The Time Has Arrived to Practice Quantum Physics, My Friends...

page: 8
4
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike
Libra, I'm flattered.

and just a tiny bit scared



Dgtempe... okay.

We've established you're ignorant, great, no one's place to yell at you for that. But stop being an immature child. Seriously. You don't even know what quantum physics is, then you make a thread about it in the paranormal forum about something completely unrelated to science or anything quantum.

Stop imposing your ignorance on others.
Go fly a kite. I've had it with you and i'm getting real pissed at your stupid arrogant accusations here- a thread that was meant to be a good thread, wholesome, you and your highly intellectual friends made a mockary of it- AND DO NOT GIVE UP.

ENOUGH ALREADY. ENOUGH. YOU CALL ME IGNORANT????? Why in the world are you so angry? Huh??? what did i do to you?? Who are you and what do you want???
Read the rules for ATS- no place on this thread have i attacked anyone- i've been attacked by you and a couple of others. I sent a complaint in and no mods have bothered to show up here...maybe they like you attacking me...who knows.

For now- get off and stop your stupidity and ignorance. YOU are making an ars out of yourself. See ya.




posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
Well.... based strictly on your quote above AND on having read several papers and a book or two on quantum physics -- the statement there is just bunk.


I'll have to say that judging the entire book/work on the introductory paragraph I posted, isn't the wisest thing to do. I don't know enough about QP to say whether the paragraph contained bunk or not, though I've been reading up on this subject as much as I can.



Quantum mechanics doesn't address consciousness or any connection between it and the real world. And the paragraph shows that the writer doesn't understand the Schrodinger cat or Einstein.


Well,... I don't know if that is entirely true. I would hope that a couple of Physics Professors currently teaching students at UCSC would somewhat grasp the concept of Schrodinger's cat example. I could be wrong, but I have a feeling they might better demonstrate to us their understanding of this subject inside their book.


Not so much oppose, but more of a "this is stupid and inaccurate" approach. It's kind of like someone labeling "opera" as "chocolate" and then trying to convince you that chocolate is soothing to your ears and requires a full professional orchestra.


I'm not sure I understand your example. From the reviews I've read thus far, it seems the authors try to be very careful when attempting to make a connection between QP and Consciousness. I guess we won't know for sure, until we peer under the cover.



The connection between QM and mental states is something concocted by folks who didn't really understand what's going on in QM.


If you're referring to the mystics, then I whole-heartedly agree. I don't know enough about QM or those seriously involved to say one way or the other.



QM discusses scaling and superclass and particles:
adsabs.harvard.edu...

...discrete particle representation:
scitation.aip.org

Schrodinger operators with magnetic fields:
projecteuclid.org...

Exponential forms of time-displacement operators:
scitation.aip.o rg

Thank you for the links, but you have to pay for all of them (except the last) to view them. If you have a subscription, it would help if you maybe copy/pasted? Of course that might go against the rules on a few levels. I find Wikipedia of much help when it comes to the subject, but, of course I won't limit myself to Wiki. Though your links may be useful, there is plenty of free information that may do the job just fine.
In fact I'll probably need something that speaks in Laymen terms.




Now.. the "positive thinking" people who equate QM with "think and receive" don't have a clue about superclasses, time dependencies, atomic spectra (important subtopic in QM), quarks, gluons, supercolliders, etc. The folks doing physics QM don't "think positively" at their formulas, ideas, quarks, gluons, gravitons, etc.


You're right, and I realize this. I'm not claiming that Physicists are "thinking positively" at their formulas. I partly explained my position in my previous responses to thelibra. QP was hijacked by a bunch of Mystics, and many people are confused as a result. I would partly equate this to works like "Holy Blood, Holy Grail", and "The Davinci Code", though at least HBHG had good intentions (IMO), and TDC is clearly fiction, though the author tried to claim some of it as fact in the beginning.



[edit on 22-8-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 08:26 PM
link   
Ohhh man? Seems like we have some smarty pants on this thread (and I mean that in a good way). Apparently string theory is out, great, I've been trying to wrap my brain around it for two years. Could someone here please, please. please provide me with some kind of watered down, simple explanation of it? Please?

As far as thinking good thoughts-I did, and you know what, I calmed right down about today and did not end up watching the news all night. I actually slept. I have a powerball ticket for tomorrow night's drawing and if you all don't mind, I'm going to shift my good thoughts over to me winning!

Seriously though, any simple explanations of string theory?



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 08:26 PM
link   
/lessinflammatory

[edit on 22-8-2006 by Johnmike]



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 08:28 PM
link   
ATTENTION!!!!!!!!!
I'd like to remind everyone, again, to discuss the topic of this thread and not each other.
We need to show respect for each other when posting.

This is a conspiracy forum and not everyone will post material that agrees with what you believe or know to be fact.
If you believe the poster's theory is incorrect or not believable, there is a proper, respectful way to relay that message. Or, you can choose not to post a response at all.
ATS-BTS-PTS is a large community with eclectic tastes.

Ridiculing each other is NOT the way to do that!!!





[edit on 22-8-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 08:33 PM
link   
So.

I saw the term, "Quantum Physics" used in completely incorrect context. It means that people took science for something it was not, which is actually very dangerous. So I take the time to explain how and why using it here is incorrect. Great.

Then the person who made the thread starts flaming me because, well, I guess it shows that she doesn't understand what quantum physics is. Instead of reading what I wrote and doing research, she flamed me.

I fail to see how that's doing anything but trying to spread ignorance.



I tried.



ps sorry if anyone got offended by my explanations since apparently that happened

[edit on 22-8-2006 by Johnmike]



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by stanstheman
Ohhh man? Seems like we have some smarty pants on this thread (and I mean that in a good way). Apparently string theory is out, great, I've been trying to wrap my brain around it for two years. Could someone here please, please. please provide me with some kind of watered down, simple explanation of it? Please?


Here you go. This is what I found. It even contains a video to explain string theory.

String Theory: a multihistory

I hope that helps. I'm still trying to understand, but I'm not sure anything is getting through.



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2manyquestions
Here you go. This is what I found. It even contains a video to explain string theory.

String Theory: a multihistory


Thanks! I'll put my thinkin' cap on and give it a whirl!

Mod Note: Trim Those Quotes - Please Review this link

[edit on 22-8-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 09:26 PM
link   
The Power Of Negative Thinking

Please, let's try not to turn this into a referendum on individual members or make this personal.

Yes, I can see how Quantum Physics is not something you practice any more than one practices gravity -- although the influence of the observer does introduce a rather ironic degree of uncertainty to the whole question.

There's nothing wrong with expressing different opinions, and there are some excellent and well-informed opinions in this thread.

Where I think we're getting off the track is when we start deviating from the concepts of Quantum Physics, Quantum Consciousness or whatever and start commenting on other members personally.

As I think the evidence clearly indicates, this invariably leads to a negative outcome.


Hasty Generalization

It is possible to be mistaken about something or ignorant of it (unaware of something) without being an ignorant person (a value/character judgment).

For example, I do plenty of stupid things, but overall, I don't think that necessarily means I'm a stupid person (your opinions may reasonably disagree on this point).


Likewise, it's a bit presumptuous to label someone as ignorant just because they disagree on something -- and yes, even if they're demonstrably wrong.

Let he who is without ignorance cast the first aspersion.


Schrödinger's Thread

In the interest of keeping a very interesting thread on topic, let's please try to avoid the temptation to resort to name-calling and focus on stimulating debate of the various theories and perspectives discussed here.

To that end, I pray that when I next look in on this thread, the topic won't have suddenly and mysteriously died.

Thanks in advance for your positive contributions as members, theorists and participant observers.



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majic




It is possible to be mistaken about something or ignorant of it (unaware of something) without being an ignorant person (a value/character judgment).

For example, I do plenty of stupid things, but overall, I don't think that necessarily means I'm a stupid person (your opinions may reasonably disagree on this point).









Majic, it IS possible to be mistaken, to interpret something wrong, to not know enough about a subject...I must be living proof. I go to a website which claims their teachings to be quantum physics, and i am learning to "practice" their teachings (I'm doing as i'm told, so for all purposes, i am "practicing" something)
That does not make me an idiot- nor does it make me a liar. Perhaps their take on QP is different than other teachings and i should research it further. The purpose of this particular website is very indepth, explaining QP, and what can be achieved by upping your vibrations so that the universe responds to you and you are tuned 100% with the universe, thereby being able to get very positive responses thru this method.

There is absolutely no need for namecalling and rudeness- I dont respond well to rudeness.
I dont think many of us do, i dont care how tuned you are to all good things.
Anyway, i will do further digging into this, because its a subject that i absolutely love and believe in. It has helped me tremendously in some areas of my life, and i wish others would also check into this.



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 04:03 AM
link   
Quantum Physics has a specific definition and is only one thing, there's no mystic "take" on the term.



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 04:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike
Because you ignorantly tried to push a term as something it's not. It's one thing to be wrong, it's another to b- and moan about it after being corrected. Well-meaning thread, but don't be immature please.

None of us are perfect. What we lack in one area, we make up for in others. For example, you, Johnmike, may be more scientifically inclined than dg ( may be - I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here ), but you definitely lack it in tact and interpersonal communications.

We all know what dg meant, and I for one applaud her for trying to make the world a little bit more tolerable. No need for you to call her ignorant or immature. Had you defined quantum physics in a milder manner, she would have appreciated it and thanked you. But all you managed to do was make her feel bad.

You owe her an apology.



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 05:37 AM
link   
The Libra and all

My B.Sc is in environmental engineering and management and yes corperations have paid me for consultancy. I did that degree many years ago but still keep in contact with my old lecturers. I currently work in the finance industry for financing engineering and the like, as you will find in the Uk that only 20% of people actually work in the specified field they studied at university ten years after graduating.

My spelling is atrocious I agree always has been, have been using spell checks for way too long and also I am multitasking whilst posting. Just to clear that up.

When I called you Monotheistic I was just referring using a tounge in cheek analogy to your description of Camp 1 or Camp2 that maybe you descredited all other information or points of view based on blind faith, though as said only jokingly for debate not a personal tirade or attack.

regards and love elf



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 07:44 AM
link   
Does anyone really believe that a person is going to come here, read this topic, then go through life thinking they know "all there is" about QP?
Come on now, get real.... Most people that read this topic, if they become interested in what DG is saying, will go search it on their own.
You say you are "denying ignorance".
That's a joke

DG came here with good intentions and quoted something that has helped her immensely. The place she learned it from called it QP so that's what she called it, what's the big deal?

In our plant store we have all the garden plants you would ever need to satisfy your family over the whole summer. But what happens when someone comes in and asks for "mangoes"?

Do I tell them how stupid they are for asking for tropical plants at a garden store?
Nope!
I ask them to describe it a little more and I end up "learning" that in this area of our great country the older folks call "Green Peppers" "Mangoes".
So I make the sale and the person takes their mangoes home and I'm happy taking my money to the bank!
No one had to feel bad or be called stupid, everyone is happy.

Why is that so hard for some people to apply here?



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 07:55 AM
link   
Thank you, Beer guy and all of you for your support.

The good thing is that nothing happened. That was the focus of this thread before it became a war onto itself.

Mangoes, huh?


But enough about QP. We wont need it after all. I've come to realize that the powers that be were just fearmongering. Will we ever learn??

I cant wait for the next terror alert, so we can all practice DGQP once again.

No hard feelings-



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by Johnmike
Because you ignorantly tried to push a term as something it's not. It's one thing to be wrong, it's another to b- and moan about it after being corrected. Well-meaning thread, but don't be immature please.


You owe her an apology.


IMO, Johnmike owes her nothing. The truth never needs to apologize. The scientific truth, in this case.

But........there is also truth in feelings I suppose. Benjamin Disraeli once said: "Never apologize for showing feeling. When you do so, you apologize for the truth."

It's just that some people really get torqued off when they see a holistic interpretation of what is a very precise mathematical system.

Mod Note: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 23-8-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 08:59 AM
link   
I agree, he owes me nothing. It is perfectly acceptable to tell people off, call them ignorant, stupid, whatever comes to mind.

I believe the call for an apology had to do with this and not with the workings of Quantum Physics, but indulge, if you wish.

It just never ends.



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
This citation summarizes briefly the major problems with Penrose's idea:
leaonline.com

[edit on 22-8-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]


Interesting paper, which has stimulated some thought, but exactly where has OOR theory been refuted? There's even a section which admits the theory may hold. I am interested in their neurocomputational theory, but again there's no meat in it. They offer it as an alternative, yet its as badly understood as OOR.

There is also too much concentration on single QM events, in a similar way to talking about Schrodinger's CAT (singular). Classical behaviour is the result of ensembles of QM events. Schrodingers cat is not an experiment with one cat, but an infinite number.



[edit on 23-8-2006 by glastonaut]



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempeThere is absolutely no need for namecalling and rudeness- I dont respond well to rudeness.



DGTempe, I tried to respectfully disagree with you, while at the same time supporting your cause and offering a correction. You, in turn, were very rude to me, said I had no idea what I was talking about, and proceeded to keep that same attitude towards anyone who offered the same. At the end, you called the whole thread miserable.

Now, I am perfectly willing to let bygones be bygones, I'd rather not be at odds with anyone on this entire board (though I know that won't always be possible). However, if you wish for people to stop calling you names, and stop being rude, you may want to consider following your own demands, not be rude to people trying to help, not ignore latent support by those who nonetheless disagree, and not disregarding your own thread just because some intelligent discussion came from it.

So, I apologize for calling you names. It was wrong of me to let my temper get the better of me. My only excuse was my perception of my family's work (and friends) be made a mockery of, and the snubbing of my good intentions to support your cause and offer a correction at the same time.

In the future, please understand that I do that, a lot (respectfully disagreeing, that is), and I will probably do so again in the future. This does not mean I am attacking you personally, nor your beliefs, nor am I encouraging a flame war. It is merely, IMHO, a clarification that needed to be made. Hopefully we can get past our disagreement this thread and remain on civil terms.




Originally posted by MischeviousElf
When I called you Monotheistic I was just referring using a tounge in cheek analogy to your description of Camp 1 or Camp2 that maybe you descredited all other information or points of view based on blind faith, though as said only jokingly for debate not a personal tirade or attack.


Elf, I took no offense to the Monotheistic comment. In truth I didn't even notice it


However, I did take issue with the application of the label Quantum Physics to something it was not. Thankfully, we seem to have arrived at a general consensus on the thread that, yes, the paranormal is probably brought about through microtransactions that can be explained via Quantum Physics, but that QP itself is not a faith-based system of mind powers. And that was really all I hoped to accomplish.

That and maybe some chicken wings. Regardlesss, I didn't take offense to your post, I just strongly disagreed with it and found some parts rather condescending. However, neither of those circumstances are alien to me. In any event, I'd be happy to remain on good terms with you.



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 09:51 AM
link   
No problem. I was also over reacting and i am sorry for that.

Let today be a good day. My intentions were well meaning. Sorry.






top topics



 
4
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join