okey dokey, I miraculously figured that out but too late, etc.
________________________________ From: authfriend <jst...@panix.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 1:05 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A lot of science here, unified field to chakras --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@...> wrote: > > Not sure if this is addressed to me. Just to say that after > my initial post, I posted a little more detail along with the > article reference for those who might be interested. Thank > you to those who also supplied more details. Hi, Share. No, my posts were addressed to salyavin. > ________________________________ > From: authfriend <jstein@...> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 10:25 AM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A lot of science here, unified field to chakras > > >  > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > John Hagelin found a correlation between the 5 mahabhutas > > > > > and the 5 spin types. > > > > > > > > Huh? The mahabhutas are the elements earth, air, fire, water and > > > > the aether/akasha. Why would there be a connection between that > > > > and the angular momentum of subatomic particles? It makes no > > > > sense, it has no meaning. Why do they do this stuff? > > > > > > Possibly you aren't aware that the "five elements" stand > > > for much more abstract and subtle principles? > > > > > > I don't know enough about either the mahabhutas in Vedic > > > metaphysics or spin types in modern physics to even begin > > > to make a case for or against Hagelin's correspondences, > > > but I do know they can't be dismissed quite so > > > simplistically as you have above. > > > > There you go, arbitrary as you like: > > > > spin 0=earth > > spin 1/2=water > > spin 1=fire > > spin 3/2=air > > spin 2=space > > > > Modern Science and Vedic Science Vol 3, No 1, 1989, pg 14 > > I'm sorry, did you think this constitutes an argument > against what I wrote? Because it's actually a complete > non sequitur. >
