multi-dimensional physics thread (for Gisteron) ;-)

Well for me I'm a very simple minded person. And I'm not up to speed with modern stuff like most of you here.
After high school and my years in higher education. I think my schools were not as fancy as yours and a little behind The Times.

When I was in school we had more planets in our Solar System's I just learn recently there's not as Many

And of course I have been personally working on experiments subjective to others as it may be that proved and broke all the laws of physics..
So I have been very distracted for years, And I have forgotten all the basic unchanging laws of physics.

So I would greatly appreciate if there's anyone out there who can suggest or recommend the latest and greatest addition of a physics book I can order on Amazon . so I can try to catch up to speed with at least a few of you.

Thank you in advance for all your patience understanding love and support.

Fyxe wrote:

Manu wrote: I thought Gameboy's Final Fantasy Legend II made a good case for the Pillar of Sky leading to the Celestial World which connects to all other worlds.

Of course, I have yet to collect any Magi, so I have been unable to journey off-world. I am confident I am right, of course, and no one has proven otherwise just yet.

Before you do that you will have to prove you exist.

Please present your case...

I think so there for I am , scientist have already mathematically proven that our 3 dimensional existence is a projection of a 2 dimensional reality . The 1-4 dimensions we know what they are but beyond that is anyone's guess . We as 3rd dimensional beings barely even grasp the 4th dimension all that we know is that it deals with time and it acts on our 3 dimensional reality . To view any other realities scientifically speaking we would need to create a singularity to warp space time around us thus blipping out of our reality to a higher one . This would be know as time travel in a way because we would be in the dimension of time so we can in theory go any place in any time just by moving in this higher dimension . But when done we will be able to observe the 5th dimension acting upon the 4th dimension . Creating a gravitational singularity would be impossible with our technology but we could in theory creat a electromagnetic singularity with enough energy running through two poles of an electromagnet and standing in the electromagnetic field .

Gisteron wrote:

Fyxe wrote: This is the very purpose of jediism right? Self improvement? The minimizing of bad traits in favor of good traits as we move toward maybe not perfection in Ourselves but perfection in the force!

Sounds good. I take it then you are planning to apologize for all the false witness you have borne about your fellow users in this thread sometime soon?

Are you putting me on trial Gist? oh well so be it then. please present your case! But keep in mind that for every finger you point there are three more pointing back at you!

Malicious wrote: I think so there for I am...

A catchy phrase, but a circular inference, alas.

... scientist have already mathematically proven that our 3 dimensional existence is a projection of a 2 dimensional reality.

Do you have a link to that proof, bychance? I'd love to read it.

The 1-4 dimensions we know what they are but beyond that is anyone's guess. We as 3rd dimensional beings barely even grasp the 4th dimension all that we know is that it deals with time and it acts on our 3 dimensional reality.

That is not all we know. We also know just the way space and time are interwoven. No theory is perfect, but general relativity is among those pretty damn close ones.

To view any other realities scientifically speaking we would need to create a singularity to warp space time around us thus blipping out of our reality to a higher one . This would be know as time travel in a way because we would be in the dimension of time so we can in theory go any place in any time just by moving in this higher dimension .

Sure enough, this is speaking using words one might find in scientific publications... I'm not sure if it is speaking scientifically though. To me, I'm afraid it makes little scientific sense. Would you kindly explain what this means? What is a "higher" reality? What does "blipping out of" a reality mean? What does "to create a singularity to warp space time around us" mean? Create it out of what?

But when done we will be able to observe the 5th dimension acting upon the 4th dimension.

What does that mean also? What does this kind of "acting upon" look like, and how do we know it when we see it? I'm struggling to picture the scientific experimental setup you are thinking of here...

Creating a gravitational singularity would be impossible with our technology but we could in theory creat a electromagnetic singularity with enough energy running through two poles of an electromagnet and standing in the electromagnetic field .

When you say "enough energy running through the poles of an electromagnet" I presume that you just mean the magnet's axis, but what sort of energy would you suggest for this device? Are we talking some sort of EM radiation beam, or more of a particle beam? And where in any of this setup would the electromagnetic singularity be localized? The EM field would be effectively everywhere interesting within the fraction of a second. So standing in it really isn't much of a challenge. What do you propose would happen then, though, and under what conditions?

Fyxe wrote: Are you putting me on trial Gist?

Nope, just asking an innocent question. I have wasted enough time calling you out for most of the lies when ever they happened, I have no need of doing it again, only to then see you ignore it again. I'm just looking how much decency I'll get to see from you yet. And I have my answer now. Carry on.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.southampton.ac.uk/news/2017/01/holographic-universe.page&ved=2ahUKEwjFkeKgm6TnAhVRAp0JHVCmD4IQFjALegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw28T3WNZ1v91yEEoX89GVwh

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://phys.org/news/2017-01-reveals-substantial-evidence-holographic-universe.amp&ved=2ahUKEwjFkeKgm6TnAhVRAp0JHVCmD4IQFjAMegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw1t6rNsu_H0K0mTF_S15eiw&cf=1

Two articles on the subject .
Okay I will explain it in simpler terms so you can grasp the concept . By higher reality I just mean the next dimension in order 1-2 are lower dimensions and 4-10 are higher dimensions . Think of each one as a Russian nesting doll we can in a way perceive the first and second dimension because it is inside our own but we are within the forth dimension so it's basic forces like time is acting upon our own this creates space time as you know it . You cannot perceive the fifth dimension because the forth is in the way just like a nesting doll . So in order to perceive the fifth dimension we must be in the forth and so on . Most modern science seems to agree on the 4th dimension dealing with time . In order to cross from the 3rd to 4th dimension you must create a singularity in this sense as I am using it , it needs to bend space time allowing us to fall through time ( this is possible due to Einstein proving it's possible to warp space time . Once you are falling through time aka time travel this will allow you to view ( very limited ) the 5th dimension or at least the 5th dimensional forces . By running a lot of electricity through an electromagnet it will create a very dense electromagnetic field causing a singularity to occur thus bending space time . Fun fact once done we can observe even collect the theoretical particle known as a chroniton . A singularity is just a dense mass that bends the fabric of space time . If you cannot comprehend that then I am wasting my time and should not go into it any further .

Gisteron wrote:

Fyxe wrote: Are you putting me on trial Gist?

Nope, just asking an innocent question. I have wasted enough time calling you out for most of the lies when ever they happened, I have no need of doing it again, only to then see you ignore it again. I'm just looking how much decency I'll get to see from you yet. And I have my answer now. Carry on.

you get the exact same amount of decency from me that you give to me. Remember Gist Im just a weasel and incapable of knowing right from wrong so what do you expect anyway? You dont have a scentific bone in your body and you have no idea what your talking about. Ill bet if you called someone a weasel at your job or in the street you would get a fat nose, but for some reason here, absent of the ability to make your nose fat, you think its ok to just call people names. Well before I appologize for ANYTHING

Gisteron wrote:

Fyxe wrote: Are you putting me on trial Gist?

Nope, just asking an innocent question. I have wasted enough time calling you out for most of the lies when ever they happened, I have no need of doing it again, only to then see you ignore it again. I'm just looking how much decency I'll get to see from you yet. And I have my answer now. Carry on.

you get the exact same amount of decency from me that you give to me. Remember Gist Im just a weasel and incapable of knowing right from wrong so what do you expect anyway? You dont have a scentific bone in your body and you have no idea what your talking about. Ill bet if you called someone a weasel at your job or in the street you would get a fat nose, but for some reason here, absent of the ability to make your nose fat, you think its ok to just call people names. Well before I appologize for ANYTHING I have said to you I first want an appology for being called a weasel.

Fyxe wrote: You dont have a scentific bone in your body and you have no idea what your talking about.

*shrug* Never claimed that I do. Of the two of us, you were the one to say you know, and when asked how you do, or for scientific evidence of your claim that your model has scientific merit, all you came back with is personal revelation and vagueries. Whether there is a "scientific bone in my body" or not I'll leave up to the journals that publish my research, but in the meantime your responses have displayed a profound lack of appreciation for the methods of scientific inquiry, or discipline, or even basics of logical reasoning. Frankly, after having taught some science subjects to university students I don't feel moved much by an opinion on my scientific fitness from someone who by the looks of it has yet to study any.

Malicious wrote: Two articles on the subject .

More like two links to one press release and a verbatum re-posting of it on another website. Luckily, the latter provides a DOI link to the actual article itself:

Here it is.

Alas, it is in PRL, a moderately restrictive subscription journal. If memory serves, though, our uni's library should have a subscription to it. For now, reading the abstract only, I'm not sure what part of that study matches up with what you said in the previous message. Perhaps there is more of a connection in the actual paper. We can come back to it sometime after I've had a chance to read it, if you wish.

In order to cross from the 3rd to 4th dimension you must create a singularity in this sense as I am using it , it needs to bend space time allowing us to fall through time ( this is possible due to Einstein proving it's possible to warp space time .

Still not sure what this means. Has there been a singularity creation that can be confirmed to have made us "cross" from... I guess the 2^nd to the 3^rd dimension? Did anyone observe us falling through... "depth", or how ever we'd call the third? I understand the words you are speaking, but not the sentences you are saying. Sure, space-time is curved, we know that, "warped", if you will, by masses, but what does "fall through time" by means of "creating a singularity" - however that works - even mean and does this correspond to anything we actually ever observed?

Once you are falling through time aka time travel this will allow you to view ( very limited ) the 5th dimension or at least the 5th dimensional forces .

Again, what would those look like? How would I know them to be what they are if I happened upon them?

By running a lot of electricity through an electromagnet it will create a very dense electromagnetic field causing a singularity to occur thus bending space time .

Well, a "very dense" field is not an infinitely dense field, so I don't understand how this would be "causing a singularity to occur" or how even a magnetic field singularity would bend space time except via the energy of the electromagnet's cyclotron radiation, rather than via anything the generated magnetic field would do.

Fun fact once done we can observe even collect the theoretical particle known as a chroniton .

The one from Star Trek or the one from Futurama? Or do you mean the chronon, a hypothetical quantum of time that was most recently spoken of in the peer-reviewed literature something like two generations ago with no experimental updates since that time and no peer reviewed theoretical developments? I'm not sure a "fun fact" is quite the way I'd put it. How would you propose to make that observation or collection? What would that experiment look like?

A singularity is just a dense mass that bends the fabric of space time . If you cannot comprehend that then I am wasting my time and should not go into it any further .

So... literally every mass, then? Because all of them do bend the fabric of space-time, as I'm sure you know. More than that, it's not that only rest mass bends it. Because of mass-energy equivalence, literally any form of energy does. There is no need to condescend to me. I'm sure you know that a singularity is a locus of a function's divergence, like an infinite well, not just any dense mass. Why in spite of knowing what the term means you would say that it means something else is, I freely admit, somewhat confusing to me. But I shan't dwell on it, for now, and assume that you simply misspoke as can often happen with moderately opaque subjects like relativity...

You know you remind me of a ( friend ) I had . Such arguments we would get into . But in reality if you don't get what I'm saying then ya don't get it . Who knows maybe I will be the one to right the book on time travel and dedicate it to all those who mocked me . Personally I would like some proof about these so called research journals that are being " published " and would like to criticize them . And do ya have proof of ya teaching at a college ? Let me guess you were just a sub for the real professor ( or just a teacher's pet ) that got to teach a stupidly fundimental physics lesson . Common put all your hard work out here let's all look at it . Until you put your research on here ( please make another forum post ) then don't criticize others . I am very interested in the " research " you are doing , maybe I might have a lot to say on the subject . A little peer review never hurt anyone .

If you are actually well scientifically knowledgeable , then I don't want to fully and precisely tell you exactly how to build a time machine or how it works . I don't like my ideas being stolen . Trust me on this if I had the money I would make the time machine then me and you would take it out for a spin but sadly I don't until then this conversation is done . As Obi-Wan once done to some Stormtroopers ( mind trick hand gesture ) move along .

Gist is like the spring wind, blowing hard but no place to go.


oh well, on to better things. I am now developing a new theory based on the IP here that I am attempting to integrate into my multidimensional metaphysics theory. Its about how we meld into the matrix and how the different parts of our consciousness interact with the worlds there. And its based on the 7 worlds theory but it needs some help I guess. Here is what I propose. and let me know what you think! or ask questions or give suggestions!

Malicious wrote: You know you remind me of a ( friend ) I had . Such arguments we would get into . But in reality if you don't get what I'm saying then ya don't get it .

Well, I did specify exactly what I didn't get and why. But fair enough, if this was more about just throwing stuff out there rather than having anyone understand it as I thought it might be after you prefaced it with "speaking scientifically", that's fine, too. I don't have to understand it.

Who knows maybe I will be the one to right the book on time travel and dedicate it to all those who mocked me ... And do ya have proof of ya teaching at a college ? Let me guess you were just a sub for the real professor ( or just a teacher's pet ) that got to teach a stupidly fundimental physics lesson .

Can't recall anyone here ever mocking you. But if there are many out there who do, I'm all with you. You show them.
Any reason you felt you needed to mock me, though?
If you ask me in private, I might scan my employment contracts from last semester and this one. Though I wouldn't count on it. That sort of private information is worth more to me than anyone's believing me on this issue. I think I can make it evident enough that I could teach lecture supplementary classes in theoretical electrodynamics and quantum mechanics (at least, they are the only two I tried so far) without having to compromize my privacy quite so much. Whether you come to believe that I actually taught either of them is of little consequence, overall, though.

Personally I would like some proof about these so called research journals that are being " published " and would like to criticize them .

Well, I for one am not responsible for publishing the journals themselves. If you like to criticize scientific journals, by all means, be my guest. You can start with Nature Communications - the peer reviewed journal the first paper with my name on it appeared in. Though it makes little difference to me in practice, nonetheless I'm looking foward to read what you have to say about the journal.

Common put all your hard work out here let's all look at it .

There is such a thing as online privacy, but if you ask nicely, maybe I'll send you a link to that NatComms paper I mentioned above in private.

Until you put your research on here ( please make another forum post ) then don't criticize others .

Yea, no, that's not how it works. I don't have to earn any rights to criticize what people put out in public for others to discuss. If you post it, I get to comment on it. You are free to disregard my comments, but you are not free to have me not make any until I prove my worth to you.

I am very interested in the " research " you are doing , maybe I might have a lot to say on the subject . A little peer review never hurt anyone .

As I say, I'm not comfortable putting my real name and work place in quite so public a space, especially seeing how many adversaries I appear to be making for myself lately by daring to expect some baseline intellectual rigor in a thread about physics. If you want to know the subject, though, it's (active) granular matter. So think statistical physics/thermodynamics, but way out of equilibrium and with macroscopic particles.

If you are actually well scientifically knowledgeable , then I don't want to fully and precisely tell you exactly how to build a time machine or how it works . I don't like my ideas being stolen .

Don't worry, I'm not an engineer. But I could build an electromagnet without your assistance all the same, and given a current source I could have it generate a magnetic field, too. I don't think I'd have quite the resources at my avail to build something that generates an actual magnetic singularity, i.e. a field of actually infinite strength at any point, but then again, I'm rather confident that this is not a restriction on my resources as much as it is on electromagnetism itself, so I'm not worried about you doing it any time soon either.

Trust me on this if I had the money I would make the time machine then me and you would take it out for a spin but sadly I don't until then this conversation is done . As Obi-Wan once done to some Stormtroopers ( mind trick hand gesture ) move along .

Alright, I shall trust you on this. Thanks for calling me weak-minded on your way out of an otherwise pleasant albeit unproductive conversation, too. I guess we'll talk again when ever you have built your time machine. I'd love to help if only I understood what you were talking about, but it seems you wouldn't want that. Fair enough. Good luck, at any rate.

Gisteron wrote: Well, then, bring it on. State your case.

Well, for a start, consider the extent of George Berkeley and David Hume's skepticism, and what it implied.
They accurately point out that we have no true or direct way of knowing the material world.
We directly experience our senses, but the material world is only ever experienced indirectly.
All we really know about the outside world is what our senses tell us, and the ideas we form from this sense data.
That calls into question all scientific knowledge, all objective data, and the reliability of our senses.
So, considering that all we really know about the world comes from our senses and our interpretation of them, how can we obtain true objective, material knowledge? Is it possible?

Im sorry for mocking you , it's not to say really here but a lot of other people offline ( well in the resent past ) . It's okay I will take your word on it . Hmm quantum mechanics sounds interesting . Again sorry I haven't had much sleep so I maybe a little cranky . Wow I think that's the first time I snapped at someone here . I don't need to see your previous employments I will take your word for face value . As for going into greater detail on the theoretical time travel I might be able to write up some notes on the matter and make a forum post . It might not be today because I have about 4 hours to get to sleep , then wake up and go to work . Last night I pulled a 12 hour shift . I don't think I necessarily called you weak-minded but if I implied that at any time again I apologise . Since you have done work in quantum mechanics then you will know more on this matter than I thought . And yes I would actually love your help . And the amount of power would be astronomical to preform such a feat . Possibly even an entire electro-nuclear reactor ( not a regular nuclear reactor ) .
I would like to say this again .
I am truly sorry for saying that . I haven't had any sleep yet and I was a little cranky . Forgive me if I implied you were weak minded . It is I who failed to explain it correctly . I will take your word at face value , I do not need any further details about your work . Actually it sounds pretty dang cool . Quantum mechanics is especially interesting . I will try to write some notes explaining it to the best of my ability . I think this is the first time I snapped at someone here and I feel really bad about it . You are more knowledgeable than I so it will be difficult for me to explain it in my perspective so that you can understand it .

I feel a little sad about this thread, and other similar ones that have preceded it.

The general trend seems to me to be that a perspective is presented based on a blend of subjective perception with objective evidence that is clearly explained, but expressed in generalities. That perspective becomes increasingly well-defined as the threads evolve. A counterview is offered based on a disciplined and detailed presentation of objective evidence alone; this is expressed in a level of detail that conveys familiarity with the evidence that is beyond most of us, but appears well-documented by professionals who spend much of their time in efforts directed by the scientific method. As dialog proceeds, it becomes more and more separated from a contrast of two perspectives in favor of an argument about which of the participants is least honest and most offensive.

In the end, the participants tire of the argument and leave it behind, only to begin again in a new thread after the passing of a little time. I'm inclined to think that each time, all participants and readers walk away knowing about as much as they did at the beginning.

Can't we do better? Maybe venture forth with a "Why do you think that's true?" instead of a "You're wrong?" Nobody's required to adopt someone else's point of view, nor give up the idea that it's ignorant, if that's how you feel; but the process of rejecting an idea would sure be less tiring if it didn't keep devolving into personal attacks.

I agree Omhu!

In the spirit of that I want to ask a question and specifically I want to ask Gisteron.

Gisteron, do you believe in the force?
If you do what do you believe it is?
If you dont why not and if not why are you here?

@Malicious:
Hey, man, don't beat yourself up. It's alright. Perhaps I read too much into that Star Wars reference (as old Ben Kenobi would go on to explain to Luke that it is the weak-minded - Storm Troopers among them, then - that are particularly susceptible to manipulation via the Force). Also I don't work with QM myself. I've taken an introductory class to it, and a few subjects where it is applied, and I tutored an exercise class that supplemented another lecture in the intro class, but I never had to do any actual research in that area myself. Granular matter is, as far as I know, treated completely classically so far, and rightly so, I think. Anyway, don't worry about it. Things get heated at times, but I try neither to take nor to mean things personally in the end.


@CaesarEJW:
I actually completely agree with that assessment. Indeed, at times I end up debating this with people who are enthusiastic about science but under-appreciative of its limitations. I have myself been accused, even on this forum, a few times of being a believer in "scientism" - the idea that the scientific method is the pinnacle of if not the only genuine way of knowledge acquisition. Yet this is not the case. The most I would say is that "objective knowledge" is something we have no means to acquire at all, at least not in any absolute sense of "objective". Even purely analytical ventures like logic or mathematics are ultimately contingent upon the inference rules they set for any model, and for every meta-discussion one could have about that, there exists a meta-meta-discussion to remind us that even as we ponder models of thinking we are but employing just which ever one of many kinds of pondering, and on, and on...
But if we admit to ourselves that we have no means to reach absolute knowledge of anything, we cannot turn around and say that why, yes, we do, and we dub those means philosophy. As much as science relies on our senses and thinking, so philosophy relies on our thinking, and - to shocking extents, frankly - on our intuitions, too. And if we want to be very strict and pedantic about it, all of these things are fallible in an ultimate sense, none is in this regard superior to the others.
The question then becomes, if absolute knowledge is not one we can have, what can we have? Perhaps more importantly, what need we have? I readily admit, I cannot prove, ultimately, that an external world exists. I cannot even prove, ultimately, that my own internal one does. After all, if we accept that our senses of the outside are unreliable, why would we insist in the same breath that our internal perceptions are not? By a pragmatic argument we could say that, seeing as our internal perceptions is all we have, we might as well try and go with it, in an effort to maybe get anywhere at all eventually. But by that same pragmatic thinking we can argue that - bar the occasional illusions our fellow humans may help dispel - our senses, too, are the only thing we have to rely on when attempting to function in what might be something rather quite like what we'd think of as an external world. I submit to you this argument in favour of science as a means to obtain... well, let's call it "useful understanding", rather than "(absolute) knowledge". The devices either of us are using to communicate across the world wouldn't have ever been constructed, if we didn't understand "nature" to an extent sufficient to construct them. Whether this "nature" thing is real, or external, may by all means be an interesting question, but not one we can answer any more ultimately without science than we could with it. At the end of the day, we want to make life comfortable, and a part of that is foreseeing the future, so as to make strides to maximize comfort in it. And until we have the future laid bare for us to observe, we have nothing but the past to look at as a reference. And it works. That's what makes it worthwhile. Ultimacy wouldn't.

Omhu Cuspor wrote: Can't we do better? Maybe venture forth with a "Why do you think that's true?" instead of a "You're wrong?"

Completely agreed. This is how I attempt to start out most of the time. I wish questions like "what makes you think that?" wouldn't be understood as direct disagreements so often, or even personal attacks. Sometimes they are...



@Fyxe:
I believe in the Force at most as a principle moreso than as any external entity one could point at. I have gone into more detail about this in the moderately recent past, though I'm having difficulty nailing down the relevant post now. If memory serves, even you yourself had asked me that before and I think I did explain it more then, too. Not sure what it has to do with the subject of this thread, though.

CaesarEJW wrote: You can't learn anything with Physics. Philosophy is much better lol.
Metaphysics beats quantum physics any day!
Fight me, I dare you!

Also relevant to Hume:
You realize that skepticism is largely a hypothetical and not an actual viewpoint; if you do decide to be a skeptic, you're at a dead end and you have nothing else to add. Every important philosopher in the last 50 years is at some level a pragmatist. Metaphysics and physics both require the other at a certain level, so your edgy point just outed yourself.

I think the big point everyone keeps ignoring is that you have to do your observations correctly for them to mean anything. You have to consider the implications of your beliefs and find the causal mechanisms before making a stupidly broad system and expecting anyone to take you seriously. Also peer review helps.

I haven't touched modern physics in a long time, but I'm pretty sure travelling back in time isn't a thing for a handful of reasons.

Discussing why someone would believe any scientific piece of evidence is simple because you theoretically could recreate the experiment yourself (given you have the time, equipment, and know how). When you get into esoteric beliefs, it's far more convoluted. Also scientific evidence isn't supposed to be used for everything, but really each study should answer a very narrow question. The way we compile particular data into theories is a way we make sense of it all, but ultimately should be able to be coherent.

Gisteron wrote: @Fyxe:
I believe in the Force at most as a principle moreso than as any external entity one could point at. I have gone into more detail about this in the moderately recent past, though I'm having difficulty nailing down the relevant post now. If memory serves, even you yourself had asked me that before and I think I did explain it more then, too. Not sure what it has to do with the subject of this thread, though.

What it has to do with the subject is Im trying to understand why you have taken such particular issue with my particular theories on the subject of the force. You seem to want to reduce it to complete... uhh woo, didnt you call it? I can understand that some will see it that way but your particular obsession with completely destroying it seems a lot. I wonder where you get this intense hatred from and I wonder if its because you have had a very bad experience or something?

So I wanted to know what you are doing here exploring something you dont believe in or at least claim to not believe in.

So you say the force is a "principle"? I looked it up and the definition says a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning. So I want to know what is this fundamental truth to you? What is it a truth of and what do you believe about it and how do you arrive at those conclusions?

It does seem a little sad when you have the same people trolling different topics just to condemn criticize make fun of Insult badd Mouth , And it keeps going on and on and on.

All in the name of we are here to be self aware and learn and grow from each other. And to become jedi.


I" feel the feeling " some of you Believe it and know it to be true deep deep deep down in the back of your mind and soul.
But you have been lied to and misled your whole life. And now you are confused tried to make sense of it all.
In the past you believed and tried to do and used the force Yourself ,and it did not work immediately for you. And you got confused and started to doubt. and doubt turn to frustration and a feeling like you weren't important or special enough.

Now later in life you are bent on making others feel the pain you felt.
This messages is not for everyone but you know who you are that this message is for.

Please remember you are special and not forgotten.
And we are all connected as one.

May you be with the force.