Notices
Results 1 to 3 of 3
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By SpeedFreek

Thread: Need some more help with dealing with apparent "woo"

  1. #1 Need some more help with dealing with apparent "woo" 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    43
    Hello all,
    We already sthad discussion about Stephen M Phillips,who claims to find correlation between superstring theory,kaballah and theosophy.You know my deep dislike about the notion of "shadow matter" and "subtle bodies",especially where 2 goes together.This is what Phillips try to reconcile.The reason I opened the new thread is that I don't want to put your attention to WHOLE article(which was the point of previous article).I'll post just one piece of the article,that bothers me right now,and then will post how I try to deal with it,hoping for your help.So,please,don't read the whole article,read only the part 6 is named "The UPA as a 11-brane".
    http://www.smphillips.8m.com/article-2.html

    I must honeslty say that I don't understand much of what he say,because to I'm not so godo in neither superstring theory nor in kaballah/theosophy.But I tried to find some points in what he say,that are clearly speculatuive or not scientific.I will mark in bold the points that bother me and how I try to deal with it

    So,let me start:
    "Up till now, theorists have had to define ordinary and shadow matter as singlet representations of the other’s unified gauge symmetry group because they could not explain why the gauge symmetry group E8 appears twice in the symmetry group describing superstring forces free of quantum anomalies. My theory provides a natural explanation of why these two kinds of matter appear in superstring theory: an 11-brane can wrap around either ten or five curled-up dimensions of the higher, 15-dimensional space. The former creates an ordinary matter superstring; this is the UPA with its ten whorls. The latter creates a shadow matter superstring, which is predicted to comprise five whorls."

    Problem: seems just assertion.Can his claim about "an 11-brane can wrap around either ten or five curled-up dimensions of the higher, 15-dimensional space." be proven? Doesn't it seem as just assertion without evidence?

    Then he goes into long talk about how "ultimate physical atom" corresponds to the "tree of life " of kaballah,but let focus on this:

    "If this correlation between whorls of the UPA and tree levels is correct, then equations 3 and 9 indicate that the shadow matter superstring with five whorls created by the alternative wrapping of a 11-brane around the curled-up dimensions of S×C should have two, not three, major whorls. The significance of this may be that the three major whorls of the UPA correspond to the Supernal Triad of Kether, Chokmah and Binah, or what Theosophists call the three ‘Logoi’ (in Christian parlance — but not in Christian interpretation — the ‘Holy Trinity’ or ‘Three Persons of the Godhead’). This means that the second major whorl corresponds to the Second Logos, the so-called ‘Outpouring’ from which is the life-force that Hindus call ‘prana,’ whilst the interpretation in Section 10 of shadow matter as etheric matter means that the superstring predicted to have five whorls is the basic unit of etheric matter, the pranic energy contained within which may be one of the energy-fields of the shadow matter superstring. Lacking a third major whorl corresponding to the Third Logos, whose Outpouring is Fohat, the shadow matter superstring builds up only the subtle vehicle of physical consciousness — the etheric body, not its outer shell, which is assembled from superstrings of ordinary matter by means of the form-building forces that have their source in Fohat."

    1.If this correlation between whorls of the UPA and tree levels is correct - big if indeed

    2.Lacking a third major whorl corresponding to the Third Logos, whose Outpouring is Fohat, the shadow matter superstring builds up only the subtle vehicle of physical consciousness — the etheric body, not its outer shell

    How can he know that?Doesn't seem that just assertion without solid foundation?

    Also,we can claim that all these claims are unfalsifiable.

    This is how I try to deal with it,trying to find reasons not to take it as something serious and true.

    I know it sounds strange,but it seems like this guy "forces" me to accept what he is writing but I try to "counter" him...

    So,any thoughts?
    Any help will be appreciated
    Thank you


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Seriously, the best advice I can give you is to simply ignore his unsubstantial claims.


    tk421 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    43
    Thank You.You know,after I posted it here I e-mailed this stuff to the person,whose opinion I repsect very much,paranormal researcher/author Alan Gauld.Very sensible,open-minded and non-dogmatic person.His respond was very brief: "The chap is off his trolley.Don't waste good time on him"
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. "MOND", Prelude to "Critique of the Universe, Introduction"
    By Gary Anthony Kent in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: January 28th, 2012, 01:31 AM
  2. "Dating" posts split from "Purpose of life" thread
    By Christopher Ball in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 155
    Last Post: October 16th, 2011, 05:37 AM
  3. "Dating" posts split from "Purpose of life" thread
    By Christopher Ball in forum Earth Sciences
    Replies: 90
    Last Post: October 11th, 2011, 10:35 AM
  4. Replies: 39
    Last Post: September 4th, 2011, 01:40 PM
  5. is "jesus" a pseudo-science "user"?
    By streamSystems in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: August 22nd, 2007, 12:07 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •