Maatorc, psychic bodies, Gurdjieff

[calebprime]

An interesting exchange got sent to AAH, not sure why.

I wanted to give Maatorc a chance to hold forth a bit.

Gurdjieff always seemed like an interesting scoundrel to me.

Plus, anything that Keith Jarrett was interested in, I'm interested, too.:D

[catbasket]

An interesting exchange got sent to AAH, not sure why.

We were off topic in the MDC sub-forum. Fair enough methinks.

I'm particularly interested in this psychic body which I apparently have, or more accurately that we each have according to maatorc.

[Robaato]

Good luck -- maatorc got bounced out of the SDMB recently for refusing to actually discuss the stuff he was throwing out there...

[Cuddles]

If you search for posts by Maatorc you will find that pretty much all of them are on exactly the same subject. It may be easier just to read one of his previous threads than to fail to discuss anything in yet another new one. Also bear in mind that if it's anything like his previous threads, it will end up in the philosophy section very quickly.

[calebprime]

interesting[/I] ..

interested interested, too.:D

I need a thesaurus.

fascinating.

[maatorc]

What I said in the thread - The Professor's writers claim the MDC is a sham is -

The MDC is not a sham in the general sense of feign-pretend-imposture.

James Randi and Michael Shermer claim to believe stage magic and cold reading account for all seeming paranormal, psychic, and occult events and realities.

The MDC is based on a misconception of the human constitution and anatomy. It cannot ever prove or disprove paranormal, psychic, and occult events and realities.

The book Life is real only then, when "I am", by G. I. Gurdjieff, in the chapter on 'The Outer and Inner World of Man', explains: The soul, like the physical body, is also matter - only, it consists of "finer" matter.

What is called the astral or psychic is actually material.

Humans, then, have two material bodies.

Just as we know the physical body consists of electrons, so the exact material primary component of the psychic body has long been known, as also is the precise explanation of the perceptual and functional variances between the two bodies.

The explanation by Gurdjieff exactly agrees with the underlying principle behind the doctrine of occult anatomy of the inner schools of the occult tradition and the hidden operations that drive them, Eastern and Western.

Such Western operations are Hermeticism, Alchemy, Kabala, and the Rosicrucians who have been continuously active since the 16th. century to today. Others operate in the East.

With respect to the MDC, materially, the perceptions of the physical body, being limited to phenomenal events, cannot measure the finer material perceptions of the finer material-psychic body, the material perceptions of which lie outside those of the physical body perceptions.

The two bodies interact and communicate and comprise the total human-being such as it is at any time, place, and state.

[maatorc]

Good luck -- maatorc got bounced out of the SDMB recently for refusing to actually discuss the stuff he was throwing out there...

The information is in post 6.

[Ron_Tomkins]

....Plus, anything that Keith Jarrett was interested in, I'm interested, too.:D

Keith Jarret? Are you sure you didn't meant Chick Corea?. He's the scientologist one.

[calebprime]

http://www.amazon.com/Sacred-Hymns-Keith-Jarrett/dp/B00000DTER


no, IIRC, Jarrett had a fling with some latter-day Gurdjieff disciples, then called it quits.

(cp goes to look it up in a book about J. he has)

[calebprime]

There's 1 page, (pg.41) in Ian Carr's Keith Jarrett, the man and his music.

A lot of jazzers including Charles Lloyd were interested in mysticism.

For a lot of sax players, anything that Coltrane did was worth imitating, but that's only part of it.

The story on pg. 41 goes:

Jarrett found All and Everything by Gurdjieff on an airplane seat. Began reading.

Jarrett says that one thing led to another, finally to an interest in Sufism.

Then, "...The Sufism fell away too, because my wisdom in my work doesn't need to be given little jolts by writings of certain philosophers."

Nothing about much involvement with an organization.

Wouldn't be his style.

I think he's a little deeper than Chick, but we could take that up in a music thread.

[devnull]

Maatorc: Can you please provide the chemical composition and location of this "material soul" of which you speak?

thanks and regards.

[maatorc]

[QUOTE=devnull;4131721]Maatorc: Can you please provide the chemical composition and location of this "material soul" of which you speak?....../QUOTE]

The larger statement by Gurdjieff is -
( The soul, like the physical body, is also matter - only, it consists of "finer" matter.
The matter from which the soul is formed and from which it later nourishes and perfects itself is, in general, elaborated during the processes that take place between the two essential forces upon which the entire Universe is founded.
The matter in which the soul is coated can be produced exclusively by the action of these two forces, which are called "good" and "evil" by ancient science, or "affirmation" and "negation", while contemporary science calls them "attraction" and "repulsion". )

Gurdjieff, as is his way, here does not name the specific particle constituting the soul-psychic body.

A friend, very active in the inner school of a genuine authorised outer organization in the mystical tradition, advised me the inner school actually identifies the specific particle constituting the psychic body, the exact knowledge of which underlies its' "Work".

In this matter, I cannot presume to speak for this school, but merely point to it by saying it is in the Christian Rosenkreutz tradition.

[Ron_Tomkins]

There's 1 page, (pg.41) in Ian Carr's Keith Jarrett, the man and his music.

A lot of jazzers including Charles Lloyd were interested in mysticism.

For a lot of sax players, anything that Coltrane did was worth imitating, but that's only part of it.

The story on pg. 41 goes:

Jarrett found All and Everything by Gurdjieff on an airplane seat. Began reading.

Jarrett says that one thing led to another, finally to an interest in Sufism.

Then, "...The Sufism fell away too, because my wisdom in my work doesn't need to be given little jolts by writings of certain philosophers."

Nothing about much involvement with an organization.

Wouldn't be his style.

I think he's a little deeper than Chick, but we could take that up in a music thread.

Wow, that's strange. I somehow got the impression from reading his interviews, that he was a skeptic.

Interesting stuff though. I might get that cd.

[devnull]

The larger statement by Gurdjieff is -
( The soul, like the physical body, is also matter - only, it consists of "finer" matter.
The matter from which the soul is formed and from which it later nourishes and perfects itself is, in general, elaborated during the processes that take place between the two essential forces upon which the entire Universe is founded.
The matter in which the soul is coated can be produced exclusively by the action of these two forces, which are called "good" and "evil" by ancient science, or "affirmation" and "negation", while contemporary science calls them "attraction" and "repulsion". )

Gurdjieff, as is his way, here does not name the specific particle constituting the soul-psychic body.

A friend, very active in the inner school of a genuine authorised outer organization in the mystical tradition, advised me the inner school actually identifies the specific particle constituting the psychic body, the exact knowledge of which underlies its' "Work".

In this matter, I cannot presume to speak for this school, but merely point to it by saying it is in the Christian Rosenkreutz tradition.

wow! thats so.......... much nonsense its hard to comprehend anybody actually bothering to state it.

So the soul is made up of matter, but you cant tell me what it specifically is made of, nor where its located...... but you have a friend who is part of some mystical inner school who claims to know about it, even though doctors and biologists have skipped over its existence for centuries?

really?

[maatorc]

.....
1... So the soul is made up of matter, but you cant tell me what it specifically is made of,
2... nor where its located......
3... but you have a friend who is part of some mystical inner school who claims to know about it,
4... even though doctors and biologists have skipped over its existence for centuries?......

1... A material element well known to science.
2... "IT" is "YOU" and it is wherever and whatever you are.
3... I do not see a problem with that.
4... It is outside the observations of physical science because the perceptions of the physical body, being limited to phenomenal events, cannot measure the finer material perceptions of the finer material-psychic body, the material perceptions of which lie outside those of the physical body perceptions.

[Ron_Tomkins]

4... It is outside the observations of physical science because the perceptions of the physical body, being limited to phenomenal events, cannot measure the finer material perceptions of the finer material-psychic body, the material perceptions of which lie outside those of the physical body perceptions.

And who then, is not limited to finer material perceptions and can therefore perceive it?

[maatorc]

And who then, is not limited to finer material perceptions and can therefore perceive it?

Ones' real self and consciousness resides in the psychic-material body.
The physical-material body is a vehicle for the psychic-material body.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Ones' real self and consciousness resides in the psychic-material body.
The physical-material body is a vehicle for the psychic-material body.

One's real self? So that would be "anyone's" real self. We can all connect to it, right?

[Cavemonster]

Okay, how can the existence of a "psychic material" body be proven? How do we know it exists?

[Ririon]

Let me try one:

If it is made of ordinary elements like carbon and oxygen, only "finer" carbon and oxygen that noone can detect... It's not made of ordinary elements (matter) at all, is it? Just something that is called matter. Just like newage people will use the word "energy" without caring for one second that this word has a specific meaning in science.

[maatorc]

One's real self? So that would be "anyone's" real self. We can all connect to it, right?

Right.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Right.

Gotcha.

And how can we connect to it?

[maatorc]

Let me try one:
If it is made of ordinary elements like carbon and oxygen, only "finer" carbon and oxygen that noone can detect...

We know the material primary components of the physical material body are electrons which underlie the known elements such as carbon and oxygen.

In the case of the material primary components of the psychic body they vibrate at so high a rate that they do not form atoms and molecules of physical matter, but form a material mass nonetheless which constitutes a body at their own level of energy vibration which level is vastly higher than the electrons underlying physical matter.

[maatorc]

Gotcha.
And how can we connect to it?

You have 'got' nothing.
There is nothing to 'get'.
We are all connected all the time.

[Ron_Tomkins]

You have 'got' nothing.
There is nothing to 'get'.
We are all connected all the time.

I see.

But if we're all connected all the time, how do you account for all the other people in this forum who can't see what you're talking about? Aren't they perhaps disconnected from it?

[maatorc]

......But if we're all connected all the time, how do you account for all the other people in this forum who can't see what you're talking about? Aren't they perhaps disconnected from it?

While we are all similarly constituted as human beings we are not identical in our conscious experiences and perceptions of the world we live in.

Our psychic body deals with the physical vehicle and conditions in which it finds itself as a conscious being.

[calebprime]

I might get that cd.

Nah. The sense I get is that it is the least characteristic of Jarrett's work, and, like the music of Nietzsche (!), it ain't even written by a composer. Jarrett is just playing someone's transcriptions of Gurdjieff tunes.

He had enough prestige, that--like Stockhausen (only in this respect)-- whatever he was trying to do was published. Including some mediocre orchestral pieces he wrote on auto-pilot. ECM would put out anything by Jarrett. Still, most of it was brilliant.

Get anything else. I think his jazz-group work is his best. Others may prefer the solo piano stuff.

Still Live
Gnu High--Kenny Wheeler, leader --I've transcribed some of these solos. amazing.

Standards--the whole series of 'em

The Impulse years with Charlie Haden, Paul Motian, etc.

The European ECM group with Jan Garbarek

His "current" trio for the last 20 years or so is consistently brilliant--but it falls into either standards or "free" playing. Get the standards--where they are playing tunes.

At the Deer Head Inn is nice and intimate, with Motian instead of DeJohnette, which gives a simpler, easier-to-follow feel--I sometimes lose my place because DeJohnette doesn't cue you where 1 is.

Jarrett doesn't really have the funk, but he is a God.

And, he is a skeptic, of the slightly flaky artistic kind--of which I'm a proud member as well.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

We know the material primary components of the physical material body are electrons which underlie the known elements such as carbon and oxygen.

Anyone who has completed a high school Physics course knows this is complete, absolute, absurd nonsense. :mad:

In the case of the material primary components of the psychic body they vibrate at so high a rate that they do not form atoms and molecules of physical matter, but form a material mass nonetheless which constitutes a body at their own level of energy vibration which level is vastly higher than the electrons underlying physical matter.

What is vibrating? The material primary components? You just said that material primary components are electrons. So it is electrons vibrating? In the Real World vibrating electrons create an electromagnetic field that can be detected and measured. :boggled:

[Ron_Tomkins]

Nah. The sense I get is that it is the least characteristic of Jarrett's work...

That's actually why I was considering getting it. Because it's the least characteristic of his work.

I'm already familiar with his trio stuff and his stuff with the Charles Lloyd Quartet.

Anyway, we'll see. The worst thing that can happen is that I won't like it that much. :)

Thanks for the info.

[maatorc]

Originally Posted by maatorc View Post
We know the material primary components of the physical material body are electrons which underlie the known elements such as carbon and oxygen.
Anyone who has completed a high school Physics course knows this is complete, absolute, absurd nonsense.

In what sense?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

In what sense?

I am tempted to say, "In every sense".

However, as just a little hint, "The material primary components of the physical material body(sic) are NOT electrons and DO NOT underlie the known elements such as carbon and oxygen".

If you are truly interested in learning you could start here <wiki>Elementary_particle</wiki>

[maatorc]

......"The material primary components of the physical material body(sic) are NOT electrons and DO NOT underlie the known elements such as carbon and oxygen"......

In relation to physical material atoms, electrons are 'elementary' particles and protons and neutrons are 'composite' particles.

We all know electrons are currently understood as packets of energy which can be thought of as a tiny vibration or wave or as a ball-like particle. They travel as waves and arrive as particles.

Just as the electron is an elementary particle underlying physical matter, so the material primary component of the psychic body is an elementary particle.

[tyr_13]

In relation to physical material atoms, electrons are 'elementary' particles and protons and neutrons are 'composite' particles.

We all know electrons are currently understood as packets of energy which can be thought of as a tiny vibration or wave or as a ball-like particle. They travel as waves and arrive as particles.

Just as the electron is an elementary particle underlying physical matter, so the material primary component of the psychic body is an elementary particle.

What? No they aren't. They are all composed of other things. What the hell? Where are you learning physics?

[Ron_Tomkins]

What? No they aren't. They are all composed of other things. What the hell? Where are you learning physics?

Must.... resist.... temptation.... to reply.... "at the Department of Out of Body Possibilities?"


Damn... I just did :D

[Ririon]

As several people have pointed out, your physics makes no sense, maatorc. My suggestion is that the physics words here are merely buzzwords to make something sound science-y and give it some credibility. Since the physics makes no sense, I do not expect to learn anything interesting about that something, either. Sorry. :(

[Gord_in_Toronto]

In relation to physical material atoms, electrons are 'elementary' particles and protons and neutrons are 'composite' particles.

We all know electrons are currently understood as packets of energy which can be thought of as a tiny vibration or wave or as a ball-like particle. They travel as waves and arrive as particles.

Just as the electron is an elementary particle underlying physical matter, so the material primary component of the psychic body is an elementary particle.

Er. And you got your degree in physics from where?

I know where I got mine.

Read the information at the url I provided. :boggled:

[maatorc]

Originally Posted by maatorc View Post
In relation to physical material atoms, electrons are 'elementary' particles and protons and neutrons are 'composite' particles.

We all know electrons are currently understood as packets of energy which can be thought of as a tiny vibration or wave or as a ball-like particle. They travel as waves and arrive as particles.

Just as the electron is an elementary particle underlying physical matter, so the material primary component of the psychic body is an elementary particle.


Er. And you got your degree in physics from where?
I know where I got mine.
Read the information at the url I provided. :boggled:

Are you saying the electron is not a lepton type elementary particle, and that protons and neutrons are not hadron type composite particles?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Are you saying the electron is not a lepton type elementary particle, and that protons and neutrons are not hadron type composite particles?

So you read the article. Good start.

But you originally said: We know the material primary components of the physical material body are electrons which underlie the known elements such as carbon and oxygen. Keep on backtracking and you might arrive within spitting distance of the truth. :boggled:

[maatorc]

So you read the article.

No, and your verbal style is to much like a churlish teenager for me to pursue your pretensions

[maatorc]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron

Electron

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The electron is a fundamental subatomic particle[5] that was identified in 1897 by J.J. Thomson and his team of British physicists.[6] These electrically-charged particles, together with the protons and neutrons that comprise atomic nuclei, make up atoms. Electron–electron interaction between atoms is the main cause of chemical bonding. Electrons play an essential role in electricity, magnetism and, in metals, thermal conductivity.

All electrons are identical particles that belong to the first generation of the lepton particle family. Each electron carries a negative elementary charge and participates in electromagnetic and weak interactions. It has a property of intrinsic angular momentum called spin, with a standardized value of 1⁄2. The mass of an electron is approximately 1⁄1836 of that of the proton, and it is believed to be a point particle with no apparent substructure.

[calebprime]

May I suggest a different tack:

That we bracket off the incomprehensible physics and get right to the "way it seems"--phenomenology maybe?

And/or discuss practices, subjective experiences, benefits if any, stimulating parallels between this and other ways of thinking--that might actually be interesting?

You'll get nowhere with the physics.

At best this is an unbridgeable gap.

[Cuddles]

snip

You're missing, or more likely deliberately ignoring in the hopes it will go away, the point.

As Gord_in_Toronto says, you originally said:
We know the material primary components of the physical material body are electrons which underlie the known elements such as carbon and oxygen.

No-one is arguing about what electrons are. Indeed, most of us here probably know a lot more about them than you. What we are arguing about is your nonsensical claim quoted above.

[maatorc]

You're missing, or more likely deliberately ignoring in the hopes it will go away, the point.
As Gord_in_Toronto says, you originally said:
Quote:
We know the material primary components of the physical material body are electrons which underlie the known elements such as carbon and oxygen.
No-one is arguing about what electrons are. Indeed, most of us here probably know a lot more about them than you. What we are arguing about is your nonsensical claim quoted above.

You are missing, or more likely denying what you do not want to know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lepton
If electrons are not the material primary components of the physical material body, what are?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

You are missing, or more likely denying what you do not want to know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lepton
If electrons are not the material primary components of the physical material body, what are?

I'm beginning to be sorry for the derail of this thread.

However, until you understand Physics, you will have problems convincing people that you are capable of rational discussion.

Reread both those wikis and then explain where they demonstrate that "electrons are the material primary components of the physical material body"? :boggled:

I know that you are keeping me amused; but what was the original thesis of this thread?

[maatorc]

......Reread both those wikis and then explain where they demonstrate that "electrons are the material primary components of the physical material body"? :boggled:

What, to you, if not electrons, are the primary components?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

What, to you, if not electrons, are the primary components?

Read:
http://www.edwardwillett.com/Columns/quarks.htm

Then come back and ask me again.

[maatorc]

Read:
http://www.edwardwillett.com/Columns/quarks.htm......

Read it: As I said, electrons are primary and not made of quarks, and protons and neutrons are composite, and are made of quarks.

[Cuddles]

You are missing, or more likely denying what you do not want to know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lepton

I'm an accelerator physicist. I work at an electron particle accelerator. Trust me, I know far more about electrons than you ever will.

If electrons are not the material primary components of the physical material body, what are?

Protons and neutrons. Quarks if you want to go down to that level.

Read it: As I said, electrons are primary and not made of quarks, and protons and neutrons are composite, and are made of quarks.

Exactly. Protons and neutrons are made of quarks. Electrons are not. The physical material body not only contains more protons and neutrons than it does electrons, but those protons and neutrons have thousands of times more mass than the electrons. This really is very basic chemistry and physics. Even 11 year olds would be able to answer answer this.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I'm an accelerator physicist. I work at an electron particle accelerator. Trust me, I know far more about electrons than you ever will.



Protons and neutrons. Quarks if you want to go down to that level.



Exactly. Protons and neutrons are made of quarks. Electrons are not. The physical material body not only contains more protons and neutrons than it does electrons, but those protons and neutrons have thousands of times more mass than the electrons. This really is very basic chemistry and physics. Even 11 year olds would be able to answer answer this.

Well, if you are going to spoon feed him the answer. :D I was trying to make him drink by dipping his head in the water. ;)

What was the topic of this thread anyway? I;m really sorry for the derail. :o

[Cuddles]

Well, if you are going to spoon feed him the answer. :D I was trying to make him drink by dipping his head in the water. ;)

Sorry. Although to be fair, even thouh I've now given him a good dunking, I really doubt he'll actually try drinking.

What was the topic of this thread anyway? I;m really sorry for the derail. :o

Interesting, isn't it? Maatorc derails every thread he can with his nonsense about psychic powers being completely provably real, but also secret and untestable, but when he has a thread created specifically to discuss that, he manages to derail it. It's almost as though he doesn't have a rational argument to make at all.

[calebprime]

Ok, [fizzix] aside, why does it seem like there's something psychic going on in this connection?

What are the benefits of studying Gurdjieff--subjectively?

[maatorc]

Ok, [fizzix] aside, why does it seem like there's something psychic going on in this connection? What are the benefits of studying Gurdjieff--subjectively?

Thank you for your courtesy and patience.
In this territory you are not expected by me to accept my comments on G's knowledge of occult anatomy and its' role in the inner circles of the mystical tradition.
Gord in Toronto and Cuddles know what I am actually saying but seek to derail this thread through confusion by misleading science-speak.

I briefly restate what I am saying using a slightly different terminology: -
The electron is the one only stand-alone elementary particle in a material atom.
All other particles in a material atom are composite particles consisting of quarks, which include protons and neutrons.
Quarks appear in atoms only as groups forming such as protons and neutrons.
The stand-alone electron, as an elementary material particle, is the one-only stand-alone elementary particle in a material atom, constituting a material element.
There are no material atoms consisting of stand-alone electrons as elementary particles, and stand-alone quarks as elementary particles.

The inner circle of the mystical tradition knows the psychic body is composed of a stand-alone elementary material particle which does not combine with other elementary or composite particles to form a body with the mass of our physical body and discernible to our physical perception: Hence their focus on occult anatomy and a technique of perfecting the psychic body.

What are called "psychic or occult or paranormal powers or events" are but phases or aspects of the occult anatomical technique, together with the knowledge and experience of living.

[Czarcasm]

Please, people-try not to confuse poor maatorc with any more "science-speak."

[Cuddles]

Gord in Toronto and Cuddles know what I am actually saying but seek to derail this thread through confusion by misleading science-speak.

No, we are simply correcting your false claims.

The electron is the one only stand-alone elementary particle in a material atom.
All other particles in a material atom are composite particles consisting of quarks, which include protons and neutrons.
Quarks appear in atoms only as groups forming such as protons and neutrons.
The stand-alone electron, as an elementary material particle, is the one-only stand-alone elementary particle in a material atom, constituting a material element.

Again, no. If you are not going to count quarks as elementary particles, you cannot count electrons either. After all, electrons are never found anywhere in the body without being associated with protons. Why do you exclude quarks because they're not found by themselves, but not electrons, which are also not found by themselves?

There are no material atoms consisting of stand-alone electrons as elementary particles, and stand-alone quarks as elementary particles.

Atoms are composite structures. There are no atoms consisting of stand-alone anything. If they were stand-alone, they wouldn't be part of an atom.

The inner circle of the mystical tradition knows the psychic body is composed of a stand-alone elementary material particle which does not combine with other elementary or composite particles to form a body with the mass of our physical body and discernible to our physical perception: Hence their focus on occult anatomy and a technique of perfecting the psychic body.

What are called "psychic or occult or paranormal powers or events" are but phases or aspects of the occult anatomical technique, together with the knowledge and experience of living.

And this has absolutely nothing to do with your derail about electrons. Or reality for that matter.

Once again, you claimed:
We know the material primary components of the physical material body are electrons which underlie the known elements such as carbon and oxygen.
Do you now retract this? Or are you going to try to support it?

[maatorc]

......Do you now retract this? Or are you going to try to support it?

I am saying in the context of Gurdjieff's writings that the inner circle of the mystical tradition knows the psychic body is composed of a stand-alone elementary material particle, which incidentally I have not identified, that does not combine with other elementary or composite particles to form a body with the mass of our physical body and discernible to our physical perception.

As to derailing, this thread is about my comments on Gurdjieff, not your transparent verbal fudging.

[Cuddles]

My cat's breath smells of cat food.

So, you're retracting your claim that electrons are the primary components of the physical material body, oxygen and carbon? Good.

I would ask if you're going to retract your other nonsensical claims, but you debunk yourself perfectly effectively so there's really no point worrying about it. Seriously, if you can't see any problem with the claim that particles which do not combine in any way with other particles form bodies, you have far bigger problems than I can help you with.

[Cuddles]

My cat's breath smells of cat food.

So, you're retracting your claim that electrons are the primary components of the physical material body, oxygen and carbon? Good.

I would ask if you're going to retract your other nonsensical claims, but you debunk yourself perfectly effectively so there's really no point worrying about it. Seriously, if you can't see any problem with the claim that particles which do not combine in any way with other particles form bodies, you have far bigger problems than I can help you with.

[maatorc]

My cat's breath smells of cat food.
So, you're retracting your claim that electrons are the primary components of the physical material body, oxygen and carbon? Good.
I would ask if you're going to retract your other nonsensical claims, but you debunk yourself perfectly effectively so there's really no point worrying about it. Seriously, if you can't see any problem with the claim that particles which do not combine in any way with other particles form bodies, you have far bigger problems than I can help you with.

Tell me: Why do the quark and gluon never emerge in isolation?

Are you absolutely sure beyond any conceivable doubt that 'gravity' is a 'pull'?

Are you certain the quark and gluon are actually elementary particles?

Are you absolutely certain there are 'any' elementary particles outside the electron as would not seem to be the case where gravity is a 'push' in an expanding non-standard universal model?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Tell me: Why do the quark and gluon never emerge in isolation?

Are you absolutely sure beyond any conceivable doubt that 'gravity' is a 'pull'?

Are you certain the quark and gluon are actually elementary particles?

Are you absolutely certain there are 'any' elementary particles outside the electron as would not seem to be the case where gravity is a 'push' in an expanding non-standard universal model?

My cat's bum smells of . . .

Are you absolutely certain that electrons are not composed of even tinier particles called tinies?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I am saying in the context of Gurdjieff's writings that the inner circle of the mystical tradition knows the psychic body is composed of a stand-alone elementary material particle, which incidentally I have not identified, that does not combine with other elementary or composite particles to form a body with the mass of our physical body and discernible to our physical perception.

Can you please parse that into English because as it is written it either does not make any sense or is ambiguous? And most likely both.

As to derailing, this thread is about my comments on Gurdjieff, not your transparent verbal fudging.

One of your comments was:

Originally Posted by maatorc http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2blues/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4135099#post4135099)
We know the material primary components of the physical material body are electrons which underlie the known elements such as carbon and oxygen.


You were called on this nonsense and have been arguing about it ever since. :bwall

[maatorc]

......Are you absolutely certain that electrons are not composed of even tinier particles called tinies?

Are you sure you want to ask this baby question?
As usual, you are not actually saying anything.

[maatorc]

Quote:- Originally Posted by maatorc - We know the material primary components of the physical material body are electrons which underlie the known elements such as carbon and oxygen.
......You were called on this nonsense and have been arguing about it ever since. :bwall

Speaking of nonsense, are you absolutely certain the quark and gluon are elementary particles?

[Ron_Tomkins]

So this atom walks into a bar and goes to the bartender and tells him:

"I think I lost my electrons here"
"Are you sure?"
"Yeah I'm positive"




:D Sorry, I couldn't help it.
Carry on, fellas

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Speaking of nonsense, are you absolutely certain the quark and gluon are elementary particles?

Evasion noted. :snicker:

[Gord_in_Toronto]

So this atom walks into a bar and goes to the bartender and tells him:

"I think I lost my electrons here"
"Are you sure?"
"Yeah I'm positive"




:D Sorry, I couldn't help it.
Carry on, fellas

Can I smoke if I've got 'em? :(

[Moochie]

Ones' real self and consciousness resides in the psychic-material body.
The physical-material body is a vehicle for the psychic-material body.

But like all of these suppositions, what does it matter? I mean, so what? How does knowing any of this stuff affect your life in any material way? I mean, I'd really like to know. Does it make you a better person? Happier? Does it improve your sex life? What?


M.

[maatorc]

Originally Posted by maatorc View Post - Ones' real self and consciousness resides in the psychic-material body. The physical-material body is a vehicle for the psychic-material body.
But like all of these suppositions, what does it matter? I mean, so what? How does knowing any of this stuff affect your life in any material way? I mean, I'd really like to know. Does it make you a better person? Happier? Does it improve your sex life? What?

You are correct. The only question is whether or not this understanding is true or false. Whatever decision you make about it is up to you alone. Your decision is respected.

The ideal of the anatomical myth and its technique is an attainment of the auto-dynamical balance of our creative energy in the realization of a natural harmonium as a universally personified microcosm.

[maatorc]

Originally Posted by maatorc View Post
Speaking of nonsense, are you absolutely certain the quark and gluon are elementary particles?
Evasion noted. :snicker:

You don't really know, do you?
You've been pretending all along, haven't you?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

You don't really know, do you?
You've been pretending all along, haven't you?

As soon as the Large Hadron Collider starts producing results I'll let you know.

In the meantime what does "Ones' real self and consciousness resides in the psychic-material body. The physical-material body is a vehicle for the psychic-material body." mean? In English?

Careful how you answer or the Sarmoung Brotherhood may come after you. Or they might if they existed outside the fantasy of Mr. Gurdjieff's imagination.
:dc_tongue::dc_shocked: :dc_peevedoff::dc_jimlad: :dc_jimlad::dc_furious::dc_furious:

[maatorc]

Originally Posted by maatorc View Post
You don't really know, do you?
You've been pretending all along, haven't you?
As soon as the [FONT=Verdana][SIZE=3] Large Hadron Collider starts producing results I'll let you know.

You've been pretending to know all along, and now you're saying you will let us know when you find out!!!

Tell me: Why do the quark and gluon never appear in isolation?

[Moochie]

You are correct. The only question is whether or not this understanding is true or false. Whatever decision you make about it is up to you alone. Your decision is respected.

The ideal of the anatomical myth and its technique is an attainment of the auto-dynamical balance of our creative energy in the realization of a natural harmonium as a universally personified microcosm.

I have no idea what you're on about.


M.

[zooterkin]

What is called the astral or psychic is actually material.

Humans, then, have two material bodies.

Just as we know the physical body consists of electrons, so the exact material primary component of the psychic body has long been known, as also is the precise explanation of the perceptual and functional variances between the two bodies.


Sorry if I missed it, but what exactly is the material of the psychic body? How is it detected?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

You've been pretending to know all along, and now you're saying you will let us know when you find out!!!

Tell me: Why do the quark and gluon never appear in isolation?

Because they are prevented from doing so by a twelve-tone, virtual, symbolic, representational enneagram? May I say "doh" or maybe "fah"?

:mysteryma :mysteryma :mysteryma :mysteryma :mysteryma :mysteryma :mysteryma :mysteryma

[calebprime]

In Gurdjieff's writings, the inner circle of the mystical tradition knows [that] the psychic body is composed of a stand-alone elementary material particle--which incidentally I have not identified-- that does not combine with other elementary or composite particles to form a body with the mass of our physical body, [nor] is it perceptible.



parsed, edited a little, and rendered in a nice Teal color.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

In Gurdjieff's writings, the inner circle of the mystical tradition knows [that] the psychic body is composed of a stand-alone elementary material particle--which incidentally I have not identified-- that does not combine with other elementary or composite particles to form a body with the mass of our physical body, [nor] is it perceptible.



parsed, edited a little, and rendered in a nice Teal color.

Isn't Teal a duck? :duck:

[zooterkin]

Just as we know the physical body consists of electrons, so the exact material primary component of the psychic body has long been known, as also is the precise explanation of the perceptual and functional variances between the two bodies.


In Gurdjieff's writings, the inner circle of the mystical tradition knows [that] the psychic body is composed of a stand-alone elementary material particle--which incidentally I have not identified-- that does not combine with other elementary or composite particles to form a body with the mass of our physical body, [nor] is it perceptible.



Are the two bolded statements not in direct contradiction?


With respect to the MDC, materially, the perceptions of the physical body, being limited to phenomenal events, cannot measure the finer material perceptions of the finer material-psychic body, the material perceptions of which lie outside those of the physical body perceptions.

The two bodies interact and communicate and comprise the total human-being such as it is at any time, place, and state.
How do the two bodies interact, if the psychic body cannot be perceived?

[maatorc]

Because they are prevented from doing so by a twelve-tone, virtual, symbolic, representational enneagram?

You are still unable to answer why allegedly heavier than electron 'elementary particles' do not appear in isolation, and when they are separated from protons and neutrons in powerful collision experiments they immediately recombine back into the original proton or neutron.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

You are still unable to answer why allegedly heavier than electron 'elementary particles' do not appear in isolation, and when they are separated from protons and neutrons in powerful collision experiments they immediately recombine back into the original proton or neutron.

So what? What has this got to do with your silly, unscientific claims and the lunatic Gurdjieff? :boggled:

[maatorc]

So what? What has this got to do with your silly, unscientific claims and the lunatic Gurdjieff?

That your alleged 'scientific' claims may not be true, and gurdjieff is quite understandably beyond your tunnel-vision conceptual limitations.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

That your alleged 'scientific' claims may not be true, and gurdjieff is quite understandably beyond your tunnel-vision conceptual limitations.

Woo. Woo. Woo. Woo.

So tell me more about Gurdjieff.

[dafydd]

"auto-dynamical balance of our creative energy in the realization of a natural harmonium as a universally personified microcosm."
Pure Californain physcobabble! Typical of the genre.All the words have a definite meaning when taken separately,but the sentence you created is pure theosopy,i.e. pure *****.

[dafydd]

A harmonium is a musical instrument,by the way.Or were you thinking of charmonium?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Possibly this is the answer?

From our friends at wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonium_(fictional_creature)

According to The Sirens of Titan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sirens_of_Titan) by Kurt Vonnegut (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Vonnegut), harmoniums are the only form of life on the planet Mercury (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_%28planet%29). Harmoniums are paper-thin cave-dwellers that feed on nearly undetectable vibrations in the planet, described as "Mercury's song." Harmoniums are kite-sized and kite-shaped, and reproduce asexually by flaking off in a manner not unlike dandruff. They have only the sense of touch, and also rudimentary telepathic powers capable of only two messages: "here I am, here I am, here I am," and "so glad you are, so glad you are, so glad you are."


Harmoniums are a semi-transparent blue, making the yellow walls of Mercury to appear aquamarine beneath them. When they die, they shrivel up like dried fruit. They can die from feeding off too much vibration.

[maatorc]

"auto-dynamical balance of our creative energy in the realization of a natural harmonium as a universally personified microcosm."
Pure Californain physcobabble! Typical of the genre.All the words have a definite meaning when taken separately,but the sentence you created is pure theosopy,i.e. pure *****.

It is true certain ideas of the anatomical myth were adopted by organizations who were not genuine outer organizations of the school behind the myth, and such adapted ideas, however well intentioned. misconstrued and misrepresented the real method, meaning, and purpose of the school.

[maatorc]

......So tell me more about Gurdjieff.

Look him up yourself.

[dafydd]

"It is true certain ideas of the anatomical myth were adopted by organizations who were not genuine outer organizations of the school behind the myth, and such adapted ideas, however well intentioned. misconstrued and misrepresented the real method, meaning, and purpose of the school"

More gibberish!

[Moochie]

Look him up yourself.


Seems he was a cross-dresser who liked to twirl around and around at speed in order to get a mild high.

Weeeeeeeeeeeeee!


M.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Look him up yourself.

I did. Very early on in this thread. Where do think I got the information to post about the "enneagram"?

IMHO just another New Age Loonie with a very tenuous connection to reality. Care to demonstrate otherwise?

Free Electrons

[maatorc]

"It is true certain ideas of the anatomical myth were adopted by organizations who were not genuine outer organizations of the school behind the myth, and such adapted ideas, however well intentioned. misconstrued and misrepresented the real method, meaning, and purpose of the school"
More gibberish!

That is because your comments fall into the same category of misguided supporters and misinformed opponents once - twice - thrice removed from its actual operations.

Your gibberish approximates the ramblings of those who say skepticism is a mental aberration contributing nothing whatsoever to the real world of knowledge and understanding, by failing to understand that true skepticism is exclusively peer based and not to be confused with what people like you spew out here.

[maatorc]

I did. Very early on in this thread. Where do think I got the information to post about the "enneagram"?
IMHO just another New Age Loonie with a very tenuous connection to reality. Care to demonstrate otherwise?

Unlike what is held to be true here, your 'opinion' is not a 'demonstration'.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Unlike what is held to be true here, your 'opinion' is not a 'demonstration'.

Do you speak English? Did I not ask you to parse an earlier statement that was extremely ambiguous? Of course my opinion is not a demonstration.

You don't seem to have any support in this thread what-so-ever. It's not just me you have to convince. Come on -- why is Gurdjieff worth reading about? What great revelation has he brought to the World?

:Dancing_eek::Dancing_confused::Dancing_shock::Dan cing_sad::Dancing_sad::Dancing_sad::Dancing_O_o::D ancing_mad::Dancing_cool::Dancing_blush::Dancing_b iggrin::Dancing_baffled::Dancing_nerd::Dancing_lau gh:

[maatorc]

Do you speak English? Did I not ask you to parse an earlier statement that was extremely ambiguous? Of course my opinion is not a demonstration.You don't seem to have any support in this thread what-so-ever. It's not just me you have to convince. Come on -- why is Gurdjieff worth reading about? What great revelation has he brought to the World?

As always you try to put words in my mouth.
Please yourself whether you read Gurdjieff.
I have no interest whatever in what you think of him.
What I actually said about Gurdjieff is that in one of his books he made a statement which exactly agrees with what is known to be true by the mystical tradition and its true school.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

As always you try to put words in my mouth.
Please yourself whether you read Gurdjieff.
I have no interest whatever in what you think of him.
What I actually said about Gurdjieff is that in one of his books he made a statement which exactly agrees with what is known to be true by the mystical tradition and its true school.

Ah, so I have only been following this thread. So do you suppose you could enlighten me (possibly "us" if anyone else cares) what that one true statement is?

I promise not to bring up the aphorism about blind pigs finding truffles.
:jaw-dropp:jaw::warning1

[maatorc]

Ah, so I have only been following this thread. So do you suppose you could enlighten me (possibly "us" if anyone else cares) what that one true statement is?......

See this thread post 6.
Maatorc, psychic bodies, Gurdjieff -
......The book Life is real only then, when "I am", by G. I. Gurdjieff, in the chapter on 'The Outer and Inner World of Man', explains: The soul, like the physical body, is also matter - only, it consists of "finer" matter.....

[Cavemonster]

I'm very curious, I think there has been an attempt to address this, but I don't see a clear answer.

How do you (how does anyone) know that there is a physical soul made of finer matter. What experiments or observations confirm this?

[maatorc]

I'm very curious, I think there has been an attempt to address this, but I don't see a clear answer.
How do you (how does anyone) know that there is a physical soul made of finer matter. What experiments or observations confirm this?

What form do you want experiments or observations to take?

[Cavemonster]

What form do you want experiments or observations to take?

What did it take to convince you? What kind of evidence was given to you that made you so sure of this truth?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

See this thread post 6.

". . . explains: The soul, like the physical body, is also matter - only, it consists of "finer" matter....."

That's it? :boggled::boggled::boggled::boggled:

Well excuuuse me.

What I actually said about Gurdjieff is that in one of his books he made a statement which exactly agrees with what is known to be true by the mystical tradition and its true school.

What is soul?

Why is there any reason to believe such a thing exits?

What "mystical tradition" does his statement actually agree with?

What is the "true school" of "mystical tradition"?
:broomstic :wickedwit :darkside: :ghost: :pigsfly. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . :broomstic :wickedwit :darkside: :ghost: :pigsfly

[Cuddles]

I'm very curious, I think there has been an attempt to address this, but I don't see a clear answer.

How do you (how does anyone) know that there is a physical soul made of finer matter. What experiments or observations confirm this?

Because only electrons can play the harmonium, quarks can't. Haven't you been paying attention at all?

[maatorc]

Because only electrons can play the harmonium, quarks can't. Haven't you been paying attention at all?

Are you absolutely certain 'quarks' are not momentary composite particles consisting of electrons?

[maatorc]

". . . explains: The soul, like the physical body, is also matter - only, it consists of "finer" matter....."
That's it?
What is soul?
Why is there any reason to believe such a thing exits?
What "mystical tradition" does his statement actually agree with?
What is the "true school" of "mystical tradition"?

Look it up. Must I do all your work?

[Cavemonster]

We seem to have veered a bit off topic, I'll repeat my question.
What did it take to convince you? What kind of evidence was given to you that made you so sure of this truth?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Are you absolutely certain 'quarks' are not momentary composite particles consisting of electrons?

Are you absolutely certain 'ducks' are not momentary composite particles consisting of feathers?

What does Gurdjieff think about this? :boggled:

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Look it up. Must I do all your work?

Oh come on. Which "The mystical tradition"? Google gets me close to 120,000 hits.

"true school of mystical tradition" gets me one hit -- my previous post where I asked you the question.

You don't know. Do you?

:bounce2

[maatorc]

What did it take to convince you? What kind of evidence was given to you that made you so sure of this truth?

You are misunderstanding something very basic here.
I am not talking about myself.
My comments address principles known to drive a tradition and its' practices.
If you are so motivated, check it out because you, not I, must decide.
The available literature is vast.

To take you back to the essential underlying idea of this thread, my position is the MDC has a fundamental problem and limitation in that phenomenal methods cannot, by definition, measure noumenal reality or events.

In the context of the tradition of the soul-psychic body as mentioned by Gurdjieff and known in the mystical tradition, our one consciousness is dual: material and spiritual, outer and inner, physical and psychic, phenomenal and noumenal, limited and unlimited.

This means that certain realities and events described and understood as being extra-phenomenal or psychic cannot be measured and physically demonstrated by the limited means available to the outer phenomenal consciousness.

This principle is known as the incommensurability of phenomena and noumena: One cannot physically prove one held a particular thought or experienced a reality or event that is not physically and phenomenally measurable.

[maatorc]

Are you absolutely certain 'ducks' are not momentary composite particles consisting of feathers?
What does Gurdjieff think about this? :boggled:

The analogy does not work!

[maatorc]

Oh come on. Which "The mystical tradition"? Google gets me close to 120,000 hits.
"true school of mystical tradition" gets me one hit -- my previous post where I asked you the question.
You don't know. Do you?

At this point it matters only that you do not know.

Whatever is suggested, if you do not like the publisher or author or connected organization you will dismiss and ridicule it, leaving you exactly where you started.

I can in fact recommend a definitive source but am unwilling to expose it to ridicule and derision based on tunnel-visioned ignorance.

That is why, consistent with the practice of the tradition, you must find what you are willing to examine and consider in an unprejudiced manner.

As an example of literature possibly suitable for you to start with, see -
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=Occult+Anatomy&btnG=Google+Search&meta=.

See also as an example of the idea of the mystical tradition -
http://www.alchemylab.com/christian_rosenkreutz.htm.

[Mashuna]

I had a look at the mystical tradition links, but all I found out was that Rosenkreutz and Gurdjieff are dead.

The rest is silence.

[maatorc]

I had a look at the mystical tradition links, but all I found out was that Rosenkreutz and Gurdjieff are dead. The rest is silence.

Be silent, then.

[Mashuna]

Be silent, then.

Pah, my literary allusions are wasted on you.

:p

[Cuddles]

Are you absolutely certain 'quarks' are not momentary composite particles consisting of electrons?

Yes.

Are you absolutely certain that you're a real person and not just a really bad attempt at passing the Turing test?

[snoop_doxie]

Pah, my literary allusions are wasted on you.

:p

well, all literary allusions are appreciated by me. :D

[zooterkin]

So, maatorc, are you going to respond to any of my posts above?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

The analogy does not work!

What analogy? You don't know the answer do you?

:scared:

[Doubt]

Are you absolutely certain 'quarks' are not momentary composite particles consisting of electrons?

Your ignorance of the subject is so great that one little google search could show you just how wrong you are:

http://www.launc.tased.edu.au/ONLINE/SCIENCES/Physics/quark.html

Quarks have partial charges. Some are positive, some are negative.

Electrons have whole charges. And they are negative.

There is no means of putting the square peg in the round hole here. You have failed to grasp information that has been known for decades. -1 point (charge) for not trying hard enough to understand what you are babbling about.

Look up falsification and try to use it next time you get an idea in your head like this.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

At this point it matters only that you do not know.

Whatever is suggested, if you do not like the publisher or author or connected organization you will dismiss and ridicule it, leaving you exactly where you started.

I can in fact recommend a definitive source but am unwilling to expose it to ridicule and derision based on tunnel-visioned ignorance.

That is why, consistent with the practice of the tradition, you must find what you are willing to examine and consider in an unprejudiced manner.

As an example of literature possibly suitable for you to start with, see -
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=Occult+Anatomy&btnG=Google+Search&meta=.

See also as an example of the idea of the mystical tradition -
http://www.alchemylab.com/christian_rosenkreutz.htm.

OK. I read the first hit for your first url:
http://74.125.95.104/search?q=cache:stNFW_Z5pj0J:english.divinaciencia. com/anato_i.php+Occult+Anatomy&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=au

And have to say I outgrew all that nonsense many years ago.

The vital body is simply the four-dimensional sphere of the physical body.
It is also known as aura, etheric body or lingam sarira. This body may be photographed by Kirliam(sic) camera.No it can't. The Kirlian camera photographs nothing but electric discharges when an object is photographed in a strong electric field. It does this for all objects, living or not. So possibly you want to claim that doorknobs (for example) have a vital body?

As far as url #2 is concerned: You'd think the Rosicrucians would have accomplished just a little bit more in the last few hundreds of years? Possibly they got lost on their way to the Himalayas (or on the way back)? Folklore to be placed in the museum of hoaxes.

Amusing fairy stories.

Evidence of any connection with reality?


:pigsfly

[maatorc]

......
http://www.launc.tased.edu.au/ONLINE/SCIENCES/Physics/quark.html
Quarks have partial charges. Some are positive, some are negative.
Electrons have whole charges. And they are negative......

It remains to be seen whether the standard model is true.

[maatorc]

OK. I read the first hit for your first url......
Amusing fairy stories......

You must choose how you regard what you choose to look at.
That is exactly how the tradition works.
You are doing what corresponds with where you are at.
Whatever your choice I make no judgement of any kind.

[Doubt]

It remains to be seen whether the standard model is true.

It does not matter if the standard model is true. The charges are what they are. They are measured values. Even if the theory is wrong, the measurements are real, thus invalidating your argument.

Now last I new, there is no way to produce a partial charge from something like an electron. This is not something you can wish away.

[maatorc]

It does not matter if the standard model is true. The charges are what they are. They are measured values. Even if the theory is wrong, the measurements are real, thus invalidating your argument.
Now last I new, there is no way to produce a partial charge from something like an electron. This is not something you can wish away.

What argument, exactly, are you referring to?

[maatorc]

So, maatorc, are you going to respond to any of my posts above?

The understanding is that the psychic body joins the physical vehicle with the first breath of the newborn.

The principle connections between the two are the endocrine glands and the autonomic system ganglia.

[zooterkin]

I'm not sure you're answering anything I asked, but nevermind.The understanding is that the psychic body joins the physical vehicle with the first breath of the newborn.


Fascinating. How was this determined?
The principle connections between the two are the endocrine glands and the autonomic system ganglia.

How is this connection possible? What happens if a gland is lost, e.g. through surgery?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

You must choose how you regard what you choose to look at.
That is exactly how the tradition works.
You are doing what corresponds with where you are at.
Whatever your choice I make no judgement of any kind.

So that's the end of that then?

<Gord examines his signature very carefully.>

Nope.

:pigsfly:pigsfly:pigsfly:pigsfly

[Doubt]

What argument, exactly, are you referring to?

That rather silly notion you put forward about quarks being made of electrons.

[maatorc]

1...I'm not sure you're answering anything I asked, but nevermind.
Originally Posted by maatorc View Post
The understanding is that the psychic body joins the physical vehicle with the first breath of the newborn.
2...Fascinating. How was this determined?
Quote:
The principle connections between the two are the endocrine glands and the autonomic system ganglia.
3...How is this connection possible? What happens if a gland is lost, e.g. through surgery?

1... See post 76.
2... By the advanced methods in the technique of the tradition of occult anatomy.
3... The centres in the psychic body corresponding to the glands and ganglia react to each other. If a gland is lost it does interfere with the balance of the system as a whole with respect to the function and energies of the particular gland.

[maatorc]

That rather silly notion you put forward about quarks being made of electrons.

The suggestion is that quarks may be composite particles.

[Doubt]

The suggestion is that quarks may be composite particles.

No, you suggested they were electrons. They cannot be electrons.

It may be possible that quarks are composite particles. I will leave the probablity of that being true up to the physicists here. But if they are, electrons are not likely to be one of the parts.

If quarks are composite particles, then there is also the chance that electrons are as well.

But all of this is a tangent that just exposes that you don't have a clue what you are writing about.

You have no evidence to back up your ideas here.

[maatorc]

Originally Posted by maatorc View Post
The suggestion is that quarks may be composite particles.

1... No, you suggested they were electrons. They cannot be electrons.
2... It may be possible that quarks are composite particles. I will leave the probability of that being true up to the physicists here. But if they are, electrons are not likely to be one of the parts.If quarks are composite particles, then there is also the chance that electrons are as well......

1... Like many here you are deeply into selective misquoting.
I am suggesting quarks may be very short-lived particles composed of electrons, not that a quark IS an electron.

2... Your language is shouting you do not have a clue.

[Doubt]

1... Like many here you are deeply into selective misquoting.
I am suggesting quarks may be very short-lived particles composed of electrons, not that a quark IS an electron.

2... Your language is shouting you do not have a clue.

I have not misquoted you at all. And you are still wrong. As I already pointed out.

Quarks have partial charges. Electrons don't.

Some of the quarks have positive charges. Electrons don't.

Those are facts. If the are wrong, explain how. Till then, you are the clue challenged one.

[maatorc]

......Quarks have partial charges. Electrons don't.
Some of the quarks have positive charges. Electrons don't.

And?

[Ysidro]

James Randi and Michael Shermer claim to believe stage magic and cold reading account for all seeming paranormal, psychic, and occult events and realities.


Nonsense. I'm sure they also accept misapprehension, misrepresentation, and just plain mistakes along with stage magic and cold reading.

[zooterkin]

1... See post 76.
You illustrate my point. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4155107&postcount=76) I was asking about whether or not the composition of the psychic body was known, since there were contradictory statements in this thread.

2... By the advanced methods in the technique of the tradition of occult anatomy.
For example? What sort of methods? How is it established that it's the first breath? Where is the psychic body before that? What created it, and when?

3... The centres in the psychic body corresponding to the glands and ganglia react to each other. If a gland is lost it does interfere with the balance of the system as a whole with respect to the function and energies of the particular gland.
How do they react to each other, if the psychic body cannot be detected? What are the properties of the glands and ganglia which enable this?

[maatorc]

Originally Posted by maatorc View Post
James Randi and Michael Shermer claim to believe stage magic and cold reading account for all seeming paranormal, psychic, and occult events and realities.
Nonsense. I'm sure they also accept misapprehension, misrepresentation, and just plain mistakes along with stage magic and cold reading.

Already included in stage magic and cold reading.

[Ysidro]

Already included in stage magic and cold reading.

Even more nonsense. Are you saying all forms of misaprehension and misrepresentation are stage magic and cold reading? Those are just two examples thereof that only allow for elaborate deceptions of a specific sort.

But of course, the straw suits your purpose, doesn't it?

[maatorc]

1... You illustrate my point. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4155107&postcount=76) I was asking about whether or not the composition of the psychic body was known, since there were contradictory statements in this thread.
2... ......What sort of methods? How is it established that it's the first breath? Where is the psychic body before that? What created it, and when?
3... How do they react to each other, if the psychic body cannot be detected? What are the properties of the glands and ganglia which enable this?

1... What contradictory statements?
2... and 3... You may initially need to do some introductory reading in the large and easily available general literature on the mystical tradition.

[maatorc]

Even more nonsense. Are you saying all forms of misaprehension and misrepresentation are stage magic and cold reading? Those are just two examples thereof that only allow for elaborate deceptions of a specific sort.
But of course, the straw suits your purpose, doesn't it?

Even more nonsense.

[zooterkin]

1... What contradictory statements?
Here they are again:
Just as we know the physical body consists of electrons, so the exact material primary component of the psychic body has long been known, as also is the precise explanation of the perceptual and functional variances between the two bodies.

In Gurdjieff's writings, the inner circle of the mystical tradition knows [that] the psychic body is composed of a stand-alone elementary material particle--which incidentally I have not identified-- that does not combine with other elementary or composite particles to form a body with the mass of our physical body, [nor] is it perceptible.


The two bolded statements are contradictory, surely? Either the component is known, or it isn't.


2... and 3... You may initially need to do some introductory reading in the large and easily available general literature on the mystical tradition.
Can you not at least give a reference to a text which has the answers to those particular questions? "General literature on the mystical tradition" covers an awful lot of books.

[maatorc]

1... Here they are again:......
The two bolded statements are contradictory, surely? Either the component is known, or it isn't.
2... Can you not at least give a reference to a text which has the answers to those particular questions? "General literature on the mystical tradition" covers an awful lot of books.

1... It is known. I simply have not said what it is.
2... As an example of literature possibly suitable for you to start with, see -
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=The+mystical+tradition&btnG=Google+Search&meta=
See also as an example of the idea of the mystical tradition -
http://www.alchemylab.com/christian_rosenkreutz.htm.

[Ysidro]

Even more nonsense.

I know you are but what am I? :p

[Cavemonster]

Okay Maa

Two possibilities exist
1) You believe a soul exists, composed of finer matter.
2) You do not believe a soul exists, composed of finer matter.

If you don't believe in such a soul, we have nothing to talk abou, we don't either.

If you do, why? Don't just point to a spiritual tradition, if they convinced you, how?

[zooterkin]

1... It is known. I simply have not said what it is.
Could you not just simply say what it is now?

2... As an example of literature possibly suitable for you to start with, see -
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=The+mystical+tradition&btnG=Google+Search&meta=
Not really good enough. I asked for answers to specific questions, not a google search on mysticism in general. You're the one claiming that this psychic body exists, and that it attaches to the real body with the first breath. Surely you can give some reference for this?

See also as an example of the idea of the mystical tradition -
http://www.alchemylab.com/christian_rosenkreutz.htm.
I can't see any reference there to psychic bodies.

[Doubt]

And?

And? Are you trying to not understand the obvious.

The properties of quarks preclude them from being made of electrons. Full stop.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

1... It is known. I simply have not said what it is.
2... As an example of literature possibly suitable for you to start with, see -
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=The+mystical+tradition&btnG=Google+Search&meta=
See also as an example of the idea of the mystical tradition -
http://www.alchemylab.com/christian_rosenkreutz.htm.

I have told you I have followed both those links. They prove nothing. Other than the human mind is capable of creating much fantasy. Any actual EVIDENCE that any of this is true? Or, better, yet not self-contradictory? Or that it is truer than all the other silly "beliefs" people have?

[maatorc]

......Not really good enough......

Try also -
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=Occult+Anatomy&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

[maatorc]

......The properties of quarks preclude them from being made of electrons......

I have not seen any writer of high scientific repute make such a claim.

[Mashuna]

I have not seen any writer of high scientific repute make such a claim.

Strangely, reputable scientists don't spend a great deal of time explaining why negative sub-atomic particles aren't made up of positive sub-atomic particles.

[zooterkin]

Try also -
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=Occult+Anatomy&btnG=Google+Search&meta=
I'm familiar with search engines, thanks; that's not what I'm asking for.

Can you give a pointer to a document that actually gives the answers? Where did you find out about it? Is there any evidence to support these assertions at all?

[Cavemonster]

Strangely, reputable scientists don't spend a great deal of time explaining why negative sub-atomic particles aren't made up of positive sub-atomic particles.

Interestingly enough, I've never read a scientific paper refuting the assertion that we were brought here by the evil alien Xenu millions of years ago. The amount of stuff they never get around to officially disproving is mind boggling.

[Doubt]

Strangely, reputable scientists don't spend a great deal of time explaining why negative sub-atomic particles aren't made up of positive sub-atomic particles.

Maatorc appears to be incapable of understanding the math. This is rather sad but explains a lot.

In addition to the 2 or more negative charges cannot equal a positive charge, there is the whole charge of the electron vs. the partial charges of the quarks.

Then there is the repulsive force of the electrons to overcome. The amount of force required is very large. As in weight of the Chrysler building large. (Borrowed that example from Lawrence M. Krauss's book, Beyond Star Trek: From Alien Invasions to the End of Time

[zooterkin]

Strangely, reputable scientists don't spend a great deal of time explaining why negative sub-atomic particles aren't made up of positive sub-atomic particles.
Not that it makes a lot of difference to the fundamental point, but isn't it the other way round?

[Doubt]

Not that it makes a lot of difference to the fundamental point, but isn't it the other way round?

Yes. But the point still stands since the problem remains the same.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Interestingly enough, I've never read a scientific paper refuting the assertion that we were brought here by the evil alien Xenu millions of years ago. The amount of stuff they never get around to officially disproving is mind boggling.

Nor yet that they are absolutely certain 'ducks' are not momentary composite particles consisting of feathers? As I said earlier.

[maatorc]

Maatorc appears to be incapable of understanding ......

Stop pretending any of the Theories are unarguably true.
Incidentally, I am not saying the electron is the one universal primary particle but that it is the primary particle in atomic physical elements, and can of course itself be a composite particle outside the sphere of observable material particles.
http://www.dpedtech.com/FTreview.pdf

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Stop pretending any of the Theories are unarguably true.
Incidentally, I am not saying the electron is the one universal primary particle but that it is the primary particle in atomic physical elements, and can of course itself be a composite particle outside the sphere of observable material particles.
http://www.dpedtech.com/FTreview.pdf

This is
A Review of Mark McCutcheon's The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy by Douglass A. White, Ph.D.Its conclusion:
My purpose in this review has been to give a constructive critique of Mr. McCutcheon's effort. I think his Final Theory has many problems, but so have the Standard Theories. However, ST has lots of precise calculations and data. If McC wants the scientific community to take his ideas seriously, he will have to provide quantitative data and expand his theory to model the many important areas of physics that I mentioned, including detailed electron orbits, atomic and molecular structures, phase conjugation,
neutrinos and quarks. In his whole book he only calculates one original number -- his atomic expansion constant of Xa = 7.7x10^-7 s^-2.Tits on a Bull.

:seahorse:

[Doubt]

Stop pretending any of the Theories are unarguably true.

You are the one pretending. This has nothing to do with theory and everything to do with observation.

I looked over that screed you linked to. Lots of stories but I did not notice any testable predictions. Feel free to point out any since I am not going to wast my time reading that whole thing without a reason.


Incidentally, I am not saying the electron is the one universal primary particle but that it is the primary particle in atomic physical elements, and can of course itself be a composite particle outside the sphere of observable material particles.
http://www.dpedtech.com/FTreview.pdf

show me observations that demonstrate that. Until then, you are just blowing smoke.

[maatorc]

......Tits on a Bull.

As usual, you're not saying anything.

[Doubt]

As usual, you're not saying anything.

Those 4 words he used are more meaningful than anything you have ever posted here.

There is no data to support your ideas. It is just smoke and no data.

[maatorc]

Quote: Incidentally, I am not saying the electron is the one universal primary particle but that it is the primary particle in atomic physical elements, and can of course itself be a composite particle outside the sphere of observable material particles.
http://www.dpedtech.com/FTreview.pdf
......you are just blowing smoke.

So are you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

[Doubt]

So are you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

No. What I am talking about is supported by data.

You, posting links to things you don't really understand, does not support your case.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

<snip>

As I said earlier, G. I. Gurdjieff knew our psychic body is material in nature, and the inner circles of the mystical tradition organizations know it is so.

Why yes you did. But the statement is just as stupid now as then.

What makes Gurdjieff correct?

What on Earth does "our psychic body is material in nature" mean?

Who are the "inner circles of the mystical tradition organizations"?

And before you claim it is just my utterly foolish uneducated brain that is incapable of comprehending these amazing revelations, who else on this forum, or planet, have you managed to convince?

:pigsfly:pigsfly:pigsfly :pigsfly:pigsfly:pigsfly

[zooterkin]

Tell us more about how this psychic body is detected, and how it is known it attaches to the body when the first breath is taken. At what point during the first breath does it happen?

[Dancing David]

Mattorc, you still dishonor your teachers, keep pretending dude.

A followers of teacher's who hide the light under a bushel, and then claims that there is something under the bushel.

But you can't see it.

For those who care:

Google

Golden Dawn
Israel Regardie
Eliphas Levi
Helena Blavatsky
Dione Fortune
Aleister Crowley
OTO

It is amazing what is on the web now:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/oto/lib15.htm

[maatorc]

......I've asked 4 times for a basic what's-it-like, if I recall, and gotten nothing for my troubles......very enlightening.

The link www.rosicrucian.org by G.i.T. in post 206 is OK for general 'what's-it-like' purposes.
See under About the Rosicrucians for lots of doctrinal information.
There are of course other organizations who relate to the same tradition.

[calebprime]

thank you.

I read some.

analogy with learning the piano: that's the way I look at it, also.

(In my mind, it doesn't inflate or deflate something to say that it's like playing the piano--it could be chopsticks, it could be Glenn Gould.)

[Gord_in_Toronto]

The link www.rosicrucian.org (http://www.rosicrucian.org) by G.i.T. in post 206 is OK for general 'what's-it-like' purposes.
See under About the Rosicrucians for lots of doctrinal information.
There are of course other organizations who relate to the same tradition.

Well thank Her Almighty The Invisible Pink Unicorn that someone managed to actually point to a url that provides the sort of information that maatorc finds useful for us foolish non-believers! To bad it took 206 posts to reach that point.

Other ironic aspects left to the mental capacities of the reader. :i:

[maatorc]

......To bad it took 206 posts to reach that point......

No pain - no gain!

And remember, all I said was that Gurdjieff made a statement that the psychic body is material, which statement the inner school of the mystical tradition agrees with......

As to its' truth YOU must personally find out, and don't blame others when you can't.

[Cuddles]

This thead is for discussing Gurdjieff and "psychic bodies". It is not for petty bickering or claims about secret psychic societies. Maatorc, you have been warned several times about this in the past, and if you continue ignoring such warnings you are likely to face more severe action, including suspension and banning.

[maatorc]

(maatorc - post 166)And remember, all I said was that Gurdjieff made a statement that the psychic body is material, which statement the inner school of the mystical tradition agrees with......
This thead is for discussing Gurdjieff and "psychic bodies". It is not for petty bickering or claims about secret psychic societies. Maatorc, you have been warned several times about this in the past, and if you continue ignoring such warnings you are likely to face more severe action, including suspension and banning.

That is exactly what I said in post 166.
It is G.i.T. who constantly tries to derail the thread with his endless bickering, personal attacks and baby-talk.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

That is exactly what I said in post 166.
It is G.i.T. who constantly tries to derail the thread with his endless bickering, personal attacks and baby-talk.

Well. One could claim that I am the only one keeping the thread going as I am sure no one else posting here really cares very much that Gurdjieff made a statement that the psychic body is material and this is in agreement with the inner school of the mystical tradition. You have been unable to provide any evidence that there is an intersection between this curious claim and what other posters see as reality. I joined this thread when you made the silly statement that the basis of everything was electrons. I stayed because it was my turn in the barrel.

And anyway you forgot the flying pigs.

For just one last try -- for posterity and for lurkers (past, present and future). if not for me, could actually answer the questions that have been raised in this thread about Gurdjieff's claims without some general arm waving at Google and the Internet?

[maatorc]

1... ... you made the silly statement that the basis of everything was electrons.
2... ...answer the questions that have been raised in this thread about Gurdjieff's claims without some general arm waving at Google and the Internet?

1... Wrong again. I have not made and am not making any such claim.
2... It's very simple: The inner school behind the mystical tradition teaches that the psychic body consists of finer matter based on a fundamental primary material particle.

[Cuddles]

1... Wrong again. I have not made and am not making any such claim.

Yes you have.
We know the material primary components of the physical material body are electrons

2... It's very simple: The inner school behind the mystical tradition teaches that the psychic body consists of finer matter based on a fundamental primary material particle.

You have just been warned yet again for going on about this "inner school". Either talk about Gurdjieff or don't talk at all. Further derails will be removed.

[maatorc]

1... Yes you have.
2... You have just been warned yet again for going on about this "inner school". Either talk about Gurdjieff or don't talk at all. Further derails will be removed.

1... I have not. G.i.T. is misrepresenting me.
2... See my opening comment in post 6, where the agreement and connection between Gurdjieff's statement and the doctrine in the inner school behind the mystical tradition is clearly stated.

[Cuddles]

1... I have not. G.i.T. is misrepresenting me.

I quoted your own words. There's no point lying about what you have said when your words are available for everyone to see in this thread.

2... See my opening comment in post 6, where the agreement and connection between Gurdjieff's statement and the doctrine in the inner school behind the mystical tradition is clearly stated.

I don't care that you claim Gurdjieff's claims are agree with claims by some non-existent inner school. This thread is about Gurdjieff. Talk about him and his claims. If you want to talk about this inner school crap, either start a new thread or, preferably, continue one of the many existing threads.

[Dancing David]

Well I suppose we can ask, what are the finer particles, there are certainly nutrinos to spare.

[maatorc]

1... I quoted your own words......
2... I don't care that you claim Gurdjieff's claims are agree with claims by some non-existent inner school. This thread is about Gurdjieff. Talk about him and his claims. If you want to talk about this inner school crap, either start a new thread or, preferably, continue one of the many existing threads.

1... You did not quote my words.
2... I am a little surprised that, as a moderator, you have taken over the thread on behalf of G.i.T., but that being the case I will let it lie.

[Doubt]

1... You did not quote my words.
2... I am a little surprised that, as a moderator, you have taken over the thread on behalf of G.i.T., but that being the case I will let it lie.

Yes, those are your words from Post number 23 in this thead:


We know the material primary components of the physical material body are electrons which underlie the known elements such as carbon and oxygen.

In the case of the material primary components of the psychic body they vibrate at so high a rate that they do not form atoms and molecules of physical matter, but form a material mass nonetheless which constitutes a body at their own level of energy vibration which level is vastly higher than the electrons underlying physical matter.


I can also quote where you suggested to me that quarks are made of electrons.

There are two obvious possibilities here. One is that you are just lying. The second is that you don't even remember what you wrote and have not thought this whole thing out. Which of these is true or do you have a third possible explanation?

[maatorc]

Yes, those are your words from Post number 23 in this thead:
I can also quote where you suggested to me that quarks are made of electrons.
There are two obvious possibilities here. One is that you are just lying. The second is that you don't even remember what you wrote and have not thought this whole thing out. Which of these is true or do you have a third possible explanation?

You need to read post 169 to see the false claim by G.i.T.

[Doubt]

You need to read post 169 to see the false claim by G.i.T.

Post 169 does not have any impact on your statements and subsequent denial. Failure to address your own conflicting statements implies that you are lying.

[maatorc]

Post 169 does not have any impact on your statements and subsequent denial. Failure to address your own conflicting statements implies that you are lying.

It contains a false claim as to what I said.
If you want to lie, so be it.

[Doubt]

It contains a false claim as to what I said.
If you want to lie, so be it.

Quote the false statement.

[maatorc]

Quote the false statement.

If you can't see it I'll let it lie.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

M u s t n o t p o s t a n y m o r e i n t h i s thread.

[Doubt]

If you can't see it I'll let it lie.

If you cannot quote it then you are lying again.

[maatorc]

If you cannot quote it then you are lying again.

You are.

[Dancing David]

Gentlemen, no fighting in the War Room!

[Cuddles]

1... You did not quote my words.

Liar.

[Doubt]

Liar.

Um, that could be considered name calling. Factually accurate, but still name calling.

Not much point left to respond to Maatorc unless something new comes along. We won't get much else out of pointing out the dishonesty here. Let alone the inability of the subject to tell the difference between facts, opinions, and ideas.

There is some humor to be found in the examples where facts that run counter to Maatorc's ideas are denied as if they have been fabricated. Reveals much about character and nothing else.

[zooterkin]

1... You did not quote my words.

Yes, he did:


Humans, then, have two material bodies.

Just as we know the physical body consists of electrons, so the exact material primary component of the psychic body has long been known, as also is the precise explanation of the perceptual and functional variances between the two bodies.


Now, the only possible misunderstanding I can see is that some of that post may be a quote from the book by Gurdjieff. If that is the case, then you are partly at fault for not making it clear where the quote ends. The end of the post refers to the MDC, so that is clearly not part of the quote. At what point in your post does the quoting end?

2... I am a little surprised that, as a moderator, you have taken over the thread on behalf of G.i.T., but that being the case I will let it lie.
You misunderstand how this forum works, then.

[maatorc]

Originally Posted by maatorc View Post
Humans, then, have two material bodies. Just as we know the physical body consists of electrons, so the exact material primary component of the psychic body has long been known, as also is the precise explanation of the perceptual and functional variances between the two bodies.
......Now, the only possible misunderstanding I can see is that some of that post may be a quote from the book by Gurdjieff. If that is the case, then you are partly at fault for not making it clear where the quote ends. The end of the post refers to the MDC, so that is clearly not part of the quote. At what point in your post does the quoting end?......

What I have recently referred to is not the above, with which I have no problem, but something G.i.T. erroneously ascribes to me in post 169.

My original quote is quite clear - :
( maatorc - Post 6 )The book Life is real only then, when "I am", by G. I. Gurdjieff, in the chapter on 'The Outer and Inner World of Man', explains: The soul, like the physical body, is also matter - only, it consists of "finer" matter.
What is called the astral or psychic is actually material.
Humans, then, have two material bodies.
Just as we know the physical body consists of electrons, so the exact material primary component of the psychic body has long been known, as also is the precise explanation of the perceptual and functional variances between the two bodies.
The explanation by Gurdjieff exactly agrees with the underlying principle behind the doctrine of occult anatomy of the inner schools of the occult tradition and the hidden operations that drive them, Eastern and Western.
Such Western operations are Hermeticism, Alchemy, Kabala, and the Rosicrucians who have been continuously active since the 16th. century to today. Others operate in the East.

[maatorc]

Liar.

If I - then you too.

[zooterkin]

What I have recently referred to is not the above, with which I have no problem



You have no problem with posting something that is nonsense? The physical body does not "consist of electrons".

[maatorc]

You have no problem with posting something that is nonsense? The physical body does not "consist of electrons".


If not electrons, then what?

[zooterkin]

Electrons, protons and neutrons.

[maatorc]

Electrons, protons and neutrons.

And what are protons and neutrons?

[Dancing David]

And what are protons and neutrons?


They are baryons and not leptons. (Electrons are leptons)

[maatorc]

They are baryons and not leptons. (Electrons are leptons)

You mean quark based hadrons?

[zooterkin]

You mean quark based hadrons?

Your point?

[maatorc]

Your point?

Quarks are?

[Mashuna]

Quarks are?

Not electrons?

[maatorc]

Not electrons?

Question or statement?

[Cuddles]

Quarks are?

Jesus tapdancing Christ on a pogostick. Surely it's not possible to be this stupid?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=126553&page=2

[zooterkin]

Question or statement?

Statement?

[Dancing David]

Point being?

Try answering the statement Maatorc before the thread gets closed. What makes you think that quark based particles are made of electrons?

Ot are you just trolling?

[Mashuna]

Jesus tapdancing Christ on a pogostick. Surely it's not possible to be this stupid?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=126553&page=2

Tapdancing whilst on a pogo stick is pretty impressive though.

[maatorc]

Point being?
Try answering the statement Maatorc before the thread gets closed. What makes you think that quark based particles are made of electrons?
Ot are you just trolling?

What are quarks made of?
Are you just trolling?

[ferj]

maatorc
Do you know of a way to have more control over psychic powers? A psychological truth or trick of the mind, if you will? I ask this in all sincerity.

[Dancing David]

What are quarks made of?
Are you just trolling?

Quarks are a models that possibly explains the behavior of the universe. And believe it or not , it is a very accurate one, with experiemental confirmation. (Including the point-like properties and asymptotic freedom)

So regards you silly idea, what makes you think that the model of electrons/leptons explains the model of neutron/proton/mesons/quarks?

Please try, unless you are a troll.

[maatorc]

Collision experiments break protons and neutrons into sub-particles called 'quarks' which immediately recombine back into the original proton or neutron: Quarks do not exist as an identifiably separate fundamental particle.

The 'quark' hypothesis is indeed a charmingly strange and colourfully flavoured phase of the ever evolving search for the one-only universal fundamental particle of which it will turn out to be temporary cluster.

[Cuddles]

Collision experiments break protons and neutrons into sub-particles called 'quarks' which immediately recombine back into the original proton or neutron:

No they don't.

The 'quark' hypothesis is indeed a charmingly strange and colourfully flavoured phase of the ever evolving search for the one-only universal fundamental particle

There is no such search.

[Dancing David]

Collision experiments break protons and neutrons into sub-particles called 'quarks' which immediately recombine back into the original proton or neutron: Quarks do not exist as an identifiably separate fundamental particle.

The 'quark' hypothesis is indeed a charmingly strange and colourfully flavoured phase of the ever evolving search for the one-only universal fundamental particle of which it will turn out to be temporary cluster.

So at what point does the quark model say that the neutrons and protons are explainable through the use of the lepton models?

I would like to read your explanation.

[Dancing David]

No they don't.



There is no such search.


I think that Maatorc is making reference to 'hadron jets'. Then there is the TOE, which is being misinterpreted.

[zooterkin]

Perhaps he's wondering about beta decay, where a neutron becomes a proton, with the emission of an electron and an antineutrino. Since that involves one of the quarks changing from down to up, perhaps he interprets it as implying the electron was part of the down quark?

(I'm by no means any sort of expert, the above is based on a reading of the quark page at wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark).)

ETA: Perhaps, maatorc, you could just tell us why you think the electron is the fundamental particle out of which everything else is made?

[maatorc]

No they don't......

No 'what' don't do 'what'?

[zooterkin]

No 'what' don't do 'what'?

What was quoted, of course. But if that's too hard, perhaps, maatorc, you could just tell us why you think the electron is the fundamental particle out of which everything else is made?

[maatorc]

What was quoted, of course. But if that's too hard, perhaps, maatorc, you could just tell us why you think the electron is the fundamental particle out of which everything else is made?

If, as Cuddles says, collision experiments do not break protons and neutrons into sub-particles called 'quarks' which immediately recombine back into the original proton or neutron, what is done?

[Cuddles]

If, as Cuddles says, collision experiments do not break protons and neutrons into sub-particles called 'quarks' which immediately recombine back into the original proton or neutron, what is done?

That can be your homework for tonight. Instead of making unsupported, nonsensical claims that have already been debunked, you can try to actually do just a little bit of research. It should take you all of 5 minutes on Wikipedia to get a little bit closer to the truth. Of course, if you want to know more than that you will have to spend longer at look at proper scientific sites as well.

[Dancing David]

Third time, Maatorc, how does the electron model explain the quark/hadron model.

Remember that virtual particles are a successful model. Another model has electron absorbing and radiating photons, but does that mean electrons are made of photons?

Certain instruments can produce sounds, that does not mean they are made of sound, does it?

And so , what are the fine psychic particles?

[maatorc]

That can be your homework for tonight. Instead of making unsupported, nonsensical claims that have already been debunked, you can try to actually do just a little bit of research. It should take you all of 5 minutes on Wikipedia to get a little bit closer to the truth. Of course, if you want to know more than that you will have to spend longer at look at proper scientific sites as well.

It is well understood at the highest level that the inordinately open-ended complexity of the standard model is a signal that it has got it wrong, clever and wonderfully useful though it is.

[zooterkin]

It is well understood at the highest level that the inordinately open-ended complexity of the standard model is a signal that it has got it wrong, clever and wonderfully useful though it is.
Perhaps, maatorc, you could just tell us why you think the electron is the fundamental particle out of which everything else is made?

[maatorc]

Perhaps, maatorc, you could just tell us why you think the electron is the fundamental particle out of which everything else is made?

As stated in post 6 -
"The book Life is real only then, when "I am", by G. I. Gurdjieff, in the chapter on 'The Outer and Inner World of Man', explains: The soul, like the physical body, is also matter - only, it consists of "finer" matter.
What is called the astral or psychic is actually material.
Humans, then, have two material bodies......
The explanation by Gurdjieff exactly agrees with the underlying principle behind the doctrine of occult anatomy of the inner schools of the occult tradition and the hidden operations that drive them, Eastern and Western."

I have been saying all along that the mystical tradition agrees with what Gurdjieff said.

The thinking is as follows:
The smallest particle entering into the composition of matter is the electron. It is not matter as we recognize it, but that which goes to compose it.
The law of their operation is: Unlike phases attract; like phases repel.
Electrons are of two kinds: those vibrating at an even number and those vibrating at an uneven number.
The number of electrons in an atom determines the nature of the atom, and the vibrations of the electrons in an atom manifest the nature of an atom.
Where the difference in the vibration rates of combining electrons is extreme, the combination is unstable.

[Cuddles]

It is well understood at the highest level that the inordinately open-ended complexity of the standard model is a signal that it has got it wrong, clever and wonderfully useful though it is.

So you haven't bothered trying to find out what actually happens in particle colliders yet then?

[Dancing David]

It is well understood at the highest level that the inordinately open-ended complexity of the standard model is a signal that it has got it wrong, clever and wonderfully useful though it is.


Care to back that up with a citation from someone who would know?

And how does that relate to the electron model explaining the quark model?

[Dancing David]

As stated in post 6 -
"The book Life is real only then, when "I am", by G. I. Gurdjieff, in the chapter on 'The Outer and Inner World of Man', explains: The soul, like the physical body, is also matter - only, it consists of "finer" matter.
What is called the astral or psychic is actually material.
Humans, then, have two material bodies......
The explanation by Gurdjieff exactly agrees with the underlying principle behind the doctrine of occult anatomy of the inner schools of the occult tradition and the hidden operations that drive them, Eastern and Western."

I have been saying all along that the mystical tradition agrees with what Gurdjieff said.

The thinking is as follows:
The smallest particle entering into the composition of matter is the electron. It is not matter as we recognize it, but that which goes to compose it.
The law of their operation is: Unlike phases attract; like phases repel.
Electrons are of two kinds: those vibrating at an even number and those vibrating at an uneven number.
The number of electrons in an atom determines the nature of the atom, and the vibrations of the electrons in an atom manifest the nature of an atom.
Where the difference in the vibration rates of combining electrons is extreme, the combination is unstable.

Okay, did he happen to work out how that manifests in beta decay?

The idea that the interaction of the electrons in an atom is what provides for the properties of chemical states and interactions is what Bohr and many many others established.

However your quote about atom stability seems, rather unsupported. How does this explain any of the behaviors of decay, or electron scattering?

[ferj]

Quark is not a model he is a real little man with a funny shaped head and sharp teeth, and I think it,s a fair bet that the lepton model hadron. Hope this helps. ;)