Professor Basil J. Hiley responds to Professor Kent A. Peacock (and other comment links I repost).

There is a subtle fact about relative velocities that is not always explicitly mentioned in books on relativity, and a failure to grasp this subtle fact may be a cause of some of the confusion about superluminal motion. In special relativity all velocities (except for the velocity of light itself) are relative, including zero and infinite velocity....Dainton, et. al., possibly have confused the invariant fact that any superluminal propagation has infinite velocity relative to one frame (which one depends on the spacetime trajectory of the superluminal effect) with the notion (not correct) that any superluminal propagation would be invariantly infinite for all frames....Thus, there certainly is a theory that allows for influences which are instantaneous in one frame and finite (though superluminal) in all others; it is called 'special relativity.'...instantaneous in their mutual rest frame....Whether or not the local clock readings are equal at A and B is therefore independent of whether or not A and B are at the same global time coordinate in some inertial frame or other....Einstein's way of defining time-coordinate simultaneity neither assumes nor requires that light signals be either the fastest or the only way of communicating between distant events; it's only about what can be accomplished with light signals....an obvious candidate is phase: it is far more natural to think of wave functions as reducing over hypersurfaces of constant phase, and this automatically gives a covariant picture; ...While relativity is far more amenable to superluminal influences than has been generally supposed, ultimately it is classical relativity that must adapt itself to the quantum....Bohm and Hiley themselves were not comfortable with theories like de Broglie's later approach because such theories imply that any particle interacts via a four-dimensional wave field with other particles both past and future throughout spacetime

When did we make such a claim?

....Thus, Bohm and Hiley rejected covariant pictures of nonlocality

Again where did we say this?  Have you read our early paper  "On Some New Notions Concerning Locality and Non-locality in Quantum Theory",   Il Nuovo Cimento, 28B, 453-466 (1975) (pdf link) or our paper "Non-locality in Quantum Theory understood in Terms of Einstein's Non-linear Field Approach", Found. Phys. 11, 529-546 (1981) (pdf)?

 

 
 

(such as de Broglie's) not because they are technically out of the question, but because they tend to violate classical expectations or intuitions about causality....while such a theory would do violence to classical intuitions (prejudices?) about the proper order of cause and effect it is quite likely that it would not allow for outright logical paradoxes of the kind that worried Bohm and Hiley....what is not speculative is that (as the example of de Broglie's theory shows) it is not necessarily the case that any account of quantum mechanics in terms of more general physical principles would demand the return to Galilean covariance and a preferred frame;

No where did Bohm and I “demand a return to Galilean covariance”.  The logical paradoxes to which I think you refer was within the context of Bohmian mechanics, a theory which Bohm and I rejected.  Our book “The Undivided Universe” was not about “Bohmian Mechanics”.  The approach we outlined there was about ‘Bohmian non-mechanics!  We presented an ‘organic’ view.  Have you not read my paper  "Bohmian Non-commutative Dynamics: History and New Developments". arXiv 1303.6057 (pdf) or my paper  "Process, Distinction, Groupoids and Clifford Algebras: an Alternative View of the Quantum Formalism", in New Structures for Physics, ed Coecke, B., Lecture Notes in Physics, vol. 813, pp. 705-750, Springer (2011). arXiv: 1211.2098?

Before you attribute ideas to me please make sure you understand what I am actually saying first. What you are doing is misrepresenting my ideas and I find that disrespectful.

Regards,

Basil Hiley.

 This is from Being and Time in 1927, same time as de Broglie with the pilot wave -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXhZXh4dUY4

and Peng -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ye3JhH7c4vo
and I really liked this too with the crystals in the gut etc -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2ztKBFivSQ

it's just bizarre to me that ebert can be so articulate with these things and read Heidegger and Nietzsche etc. then he comes up with stuff like this video which I doubt you'll watch -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4eS1aR1FkI

 Magic and Mystery in Tibet is on youtube -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6p-jgVH5KWU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5I4Jiq-RP5U
he's got Reality Is Not What It Seems too in his channel. I haven't listened to that one. But you can convert them to mp3s if you want -

https://www.onlinevideoconverter.com/mp3-converter

 white skeleton meditation from bodri - pdf

So then I thought about doing the breathing with horse stance so I was doing horse stance like Wong Kiew Kit -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWKw5vlQ6Lk

I was doing like that with the fists at the sides by the dan tien. I could feel the magnetic energy. Then I'd do two rounds of wim hof and then chance the hand position to prayers and then do another one or two rounds of wim hof and then just meditate for a while and then go into moving yin and yang with the gather bit to start off i.e. right hand at dan tien and left at heart.


So I was doing 50/60 minutes in horse stance in the morning and night. Then one time I really felt lots of energy coming out the heart when I was in prayer position doing wim hof. Like a tractor beam with lots of energy in the heart.

Right, to add I watched this wim hof video -

https://youtu.be/RW1C_3OXhEs?t=480

and I noticed he's packing qi in the head.