Consciousness Research, consciousness is subjective

In quantum consciousness research they search on consciousness as it would be only an object. But consciousness is also subjective, consciousness is able to watch to be aware the way mind creates theory of it.
When you search inside with consciousness as a research tool, you can see linear time "past-present-future" is only a mind frame through which you experience motion i.e. material change in quantum vacuum.
You become aware that change run in a timeless quantum vacuum where time t we measure with clocks is a numerical sequence of change.

This is where Amrit work which is condemned here (?!) is advanced research on time.
He got the point.
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2011/...s-most-pop.html

This post has been edited by albert2 on Dec 23 2011, 08:47 AM

R&D cycle in its basic principle is same as human mind.
Eg in such cycle you need to do illusionary (optimistic) design, then implementation, then remove errors and manage growth (pessimistic) and then selling distributing, and they send feedback to research. Putting this in two way cycle gives some idea about interactions.
It is like "to think about everything".
Human mind IS the best research tool.

not at all
consciousness is the best research tool
mind is only a bio-machine
and consciousness is the being

I mean the following:

The research process is widely accepted.
It is the same model as human mind, as I believe, it's like ultimate thinking.
Therefore, the research process equals model of mind.
Therefore mind model is best research model and process.
Therefore by looking into the way research is done, you can understand it better.
The better you understand research, the better you understand physics.
Research is a physical process.

Einstein did mistake that he abbanoded Newton and that he tried to unify everything from his space-time perspective, and that was reason of his failure.

String theory looks at Newton and Einstain but again fails, because tries to explain everything with waves.

In a correct research process I would run, I would account Newton for mechanics, Einstain for space-time, they are both correct and talking about same thing from two perspectives.

Now as these two are opposite, there must be connection for it, and it's wave-distance thing, working at Planck distance.

It's that simple.

I am implementing this concept now.
With Einstein it was definitely correct about space and absolute time.
This defines maximum speed, and speed of photon, graviton and it's validated.
Newton was validated as well.

However there is no theory about the rest.

I believe that complexity of such solution is not big.

Ps. You don't need Planck length to describe mass and time, but you need it to describe interacions between mass and space. If there would be no vibration, mass could not move within space.

my gooooood................

Amrit is a crackpot.

no it is not...............
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-scient...-dimension.html
has physorg publish about your research ?
send us your CV and we will see what you have done in life ?

Amrit has done some good work on SR
http://www.spacelife.si/index.php/articles...y-of-relativity

This post has been edited by albert2 on Dec 23 2011, 05:41 PM

amrit is a crackpot

could you publish here your work on SR would be nice to read that on what point you are developing the whole idea......comparing with amrit

I'm surprised how people behave here....my grand father told me physicists are gentlemen..

Why are you offended at people calling a spade a spade? Unless....you are him.

I'm not offended.......it is just no need to offend whomsoever,
we are here to discuss on facts, on theories, not to offend people

That's a YES then?

I meet Amrit in Astana last year.
Guy for me is ok.
if someone do not like him I really do not care.............but he is for me nr1 in time research

Bullshit.

This is amrit.