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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

The Science Establishing the Existence of a Life Force

page: 12
22
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 06:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
There is a 55 page PDF on Claude Swanson's website entitled "The Science of Torsion, Gyroscopes, and Propulsion."

From page 22:




www.synchronizeduniverse.com...


Here is a screenshot of the "Dark energy in the theory of physical vacuum" PDF on Shipov's website:




shipov.com...




posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 07:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: Phantom423

The fact that the "synchronizeduniverse" website has not caught up with the science says volumes about their thought process. They're really stuck in the mud.

And it's easy to extrapolate that attitude to their other proposals. They're advocating for beliefs, not advocating for real science.

You're making the statement that Claude Swanson doesn't know what he's talking about and is not advocating for real science, but you are?


Yes.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 07:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

Well, you are making a bold, unfounded allegation there.

Check out the science on his website and don't jump to conclusions based on what he said and what you know about the ongoing research related to radioactive decay.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 07:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: Phantom423

Well, you are making a bold, unfounded allegation there.

Check out the science on his website and don't jump to conclusions based on what he said and what you know about the ongoing research related to radioactive decay.




I posted a fairly straight forward example. What else would you like me to look at? Give me an example.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 08:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

Please at least scan the 55 page PDF I've posted, and consider checking out Dr. Gennady Shipov's work.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 08:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: Phantom423

Please at least scan the 55 page PDF I've posted, and consider checking out Dr. Gennady Shipov's work.


Ok will do.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: Phantom423

Please at least scan the 55 page PDF I've posted, and consider checking out Dr. Gennady Shipov's work.
I looked at that pdf, this is from page 11:

What does that mean that "A dying plant emits time" and "a growing plant absorbs time"? How much time do dying or growing plants emit or absorb and how do you measure that?

On page 7 Swanson talks about skepticism of Kozyrev's pseudoscience and states that "However the casual reader often has difficulty in sorting out the truth...", so how does a casual reader go about sorting out the truth about whether plants really emit or absorb time?

I could tell you how scientists sort it out but I'm sure you don't want to hear that because I think you prefer to believe in pseudoscience and pseudoscientific claims that mainstream science is somehow suppressing some of these pseudoscientific ideas. The truth is they don't need to be suppressed, because they don't have a leg to stand on, since you can't answer the above question about how this qualifies as science and neither can anybody else. When pseudoscience just has no scientific basis, it's pointless to claim it's being suppressed, there's nothing scientific to suppress.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 05:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
What does that mean that "A dying plant emits time" and "a growing plant absorbs time"?

Nikolai Kozyrev used the word "time" and "time density" to refer to the physical vacuum/aether is my understanding.

I find the wording confusing and have been looking for the rationale for it.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 05:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
What does that mean that "A dying plant emits time" and "a growing plant absorbs time"?

Nikolai Kozyrev used the word "time" and "time density" to refer to the physical vacuum/aether is my understanding.

I find the wording confusing and have been looking for the rationale for it.



The rationale is to bamboozle the chronically credulous with sciencey sounding nonsense.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 05:10 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

It's no more nonsensical than "space-time."



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots

But space-Time is clearly defined...



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 05:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Cypress

Are you familiar with Nikolai Kozyrev's work?



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 05:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
What does that mean that "A dying plant emits time" and "a growing plant absorbs time"?

Nikolai Kozyrev used the word "time" and "time density" to refer to the physical vacuum/aether is my understanding.

I find the wording confusing and have been looking for the rationale for it.
If your intuition doesn't tell you that things which can't be measured aren't science, then your intuition isn't working. That's not to say only things which can be measured have value, but only things which can me measured can be studied by science.

It's also puzzling why you would try to make sense out of nonsense "have been looking for the rationale for it." Why? This pseudoscience has never delivered one thing to your life of any value, but mainstream science has delivered many things of value to your life including whatever electronic device you're using to communicate on this forum, the internet, etc.


originally posted by: Cypress
a reply to: ConnectDots

But space-Time is clearly defined...
Yes and it can be measured, unlike the time emitted by plants.


originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: GetHyped

It's no more nonsensical than "space-time."
So apparently you don't understand the rationale behind space-time in modern science, but yet you make no comment that you "have been looking for the rationale for it." when it comes to modern science, you only make that comment about pseudoscience like plants giving off or absorbing time. Very odd.



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 06:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Maybe you can understand if you look at it this way:

Nikolai Kozyrev was a Russian astrophysicist.

Inquiry based on his work is science.

Other items in the OP are relevant as science.

And you really need to stop the attempt to discredit by name-calling ("pseudoscience") because you're not saying anything.



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 06:22 AM
link   
Considering "Life Force"

The Universe is full of life, even what we consider death is another form of life
A plant thrives in the Sun and the rain and the living organic soil

Plants start as seeds unless they are cuttings or grafted
The seed is nurtured as described above

It breaks ground, flowers then fruits
The fruits containing the seed for it's continuence

When the plant has done it's thing it falls and feeds the soil enriching and replinishing it
Animals that eat plants process them. the end product fertilizes the soil

It is a living process requiring turning baser matter into a more refined state of energy

Time is an abstract idea which measures movement
Time does not exist as such
but energy acting on matter does

So regarding the examples given ...
Rubber band
Plant
Coiled spring etc

Energy is being absorbed and released
Thus transforming matter

The prime cause of their being this energy or life force is a great mystery



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 07:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
And you really need to stop the attempt to discredit by name-calling ("pseudoscience") because you're not saying anything.
Science is based on measurements, and since you can't measure how much time a plant is emitting, it's not science to say a plant is emitting or absorbing time. Pseudoscience in this case means not science because it's not measurable, so it is saying something.

Your example of space-time can be measured, that's why it can be called science while non-measurable claims are pseudoscience.

edit on 2016101 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 07:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

What about this, which I previously posted, from page 10 of the PDF?




www.synchronizeduniverse.com...



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 07:35 AM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots
That makes about as much sense as this time machine based on Kozyrev pseudoscientific technology:


Once mainstream scientists see someone talking about pseudoscience like plants emitting and absorbing time, they aren't going to spend much time trying to replicate "experiments" coming from said source, but you're free to conduct your own experiments with Kozyrev tech just like the man in that video.

Now explain to me why they allow this video to remain on youtube and if this technology is being suppressed? I thought you said this technology was suppressed but here is a video freely demonstrating it, doing things he's not supposed to be able to do like time travel.



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 07:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

One thing at a time.

Be specific.

What does not make sense in Figure 9?



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 07:51 AM
link   
I find the only problem with the idea that plants emit and absorb time is this

Time would not exist as a measure if not for energy and matter
It would be a kind of nothingness or entropy

We know matter exists and we know energy exists
Time is just an abstract idea when considering how we apply it to reality

Maybe if considering the soul we could scientifically show soul is another way of describing the process of the refining of matter through energy being applied to it
And how as Human Beings we also are a part of this Universal Law




top topics



 
22
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join