Majorana Fermion

I've been reluctant to share this information with you. I read about it on June 28th and felt it had far reaching consequences regarding my post of June 21st, 2016. (Subtlety) But as I said in the June 23rd post, (Don't Believe Me?) I am reluctant to bring in "expert testimony." I feel as though my bona fides has long been proven. This blog is nearly four years old and I have been consistent as to it's intent. (GGG) I utilize science simply to put you in a context where mysticism isn't looked on as dubiously as it might. That said, lets look at what I have been so slow to share.

On June 22nd Shanghai Jaitong University put out a statement that Jia Jinfeng (and other Chinese scientists) had proven that the "majorana fermion" exists. I emphasis "proven" because a Princeton team of scientists had closed in to the point there was "compelling evidence." (2014) But up until June 22nd, it wasn't proven. That's important because it became newsworthy--and led me to seeing a story about it. (Uproxx 6-27-16 "How the Majorana Fermion Might Change the World.")

Now lets look at why the majorana fermion has the physics world abuzz. 1) It is it's own anti-matter. 2) It exists as both 0 and 1 in binary code simultaneously! 3) It makes quantum computers more practical and 4) is a possible explanation for dark matter.

Reading the argument presented in Subtlety for a 'one/none' or 'nothing/something' contradictory state of being now has a parallel in the scientific community. That is HUGE. The fact the post was written a day before the information came out is compelling. Truth is (and probably holds true for you) I had never heard of a 'majorana fermion' before.

What seems apparent is the baraka made use of me. (however reluctant I was) That an aspect of God wanted to be revealed. That the juxtaposition between what you might easily accept (science) versus what you might actively resist, (religion) has been laid bare. You do with that what you will.

Don't Cry For Me Rio de la Plata

Wow! Argentina hit the visitor's list between 12:05-12:20 PM PST today. I didn't even have to coax them with some fawning post. (you listening, Algeria?) I was nearly as appreciative when Peru punched in Sunday, 7-10-16. [figured it a "near miss," and indicative of good juju] Fair winds Argentinians!

(if this post confuses you, see All Is Vanity, 7-4-16)

The Letter A

If you read Conspicuous By It's Absence, you now have your answer. Remarkable, yes?

Conspicuous By It's Absence

While I reel in the insanity of my country's actions, let me offer a diversion. Examine all numbers between 1 and 100; there is something conspicuous by it's absence. It is overt and it is obvious--once you know what it is. Until you do, this question rates as a first class brain teaser. Rereading "No More Than Four," (6-17-16) may extend your normal, everyday perception, and aid in solving the riddle.

All Is Vanity

"Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity." Ecclesiastes 1:2

I totally admit it. The following list is a sop to my ego. Every once in a while I update the roster of countries that have visited this site. I had set 5 as the number of new countries to trigger when I would update. Today Costa Rica dropped in and there have actually been 6 new visitors (Bahamas 7-20-15 UAE 11-19-15 Latvia 4-29-16 Bulgaria 5-17-16 Qatar 6-2-16 Costa Rica 7-3-16) since the last update. (Grinding Gears 6-12-15)
_________________________________________________________________________________

I couldn't finish this yesterday--it seemed too trivial. This morning I got on and saw that Kuwait had also visited yesterday. Two new visitors in a day (after 4 years) is a statistical anomaly. I am going to take it as a sign that it is okay to indulge my ego. Here is where we've been:

Australia--Austria--Belarus--BAHAMAS--Belgium--Brazil--BULGARIA--Canada--Chile--COSTA RICA--Columbia--Denmark--Finland--France--Germany--Georgia--Greece--Hungary--India--Indonesia--Iraq--Ireland--Italy--Israel--Jamaica--Japan--Kazakhstan--Kenya--KUWAIT--Kyrgyzstan--LATVIA--Lithuania--Malaysia--Mexico--Netherlands--Pakistan--Philippines--Poland--Portugal--QATAR--Romania--Russia--Serbia--Singapore--Slovakia--Spain--South Africa--South Korea--Sweden--Switzerland--Suriname--Taiwan--Tanzania--Thailand--Turkey--UNITED ARAB EMIRATE--Ukraine--United Kingdom--United States--Venezuela--Vietnam--Zambia--Zimbabwe

Through investigation I have discovered of the 10 largest country's in the world, (by land mass) numbers 8 and 10 (Argentina and Algeria) have inexplicably remained "at large." I am going after them. Why? First and foremost, motivation...sometimes it has to be manufactured. Second, why not try and cover the globe? Third, I can make a game of it and have some fun. It certainly isn't the intent of the blog, but there is no reason it can't be a by-product.

NOTE: I am going to have Gwenn add a link to a song on this post, but am going to go ahead and publish now. [not sure what her availability is] The game is, who can guess what the song link is going to be? Enter your guess in comments.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6UAYGxiRwU

Don't Believe Me?

For those who might have viewed Tuesday's post as gibberish, please read the following quote from Martin Rees: "In the beginning there were only probabilities. The universe could only come into existence if someone observed it. It does not matter that the observers turned up several billion years later. The universe exists because we are aware of it."

Beyond the fact that Rees is a PhD, his resume is overwhelming. Google him yourself. Read all about him. Point being, I didn't rely on him, or anyone else for that matter, to create the post. I actually stumbled across his quote this morning. I thought, "AHA!" here is a cosmologist/astrophysicist saying the same thing as I did on Tuesday. Perhaps his resume and viewpoint will bolster my argument.

Do I feel it necessary to bring in "expert testimony?" Not in the least. But my fear is you might. That my lack of credentials might be an impediment for you. The bottom line is this; I'm talking to your heart, not your head. If you are of the opinion that God can be captured by the intellect, I do not believe this site will be of value to you. (but thanks for stopping by!)

Subtlety

By all accounts esoteric gnosis acknowledges this material plane of existence as the 'grossest.' Not gross in the ick! sense, only that it is dense. (crowded closely together, compact--hard to penetrate--difficult to understand) And this physical manifestation is dependent on the appearance and supposed realism of duality. Up, down, forward, backward. However, there seems to me sufficient evidence to argue this logic.

Begin with the idea of none. (no one, not one, nobody) It would seem rational to suppose that 'none' existed before one. Even the very definition states,"no one." Still, it wasn't until the concept of 'one' arrived, that 'none' came into creation. There was no juxtapostion, no contrast for 'none' to exist. Osho put it this way: "The moment a child is born, the mother is also born. She never existed before. The woman existed, but the mother, never."

Now, let us take it a step further. I have made claims in other posts that God is nothing. (no thing) This is not sophistry! As one example, New Science editor-in-chief Jeremy Webb has compiled 25 articles from various authors to create a book entitled; "Nothing: Surprising Insights Everywhere from Zero to Oblivion." I have not read the book, although I have glanced at the Introduction. A portion of what it says is; "The word nothing is applied in all manner of settings and in every case reveals a different aspect of reality. Can something really come from nothing? Why do some animals spend all day doing nothing? What happens in our brain when we try to think of nothing? These are all questions scientist have asked and gained intriguing results."                                                                                                                                                                                                                              
 If science feels 'nothing' is a worthwhile topic, ('...and in every case reveals a different aspect of reality.') am I wrong to explore it? Of course not. So, as I was saying, God is nothing. And just like none and one, nothing cannot be understood without something. A distinction, a differentiation, must be made for 'nothing' to be understood. Hence creation, life, and eventually, you! God is the no thing that is dependent on the some thing for His very existence--and vice versa. As I proposed in the story White Bird: "You cannot separate Creator from Creation without certain chaos. You render the former impotent and the latter inanimate. Both are essential, one to the other."

Now, I get that the whole idea is counter-intuitive. To think of something defining the nothing of which everything had it's origin, is subtle beyond words. But if there is a "God," would we expect less? If a finite mind dare gaze at the Infinite, what does one imagine? And would the furthest reaches of his imagination move more than a nano-meter on the cosmic scale? If so, should that deter him? Or are the whispers of eternity an echo of the spiritual fecundity a mind cannot suppress?

Nothing was everything until something emerged. Everything was nothing until something diverged.