posted                      

quote:

---

``AND THUS IT IS WITH ALL DISSIMILAR DISEASES; THE STRONGER SUSPENDS THE WEAKER (when they do not complicate one another, which is seldom the case with acute diseases), BUT THEY NEVER CURE ONE ANOTHER.''

``......the weaker, will be kept back and suspended by the accession of the stronger one, until the latter shall have run its course or been cured, and then the old one reappears UNCURED.''

---

quote:

---

``..... [neither] can two SIMILAR diseases ...... EXIST BESIDE EACH OTHER in the same organism, or together form a DOUBLE complex disease.''

---

quote:

---

``....two diseases - differing...in kind, ...but very SIMILAR in their phenomena and effects and in the sufferings and symptoms they severally produce - invariably annihilate one another whenever they meet together in the [host] organism; THE STRONGER DISEASE...... ANNIHILATES THE WEAKER......''

---

So, the basic idea is this: When we take a CORRECT remedy for a given ailment, we are introducing a SIMILAR DISEASE into our system that is STRONGER than the one we want to eradicate or prevent. It's almost like a `decoy' so the body turns to the stronger, energetic disease rather than the `real' disease.

If used for treatment, then the physical disease and the `energetic disease' tend to wipe each other out. If used for prevention, the stronger energetic disease `plugs the hole' so that a similar, weaker, physical disease cannot get in (or if it does, it will be a much weaker manifestation). The energetic disease is simply energy that goes away over time.

Well, I hope that didn't confuse everybody. This similar/dissimilar and weaker/stronger disease thing took me awhile to digest. But I do think this is what happens with Borrelia..... it is at the bottom of the heap as far as being a `weak' disease, but perhaps it serves as the foundation for all the other bugs that pile on top of it. So, it's always the bug left still standing. Just my theories, of course.

--------------------
Tracy
.... Prayers for the Lyme Community - every day at 6 p.m. Pacific Time and 9 p.m. Eastern Time � just take a few moments to say a prayer wherever you are�.

Posts: 2966 | From Colorado | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

I 'see' more and more people contaminated with borrelia around me (I just test them energetically) but most don't seem to have any symptoms that are visible. I don't scare them though. Most are kids. Before I told their parents, but now, as no one believes on energetic tests, I don't tell anyone. Besides, they aren't sick, so...

---

Posts: 2150 | From Maryland | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

The double slit experiment.

If light travels as particles we can imagine particles of light (photons) as bullets fired from a rifle. Imagine a brick wall with two holes in it, each the same size and large enough to fire bullets through, with a second wall behind where the bullets will strike. After firing a few rounds you would expect to see on the second wall two clusters of hits in line with the two holes. This is of course precisely what you get with bullets, so if we get the same result with photons we can say they are particles.

Now imagine that instead of particles, that light travels as a wave, we can replicate that with a water tank. As the wave spreads out from its source it would reach both holes at the same time and each hole would then act as a new source. Waves would then spread out again from each of the holes, exactly in step, or in phase, and as the waves moved forward, spreading as they go, they would eventually interfere with one another. Where both waves are lifting the water surface upward, we get a more pronounced crest; where one wave is trying to create a crest and the other is trying to create a trough the two cancel out and the water level is undisturbed. The effects are called constructive and destructive interference.

If we carried out this procedure with light instead of water, and if light travels as waves, then the pattern on the second wall would appear as an interference pattern of alternate dark and light bands across the wall. Particles, on the other hand, would produce two separate areas of light (where the bullets would hit). This experiment has in fact been carried out many, many times, with the same results every time, and the results are nothing less than amazing.

-- image is missing: the image shows an interference pattern on the back wall --




When the experiment is set up as shown in the above diagram, with both slits open, the resulting interference pattern clearly shows that light behaves as a wave. Now if that was all there was to it we could all fold up our tents and go home happy in the knowledge that light travels as a wave; but there is much more to it than that. This is where the word 'weird' can become over-used.

If the experiment is set up to fire individual photons, so that only one photon at a time goes through the set up, we would not expect the same interference pattern to build up; we would surely expect that a single photon would only go through one hole or another, it cannot go through both at the same time and create an interference pattern. So what happens?

If we wait until enough individual photons have passed through to build up a pattern - and this takes millions of photons - we do not get two clusters opposite the two holes, we get the same interference pattern! It is as if each individual photon 'knows' that both holes are open and gives that result. Each individual photon, passing through the set up will place itself on the wall in such a position that when enough have passed through they have collectively built up an interference pattern, when there cannot possibly be any interference!

If we repeat the experiment, this time with only one hole open, the individual photons behave themselves and all cluster round a point on the detector screen behind the open hole, just as you would expect. However, as soon as the second hole is opened they again immediately start to form an interference pattern. An individual photon passing through one of the holes is not only aware of the other hole, but also aware of whether or not it is open!

We could try peeking, to see which hole the photon goes through, and to see if it goes through both holes at once, or if half a photon goes through each hole. When the experiment is carried out, and detectors are placed at the holes to record the passage of electrons through each of the holes, the result is even more bizarre. Imagine an arrangement that records which hole a photon goes through but lets it pass on its way to the detector screen. Now the photons behave like normal, self respecting everyday particles. We always see a photon at one hole or the other, never both at once, and now the pattern that builds up on the detector screen is exactly equivalent to the pattern for bullets, with no trace of interference. As if that was not bad enough, it gets even worse! We do not need place detectors at both holes, we can get the same result by watching just one hole. If a photon passes through a hole that does not have a detector, it not only knows if the other hole is open or not, it knows if the other hole is being observed! If there is no detector at the other hole as well as the one it is passing through, it will produce an interference pattern, otherwise it will act as a particle. When we are watching the holes we can't catch out the photon going through both at once, it will only go through one. When we are not watching it will go through both at the same time! There is no clearer example of the interaction of the observer with the experiment. When we try to look at the spread-out photon wave, it collapses into a definite particle, but when we are not looking it keeps its options open.

What the double slit experiment demonstrates is this: Each photon starts out as a single photon - a particle - and arrives at the detector as a particle, but appears to have gone through both holes at once, interfered with itself, and worked out just where to place itself on the detector to make its own small contribution to the overall interference pattern. This behaviour raises a number of significant problems! Does the photon go through both holes at the same time? How does a photon go through both holes at the same time? How does it know where to place itself on the detector to form part of the overall pattern? Why don't all the photons follow the same path and end up in the same place?

As a possible explanation it could perhaps be said that this is just one more example of the extraordinary nature of light, after all it does have some very unusual properties. Photons have no rest mass for example, a very odd property! Light is also unique in that it always travels at the same speed. However you move, and however the light source moves, when you measure the speed of light you always come up with the same answer. By way of comparison, two cars approaching each other and each having a speed of 30 mph will be approaching each other at a speed of 60 mph. Two light beams, both travelling of course at the speed of light, will be approaching each other at the speed of light, not twice the speed of light. Perhaps the weird behaviour of photons in the experiment is due to the weird nature of light. Unfortunately further experiments have demonstrated that this is not the case. Electrons have been used instead of photons, and they not only have mass, they have an electric charge, and furthermore they move at different speeds depending on circumstances, like normal everyday objects. The double slit experiments still gives the same result using electrons as it does using photons; electrons also alter their behaviour depending on whether or not they are being observed. The experiment has even been performed using atoms, again with the same result, and atoms are large enough to be individually photographed, they are very real solid objects. This odd behaviour of particles is a very real phenomenon.

The double slit experiment is not simply an oddball theory that has no application in the real world. This strange behaviour of particles lies at the very heart of our understanding of the physical properties of the world. Quantum theory is used in many applications, including television and computers, and even explains the nuclear processes taking place inside stars.

One possible explanation for quantum weirdness is a theory concerning the nature of the wave that is passing through the experiment. The key concept of the theory, which forms a central part of the Copenhagen Interpretation, is known as the 'collapse of the wave function'. The theory seeks to explain how an entity such as a photon or an electron, could 'travel as a wave but arrive as a particle'. According to the theory, what is passing through the experiment is not a material wave at all, but is a 'probability wave'. In other words, the particle does not have a definite location, but has a probability of being here or there, or somewhere else entirely. Some locations will be more probable than others, such as the light areas in the interference pattern for example, and some will be less probable, such as in the dark areas. In this theory, an electron that is not being observed does not exist as a particle at all, but has a wave-like property covering the areas of probability where it could be found. Once the electron is observed, the wave function collapses and the electron becomes a particle. This theory rather neatly explains the behaviour of the particles in the double slit experiment. When we are not looking at the particle, the probability wave, of even a single particle, is spread out and will pass through both slits at the same time and arrive at the detector as a wave showing an interference pattern. When we observe the electron by placing detectors at the slits, it is forced into revealing its location which causes the probability wave to collapse into a particle. If the theory is correct, its implications are staggering. What it suggests is that nothing is real until it has been observed!

Nothing is real until it has been observed! This clearly needs thinking about. Are we really saying that in the 'real' world - outside of the laboratory - that until a thing has been observed it doesn't exist? This is precisely what the Copenhagen Interpretation is telling us about reality. This has caused some very well respected cosmologists (Stephen Hawking for one) to worry that this implies that there must actually be something 'outside' the universe to look at the universe as a whole and collapse its overall wave function. John Wheeler puts forward an argument that it is only the presence of conscious observers, in the form of ourselves, that has collapsed the wave function and made the universe exist. If we take this to be true, then the universe only exists because we are looking at it. As this is heading into very deep water I think we will have to leave it there and move on to the next experiment.

---

Posts: 2150 | From Maryland | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truthfinder:

Ah, but is it the bug that is mutating..... or are WE changing? Our DNA is being altered by EMFs and toxins in our environment - even emotions can alter our DNA - so sometimes I think maybe we are changing faster than the bugs are.

---

Posts: 861 | From USA | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by sparkle7:
Sometimes, it's not all about just "killing". It may be about healing on another level. Our bodies may know what to do if give the right "nudge".

We are being assaulted by so many toxins, maybe the body has a hard tome figuring it all out. Some may be completely foreign to us, historically. Some may be bio-engineered or just very complex chemicals in a multiplicity of combinations... Yeasts, funguses, pathogens, chemicals, toxins, toxins created in the process of our body removing them, metals, who knows what, etc.

Testing on a higher level (Asyra, dowsing) may be key to find out their real cause of the imbalance. Then, we can target what needs to be improved - rather than destroyed... Just an educated guess.

Our body probably, innately, has the power to heal it's self. We just don't know which thing to address first. It's like Tracy was saying about treating multiple pathogens... What order do we proceed in?

It's not always about massive bombardment.

---

Posts: 861 | From USA | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truthfinder:
[R62, you said:
**'' This is very important information to consider. EVERY TIME WE INGEST OF PERFORM THERAPY ON OURSELVES WE SEND A MESSAGE OF BELIEF TO THE BODY.''**

While I'm sure there's some truth in that, there's comfort in knowing that it isn't essential for the treatment to work, nor does disbelief cause the treatment to fail. (Thank goodness!)


Bob, you said:
**''Just putting the vial explained to my body it had an infection. I wonder where the anti-bodies went then.''**
Well, if we look at mycoplasmas as bioweapons..... there might not be any antibodies - EVER. At least not to the `bacteria' itself. Because there IS NO BACTERIA. As I recall, the innovative thing about the engineering of these critters is that the scientists were able to separate the bugs from the toxins they produce, and it was the TOXINS that were used as the weapon, not the bugs. So, a person would have the symptoms of mycoplasma, but antibiotics wouldn't do anything because there was nothing to kill. Thus, it was an `incurable', disabling illness - perfect for weakening an enemy force.

R62, you said:
**''I am concerned about panic and fear that I feel breeding in me over this "disease complex" as well.''**

Oh, I hope not, Robin. After reading these pages, aren't you convinced that we have more in our arsenal than the bugs do? And the really good news is that we might even know how to use some of what we have! And learning more all the time, I might add.

Just one other thought....
I think we have a false sense about our ability to control mental thoughts like `intention'. We have a modicum of control on the conscious level, but the power of thoughts like this actually originate on a deep, subconscious level which may be contrary to what we THINK we are thinking! A lot of this goes back to miasms and trauma, and tempered by value systems, spiritual practices, etc. Just my personal opinion on it, of course.

---

Posts: 861 | From USA | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged |