A New Way to Look at an Old Universe

Time, timelines, the 3D temporal landscape... research into the physics involved, how to understand it and make use of it to improve the quality of our lives, and all the life on Earth.

Moderator: daniel

Post Reply
User avatar
Posts: 453
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2012 8:38 pm
Location: Glasgow

A New Way to Look at an Old Universe

Post by Djchrismac » Tue Jul 23, 2019 10:14 am

In case anyone missed this:

For Information: https://cfae.us/rs-webinar-peret-vijaya/

When we look all around us, we see with our eyes and our other senses everything in motion and we extrapolate from this that the universe consists of “things that move”. Modern day Physics dictates that movement of atoms keep all of what we physically experience in a constant state of change. But what if modern day physics has it wrong? What if what we call “things” isn’t all that different from “movement”? Would a new way of understanding “Motion” change the way we perceive the Universe, science as we know it and perhaps even ourselves?

Please join Physicists Bruce Peret and Gopi Vijaya as they discuss how science is working on a premise that has been assumed for hundreds of years and will provide the following as a basis for understanding a new way of looking at an old Universe.

* Abstract change in multiple dimensions.
* A new way of looking at physics: a universe of “Change” and "Processes” instead of a universe of “Stuff”.
* Reality of reciprocal processes; pushes and pulls, contractions and expansions.
* Physics without specialized compartments, but rather as a coherent whole.
* Recognizing inverted physical processes as the reciprocals of commonly known processes.
* Choosing the right reference, to balance it via the reciprocal system.
* Reciprocal System as an independent development of Goethean science.

Jones: [looks at Sallah] You said their headpiece only had markings on one side, are you absolutely sure? [Sallah nods] Belloq's staff is too long.
Jones and Sallah: They're digging in the wrong place!

Post Reply