It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bend it like Beckham

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 04:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: bastion
As a scientific type (degrees in applied maths, law and journalism) can you please not do?

It's obvious to anyone who has studied the subjects you haven't applied any critical thinking or scientific approach, which is ok for you, but to the general populace all you're doing is further entrenching common, long debunked misconceptions about QM and consciousness and making it sound as if there's evidence to support things - it's at best misleading and at worst actively deceitful and may put off brilliant minds from helping humanity discover more about mother nature.

Of course I'm denying your interpretation of QM as it's completely wrong, but a common mistake the public make. It stems from the ambiguous language used in Schrodinger's Cat hypothesis - the mind has nothing to do with the state, you have just what the term observer actually means in QM.


As I mentioned already QM is not my thing but damn good for translating some esoteric concepts to the uninitiated.

I would prefer to use only esoteric language. It is easier that way for me to explain how to shape things around us. However, I have QM to help when dealing with logical people. I am not using QM to prove my theory.

The cat experiment is not misunderstood. The cat was both alive and dead until you opened the box.




posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 04:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: bastion
As a scientific type (degrees in applied maths, law and journalism) can you please not do?

ns in QM.


I do not take instructions from you.

I also have a qualification in a profession which is regarded as highly as that of your law profession. I also have a music qualification and I am soon to be a qualified pilot.

Even if I had no qualification, I would not take instructions from you.



edit on 16-1-2016 by crowdedskies because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 04:48 PM
link   
a reply to: heterodox

Oh I know about perceived time and it's slowing due to certain circumstances.

My point was about curling a ball, spin on a cue ball and the like.



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 04:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: crowdedskies

originally posted by: bastion
As a scientific type (degrees in applied maths, law and journalism) can you please not do?

ns in QM.


I do not take instructions from you.

I also have a qualification in a profession which is regarded as highly as that of your law profession. I also have a music qualification and I am soon to be a qualified pilot.

Even if I had no qualification, I would not take instructions from you.




He/she wasn't instructing you to do anything. They were just advising you and asking if you could not refer to QM the way you are.



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
[
He/she wasn't instructing you to do anything. They were just advising you and asking if you could not refer to QM the way you are.


Thank you for intervening.

However, it is clear that the approach of the poster was wrong. To lay down their qualifications like that and talk down to me is wrong.

Besides QM is new and most scientist appear to hate it and those who don't say that it is difficult to understand. One scientist even commented : To say you understand QM is saying that you do not understand QM.

As no scientist understands QM, my understanding is just as valid. I will continue to talk about QM if I wish even though I serves me little purpose as QM is like a child's understanding of esoteric concepts.
edit on 16-1-2016 by crowdedskies because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: crowdedskies

originally posted by: TerryDon79
[
He/she wasn't instructing you to do anything. They were just advising you and asking if you could not refer to QM the way you are.


Thank you for intervening.

However, it is clear that the approach of the poster was wrong. To lay down their qualifications like that and talk down to me is wrong.

Besides QM is new and most scientist appear to hate it and those who don't say that it is difficult to understand. One scientist even commented : To say you understand QM is saying that you do not understand QM.

As no scientist understands QM, my understanding is just as valid. I will continue to talk about QM if I wish even though I serves me little purpose as QM is like a child's understanding of esoteric concepts.


Sorry for being off topic, but I don't understand your logic. Why refer to QM at all if it serves little to no purpose?



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 05:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: bastion
As a scientific type (degrees in applied maths, law and journalism) can you please not do?

It's obvious to anyone who has studied the subjects you haven't applied any critical thinking or scientific approach, which is ok for you, but to the general populace all you're doing is further entrenching common, long debunked misconceptions about QM and consciousness and making it sound as if there's evidence to support things - it's at best misleading and at worst actively deceitful and may put off brilliant minds from helping humanity discover more about mother nature.

Of course I'm denying your interpretation of QM as it's completely wrong, but a common mistake the public make. It stems from the ambiguous language used in Schrodinger's Cat hypothesis - the mind has nothing to do with the state, you have just what the term observer actually means in QM.


I don't think this thread is about evidence. Not everything in life has to be about the scientific method, much as I love it. I don't know how advanced you are in science, but if you are the very best in the world, you are still but a baby in terms of understanding how things work in our universe.


Completely agree with all that, a few years ago I was at Interational Physics Symposium level and people 100000x smarter than I ever will be had no shame in admitting we know less tham 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of what we are even aware is out there.

My main issue with the post, and it's not a go at the OP, is the strange assumption the human mind could possibly
be capable of fully understanding or utilising the universe or Earth- I personally find it a very arrogant/heliocentric view of the word (which the OP is clearly not purposefully doing, I just have a chip on my shoulder ov
er the whole idea humans will ever understand nature let alone control it if turns out to be possbile.

As someone who has had time slow down a lot of times playing intense sport and being in big car crashes where 1 second lasted like a minute and find it an incredibly thought provoking sensation/question - I'm just being a typical scientist moaning about QM being hijacked decades ago.
edit on 16-1-2016 by bastion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 05:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

Sorry for being off topic, but I don't understand your logic. Why refer to QM at all if it serves little to no purpose?


True, QM serves no purpose for me. There will be nothing new to be discovered under QM that is not already known in the esoteric fraternity.

However, I see QM as the promising baby that will finally bring science close to Magic and the Spiritual.

Also, QM makes it easy to explain something that would not be understood if I spoke a language that only used esoteric terms. It would exclude a lot of people from the discussion.

edit on 16-1-2016 by crowdedskies because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 05:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth


I don't think this thread is about evidence. Not everything in life has to be about the scientific method, much as I love it. I don't know how advanced you are in science, but if you are the very best in the world, you are still but a baby in terms of understanding how things work in our universe.


Absolutely agree.



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: crowdedskies

I would personally stay away from QM in this thread. You'll get a lot of people trying to correct you, be it wrong or right.

QM will likely just blur lines and confuse some people.

Why not try making it easier to understand instead of trying to use language that will alienate people to the thread in the first place?



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 05:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: bastion

My main issue with the post, and it's not a go at the OP, is the strange assumption the human mind could possibly
be capable of fully understanding or utilising the universe or Earth- I personally find it a very arrogant/heliocentric view of the word (which the OP is clearly not purposefully doing, I just have a chip on my shoulder ov
er the whole idea humans will ever understand nature let alone control it if turns out to be possbile.

As someone who has had time slow down a lot of times playing intense sport and being in big car crashes where 1 second lasted like a minute and find it an incredibly thought provoking sensation/question - I'm just being a typical scientist moaning about QM being hijacked decades ago.


Not the human mind - the Will. We will things to happen. Some are better at it than others. It is very potent whether you believe it or not.

You should not put me in the category of those who hijacked QM. QM happens to echo some esoteric principles that I grasped decades before the word QM ever appeared.

I do not understand your use of the word Heliocentric. I know what Heliocentric means as opposed to Geocentric. IN my case it's neither.



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 05:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: crowdedskies

originally posted by: bastion
As a scientific type (degrees in applied maths, law and journalism) can you please not do?

ns in QM.


I do not take instructions from you.

I also have a qualification in a profession which is regarded as highly as that of your law profession. I also have a music qualification and I am soon to be a qualified pilot.

Even if I had no qualification, I would not take instructions from you.




I'm not trying to give instructions, just asking for basic manners and respect for the subject which is far greater than any of us. All I'm trying to state is you may be unwillingly misleading yourself and others as no one understands this - you're inciting a 100 year old though experiment QM has progressed a lot since then - but as you say there's a common joke in science 'only two people understand QM and both are wrong/dead).

Likewise I have experienced time slowing down and similar states and find them amazing and am more than willing to hear about any esoteric views on the subject - however my understading of the esoteric is infantile at best I've only had time slow when when in serious road traffic accidents into the 'zone' or after several hours squash traiining and that is a crazy journey outside our normal periecptions. Despite being a major skeptic I was fully healed after two months and cycling around europe by just keeping a smile on my face focussing on the positives rather than the dr chat of having arm amputated or taking minimum of nine months to work, the mind is incredibly powertful and can help in millions of ways, just not the one you stated - still an interesting topic and would like to hear other people's experiences of tome slowing down/rapidly speeding up.



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 05:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: crowdedskies

originally posted by: bastion

My main issue with the post, and it's not a go at the OP, is the strange assumption the human mind could possibly
be capable of fully understanding or utilising the universe or Earth- I personally find it a very arrogant/heliocentric view of the word (which the OP is clearly not purposefully doing, I just have a chip on my shoulder ov
er the whole idea humans will ever understand nature let alone control it if turns out to be possbile.

As someone who has had time slow down a lot of times playing intense sport and being in big car crashes where 1 second lasted like a minute and find it an incredibly thought provoking sensation/question - I'm just being a typical scientist moaning about QM being hijacked decades ago.


Not the human mind - the Will. We will things to happen. Some are better at it than others. It is very potent whether you believe it or not.

You should not put me in the category of those who hijacked QM. QM happens to echo some esoteric principles that I grasped decades before the word QM ever appeared on the internet.

I do not understand your use of the word Heliocentric. I know what Heliocentric means as opposed to Geocentric. IN my case it's neither.






posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 05:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: bastion
As a scientific type (degrees in applied maths, law and journalism) can you please not do?

It's obvious to anyone who has studied the subjects you haven't applied any critical thinking or scientific approach, which is ok for you, but to the general populace all you're doing is further entrenching common, long debunked misconceptions about QM and consciousness and making it sound as if there's evidence to support things - it's at best misleading and at worst actively deceitful and may put off brilliant minds from helping humanity discover more about mother nature.

Of course I'm denying your interpretation of QM as it's completely wrong, but a common mistake the public make. It stems from the ambiguous language used in Schrodinger's Cat hypothesis - the mind has nothing to do with the state, you have just what the term observer actually means in QM.


I don't think this thread is about evidence. Not everything in life has to be about the scientific method, much as I love it. I don't know how advanced you are in science, but if you are the very best in the world, you are still but a baby in terms of understanding how things work in our universe.


Completely agree with all that, a few years ago I was at Interational Physics Symposium level and people 100000x smarter than I ever will be had no shame in admitting we know less tham 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of what we are even aware is out there.

My main issue with the post, and it's not a go at the OP, is the strange assumption the human mind could possibly
be capable of fully understanding or utilising the universe or Earth- I personally find it a very arrogant/heliocentric view of the word (which the OP is clearly not purposefully doing, I just have a chip on my shoulder ov
er the whole idea humans will ever understand nature let alone control it if turns out to be possbile.

As someone who has had time slow down a lot of times playing intense sport and being in big car crashes where 1 second lasted like a minute and find it an incredibly thought provoking sensation/question - I'm just being a typical scientist moaning about QM being hijacked decades ago.


Fair enough.
I think this discussion of mind actually lends itself more to nonduality than QM, i.e. more in the esoteric realm.
If we are in fact all one with each other and all matter in the universe then one has to then wonder whether we do indeed, or could, have control over those things we percieve to be around us... it's a line of investigation that could quite possibly lead to madness (or enlightenment)!



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 05:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: crowdedskies

originally posted by: bastion

My main issue with the post, and it's not a go at the OP, is the strange assumption the human mind could possibly
be capable of fully understanding or utilising the universe or Earth- I personally find it a very arrogant/heliocentric view of the word (which the OP is clearly not purposefully doing, I just have a chip on my shoulder ov
er the whole idea humans will ever understand nature let alone control it if turns out to be possbile.

As someone who has had time slow down a lot of times playing intense sport and being in big car crashes where 1 second lasted like a minute and find it an incredibly thought provoking sensation/question - I'm just being a typical scientist moaning about QM being hijacked decades ago.


Not the human mind - the Will. We will things to happen. Some are better at it than others. It is very potent whether you believe it or not.

You should not put me in the category of those who hijacked QM. QM happens to echo some esoteric principles that I grasped decades before the word QM ever appeared.

I do not understand your use of the word Heliocentric. I know what Heliocentric means as opposed to Geocentric. IN my case it's neither.



100% agree with our top line - have a look at this video of a guy climbing everest in shorts/running desert marathon with no water just because he breathes/meditates and has cliniacally proven anyone else can do it - one of the most awe inspiring and mindblowing documentaries I've ever seen.

www.vice.com...

Aye you got me, long day plus sleepyness/hunger has made me start to get basic terminology mixed up - time for bed methinks - rookie error on my part and cheers for pointing it out.



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: bastion

I'm not trying to give instructions, just asking for basic manners and respect for the subject which is far greater than any of us. All I'm trying to state is you may be unwillingly misleading yourself and others as no one understands this - you're inciting a 100 year old though experiment QM has progressed a lot since then - but as you say there's a common joke in science 'only two people understand QM and both are wrong/dead).



With respect, I have to tell you that you were not appointed the guardian of science (or QM for that matter). I can undertand you feeling about QM being highjacked - I think most scientistc would feel the same.

Still you are telling me that I am being mislead and misleading others. The topic of QM is"greater than any of us" you say. Yet I am talking about the will. Th OP was about the Will bending reality/matter. QM was used as an illuatration NOT as evidence. I would not even use it if it was not for scientific types contributing to the forum.

What about my topic : Magic and the power of one's Will to change what is around ? Is it not a topic that deserves respect too. Is it not profoundly connected to the meaning of life itself ?


edit on 16-1-2016 by crowdedskies because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 06:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: bastion

100% agree with our top line - have a look at this video of a guy climbing everest in shorts/running desert marathon with no water just because he breathes/meditates and has cliniacally proven anyone else can do it - one of the most awe inspiring and mindblowing documentaries I've ever seen.



Yes , quite inspiring video. More about Mind over Matter rather than Will over Matter.

Cheers



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 09:00 PM
link   
a reply to: crowdedskies


Now in QM matter can be a wave (undefined ; unshaped) or a particle (shapes, defined and occupying a position). It is the observer that will determine if it stays in its unformed "wave" state or it becomes solid.

By definition an observer is objective.

Read my signature.

Because I don't aspire to your 'logic' doesn't mean I am not spiritual. Everyone is a spirit.



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 09:16 PM
link   
Even Becks wishes he could bend it like Zico or hammer it like Roberto Carlos



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 08:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: crowdedskies
My life has drastically changed for the better by simply using my will to shape my destiny.

Sounds like all vanity/imagination/ego!




top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join