Click here to support the Daily Grail for as little as $US1 per month on Patreon

The End of Materialism

Charles Tart, a very influential researcher into altered states of consciousness over many decades, has just released a new book: The End of Materialism (Amazon US and UK):

The classic materialist view is of a universe of separate objects that occasionally and meaninglessly affect each other through material forces. These objects are considered to be dead matter. But are things more linked than we normally imagine? This book presents an elegant argument that the twenty-first century needs a much broader perspective on the nature of reality than traditional science is capable of delivering. In The End of Materialism, Tart presents research that supports the existence of paranormal phenomena and shows readers how science and spirituality can be understood as two interconnected halves of a whole instead of as forces in opposition. The book presents Tart’s most intriguing findings in his fifty-year career investigating paranormal phenomena in scientific experiments at prestigious institutions including Stanford University and the University of California, Davis.

This book offers evidence for the existence of telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, psychokinesis, and psychic healing, and explains other phenomena such as out-of-body experiences and near-death experiences. This book is ideal for scientifically minded individuals curious about life’s spiritual side as well as spiritually inclined people seeking to back up their beliefs with legitimate scientific evidence.

You can preview parts of The End of Materialism via Google Books. For those interested in Charles Tart’s work, you can also read a Daily Grail interview we did with him quite a few years back.

Editor
  1. Materialism
    This sounds potentially interesting. One thing i’ve thought would be useful on this site is an index to paranormal research. So many times you see people saying that there is evidence it would be good to see links to the best of it. It could then go through the equivalent of a peer review process in the comments section with us lot looking for weaknesses. That way we would be able to honestly say what was good and not. Hopefully the bibliography in this book will be a good starting point.

    There are a few bits in the above description that strike me a little though.

    [quote]The classic materialist view is of a universe of separate objects that occasionally and meaninglessly affect each other through material forces. These objects are considered to be dead matter.[/quote]

    I think you can see in this description an attack rather than an attempt at a description. Even ignoring that the materialist view contains many non-material events and features like waves, fields, probability functions, never mind the laws that govern them themselves. The sentence should really be more like:

    The classic materialist view is of an intricate universe of interwoven objects, forces and events continuously affecting everything both causally and acausally in a vast network of events at all scales. That meaning as a human term is difficult to apply, but that understanding can be derived from the laws that underpin the events we experience. The matter itself is dead, if you choose to use that word, but through chemical and evolutionary processes highly complex self sustaining patterns have emerged and grown and materialists call these life.

    That would be a fairer description within the bounds of the original sentence, but i think the sentence was designed to be derogatory rather than accurate.

    Another problem i see is that explanations like quantum consciousness are entirely materialistic. Scientific descriptions (which obviously feature quantum mechanics) cannot be called materialistic in a derogatory fashion on one hand, then quantum mechanics defined as a non-materialistic model on the other.

    (I’m straying from the book now)

    One thing i have noticed about almost every description of quantum consciousness i’ve seen so far is an absence of what particle we are talking about. If anyone has seen what the likes of Penrose are suggesting then i’d be interested. I should go have a read really but my eyes are not focusing well now, its getting late. Either way, it isnt clear to me how people are suggesting models like this are not materialistic, unless of course they mean that they are not material in the sense of physics from the 1850’s, but this is a strange way of feeling good about attacking a material explanation of life, which i dont think would be even affected if consciousness turned out to be quantum and able to survive outside of the body in the sense of a coherent energy pattern.

    I dont think science has ruled that out, but i think it’s important to think about what it has. Evolution is a good benchmark for philosophies. Most philosophies arnt affected by atomic theory or gravity theory, but many life theories do make statements that can be checked against evolution. With so much historical data stored in genomes and phenotypes across all species, and geological data, it is quite easy to gauge the reality of philosophies.

    In the same way that God has been running to catch up with science, science will always lag behind imagination. Not all imaginings will turn out to be accurate, but science will always lag them, it has to as the imagining has to come first. This is a pain if science hasn’t arrived at a conclusion on a particular belief, but it doesnt serve as the basis for undermining good science, only evidence against a specific argument can do that.

    Quantum consciousness is a good example. It is still possible. So are ghosts, telepathy and telekinesis. We still have a responsibility to admit that these affects are very difficult to detect under tight circumstances though, because they are. They are also not strictly proof of anything without understanding. Ghosts cannot be proof of an afterlife until we disprove transdimensional aliens trying to trick us for fun. Some things are disproven though. The Earth is not 6000 years old. AIDS cannot be cured by vitamins. There is strong science and there is science in the newspapers and its good to be able to tell the difference.

    1. eternal debate
      It still boils down to the age old debate between idealists and materialists, going back to Plato and Aristotle and beyond.

      As far as I know, Penrose is a staunch materialist but he recognises that the orthodox model of what is happening in the brain cannot explain certain facets of consciousness. Bohm was also a materialist but his interpretation of quantum mechanics has been embraced by many an idealist. I am no expert but, from what I understand, Bohm sought to provide the missing constant that Einstein and others demanded in order to kill off the perceived uncertainty in other quantum interpretations. Yet the work of Bohm became the source material for Michael Talbot’s Holographic Universe – another work held in high esteem by many idealists.

      The point I am trying to make is that, despite our best efforts to label and compartmentalise philosophy, this most structured of disciplines is still very nebulous around the edges. As ever, the truth probably exists somewhere in those misty border regions.

      Dave.

      http://www.davidsmuse.co.uk

      1. Idealism
        I agree entirely.

        Scientific materialism today isnt the same as scientific materialism 150 years ago. I use scientific materialism here as opposed to the normal definition of materialism being a philosophy of everything being made of matter, we already know that is nonsense. That argument is a strawman that already doesnt exist. Its more a stereotype.

        From the scientists perspective it is interesting to see scientific notions jumped on in what you describe as an idealistic enterprise. I think you have hit the nail on the head. I guess you could describe scientific understanding of the universe as non-idealistic, we respond to observation without adding our own goals to the interpretation. Most of the differences stem from this i guess.

        Geology is a history of the removal of idealism from the understanding of Earth History. Evolution removes idealism from nature. Physics from the stars. You can definitely see it as a conflict between idealism and an approach that doesnt inject personal feelings into interpretation.

        There is a middle ground though. As you say; a blurry space in the middle. Religions tend to be entirely idealistic, spiritualism is a little/a lot less.

        Attempts to understand consciousness scientifically are going down the scientific road and any idealism will inevitably be coincidental.

        Because materialism doesnt really exist, it is a loose way of referring to understanding based on universal properties, it is highly adaptive to new phenomena. Anything can be added to the scientific understanding and it simply grows. Even opening entirely new understandings is unlikely to topple everything we know.

        1. It’s not about matter
          It’s about trying to figure out if WE matter 🙂

          —–
          It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
          It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

          Red Pill Junkie

          1. Hidden hedonism?
            Its funny really as something like that is a personal feeling. Many people aren’t robbed of a feeling of importance by what many would consider to be a universal nihilism. Since its a personal feeling we will probably always be in the position of someone being happier about a given life theory over another.

            Most are a bit freaky in one way or another. The importance of idealism mentioned in another current thread seems to apply here. How often do you hear a real discussion of what heaven must be like once you’ve filled it full of human minds, human passions, disagreements, differing personalities and cliques of personality. Even if heaven contains no material assets differing willingness and abilities can create a type of marketplace, never mind what might happen once our cultures start rubbing up against a multitude of alien cultures. If we still have passions and free will in heaven then a selection system would need to exist similar to what gets you in. Bullying and slandering must be looked down upon and either punished by seclusion or other means and some sort of judicial system would be necessary. We could rely on God to do it all, but it is likely with an infinite amount of time we would form friends and groups, hierarchical systems and most likely something akin to small democracies. Any thought that we will get there and just be happy for infinity is surely idealistic.

            Then there is the matter of how tetchy we will be in a thousand years, then a million, a billion, 10 trillion, 10,000 trillion billion, and still facing infinity. It reminds me of an episode of star trek where an immortal member of the Q Continuum, who are effectively God like beings desired to commit suicide as in his existence outside of time and space he had experienced everything. Or perhaps where Holly, the computer in Red Dwarf, asks Lister to delete all memories of reading the works of Agatha Christie so he can read it again, as in the millions of years spent in space he has read everything ever written. Perhaps the idea of living new lives and not remembering the last is the only way to stop us going insane.

            Most idealistic models for life concentrate on future pleasure. In reality they are as hedonistic as you can get, they are just more subtle about it.

          2. My idea of Heaven…
            …Is a place full of puppies and kittens 😛

            PS: Of course, the puppies and kittens must be ridden of any excretory system. That, or they must be trained to use the toilet 😉

            PPS:[quote]Then there is the matter of how tetchy we will be in a thousand years, then a million, a billion, 10 trillion, 10,000 trillion billion, and still facing infinity[/quote]

            You are positing here that, if there’s an after life, we would experiment the flow on time in pretty much the same manner as we do now. This is highly debatable, since meditation practitioners show us that the perception of th time arrow is malleable.

            Anyway, my original point was that probably the most defining difference between the so called ‘materialist’ and ‘idealist’ views about human consciousness and Cosmogenesis, is the notion of an structured plan of some sort.

            This is what seems to give most religious people a sense of comfort, although a cynic atheist might counter with the idea that being at the hands of sadistic omnipotent entity is even more disturbing than being left on our own—and don’t some people use that ‘if there’s a God why does He permit suffering?’ argument over and over? The use of the argument tells less about the possible non-existence of a deity, and more about the person who uses the argument.

            —–
            It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
            It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

            Red Pill Junkie

          3. We can definitely say that
            We can definitely say that we might be able to experience infinity in a more bearable fashion, but even if one second is as to 100 years there is still infinity. Immortality is forever after all. I’m happy with some sort of idea of reduced perception of the time span such as experienced in meditation, but it is a concern to me that when meditating monks have meditated in an MRI machine the area of the brain known be responsible for the perception of time is seen to be less active. This can be looked at in different ways, but an obvious one is that this is the reason for screwed up perception of time and perhaps this just colours the meditative experience and time is perfectly normal on the other side.

            Being in the hands of a dictator is definitely not a nice idea. I am a beliver in democracy and free will and the idea of the ultimate truth being some sort of monarchy is not great, but hay, its better to exist in that than to not exist. Fortunately there is no evidence that the ruler has ever been on genocidal sprees or engaged in group favoritism or ordered the murder of innocents, oh wait….

            Even if our experience of time can be whatever we want it to be and if we can exist outside of time, jumping from the future to the past. If we can see every event that ever has or will ever exist, if we can see the birth of time and the end of time. It doesnt seem to solve the problem of bordom to me. That is the point. Unless we are somehow stoned for infinity with a consciousness more in common with drug users so we just dont care any more then it is not good news. Idealistic desires for perfect experiences of infinity only seem to remove aspects of humanity, perhaps we will be better off without them, but i know what parts of myself would need to disappear for me to enjoy every experience of infinity and i would need alot of beer.

            As an athiest i dont experience any notion of discomfort at thoughts of the universe. As a scientist i am happy that there is structure to it, and with the state of current knowledge of it. The idea of a plan for it is not really in my mindset, but it doesnt worry me, or any other atheist i know. I wonder more whether it is the transitional space between philosophies that causes discomfort rather than the philosophies themselves. This idea seems to fit with observations better than the idea that different philosophies contain different amounts of comfort/happyness/purpose etc.

            As for the why does God allow suffering i dont really have to worry about questions like that, those are for believers. I wonder more about how a good person can be behaving well one moment then call a 4 week old baby a sinner the next. That is something i dont understand and an example of someone turning off their heart to such a degree that it depresses me that it can even happen.

          4. Hmmm
            Well, the whole idea of residing in an eternal state of idleness is pretty boring to me, too. And a rather modern concept it seems. Early Christian Gnostics thought that the whole point was to loose your ‘self’ at the moment of joining the ‘oneness’ that we call God, rather like a moth that is consumed by the flames when it finally reaches the candle light. This obviously seems frightening to us westerners, who are so fond of our sense of individuality. But maybe it’s the only way to endure the dread infinity, as you suggest.

            I’ve read other ideas that posit a concept of infinite evolution and perfection in the after life. The soul keeps improving and shedding the vestiges of its former self in a very slow progression toward God, so that in the end after a lapse of time that would make the age of the Universe seem like a second, you would finally contemplate God’s ‘face’ and be one with Him/Her/It/Them?

            [quote]I wonder more whether it is the transitional space between philosophies that causes discomfort rather than the philosophies themselves[/quote]

            I don’t think I follow you here. Could you provide some example to illustrate your point?

            —–
            It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
            It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

            Red Pill Junkie

          5. 🙂 I could try and research
            🙂

            I could try and research it a bit. I mean to say that most people seem to find their own philosophies comforting and fine, not matter what they are. They can seem devoid and hopeless to others, but unless the person is suffering from depression you can pretty much bet that the person thinks their particular philosophy is rewarding and fulfilling.

            It feels more as if the stress occurs when trying to understand other peoples philosophies. As if it is when others rub up against our own and challenge our own that stress occurs in the brain.

            By transitional i mean when another philosophy enters our minds and beings to challenge or change our own.

            I.e no individual philosophy is lacking in comfort or meaning once it is rooted in the mind, but the experience of trying to take on others philosophies, especially if they differ from our own is what is causing the unpleasant sensation and leading people to conclude that others philosophies are lacking in emotional content in one way or another, i.e lacking comfort or meaning.

            Especially since the concepts of comfort and meaning are subjective and it is possible to postulate that the sensation of meaning is without meaning anyway.

          6. Oh, I see
            So you think that imagining one is going to burn in Hell for all eternity is more comforting than imagining there’s no afterlife to worry about?

            Sure why not, maybe the devil grants coffee breaks, right? 😛

            PS: I think the stress always arises when one is challenged with something new that one doesn’t fully understand.

            —–
            It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
            It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

            Red Pill Junkie

          7. Mulling on emotionality
            :), not really!

            Obviously the thought of burning in hell doesnt occur in isolation though, it is part of a set of ideas offering eternal pleasure as well. Its a part of a carrot and stick setup.

            Many time’s i’ve heard it joked that hell will be where all the interesting people are anyway! This can be taken as a joke, but also as a psychological release valve for those being told that’s where they’re going.

            I dont think that its not understanding something that creates stress. Its involved for sure, but perhaps in a different way.

            Ultimately understanding probably isnt actually understanding, but a sense of understanding. With all of this we are in emotionally qualitative territory rather than factually quantitative. The reason for this is the oft used ‘we can never know anything’. It is true, we cannot understand or have complete confidence in anything, but we can feel like we do.

            To go further it is the relative emationally qualitative setting of an idea in relationship to another that ‘feels’ disturbing.

            Our ideas are often challenged. If a belief system claims the sky is red to true understanders of the world, blue is a mirage held by those who cannot see the truth then it will rub up against our ‘understanding’, but what is really going on here?

            Are we so sure that the sky is ‘blue’? Why do we suffer an emotionally negative context when we come up against new challenging ideas?

            Why does the limbic system bother going crazy at all?

            What i mean is that it is more as if the emotional response to whatever ideas we have in our heads returns to the background ‘null’ level no matter the idea. Why, in one sense, would it not. We wouldnt want to be walking around in states of anxiety all the time just because our ideas featured weird bits. This is not most of our experiences of maintaining belief systems.

            So no matter the belief system, if it has been held long enough to reach normality in the brain, i guess this is especially relevant concerning children, the idea will form the normal relative and qualitative emotional setting in the involvement in the acceptance of ideas – that it has more to do with this than actually understanding the quantitative argument behind particular ideas.

            Much like the idea of memeplex’s, but with the limbic system thrown in as well.

            On a personal note, if the devil has caught on to free market economics then he’ll be offering coffee to attract us people on the edge. Not the murders and nutters who can go to Hell jail if God wants a dumping ground, but just us normal disbelievers who dont like the current idea of heaven as an extension of church with a continuous drug like euphoria or some transcendental state common to certain drug use or loss of individuality that sounds a bit like death anyway, but more foggy. All better than death, but not for eternity. It would be better to petition God and have some say in what we want reality to actually be 😉

          8. fear of eternity
            I think it is a common assumption among those who dismiss the idea of an afterlife that those who indulge in such “fantasies”, do so becuase of a fear of death. I have to say that in my case, they are correct – at least, that is what got me started. As a child, I would lay in bed and break into a cold sweat at the thought of instant oblivion. As I pondered the alternative, however, it became clear that the thought of existing for eternity was at least as frightening. Nightmare stuff either way.

            Nevertheless, to partaphrase an old cliché: just because you want something to be true, doesn’t mean it isn’t. I have carried those fears with me throughout my life. I’m now in my late 50’s and, on balance, would say that I’m almost (90%+) convinced of the argument for the afterlife. However, I am certainly not religious and I do love reading about science and am distressed to see this juvenile mud-slinging – especially from the likes of Dawkins who was given a publicly funded post intended to encourage fair-minded scientific inquiry.

            I can see why a materialist thinks the way he or she does. Especially if they live and breathe scientific orthodoxy all and every day. But I cannot dismiss millions of personal experiences all around the world which, anecdotal or not, seriously challenge the materialist worldview and do not deserve to be dismissed without further investigation. Alas proof, as Mr. Amazing Randi has shown, is a moving goal-post.

            Dave.

            http://www.davidsmuse.co.uk

  2. yet another step forward
    to truely understanding the concept of matter as we know it. It really does not exist in the traditional way we are taught. Like consciousness and thoughts that make up conciousness. Thoughts are electromagnetic and when 911 happened the scales of electromagnetic meters went way up. This was an effect of global consciousness. This proves that our thoughts have energy and can create effects. There is no space that has nothing in it. Every galaxy, star and planet effects every other reguardless of distance. The same way every atom in existance effects every other atom. When an atom is split the pure energy of the universe is released. This energy is no more then the force that holds everything in balance and shape in the universe. It is electromagnetic which is the same as our thoughts. We radiate this energy all around us all the time effecting everthing we come near. The only difference is the entensity of the force. If one can concentrate this energy then one can have an effect that is measurable.
    Thanks for the headsup Greg, I will certainly read this book.

    “Life can be whatever you want it to be, as long as you do what your told.”
    LRF.

    1. Super Grand Concentration
      Hi,
      An interesting post.

      Can you point me in the direction of the electromagnetic evidence for 911 as well as for thoughts being electromagnetic. Not that i’m disagreeing with the idea of thoughts being electromagnetic, but i’d be interested to see how this affects theories of quantum consciousness if the photon is definitely responsible and especially compared to ideas of thoughts and memories residing in structure as much as activity occurring within the brain structure.

      As for the rest i think your sort of right and sort of wrong.

      [quote]Every galaxy, star and planet effects every other regardless of distance. The same way every atom in existence effects every other atom.[/quote]

      I’d be interested in knowing what you mean by this; to what degree is it romanticism?

      Generally the effect of gravity is considered to be limitless, but of course it decreases according to an inverse square rule so eventually its attraction drops below background levels of spacial curvature and tension.

      Electromagnetism also decreases in the same way as gravity. Of course electromagnetism is repulsive instead of attractive. It tries to stop things like you and me from forming. Fortunately it is only a small part of the picture.

      It all gets a bit in depth for a discussion here but you should consider gravity, the weak force and the strong force in your idea, and especially the nuclear force and its relation to the strong force when talking about splitting the atom.

      Your article gives the impression you believe that the electromagnetic force is behind nuclear cohesion and balance in the universe, whereas ‘balance’ occurs because of the interactions between the strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravitational forces, the bosons, as well as the hadrons, not to mention super-partners and antimatter. The electromagnetic force plays a part in reducing the energy required to split the atom, but the energy released is quite different than your model would suggest.

      The reason your right is that electricity and magnetism unify into the electromagnetic theory. Electromagnetism and the weak force unify into the electroweak theory. Electroweak and the strong force unify into the the grand unified theory (as yet unfound). Gravity and the Grand Unified Theory unify into a Super Grand Unified Theory, such as string theory. Even still just concentrating on the electromagnetic force leaves a lot of holes.

      1. a problem
        I have is with the use of “electro” in front of electromagnetic. I used it this time to simplify it. Maybe I should not have. Electricity is not a natual accorance. This is a man made force. You can not have electricity with out magnetism yet you can have magnetism with out electricty.
        Consider the atom at its centre as being two polarity’s, north and south or positive and negative. There is a balance in the construct. Now add a wave length or frequency to the vibrational energy within. We already know that all atoms vibrate at varying frequencies. So the atom produces it’s own gravity field that is attracted to it’s like frequency perfectly and to other frequency’s imperfectly. Same as a planet. Gravity is no more then a frequency of magnetic energy. It’s a passive push force that holds us to the surface without crushing us. The gravity strength on the top of Mt Everest is the same as sea level.
        So if all gravity is magnetic energy of a frequency that effects all things passively and it is everywhere.Then there is effect of some degree albeit slight on every atom in you. We also have our own magnetic frequency generated at our atomic level. The interaction of all magnetic fields vary dependent on frequency. They read our brain waves via sensitive meters that show up as frequency. Magnetic imaging they use now in hospitals works by reproducing digital images of all parts of the body via the magnetic frequencies of the organs.
        On the human level we are attracted to certain people even though we don’t know why at first. Magnets attract and in this case it is the frequency that is closest that attracts more.
        What i’m saying here is that magnetic energy has never really been understood. If we developed devices to read a much greater spectrum of magnetic frequency we would then realise that all things are magnetic. Conscousness can be detected by frequency so it stands to reason that it is boundless but as you say this energy wanes as it traverses distance. Group conscousness however would have more power and therefore travel further stronger and have a greater effect on matter.
        The 911 event was measured by two satalites in static orbit. I do not have their identification numbers with me but will post them for you later.
        This I have tried to explain here is a greatly melted down version but gives an idea as to what I mean. It is a completely new way of seeing the overall picture but it does unify all. From life to matter to space and everything on a quantum level. When understood it gives weight to paranormal happenings and explains many unexplained things. The law of attraction is no more then the sending out of thought frequency witch inturn attracts the like frequency that then effects all around you. The simple act of thinking and then acting a certain way adjusts your frequency around you and in turn effects people around you in that they then tune to that frequency. If it is a frequency of anger it will make people around you feel uncomfortable. If it is a happy frequency then people lighten up around you and all are happy. You can see this effect easily. So the thoughts are producing an effect whether you want them to or not. This is the intermingling of energy produced by your thoughts. It is magnetic in nature.
        Simply put, all things are a form of magnetic energy. The balance comes from the frequency variations. Gravity is magnetic and so are all atoms. This is an unseen energy that flows through all matter and space. This is the same energy that powers your fridge magnet that defy’s physics by never running out of energy yet works hard to hold your bill’s to the vertical surface of the fridge. It also holds planets and stars in a balanced motion. The earth is a magnet and so are all other heavenly bodies. What is above so is below.

        “Life can be whatever you want it to be, as long as you do what your told.”
        LRF.

        1. Um…
          [quote]You can not have electricity with out magnetism yet you can have magnetism with out electricty.[/quote]

          What about lightning?

          —–
          It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
          It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

          Red Pill Junkie

          1. lightning
            is not electricity. It is static release between the inbalance of positive and negetive ions in the atmosphere. If it were pure electricity then the damage caused by it would be 1000 times more potent then it is. Many people survive direct hits of massive volts but live to tell. Electricity is not that forgiving. A small amount will kill.

            “Life can be whatever you want it to be, as long as you do what your told.”
            LRF.

          2. Trying to recall my old highschool classes
            [quote]Many people survive direct hits of massive volts but live to tell. Electricity is not that forgiving. A small amount will kill.[/quote]

            What kills you is not the voltage, it’s the current—if I recall correctly.

            —–
            It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
            It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

            Red Pill Junkie

          3. yes
            it’s actually the Wattage that kills. Anyway the electricty debate is minor. There still isn’t a good explaination of what electricity is. Look at all the encyclopedia and they all have a different explaination. So I’ll leave that one alone. Except I will say that the AC we all use is man made and not the same as a lightning bolt. Static that shoots from your finger to the TV dial or car door is the same as lightning. It is not generated by the use of magnetic fields.

            “Life can be whatever you want it to be, as long as you do what your told.”
            LRF.

          4. I’m looking forward to
            I’m looking forward to getting hold of the scientific data myself regarding this.

            Obviously there are a few details here. Magnetism isnt the same as gravity at all. Thank goodness. The gravity at the top of everest isnt the same as at sea level, or the time dilation effects for that matter.

            You are correct that it is the current that kills. Potential difference drives electron flow. Calling it wattage (i.e P=VI) is essentially admitting this, as you can see for a given V and remembering that I=V/R. For a given voltage it is the resistance that determines the current flow, and hence the effect of the circuit. I.e whether you light a light bulb or whether it kills someone at a given voltage. This differs for AC and DC though.

            This is a nice idea, but as is common in these circles it is oversimplistic and refuted. I am interested by the 911 results though. Which lend aspects of the idea credence, even if parts of it fall by the wayside.

          5. understanding
            that is interesting that you can rule out magnetism for gravity as all the science in the world has not yet explained what gravity is. Also electrons DO NOT traval down a wire. They are raised to a higher vibration which creates a concertina effect all along the wire. There is also the EMF that surrounds all electrical devices as well as any medium used to transfer this energy.
            Like I stated, science has not yet fully explained electricy nor does it understand what gravity is. All I have done it put forth my understanding of all matter and how it is connected and effects all other matter and non-matter. Anti matter is still only a theory as well. It’s like the Higgs Bosom. These are unknowns created by theorists to plug holes in their theories.
            PS. still trying to find the satalite data.

            “Life can be whatever you want it to be, as long as you do what your told.”
            LRF.

          6. found it
            It’s the NOAA geosynchronously stationed GOES 8 and GOES 10. These are wheather satilites detecting NonoTesla (nT) variations. The spike happened at 9am et on the 11th September 2001.

            “Life can be whatever you want it to be, as long as you do what your told.”
            LRF.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Mobile menu - fractal