Can Reiki be sent to the past or future?

Milarepa wrote:'Sending Reiki to the past'. The past doesn't exist...

Pandora wrote: If these repressed memories and feelings can be acknowledged, dealt with, and healed - then in a real sense we are healing the past.

Pandora wrote:If we look for a moment (!) at the Newtonian principle of cause and effect. There is a link between a causal action and its effect, and this link is through time.

Pandora wrote:
Now we know every cell in our body replicates itself so that, for example, our skin today is not made up of the same cells as it was last week or last month. However, it is still our skin, and this skin covers our bodies as it has done since before we were born: it will also do so until the processes of death cause its disintegration. So there is a very real sense in which we are our past. You tell someone who has just broken his leg that it was broken five minutes ago, or last week: it's just that he hadn't experienced it yet! I'm pretty sure you wouldn't appreciate his reaction! In the future, the scar on his leg (and in his leg) will exist in the "now" for that man, as a result of something that happened one "now" some time before. OK so it may not be possible to go back and remove the break: but it may be possible to heal the emotional baggage that the break carries along with it.

Pandora wrote:
I keep going back to the advert for an optician's, which consist of a man walking through a wood, while a series of polaroids drop from his face onto the ground. It's about seeing things through your eyes I think. Well this is relevant because the "now" we experience can be thought of as a series of polaroids. So what is the connection between each "now"? For there is one - unless the theories of cause and effect are wrong!

Pandora wrote:
Bodyworkers, such as massage therapists, are familiar with the phenomenon of muscle memory, where memories and feelings, once repressed, are carried in parts of the body. This explains why sometimes massage brings out repressed memories and feelings. If these repressed memories and feelings can be acknowledged, dealt with, and healed - then in a real sense we are healing the past.

Pandora wrote:I don't think change is the same as time. If a rock was not acted on by anything, it would not change over time.

Pandora wrote:
By the way, I too enjoy thinking aloud like this!

Thaak wrote:You can measure time Wayne.

Lets forget for a moment about existentialism and quantum physics. Lets forget for a moment about 3D or 4D.

If you have point A and point B with a measurable distance between them. Then you can measure time by how long it takes you to get between the two places. The earliest ways to measure time was based on how long the light of a celestial body took to cross between two points. Whether that was with a sun dial, hands-breadths of space above horizon, or differences of distance from a relatively fixed celestial position.

the d = v/t is the most simple equation to determine this.

Thaak wrote:
So lets for instance assume we don't have the terminology of minutes or hours. We can still measure how long it takes for the sun to move its shadow on a sun dial. If I were to walk from point A to point B and the shadow of the sun dial spike moves 30 degrees, then I've walked approximately 1/12th of the day. So even not having terms like Minute and Hour, I can still say that, time wise, it took me 30 degrees to move X distance.

Time is a Measure of Motion
Amrit Srecko Sorli
sorli.bistra@gmail.com
Scientific Research Centre BISTRA, Ptuj
Slovenia

Abstract
On the base of elementary perception (sight) we see that stellar objects move in
space and that time exists only as a measure of motion. With clocks one measures duration
and numerical order of this motion. Time is what is measured with clocks: duration and
numerical order of motion of elementary particles and massive bodies in space. In the
Theory of Relativity, time as the “fourth coordinate” describes motion of massive objects
and elementary particles in space. In this sense the fourth time coordinate is the “coordinate
of motion”. Time is a measure of motion in space carried out by clocks. Time is not a part of
space. Space-time is not a physical reality into which material changes run. Space-time is a
math model only, used describing the motion of objects in space where time is a coordinate
of motion.


Introduction
Time is what we measure with clocks: with clocks we measure duration
and numerical order of motion of massive objects and elementary particles in
space. There is no evidence that motion happens in time; we can only observe
motion in space. To describe the position of two objects A and B in space, we
need three coordinates X, Y and Z. To describe the motion from object A to
object B, we need a fourth coordinate which is time “t”. With clocks we
describe motion. For example, let us take the simplest equation:
distance = speed x time.
Time in this case means duration of motion. If speed is given, we can
calculate the distance that an object or particle has done in space.
In the Special Theory of Relativity, time as a “fourth” coordinate of
space-time is a “coordinate of motion”, and describes the motion of massive
bodies and particles in space. Fourth coordinate X4 = c x i x t is called the “time
coordinate”, whereas c is light speed, i is an imaginary number and t is the
number representing duration of material change. With “time coordinate” one
describes motion of massive objects and particles in space. With clocks one
measures the interval between material change X and material change X + n,
where n represents the number of units of time. The smallest unit of time is
Planck time; in Planck time, photons pass a Planck distance. Time is a measure
of motion in space.

Thaak wrote:
Since consensual reality works with time, then time exists. Why? Because the collective human consciousness says it does. Belief is a very powerful thing. We, as a collective sentience, says something exists and lives by that rule, therefor it exists.

Thaak wrote:
So lets try not to be too cutesy on our philosophy here.

Thaak wrote:
Regardless of what philosophers, psychologists, and physicists say to explain what time really is, the bottom line is, consensual reality determines what time is, because that is the rule we currently live by.

Thaak wrote:
Furthermore, whether we "send" Reiki, or just sit with our own divinity, or whatever you want to say to describe what a Reiki session really is. Or whether you define time as a linear progression of events, as the surface of a sphere with all points easily accessible if you know how, as a construct to help our ego stay sane, as the 4th dimension, as simply our recognition of change, as a memory of a past now... whatever.

Does it really matter?

Thaak wrote:
Reiki can help assuage things that are not in our current now.

Milarepa wrote:Without a doubt Andy, ultimately from a clients point of view, it may or may not matter either way.

Also, from a practitioners view, it may or may not matter either way.

although, hehe, if we use the adage 'does it matter either way', to things in Reiki, well heck, there's not much to talk about on a forum! Folks come to discuss, and although some may discuss things they maybe not care either way, some do like to explore, and know why any single process is happening. Some really like to learn as much as possible. It's really up to the client, the practitioner, and anyone reading or interacting in a conversation, indiviudally, they'll make their minds up. And that's cool, .

Take care
Wayne

Milarepa wrote:Only speaking from personal experience, defining in mroe detail things in Reiki, has lead to my own relationship immeasurably deepening with the experience. Else why would a person find use out of it.

to define why something is happening of course leads to a greater understanding of what exactly is happening.

Edit: It'd be cool if you shared how you think talking about why it's happening takes something away from the experience. By 'energy', you mean the Reiki experience?

Physicists Who Know That Nothing Can Move in Spacetime

The amazing thing about the impossibility of motion in spacetime is not that it is true. The amazing thing is that it is a well known fact by many in the physics community. After a quick search on Google.com, I was able to compile the following list of quotes from practicing relativists and other physicists who know that nothing can move in spacetime. The list also contains a few names of real physicists I've had the pleasure of corresponding with over the years. I'll add to this page from time to time as more names come to my attention. Click on the links to go to the page from which I obtained the quotes. My comments are bracketed in blue.

Mark Stuckey

Elizabethtown College, Pennsylvania
[I first found out that nothing moves in spacetime from a message posted by Professor Stuckey on the astronomy discussion board on AOL back in the early 90s. His post took the resident relativist there at the time completely by surprise, a sight to behold. If I remember correctly, the resident relativity expert (I can't remember his name) immediately began to argue against it and did not shut up until he demanded that Professor Stuckey provides his credentials which he did. It was fun to watch.]

Joe Rosen
[Professor Joe Rosen is the retired former chair of the physics department at the University of Central Arkansas. Dr. Stuckey was the first to introduce me to Dr. Rosen's work. Dr. Rosen not only rejects the existence of a time dimension in which we are moving in one direction or the other, he also rejects the existence of space. He calls it nonspatiality and nontemporality. I completely agree with Dr. Rosen's views on these issues although we arrived at similar conclusions on space and time via different routes. Anyone interested in the nature of time should read his papers and essays. I especially recommend his "Time, c, and nonlocality: A glimpse beneath the surface?" Physics Essays, vol. 7. ]

Mark William Hopkins

"Nothing moves in spacetime."
[I must caution the reader about Mr. Hopkins. Although he, like Dr. John Baez, professes to believe that nothing can move in spacetime, they nevertheless continue to believe in the existence of a time dimension along which exist infinitely many "nows" (Baez). Hopkins believes he exists in his entire world-line, i.e., an extremely long (time-wise) Mr. Hopkins. Some time dimension crackpots would rather deny the existence of a now than the existence of a time dimension even though there is not a single empirical evidence for the existence of such a dimension. All the while they fail to provide any explanation for how it is that we are moving along our world-lines, given that nothing can move in spacetime. It's like talking through both sides of one's mouth.]

FriedWardt Winterberg
[Professor. Winterberg, a former student of Heisenberg, is a professor of physics at the State University of Nevada. He is widely known for his work in plasma physics and nuclear fusion. In 1979 he was the recipient of the Herrmann Oberth Gold Medal and in 1981 he received a citation from the Nevada legislature. Professor Winterberg recently wrote to me in support of my efforts.]

Matej Pavsic

"Of course, according to the special and general relativity as formulated in textbooks, nothing moves in spacetime."
[Dr. Pavsic of the famous Jozef Stefan Institute in Slovenia once mailed me copies of his published papers (around 1997 I believe) after reading my arguments on the sci.physics usenet newsgroups (for which I was thoroughly flamed) regarding the impossibility of motion in spacetime and the necessity for four spatial dimensions rather three. I doubt that Dr. Pavsic reads usenet anymore. He also sent me a list of references (I'm looking for it) to the published papers of advanced relativistic quantum physicists who know that time is a mere parameter for expressing change. It is a pity this simple truth is not taught in most physics schools and colleges.]

Robert Geroch


"There is no dynamics within space-time itself: nothing ever moves therein; nothing happens; nothing changes."
Dr. Robert Geroch is a professor of physics at the University of Chicago. He also taught at the Enrico Fermi Institute. The above excerpt was taken from General Relativity from A to B, (page 20)



Andrew G Williams

"You should know that, by definition, nothing moves in spacetime."

Chris Hillman


"Are you aware that nothing physical "moves" in spacetime?"

"Another is that if you transport a vector in a loop in spacetime (this is not a physical motion, since nothing physical ever moves in spacetime"


"In Newtonian physics, we can speak of small objects moving in "space" over "time". In spacetime, however, nothing physical "moves" at all! Rather, we represent the entire history of motion of each small object by a curve in spacetime, called the "world line".

[Chris Hillman is a mathematician. He (she?), too, knows that nothing can move in spacetime as seen in the quotes above. However, being a friend of John Baez (see below) and a staunch defender of spacetime physics he'll argue that there is nothing wrong with time travel. He agrees with Hawking and Thorne that a closed time-like curve means that relativity does not forbid time travel. Go figure! Try to explain to Hillman that, if nothing can move in spacetime, there cannot be such as thing as time travel and you'll quickly discover how prone to self-delusion a religious person can be.]

John Baez
[Dr. Baez knows that nothing moves in spacetime (how could he not know?) but, if cornered, he'll beat around the bush and mumble something about the definition of motion. Rather than discard the time axis, Dr. Baez believes that there are an infinite number of nows. Of course, he fails to explain how one moves from one "now" to the next one so as to perceive motion. He'd be hard pressed to do so since nothing can move in spacetime. But Baez is full of contradictions. While he claims that spacetime is a changeless collection of nows, he nevertheless continues to talk about motion in spacetime, witness this excerpt from his own site:]

"So when you combine electrodynamics with general relativity, the geometry of spacetime doesn't just affect the motion of light through spacetime - it's also affected by the motion of light through spacetime! More generally, the curvature of spacetime affects the motion of matter, while matter curves spacetime."
[This begs a couple of questions. How can something that is changeless affect anything and 2) How can something that is changeless be affected by anything? I've always found it hard to understand how someone can live with such blatant contradictions and still fool others into believing he has a clue. Note that Dr. Baez dreams of unifying General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics. We should all wish him a lot of luck because he's going to need it.]



Julian Barbour

"My ideas about time all developed from the realization that if nothing were to change we could not say that times passes. Change is primary, time, if it exists at all, is something we deduce from it."
[Dr. Barbour not only knows that time is but an evolution parameter derived from change, he denies the existence of a time dimension in which we are moving in one direction or another. I recommend Dr. Barbour's book "The End of Time" to anyone interested in these issues. In my opinion, Dr. Barbour does not go far enough. I hope the title of his next book is "The End of Space and Time."
Also check out his his other book "Absolute or Relative Motion" and A Talk With Julian Barbour.]

Pandora wrote:

What a bitter and twisted man.

Milarepa wrote:

Pandora wrote:

What a bitter and twisted man.

About what? His views are his views. Though that's not what's important. It's the scientists whom are quoted that are of interest, .

Nothing like a good dose of Hito ni shinsetsu ni for lunch, eh Chris?

Pandora wrote:As we find on this forum, there are ways of generating debate and discussion that don't involve name-calling or other pejorative lanuguage. I'm afraid I found his site using both of these.

If you'd like an example of a "maverick" scientist who doesn't indulge in this behaviour, may I sugest Rupert Sheldrake, who has had to put up with dog's abuse from the scientific establishment but responds in the calm, measured and objective manner you would expect from true scientists. www.sheldrake.org

Milarepa wrote: There's many fringe scientists that refute many things, i guess it appears the way he does to you, since you're reading a collection of his opinions. One who goes against the common belief of which the majority hold, invariably is judged, labeled.
Take care
Wayne