except they have shown entanglement occurs at an instantaneous rate and not limited to the speed of light.empirically.

@JeffMesser
I presume 'instantaneous' means 'now' ... in that quantum phenomena have a particle aspect and a wave aspect, and their particles aspect is entangled to their wave aspect which is the source of all the strangeness of quantum phenomena. [tomajjavidtash.com]

i don't know ... which errant misconception of reality will you be hiding behind today?

@JeffMesser Ever thought of writing to a live one, and asking if your hypothesis has any relevance to their work ? Then you could post their reply.

@Fernapple you believe in newtonian physics yet you expect someone else's "expert" to be alive? try again.

@JeffMesser I can write to a acknowledged expert on Newtonian physics, or on the life of Newton himself. But that's beside the point because I am not proposing any hypothesis.

@Fernapple then do so. otherwise don't set standards for me that you're not willing to meet yourself. I say dynamic and no matter ... you say static and material. remove time from the equation and show me the theoretical physicists who believe that unyielding, unshrinking matter exists. You won't find them because the actual physicists know the dilemma I am citing.

@JeffMesser Sorry if not then, can you then provide the list of people who peer reviewed this hypothesis ?

"Jeff I am just fine with sticking my head in the sand and not registering reality" - thats what I am hearing.

@JeffMesser
You can belittle me for not caring, or you can teach me why it is so important that I understand. Which will it be?

how about being willing to grow and learn?

@JeffMesser Done grown, and teaching for quite awhile now.. You?

Dr. David Bohm, Krishnamurti, Sir Roger Penrose, and countless Hindus from 5,000 years ago to the present.

@JeffMesser And they have proof? They are not an authority on life after death. Just more believers trying to save themselves.

@nogod4me you cannot measure a dynamic system with static measures. I don't know how much more clearly this can be articulated. what about that don't you understand? we constantly come to this same sticking point and no matter how many times I say this you just don't seem to get it. you're asking for a frozen moment in time for something that is outside of time. Rishis saw this 5,000 years ago and people still don't "get it" today. As Krishnamurti stated "the observer is part of the observed". There is no objective vantage point independent of literally everything in order to make such measures. your request is an impossibility - just as we have discovered in the double slit experiment or schrodinger's cat. A different set of epistemological standards is necessary. This is why I keep begging all of you to study epistemology. Yet you wont. You just keep asking the same errant questions.

@JeffMesser What are we supposed to get from it? Why waste time with it?

Does your consciousness exist before you are born? What makes it stick in your body? Why should it leave after you die? Can't it just stay with the rotting corpse. Does it miss shopping? Does it miss having sex? Can it talk to other "consciousnesses" everywhere or is it limited to local ones. What holds it together? Is it free to do whatever it wants or is it governed by another force? Can it see, feel, hear, taste, or smell. Can it learn?

If we are going to get into the details of unsubstantiated stories we should know what unproven parts to accept and the unproven parts to reject, ...or we might get it wrong.

@JeffMesser People also believed in a great amount of other unscientific nonsense 5000 years ago. We have learned stuff since then.

@nogod4me have you ever meditated?

@JeffMesser Never meditated or medicated.

I'd rather read a book.

you're missing the point entirely. Let me reprint from below:
We interpret the world around us as isolated, static objects and try to measure them as such for predictability. This static, mechanical, materialistic view of reality is reinforced daily by our observations and has been since this body was born. Unfortunately it's not accurate. We are in a constant state of change on ALL levels and space/time is merely a construct we use to measure travel from one event to the next. Or, more accurately, inside one "measured" spot in this big event to the next. This is newtonian physics. It works on THIS level, but breaks down at a quantum level because what we think is "matter" is not matter. It is constant movement. A DYNAMIC universe, not a static one. Our method of measuring things is useless on levels other than our present one because time and space change based on perceptive level - simply because we are part of the thing we are measuring. If we want a universal, predictive model we must accommodate a dynamic universe and understand that there is no such thing as matter. Only constantly changing patterns. That was Bohm's hypothesis - which explained Einstein's time dilemma as well as the double slit experiment of the waveform breaking down.

certainly. We interpret the world around us as isolated, static objects and try to measure them as such for predictability. This static, mechanical, materialistic view of reality is reinforced daily by our observations and has been since this body was born. Unfortunately it's not accurate. We are in a constant state of change on ALL levels and space/time is merely a construct we use to measure travel from one event to the next. Or, more accurately, inside one "measured" spot in this big event to the next. This is newtonian physics. It works on THIS level, but breaks down at a quantum level because what we think is "matter" is not matter. It is constant movement. A DYNAMIC universe, not a static one. Our method of measuring things is useless on levels other than our present one because time and space change based on perceptive level - simply because we are part of the thing we are measuring. If we want a universal, predictive model we must accommodate a dynamic universe and understand that there is no such thing as matter. Only constantly changing patterns. That was Bohm's hypothesis - which explained Einstein's time dilemma as well as the double slit experiment of the waveform breaking down.

@JeffMesser
Predict what?

@skado the dispersement pattern of "particles" traveling through the double slit.

@skado You are avoiding the issue. Give me a CONCRETE EXAMPLE of how your hypothesis can be of any PRACTICALl use.

@JeffMesser
Help me understand why, beyond idle curiosity, that matters so much to you.

@PBuck0145
I’m assuming you intended that to go to Jeff.

@skado, Correct, my apologies.
@JeffMesser You are avoiding the issue. Give me a CONCRETE EXAMPLE of how your hypothesis can be of any PRACTICAL use.

@PBuck0145 how does knowing how something in the universe actually works have a practical application? If the substrata of existence is something that may be altered by our awareness ... you wonder how that has a practical application? epigenetic healing? interstellar travel? the eradication of hunger and poverty? the potential is endless.

@JeffMesser A "CONCRETE EXAMPLE", please.

never said it was a god, the god, or any god. that's the whole damn point. can't you guys see what's right in front of your faces? read the paper.

@JeffMesser How about no.

@Willow_Wisp sure. now you're just as obtuse and close-minded as the religious nuts you claim to oppose. congratulations.

@JeffMesser I'm a little sick of pushy people telling me to submit.

@Willow_Wisp perhaps as sick as I am of people refusing to open their eyes and see the truth?

@JeffMesser Seek psychological help.

@Willow_Wisp me? you're the one being delusional. seek your own help.

are you too daft to understand quantum potential even when it's laid out to you rather scientifically? all the way back in 1952 as well as 5,000 years ago? maybe your internal narrative needs some backdating?

@MissKathleen how is calling something "woo" in a flippant, dismissive manner any different than asking if someone is daft? it's not. if they can dismiss me then why not the reverse?

@MissKathleen Thank you.

and how does the speed of light stay a constant no matter what the velocity of the observer? this violates newtonian mechanical physics as we understand it. otherwise if we bounced a ball in an airplane it would shoot to the back of the plane at the velocity the plane was traveling. answer answer answer please.

@K9Kohle789 everything inside the plane is traveling the same velocity as the plane ... which means the speed of light should be altered to adjust to the velocity of the observer, but instead it's a constant. as if the person was completely still. which, of course, none of us are. we are all traveling the velocity of our planet and our solar system and our galaxy. it's a dilemma that has perplexed physicists ever since the Manhattan project. but a dynamic model resolves it and Bohm was Einstein's hand-picked successor. Problem was politics got involved because he had communist friends and was a member of a communist group in the 30's (as were many Americans). He refused to name names to Congress so they blackballed him. But the paper is a marvel and used by current physicists as a predictive method for the wabeform collapse of electrons upon observation as they encounter the double slit.

@JeffMesser That's a ridiculous question. In a plane you are travelling in a pressurised tube so the ball would behave as if you were standing still.
I was commenting on the statement "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS MATTER". Of course there is. Energy and matter are interchangeable.
As for the conflict between Newtonian physics and Quantum physics, I don't think anyone wasting their time on this chat site could answer that one.

@Moravian from a static perspective there is no such thing as matter. you're still tied into this object-centric view. no object is matter. it is ALL an event. atoms pop out of nowhere and have a half-life. how does your universe of mechanical principles account for that? it doesn't. there is no matter. they will keep using static measures to find something (the god particle) at Cerne yet they will never get to the very smallest instance where it all begins because there is no static "piece' of matter. only an event that cascades into bigger events resulting in the objects we define as matter because our perceptions don't note the decay rate over time. if you could sit in one spot and hold a rock for a few billion years it would eventually disappear. our own finite existence taints our observation of it making us think it is solid much like we THINK that ball in our hands while we're on the plane is being still. It is not, we are not, and matter doesn't exist.