'global warming orthodoxy.' Connelly has since been stripped of authority at Wikipedia, but he can obviously continue to post, edit and lie. He simply needs to sign in with a new user name - that's all it takes.

Accurate contributors can be silenced. The small group of editors known as 'deletionists' often rely on the argument that a contribution comes from an 'unreliable source,' with the competing editor deciding alone what is reliable or not. For example, when the Taliban kidnapped New York Times reporter David Rohde in Afghanistan, the paper convinced 40 media organizations plus Wikipedia not to report on it out of concerns that it would compromise Rohde's safety. Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales told the Times, once Rohde was free, that 'We were really helped by the fact that it (postings on Rohde) hadn't appeared in a place we would regard as a reliable source.' In other words Wales and other senior Wikipedia editors demonstrated how willing they are to rely on unreliable sources to delete accurate information they had been given by perfectly reliable sources, regardless of what justified it. Which leads directly to number 5 The number of active Wikipedia editors has fallen. The number of active Wikipedia editors (those who can make at least five edits a month) has significantly fallen. The reason given is that it is not worth bothering to continue in battle with 'progressive editors' with a political agenda. It is, after all, only a hobby for most people. It remains to be seen whether the current number of active editors can maintain and continue updating Wikipedia with any accuracy or honesty. It has become harder for casual participants to contribute. According to the Palo Alto Research Center, the contributions of casual and new contributors are being reversed at a much greater rate than several years ago. The result is that a steady group of high-level editors has more control over Wikipedia than ever. The 'deletionists' are said to 'edit first and ask questions later,' making it harder for new contributors to participate, and making it impossible for Wikipedia to provide 'the sum of all human knowledge.' - Their mission statement. Furthermore, Wikipedia appears to have no intention of overcoming the problem of being controlled by a stagnant pool of editors from a limited demographic and with a clear political or social agenda of their own. In many subjects Wikipedia has become a place of MISINFORMATION, SPIN and MANIPULATION and has no obvious desire to correct that. In fact, that could well be where most of their funding comes from. Vandalism Vandalism is always fun, for some tiny-minded people. Wikipedia is no exception to that and often false entries are missed and can remain online for months, if they are ever spotted at all. For example, John Seigenthaler, a former assistant to Robert Kennedy, was falsely implicated in the assassinations of the Kennedy brothers on his Wikipedia biography for a period of more than 100 days without his knowledge. This is a common problem for Wikipedia. And finally, the biggest reason of all to avoid Wikipedia as a source of reliable information Because Wikipedia themselves say so. Wikipedia's own disclaimer states, We do not expect you to trust us. It adds that it should NOT be considered a 'primary source' of information and that 'because some articles may contain errors,' you should 'not use Wikipedia to make critical decisions.' And as Wikipedia warns in its 'About' section, 'Users should be aware that not all articles are of encyclopedic quality from the start and they may contain false or debatable information.' Which is Wikipedia's own way of warning you that they CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT BE TRUSTED. - Albert Jack – Stay up to date with BangkokJack on Twitter, Instagram, & Reddit. Or join the free mailing list (top right) Please help us continue to bring the REAL NEWS - PayPal Read the full article

0 notes

goodvibesatpeace · 7 years

Text

10 Secrets Of Quantum Physics That Will Help You Become Your Greatest Version

Lets go Quantum baby!!

Someone wrote it asking me if I could talk about how Quantum Physics, Quantum Mechanics can help us become our Greatest Version?

and I am reading this question like

“We haven’t even had breakfast yet :)”

But we are already and always diving deep into these fascinating and mind boggling topics... and I am going to share with you what has helped me along my journey.

I read a book, many years ago called

“The Holographic Universe”

and it made me choke on my corn flakes :)... it really made me see reality in a different light... my view of reality was being shattered before my eyes.

Quantum Physics is all about how we are living in a sea, a wave of infinite potential realities and at every single moment, you can change your life.... and it’s helped me so much.

Democritus, the Ancient Greek Philosopher in 460 BC... talked of the Atom, the smallest part of matter, atomos meaning indivisible.... since then Quantum Physics and Quantum Mechanics has taken it a step further.... and I am going to share with you what I have discovered what I have learnt and what I have applied, how it relates to my life right now and how it helps me go to the next level.

Now, in Ancient Egypt on every temple, you had ‘Know Thyself’... the Philosophy was if you were to come to know yourself, you will come to know how the universe works.

Albert Einstein said

“Reality is an illusion albeit a persistent one”

Nikola Tesla, the great scientist said

“If you want to understand the universe and how it works, know about energy, vibration and frequency”

First Amazing Secret about Quantum Physics

So the first amazing secret I discovered about Quantum Physics... and how I have used it to become my Greatest Version... it starts with this. For so long, classical Physicists, the Newtonian Physics has told us we are separate from our environment, we are separate from the Universe we live in.

The Human Being is a kind of accident, we are clockwork, we are almost like a machine... the mechanical man, the mechanical woman. So everything is set in stone and, basically, we are alone... we have no control over the Universe, we can’t change it.

Quantum Physics is about realizing that we actually can because research shows the Unified Field theory... this theory shows how everything is connected. And I wrote down that when you realize your thoughts can change your reality.... your mental, emotional, spiritual and physical health will improve.

I always tell people how we are living in great times, when you realize we aren’t separate.... there is a reason why there has been so many wars, we are in spiritual warfare because we are still living in that old paradigm that we are separate from everything around us.... separation is the greatest illusion. Quantum Physics shows that actually everything is connected, we are going to come back to that later.

Second Amazing Secret about Quantum Physics

The second amazing secret I discovered about Quantum Physics along my journey.... is that the old Newtonian Physics was all about how we are living in a deterministic universe... our genes, deterministic. If your parents had it, that’s why you have got it.

Now Quantum Physics Quantum Mechanics is showing us that doesn’t even make sense because there is something called epi-genetics, studies have showed how our perception is actually changing our DNA... how you think of yourself is everything because that actually starts effecting every single cell within your body.

Our Brain is processing 400 billion bits of information per second but we only have access to 2,000 bits of information... so something else is going on. Our Brain, the frontal lobe which, actually, makes us a lot different from other species... is super powerful and our perception can change our DNA.

The great Dr Bruce Lipton talks of that... we have had him here, and its amazing when you realize you are not a victim of circumstance like the old deterministic way... you can actually create your reality by changing your thoughts.... and that is how I have used it along my journey.

I have said

“Everyday I want to wake up with a bunch of grapes in my mouth” ... and its fantastic

Third Amazing Secret about Quantum Physics

The third amazing secret I discovered about Quantum Physics.... is that everything is energy and everything is vibrating. Everything you see around you is comprised is everything you can’t even imagine of. There are worlds within worlds, inside of your body, your cells... they have their own little universe that you know nothing about.

Just like in the food we eat... food holds information, food is information... and that is what I started to discover that energy is transferred... so whatever you are eating holds memory from whatever it was before. If you were eating a delicious Mango that was chilling in the sun, you absorb all of those beautiful frequencies, all of these nutrients... from all of those beautiful sun rays hitting that Mango.

And, before I become a lacto-ovo-vegetarian... I was eating all of this meat and I could feel that my vibration was lowering, then I realized

“Ok, I get it”

If the animals are being killed in pain, there energy is being transferred into my body... because energy can never be destroyed.

So, Quantum Physics actually helped me eat a plant-based diet without meat... because it helped me to see to interconnectedness between everything.... and everything is conscious.

Fourth Amazing Secret about Quantum Physics

The fourth amazing secret I discovered about Quantum Physics..... there has been so many studies, the founding fathers of Quantum Physics, we are talking about people like Max Planck, Erwin Schrödinger. When they started to do early experiments and we will go into them later.... they found fascinating observations, they saw how we are living in a interactive universe... meaning there is a link to how we observe things to how they actually react.

How we observe the universe is what comes back to us.... and that has what has help me along my journey.. is to realize... I studied under a mentor called Peter Deunov, a genius... Einstein learnt from him.... Bulgarian master teacher, he said

“We live in the world we are thinking of”

Now many experiments in Quantum Physics have shown how, just by observing something you actually start changing it.... and that is immense,

So a practical way to apply this into your life is... if you wake up and you feel very tired, if you just have one positive thought... that is going to start to send ripples around the field... and its going to start to change everything around you.

Mirror Neurons... when you start smiling, I start smiling... when your happy, I am happy, when you are sad, I am sad. We affect everything around us and that is what has helped me along my journey.

So when I started to realize that there is a huge link between observer and matter... how you perceive the universe is everything, in fact, it is what creates your reality.

Fifth Amazing Secret about Quantum Physics

The only thing that matters is what it means to you... now I was talking to a good friend and what happened was I would say something like this and I wondered how they would take it

and she said something that really spoke to me, she said

“Well, it only matters what it mean to you”

this is what Quantum Physics is showing us when we talk of how we create our reality. It doesn’t matter what people think of you because the perception you have of yourself is greater then the perception other people have of you :)... It only matters what it mean to you.... and that has freed me along my journey and it has helped me become my Greatest Version.

Number Six

Consciousness is real.... people like Gregg Braden, I used to read his books, and its fascinating when you realize just.... if enough people Mediate on something, it actually influences a certain event.

We are talking about how our beliefs affect our reality. Belief is the program which creates our reality. Our consciousness is real.. Harvard studies have shown that just praying for someone who's in another country can actually effect and influence how that person feels.

So, once again, you are seeing examples of the Unified Field Theory. We have been told that everything is separate... No..... space is just a construct that gives us the illusion that there are separate objects..... Everything is connected.... Consciousness which is Awareness is real.

Number Seven (Double Slit Experiment)

Now lets get into an experiment called The Double Slit Experiment.... Now when I reading this many years ago it really spoke to me.... I am going to break it down in the most simple way I can.

Now in Quantum Physics, they talk of a Particle being, basically, a small part of Matter.... we are talking about Electrons, Particles and then you have got the Wave.

What actually happened was they had one slit and they fired some Particles through it and when it hit the wall, it was just in a straight line.... then they fired particles with two slits, it was two separate straight lines which is what your would expect, two bands.

Then they fired Electrons, which are the smallest part of Matter through the two slits and something happened.... they got multiple bands on the wall. They did the same with Wave, they put it through the two slits and they got multiple bands on the wall.. what we call Interference Patterns.

Now why are these Interference Patterns so essential in helping us become our Greatest Version.... because they show us how, in the Subatomic Level, the Quantum Field.... Waves and Electrons react very differently to what we think.... and Interference Patterns are like they do whatever they want.

This means that the Past, Present and Future are all happening simultaneously, time does not exist and therefore Laws can be bent, broken, changed... and Electrons are Electrons of potentials.... nothing is set in stone.

Number Eight (Entanglement Experiment)

Now lets look at another experiment called The Entanglement Experiment. Quantum Physicists showed how if you do something to an Atom, an Electron in one place and you separate the Electron... the other Electron would do the exact same thing.

Two Electrons in two different places, if you do something to one it effects the other one showing us that space doesn’t even exist.

And it really blew my mind... when we talk of Entanglement, we can start to realize how Telekinesis works, how we can actually read people’s minds because everything is Entangled.... everything was part of everything else at the beginning of creation. Well, guess what, there is no beginning and there is no end.

So Entanglement, how I use this is to realize that what I do to you, I am actually doing to myself

Entanglement is that we are never alone... Entanglement shows us, in becoming our Greatest Version, that everything is actually connected and that’s why studies have shown, back in the day when Soldiers would go off to War... of something happened to them, the Mother would feel it instantly and already know the news before it came to her.

Entanglement... you can use it to realize how Separation is the great illusion ever created.

Number Nine

Dr Daniel Omodon talked.... What he need, Genius... How intention effects Water. What he did was say certain things to Water Particles and then freeze them and if he said ‘Love’ to a Water Particle it would from the most amazing Crystal.

If he talked to the Water Particle’s with hate... the Particle would create a shape not very pleasing to the eye.

So if our thoughts do that to Water and our body is over 60-70% water... imagine what we are doing to our body with our thoughts?

Its impressive to realize that... even the water in our body, once again, we are changing it.. and that is what sometimes makes someone Healthy and makes someone Unhealthy.... by seeing how our thoughts effect the Water Molecules and realizing that everything is alive with our body.... everything is conscious and everything is effected by everything else.

Now before I go onto number 10, what I actually found fascinating was a Quantum Physicist said... we often talk about our Present.... for instance, we have Cause and Effect, throw a ball down and it touches the ground, that’s Cause and Effect... so our Present creates a Past experience.

Now, check this out, Quantum Physicists are actually telling us how our future is actually creating our present experience... the future is already here. If there wasn’t a ground, I wouldn’t be able to throw a ball in the first place... there being a ground is the reason I threw the ball... so actually the future is controlling everything.... its trippy I know :)

Number 10

What really helped me was to realize this.... our concentration and our attention span is between 6 to 10 seconds per minute meaning we are not paying attention most of the time.

Now, in helping ourselves become our Greatest Version, to tap into the Field what I have discovered is that we have to create more... we have to get a better attention span.

Because that is where we start observing and start influencing the Field.... we start molding reality around us but it can only be done through attention.

So I used Meditation to tap into the Quantum Field.... and also Attention is created through Intention and the power of Intention is what really Quantum Physics, Quantum Mechanics is all about.

The mere act of observing... that is why Quantum Physic experimentation is so trippy... because just looking in on a experiment, being part of the experiment actually changes the whole direction of the experiment according to who is doing it.

And that is why it is one of the most amazing sciences around because you are starting to realize that me being part of it is changing everything. So, intention changes everything.

Paolo Coelho and the great book ‘The Alchemist’ said

“When you want something, the whole universe conspires to help you get it”

Now this is simple Quantum Physics.... by just seeing it already there, it is already happening because there is no out there... everything is taking place within ourselves.

So someone last asked me

“Do you think we can change matter?”

I say

“We are part of everything we see”

So of course we can... and then I say

“Feels so good to be alive Baby!”

You are Worthy…You are Enough… You are Beautiful… You are Powerful….just the way you are!

Have a wonderful day!

Much Love to all… There are many deep waters out there!!.. go in peace my friends :)

#greatest version #physics #quantum physics #science #atoms #matter #unified field theory

6 notes · View notes

mdye · 7 years

Link

How do politicians get so comfortable with lying? One theory: practice.

How does a person get so comfortable with telling lies?

It’s a question we have reason to ask this week.

There are big, serious, scary questions over whether President Donald Trump is lying about the rationale behind firing FBI Director James Comey. As Vox’s Matt Yglesias explains, Trump has a history of lying, often. He’s lied about his own questioning of President Barack Obama’s birthplace. He’s lied about tweeting that climate change is a hoax planted by China. He’s lied about how he’s voiced support for the Iraq War. And if he is lying, it means a great many more people — including Attorney General Jeff Sessions — are lying on his behalf.

By age 5, almost all of us have learned how to lie. But some of us grow up to be prolific liars, while others are honest to a fault. Research psychologists have come around to a simple hypothesis that helps explain the difference: To become a prolific liar, it takes practice.

We learn to lie on a “slippery slope”

Before we dive in, let’s be clear: Psychological research makes predictions about the behavior of groups; it cannot necessarily explain the behavior of an individual. So we can’t say for sure what the source of Trump’s — or any other politicians’ — lies are.

But researchers do have some new insight into how a person might grow more comfortable lying over time.

The hypothesis is that we gradually become more comfortable with lying (and other forms of immoral behavior) with minor acts that build up over time. Researchers call this the “slippery slope” model. And there’s some good evidence for it.

A 2015 paper in the Journal of Applied Psychology had participants play many rounds of a Sudoku-like game. Correct answers in each round yielded a higher and higher cash reward, and the design of the study allowed for participants to lie about their scores.

In one arm of this experiment, the cash rewards increased very gradually, around 75 cents per round. In another arm, the cash reward jumped abruptly and dramatically to $2.50. Participants were more likely to lie about their scores in the gradual change arm. Which shows we gradually habituate ourselves to lying, and become comfortable with it by little steps, not huge ones. “Exposure to slippery-slope conditions more than doubled the rates of unethical behavior in our studies,” the authors concluded.

These gradual changes, they hypothesized, allow us to slowly become disengaged with our sense of morality. It’s a type of self-deception, they explain, where we slowly convince ourselves the immoral behavior isn’t all that bad.

As we learn to lie, we undergo an “emotional adaptation” that makes us feel less bad about the lying.

Another paper, published last year in Nature Neuroscience, described this experience as an “emotional adaptation.” It’s similar to what happens when you’re exposed to a strong smell. At first the smell is extremely noticeable, but eventually you stop noticing it as much. With time, any stimulus — a loud noise, a strong perfume, etc. — is likely to provoke a smaller response. The same goes with lying.

We get desensitized to our own lying as the areas of our brain that correlate with negativity become less active. This makes it easier for us to lie in the future, the study concludes.

“The first time you cheat — let’s say you’re cheating on your taxes — you feel quite bad about it,” Tali Sharot, a University College London neuroscientist and one of the Nature study’s authors, said. But then the next time you cheat, you’re less likely to get that negative feeling. That makes it easier to lie again. And the cycle escalates from there.

This study was similar to the one in Applied Psychology: Participants were led to play a game where it would be really tempting to cheat.

The participants played the role of an adviser in a two-person game. They looked at 60 photos of glass jars with differing numbers of pennies, and were told to advise a partner (who was really a researcher in disguise) on how much money the jars contained. The participants were told they’d receive compensation based on the accuracy of their partner’s guesses.

In some of the trials, the participants were incentivized to be honest: If the partner guessed correctly, they’d both get the prize money. In other trials, the participants were incentivized to lie: If the partner overestimated, the participant would get more. (The study gave the participant the impression the partner had no idea about this arrangement.)

When the participants were incentivized to lie, they lied more as more trials were conducted.

“They started with small lies — let’s say lies of around £1 — but this grew, and they ended up with large lies, of around £8,” Neil Garrett, also a University College London neuroscientist and a co-author of the study, said.

The authors then took the study a step further to understand what this looked like in the brain. A small subset of the participants played this game while undergoing fMRI, a brain scanning technique. It appeared that the more the participants grew accustomed to lying, the less activation there was in the amygdala, a region of the brain associated with negative emotion.

“Arousal is one of the telltales of lying,” Sharot said. It can take the form of sweating and faster heart rate — what polygraph machines look for to detect lies. So if the brain is less aroused by lying, that might mean a person is getting used to it. “If arousal goes down, people may be less likely to catch you in a lie,” Sharot said.

Caveat: The subject pool for the fMRI section of the study was very small, only 25 participants. So these neuroimaging results would have to be replicated for a firmer conclusion. Also, the study design was not preregistered, which increasingly is seen as a safeguard against false-positive results. “We will need to wait for a replication of the fMRI results,” Sharot said. And fMRI results are notoriously hard to interpret: Read more about that in my earlier piece.

And there may be another way to interpret the results of the study: The participants are simply learning how to be liars. Oriel FeldmanHall, a neuroscientist who studies morality at Brown University and did not contribute to the Nature Neuroscience study, says the structure of the game may be what’s causing the lies to escalate, since there are no consequences for gaining more money through lying. “Rather than demonstrating a dishonest snowball effect, [the authors] may just be illustrating successful learning,” she writes me in an email. But then, people learn to lie in the absence of consequences in the real world too.

The social norms around lying can change — fast

In the 1960s, Stanford psychologist Albert Bandura showed how easy it is to teach kids to act violently — by showing them an adult acting violently.

In this famous experiment, Bandura showed young children — between 3 and 6 years old — a video of an adult wailing on an inflatable “bobo doll” (see in the video below). Other children in the study did not see an adult behaving aggressively to the doll.

And sure enough: The kids who saw the aggressive behavior were more aggressive themselves when playing with the doll later on. It’s a simple experiment with a simple conclusion: As humans, even at an early age — we learn what’s socially acceptable by watching other people.

So when prominent people change their behavior for the worse, and don’t suffer the consequences — the theory goes — acceptance of the bad behavior spread, and more people start to mimic it.

Here’s one example. In 2004, sociologists Thomas Ford and Mark Ferguson found that exposure to a racist or sexist joke increased tolerance of further discrimination in people who held prejudicial views. Hearing the off-color joke, they write, “Expands the bounds of appropriate conduct, creating a norm of tolerance of discrimination.

When prominent people — politicians perhaps — lie, and get away with it, acceptance of the practice spreads.

There’s some small evidence that societal-wide corruption trickles down into everyday lying. In 2015, researchers in the UK found across 23 countries that people are more likely to lie when they live in societies where corruption is rampant. “If politicians set bad examples by using fraudulent tactics like rigging elections, nepotism and embezzlement, then the honesty of citizens might suffer, because corruption is fostered in wider parts of society,” the study authors wrote in Nature.

Is there a way to stop people from lying?

It’s clear that some people are more prone to dishonesty than others — and are unlikely to change. Here’s one reason: Research suggests some people have a stronger physiological response to moral dilemmas than others. And extreme forms of lying, like compulsive lying, may be indicative of an underlying personality disorder.

But let’s assume politicians aren’t abnormal in this way, and that they are just normal people who are in an environment that rewards lying. Is there any way to keep them honest?

Sharot, the author of the Nature Neuroscience study, has a simple suggestion: “Perhaps we can nudge people away from dishonesty by calling them on their lies even if they are small, and try to reproduce an emotional reaction,” she says. In other words, reminding people they’re lying could help revive the negative feeling that may have been lost. Though this could backfire: People can become defensive when being called a liar.

Social norms play a big role, too, for ordinary people at least. David Rand, a Yale University psychologist, has found that when cooperation and truth telling are established upfront as the norm, people are more likely to play fair in the future.

Even politicians may listen to nudges to keep the fibbing to a minimum. In a small study, political scientists Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler found some evidence that down-ballot candidates who were sent letters reminding them "politicians who lie put their reputations and careers at risk, but only when those lies are exposed" were somewhat more truthful in their campaigns, as measured by newspaper fact-checks.

I asked Sharot if she thinks her work has any bearing on politicians. Can a long public life of small lies make you completely comfortable with lying?

“If someone has been repeatedly engaging in dishonest behavior, it is likely that that person has emotionally adapted to their own lying,” she says.