Archive for Events

Description of Subtle Realm/Universe

Dr. Yury Kronn and several coauthors of the paper “Subtle Energy and the Cosmos – Part 1″ present a descriptive account of the subtle -energy dimension/realm that is behind our physical universe. [For a copy of his paper, go to the downloadable PDF file at the end of this post. ]

Dr. Kronn was originally trained in Russia where he was introduced to key concepts about nonphysical realms that are hypothesized to be the source of our physical realm. Kronn and his coauthors present insights on the nature of this realm and how the matter and energy of this realm are the sources of our physical realm’s matter and energy. In the 20th century, several individuals with psychic sensitivity provided insights on the nature of this realm, but at that time physicists were fully consumed with the challenges of quantum mechanic discoveries, and they had no reason to investigate these insight. They thought that quantum physics provided the description of reality, and there was no reason to pursue  speculation of a subtle realm.

Today with the astronomical uncovering of unexplained matter and energy making up more than 95% of our universe’s matter and energy (labeled dark matter and dark energy) plus the stagnation in new quantum physic discoveries and the failures in string theory, physicist have reached a point where they are being forced to “look outside the box” to understand and explain the nature and source of dark matter and dark energy.

Kronn’s paper presents some very interesting ideas about the nature of the subtle realm/universe; following are a few key ones (more information is available in the cited paper):

  1. Each universe has its own energy, which interacts with the substance of that universe  Examples for our physical universe are how atomic matter interacts with  electromagnetic energy.
  2. A “veil” separates universes and this veil greatly limits the possible interactions. Basically, the substance (matter) of one universe interacts with that universe’s energy. A universe’s matter cannot interact directly with the energy of another universe: e.g., the subtle universe’s dark matter cannot directly interact with our physical universe’s electromagnetic energy. The only dark matter interaction astronomers see is dark matter’s gravity affecting the motion of stars and bending light (protons which have no mass) as described in Einstein’s general theory of relativity.
  3. Also, the energy of one universe cannot interact directly with the matter of any other universe.
  4. Each universe has a point of connection with both the previous and the next successive universes . Each universe has transitional types of substance (matter) as well as transitional forms of energy, which can be converted from one universe to another. Logically, it means there is a point of connection, like an interface, that allows for the substance and energy of a more-subtle universe to create the matter and energy in the next grosser or less-subtle universe.
  5. From one perspective, the universe preceding our physical universe–the etheric universe–can be considered a part of our physical universe because its matter is the source of our universe’s matter: electrons, protons, neutrons and consequently atoms. All originate from the substance of the etheric universe’s basic particle named “anu” by earlier scientific and psychic explorers: physical matter is created from  combinations of positive and negative anu.

See Dr. Kronn’s paper below for more information, and how he has been able to “capture” the content of healing energy in particular substances and devices.

subtle-energy-and-the-cosmos-part-1-yury-kronn

Two Recent Books by Ervin Laszlo

Recently I have been reading several of Ervin Laszlo’s newer books. His older book, Science and the Akashic Field (2004), was one of my key sources on frontier science for my book Frontiers of Knowledge; and it is interesting to see the evolution of his concepts on frontier science and its integration with spirituality in two of his newer books:

  1. The Self-Actualizing Cosmos: the Akasha Revolution in Science and Human Consciousness (2014)
  2. What Is Reality? The New Map of Cosmos and Consciousness (October 2016)

In both books, endorsements, extended comments, and written contributions are provided by some of the top researchers and writers on the integration of consciousness, spirituality and frontier science. For The Self-Actualizing Cosmos, supporting comments are provided by  Edgar Mitchell (founder of IONS), Deepak Chopra, Ken Wilber, David Loye, Kingsley Dennis, David Lorimer, and Stanley Kippner. Part Four of this book incluses major contributions (mostly as Q&As) from David W. Gibbons, Maria Sagi, and Gyorgyi Szabo. This book also has the following long appendices:

  1. Nonlocality and Interconnection: A Review of the Evidence (29 pages)
  2. The Akasha Paradigm in Physics: Two Hypotheses (26 pages). “The Transmuting Ether” by Paul  LaViolette, and The Universal Quantum Field” by Peter Jakubowski

It is almost as if Laszlo is publishing a “Journal” with writings by other scientists of the latest thinking and alternatives related to his Akasha concept.

In Chapter 14 of The Self-Actualizing Cosmos, Laszlo provides his overview on the nature of the Akasha and goes on to use his information and concepts to provide answers to 14 basic questions related to existence–two samples are given below:

  • What is the nature of dark energy? Laszlo’s answer: “Not yet known, but offering orientation for the search, as the answer is likely to be the constitution of the hidden dimension [of the Akasha], the physically real basis of spacetime and background of matter and energy in the universe.
  • How did life arise? Laszlo’s answer: “The processes we see as basic to life originated as coherent relations emerged in time in the rich welter of organic molecules on the watery surface of some satellites in orbit around active stars.” [My comment: this totally ignores what I see as the central role of nonphysical beings (souls) working through subtle-energy fields to create (design) life forms.]

I have not finished reading What Is Reality? The New Map of Cosmos and Consciousness, but when I do, I will provide highlights in a blog entry.

 

Speculation by Physicists on Nature of Space-Time

I found the Scientific American online article in their Oct. 27 Space and Physics titled “Tangled Up in Spacetime” very interesting. [To access article, click here.] The premise being pursued by quantum physicists is that “space and time may spring up from the quantum entanglement of tiny bits of information.” The effort is still very speculative, but it might lead us to insights on how advanced souls in higher dimensions created our physical universe. Below is a quote from the first paragraph:

“space and time may spring up from the quantum entanglement of tiny bits of information:

“Lately scientists have begun to question this conventional thinking and speculate that space—and its extension according to general relativity, spacetime—is actually composed of tiny chunks of information. These chunks might interact to create spacetime and give rise to its properties, such as the concept that curvature in spacetime causes gravity. If so, the idea might not just explain spacetime but might help physicists achieve a long-sought goal: a quantum theory of gravity that can merge general relativity and quantum mechanics, the two grand theories of the universe that tend not to get along. Lately the excitement of this possibility has engrossed hundreds of physicists who have been meeting every three months or so under the banner of a project dubbed ‘It from Qubit.’”

The key idea being pursued is that “the universe is built up from some underlying code [highlighted by me], and that by cracking this code, physicists will finally have a way to understand the quantum nature of large-scale events in the cosmos.”

For me, the word “code” brings to mind the idea that there are “coders” who are “writing [creating] the code. This is a new line of research, and we will have to wait and see if it leads to anything.

 

Helping People Find Their Spiritual Living Prescription

On Saturday, Oct. 1, 2016, I participated in the Hagerstown Mind-Body Fair. At the Fair, I gave a 40-minute talk on Michael Newton’s Life-Between-Lives (LBL) hypnosis process, his discoveries, and my experience in performing LBL regressions. I also provided individuals with what I called their spiritual prescription (Rx) using a technique developed by Dr. Paul Brenner M.D./PH.D. Brenner with his coauthor (Donna Martin) described basic aspects of this process in their book Seeing Your Life Through New Eyes (Beyond Worlds Pub., 2000). Book is out of print, but used copies can be found.

At the Fair, I provided prescriptions for seven individuals using a 30-min. process. All seemed very pleased with their Rx. A couple of days later, I came to realize that what I am providing is their Living Rx: how they need to operate in their lives to be more effective in personal and professional/work activities. The basic theory for this process is that as spiritual beings before incarnating we plan our life: selecting goals, creating challenges to meeting these goals, and finding souls who will be our parents to set-up the elements of the challenges.

The set-up is created by how our parents bring us up with their “flawed” human characteristics. The key elements of their conditioning of us are the gifts and hurts each parent gives us. I use the Living Rx to develop how individuals can combine their gifts with the coping skills they develop growing up to compensate for the hurts. There are several more steps used to take it to full level: getting the opposite of the shadow aspects of the gifts, etc.

Update: I did the same process for visitors at the Berkley Springs Festival of Light, Nov. 12-13, 2016.

Update 2: I continued providing individuals their Living Rx in several 2017 mind-body-spirit Expos in Western MD. This fall I plan on being at the following events: (1) Hagerstown Mind-Body Fair around the first of Oct. and (2) Berkley Springs, WV Festival of Light in mid November.

Fairy-Tale Physics: Modern Physics Without Testable Theories

I just finished a book titled Farewell to Reality (2013) by Jim Baggott that provides a good overview of how current-day physics has been unable over the last 20-30 to find observational information or test results that can support any of its major new hypotheses; or example superstring theory, supersymmetry, black-hole information, the multiverse (as an explanation for our universes fine-tuning), etc.

Because of this, many of the theoretical physicists supporting these theories have proposed “changing the requirements” for validating a new physics theory. Different schemes for doing this have been proposed Baggot summarizes many of these – basically easing the empirical requirement. Baggott does not buy any of them, and he has taken to labeling these new physic’s concepts as “fairy-tale physics.”

Early in his book (Ch. 1), Baggott presents his idea of reality as a principle. Below is a quote on reality that he labels “The Reality Principle.”

“Reality is a metaphysical concept, and as such is beyond the reach of science. Reality consists of things-in-themselves of which we can never hope to gain knowledge. Instead, we have to content ourselves with knowledge of empirical reality, of things-as-they-appear or things-as-they-are-measured. Nevertheless, scientific realists assume that reality (and its entities) exists objectively and independently of perception or measurement [ignoring the problem created by the role of consciousness in quantum mechanics]. They believe that reality is rational, predictable and accessible to human reason.”

This first chapter is basically Baggott’s philosophical discourse on the nature of knowledge and what can be obtained using scientific processes. He goes on to define his five additional principles related  . These are listed below with a brief note of his key concepts/ideas for each:

  1. The Fact Principle – our knowledge of empirical reality is founded on scientific facts verified from careful observations or tests.
  2. The Theory Principle – any approach [to creating a theory] is valid providing it yields a theory that works.
  3. The Testability Principle – the test exposes the veracity or falsity of the theory (even though the theory is itself abstract or metaphysical).
  4. The Veracity Principle – over time a good theory becomes accepted as true (or possessing a high truth-likeness or veracity).
  5. The Copernican Principle – Universe is not organized for our benefit.

The book provides us (non physicists) with an overview of what is happening at the leading edge of theoretical physics (BTW, Baggott’s view is generally supported by other skeptical physicists such as Peter Woit, who I have written about is earlier blogs). Woit’s review on Farewell to Reality is provided here. Woit very much supports Baggott’s book and assessment of the state of modern physics.

My bottom-line assessment is that we have reached the limit with what can be done using a physical-based concept of reality. This is why I believe that my approach and findings in my book Frontiers of Knowledge are on the right track and are providing us with a new and expanded view of reality – one beyond what can be obtained with a physical-only perspective of reality.

After this blog post, I did my own review of Baggott’s book; to see click here.

Light Flash at Start of Human “Life”

Northwestern Univ. research reported in the English newspaper, The Telegraph, describes how their is a light flash when sperm impregnates a human egg. The following pictures shows the “flash” in the 0.40 sec. frame.

Flash in Human Egg When Impregnated with Sperm

Scientists had seen the phenomenon occur in other animals but it is the first time is has been also shown to happen in humans. Not only is it an incredible spectacle, highlighting the very moment that a new life begins, the size of the flash can be used to determine the quality of the fertilized egg.

The researchers note that the bright flash occurs because when sperm enters an egg it leads to a surge of calcium which triggers the release of zinc from the egg. As the zinc shoots out, it binds to small molecules which emit a fluorescence which can be picked up by camera microscopes.

Amazing development: seeing the start of human life.

Improbability of Creating a New Life Form by Random Mutation

The Discovery Institute has created a new YouTube video on the impossibility of creating a new protein by the process of random mutation. The key scientists in the video are Stephen Meyer and Donald Axe. Both have Ph.Ds in biology.  Axe’s field is molecular biology.

The essence of their argument is that a new life form requires new proteins. Axe goes  through the probabilities of creating a new protein that contains 150 amino acids (a small to medium size protein). Based on molecular processes, he calculates that it would take 10 to the 77th power random trials. A totally improbably number given that the total number of life forms that have ever existed on earth are only 10 to the 40th power.

The YouTube video is available at [click here]

 

Two Downloadable Papers Available

I have loaded two papers that can be downloaded as pdf documents.

  • The first is located under the “About Doug” tab and is titled: “My Spiritual Story & 21st-Century Knowledge_2016.03.”
  • The second is located under the “Mind-Body Phenomena and Subtle Energy Bodies” subtab under the “Science a New Era” tab. It is a write-up of my presentation at the 2014 SSE annual conference for SSE’s Explorer Magazine. The paper is titled: “Ability of Subtle-Energy Model to Explain Mind-Body Phen. 2015.03.

Limits of Western Science–Especially Physics

A recent book, The Island of Knowledge: The Limits of Science and the Search for Meaning (Basic Books, tries  to map out what science can tell us about our universe and life. The author, Marcelo Gleiser, is a physicist, and he covers the physics related knowledge (and limits) of quantum mechanics and cosmology well, but there is much more in the universe than physics (e.g., consciousness) that the author is not able to write about in any depth. One Amazon reviewer notes this and writes, “The rest of the book [outside of physics] is a meandering, if not pedantic, history of the human pursuit of knowledge.” Another reviewer notes: “The third part ‘Mind and Meaning’ is just a collection of thoughts written by a physicist who steps beyond his field of expertise.”

The real challenges in knowledge, as I note and write about in Frontiers of Knowledge, is about consciousness puzzles–especially those that are soul-related experiences: near-death experiences, puzzling reincarnation experiences (e.g., those of young children), hypnosis experiences of the soul in between-life regressions, and very unusual mind-body phenomena that can only be explained by multiply subtle-energy bodies. These are topics I cover in Frontiers of Knowledge and develop explanations for them by using my expanded concepts of reality.

Ignorance and Science, A Natural Mix

Jamie Holmes wrote in the New York Times on Aug. 24, 2015 an oped article titled, “The Case for Teaching Ignorance.” He starts by referencing an Arizona surgery professor’s course titled “Introduction to Medical and Other Ignorance.” After a battle with the university administrators, she was allowed to teach her course, which the students referred to as “Ignorance 101.” Homes continues by referencing Columbia University neuroscientist, Stuart J. Firestein, whose book Ignorance: How it Drives Science, highlights how many scientific facts aren’t solid and immutable (that is, they are not settled). Firestein emphasizes how intriguing ambiguities are what truly excite them.

In many ways, the ambiguities expand as the scientific community grows. Holmes highlights the view of the Australian social scientist, Michael Smithson: “The larger the island of knowledge grows, the longer the shoreline — where knowledge meets ignorance — extends. The more we know, the more we can ask.”

Holmes emphases this by writing, “The borderland between known and unknown is also where we strive against our preconceptions to acknowledge and investigate anomalous data.”