User talk:Mu6

Hi there. Please note that Wikipedia is not the place for original scientific research. -- Tarquin 19:01, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Tarquin, why being against progress. Why did you change that reincarnation page. I offer a scientific base ... and you delete it. Must we stay in ignorance and faith? What's your goal?


 * See What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is attempting to build an encyclopedia. It is not a place to post or attempt to evaluate cutting edge research or theories which are not yet commonly discussed in the mainstream. You can no doubt find many other forums on the internet for your work. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 20:19, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * The goal is clear. Great. But where is the limit? If WIKI is only about science that reincarnation page should be deleted completely!!! What is an encyclopedia? I link reincarnation now with spacetime. That is cutting edge development. I give it a scientific fundation. Those forums ... of course it's all happening. And the results are positive.
 * Nobody ever said that Wikipedia is only about science. But it is about well-known beliefs and systems.  Yours is original research.  It needs to be taken to places where it can be peer reviewed.  RickK 20:44, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Thank RickK. Your you capable to think independently ? Yes or no? I believe you can. ;-). Do you need safety belts in your scientific development ... ? Refering to peer review is a safety belt. It's giving other one the responabilitiy. So ... judge for yourself. Don't be a slave ... and think independently. Check that website. If you see illogic tell me. If you don't see illogic defend me .. and see this positive development as an interesting alternative. But don't close that webpage because that would mean that football teams ( as on the 'holon' page) are more important then new developments.Mu6


 * It is not about relative importance. Our NPOV policy means that only things that are verifiable can be accepted. Once your theory is published and other people discuss it, then we can have an article on it. This principle of Wikipedia is non-negotiable. -- Tarquin 20:59, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Tarquin: verifiable ? You make my smile. What makes Wiki to included a webpage on reincarnation? It's a Buddhist idea also incorporated in many other religions. But excluding my 'spacetime' based logic explaination on reincarnation ... you keep people in ignorance. Just offer people the possibilty to make their our mind. Don't think for them. You don't have to protect them. They can make their own mind. If you delete my page on pelastration you would show that you are against free expression and even be against the basic idea of Wiki. I believe an encyclopedia must reflect all possible views, not only 'selected' views.


 * to All: Consciousness is a real problem in psychology. There is actually NO concept behind this. Nobody offers an engineering concept or idea about that. There is full ignorance. It's shooting in the dark and there is real semantic confusion. Now I offer a REAL mechanical image based on SPACETIME.  That's a serious opening and offers new conceptual thinking. So there can be new progress. I refer to discussion on physicsforums. com. check this: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=116915#post116915 . On that page you will find a link to a set of animated gif's which really SHOW that shift of attention related to consciousness and our perception of REALITY. If you guys want to delete the page on 'pelastration' you choose to keep knowledge in the mystic area without informing the general public about an approach that can (might) give an opening. I tell you: there is a responsibility on you. I believe you want to protect the public for been informed about crackpot. I believe you are sincere in your comments. But don't do it before you know what you are deleting. Don't delete by prejudice.

Mu6, this has nothing to do with proving to us that your theory is correct. It is solely to do with verifiability. Can you give us names of other people we can contact who also believe your theory? -- Tarquin 21:44, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Tarquin, this is an email of a specialist in brain interactions (microtubuline):

From: 	 Danko Georgiev  Subject: 	On pelastration Date: 	December 18, 2003 10:17:18 PM CET To: 	 Dirk Laureyssens 

Dear Dirk,

currently I prepare online textbook called NanoNeuroBiology where I will describe the biomolecular description of the processes in the brain cortex and will focus on the quantum mechanisms that consciousness could make use of. I am not specialist in physics but in recent discussion with Mitchel Porter (mathematician from Brisbane, Australia) I have understood that the M-brane theory leads to important interpretation of quantum weird behavior in the form of elastic membranes in hyper-space. Because I update my physical knowledge (but not so fast) I think your theory could be nice physical interpretation of the molecular processes I describe at nanoscale inside neurons. So, I am open for cooperative work.

Soon there will be online my new paper dealing with the timescale of mind action and the link mind - proteins.

Regards,

Danko Georgiev

---

from Hank Fu - a Buddist specialist with a number of websites (you can google of his name):

Dear Friend, This is the most beautiful site I've ever seen. If you don't mind I will link to your site for my scientific subsite. Thank you for everything. Hank Fu New York City

Dirk Laureyssens wrote: Dear Hank Fu,

very interesting website. Thanks.

Please check my website http://www.mu6.com. It shows that spacetime is like the Tathagata Womb. You will find there how the combination of (1) the laws of Pratitya Samutpada (the ‘principle of conditioned co-production’) or the Karmatic Wheel, and (2) the Emptiness (Sunyata) occurs. Check also religion there. ;-)

All the best,

Dirk

I have reevaluated my view of your material based on your evidence; it is not pseudoscience. You explain how the dual nature of the membrane sphere in the pelastratic approach creates gender, but what about transvestites, gays and transgendered people? silsor 22:28, Dec 20, 2003 (UTC)


 * "Transvestites" are transgendered people. I don't think they like the word "transvestite" much, though. Don't know why, just an impression I've picked up. Tualha 22:51, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

--- Thank you Silsor,

That's an interesting question. Don't know if this really here that we should discuss this here. ;-). You touch here some of the most complex things in psychology. For now I just give a first approach. It's related to the unique combination of duality in the specific person (unique holon). Transvestites, gays and transgendered people are IMO not identical. Transvestitives may have a more female tendency but the personal experience will be the most important. They may have such experiences just as a secret - personal - act. Gay is another way of this duality. There are active and passive ones. The passive ones will prefer to express there feminity to other males. Transgenders (as going for physical operations : transsexuals) really go for the physical change and have the conviction that it will forefill the mental tendence into physical body. So the physical change will bring the unity between soul and body. So in all three cases it's like a duality that is has more internal 'passive' tendency. Let's say that the most important mental holons have such more passive hierachic and historical layering, but the physical holons contain the more active male elements. So the dual aspect anima/animus - in each of us - creates a disharmonic frequencies that only can become harmonic by 'good' harmonic frequencies (sent by the other male). I am sorry if some people would be offended by this very short analysis.


 * Frequencies of what? silsor 23:43, Dec 20, 2003 (UTC)

The space-time membrane oscillates. When it couples into a double layered holon the two inside membranes have a friction, thus two locally vibrating membrane parts are interacting. That can be harmonic or disharmonic. When such holon couples again with another holon or with a part of the general membrane to be incorporated in a more complex holon ... then that disharmonic or harmonic 'situation' will be incorporated in that higher complex 'unity'. It becomes a historical fact.

A number of your peers here have evalated your article and seem to fine it incomprehensible as I do this place is for well revued encyclopedic articles not one man unproven theories Archivist 01:56, Dec 21, 2003 (UTC)

Thank you Archivist. I understand your motives not to support a 'one man' theory. Unproven seems to me an over-powered term since (1) if the single postulate is correct all 'events' are explained, (2) a number of enigmatic phenomena are explained in a simple logic way. So where exactly is your point in calling it "incomprehensible". Is it the postulate? Is it my language? Are it the definitions?

Mu6: Regarding Pelastration, I am just informing you that you can post your theory at www.internet-encyclopedia.org or www.everything2.com. Internet-Encyclopedia is very similar to Wikipedia but with different policy, and Everything2 is a discussion board or encyclopedia with lots of freedom. I have checked Internet Encyclopedia's policy and I think your theory will be welcomed there if written in a more or less encyclopedic style (you can copy-paste the current version or any older version of Pelastration and edit it as you like, as it is under the GNU Free Documentation License). By the way, there is a great magazine specialized in alternative science and similar areas such as parapsychology, named Nexus, its website is at www.nexusmagazine.com, and maybe you can publish your theory there. Another website that may like to include your theory is www.kheper.net. As you see, there are still users who vote to delete the article, so it may be eventually deleted. Peace Profound. Optim 16:44, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

in case you dont know: you can sign your posts by writing ~ at the end of your message.

also check the talk page of pelastration.

Optim 16:49, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi, my initial page on pelastration was deleted in Dec. 2003. My theory contains mathematical implications in the field of differential geometry. Prof. Van Oystaeyen (Univ. Antwerp) confirmed that I introduced a new logic entry in noncommutative combinations (category theory). The combinations made by the 'pelastratic' infolding are indeed exactly the number of combinations of the Catalan numbers. Since I postulate an nonbreakable spacetime membrane you get a noncommutative combinations tree. Nobody till today applied the Catalan numbers in Cosmology. . So that information could be added to the page "Catalan number". I am not changing that however now. I first wanted to know your ideas on that. :Mu6 14:27, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)