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.

 

Death doesn't make sense according to physics

page: 13
11
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 09:45 PM
link   
We are all filled with energy. Mostly electric energy from our brain and nervus system. The thought process, memory, and self conciousness produce a mass of electrical activity in the brain. The First Law in Thermodynamics states: Energy can not be destroyed only converted. Therefor it is only logical that the energy from humans must be converted during physical death. So logically death would not be the end but just a conversion.........Now me brain hurts....need lay down....

[edit on 18-9-2007 by Osyris]




posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91

Originally posted by RedDragon

evidence?


I saw my relative die in the hospital. something left. Their eyes seems to be 'letting out" something. Funny, because the oldest religions of Africa say this is the soul.

My own proof is the countless religions all pointing to the same God. From Asian Christian break off religions, to the Catholic church itself. From Buddhists, to African Shamans. All point to the same God. In the end, religion always wins, because people always believe.


Allow a Buddhist's words to describe your laughable ignorance(this is from some guy I met in South East Asia):

"You forgot one thing, religion always wins! It is like a flood. If you think plugging the Dam's holes with toothpaste will do anything, live in that fantasy. The water always finds a way. Forget which one IT is, the flood of religion always wins. Look at Russia. The Communists tried for 80 or so years to stop religion, and they got no where, Your Christian God now calls his flock from China, not Europe. An I can already see the revival of religion in Europe. Look at your world, when Europe crumbles, they will find help in God once again. It is funny to see this people think they can stop the flood. They will all drown, as have so many others."

And then African Tribal Religions who worship.. not the Christian God. The Buddhist sects that are atheist and don't worship anyone.. The Pagans who worship dozens of Gods. Cargo cults who worship American servicemen that they think are Gods.. Scientologists who do stuff with Xenu.. yep =)



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Osyris
We are all filled with energy. Mostly electric energy from our brain and nervus system. The thought process, memory, and self conciousness produce a mass of electrical activity in the brain. The First Law in Thermodynamics states: Energy can not be destroyed only converted. Therefor it is only logical that the energy from humans must be converted during physical death. So logically death would not be the end but just a conversion.........Now me brain hurts....need lay down....

[edit on 18-9-2007 by Osyris]


Well, and that energy is given to the environment. The chemical processes that keep your body warm cease when you die, the heat that remains is given to the air and the ground. Same with the chemical energy, and most is given to decomposing organisms. So yeah, you live on in beetles and bugs and worms.



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaargg

Originally posted by polomontana
Zaargg,

Your whole post about ufology doesn't make sense. There's no reasonable doubt that U.F.O.'s and the beings who fly them exist.


Proof of this statement? And don't say "eyewitness testimony" because the percentage of people who claim to have firsthand experiences is low enough as it is once you factor in attention seekers, moneymakers, nut jobs, and copycats.


Zaargg,

Advanced 'craft/vehicles' that could be easily considered of foreign design are 100% real. I have seen one in 2002. The occupants on board are also 100% real. Whether the craft or the occupants of the craft were of ET origin is speculation.

What gives credibility to thinking that it was an ET craft is that no science or person is credited for its design. Science even claims the way it moves is IMPOSSIBLE, the technology is not in any textbook. Hmmmmm, is science really so stupid that they can't replicate a technology that already exists?

A small group of humans either built it themselves and kept the greatest invention of all time a secret or the technology is in fact of alien origin.


[edit on 9/19/2007 by Spoodily]



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Spoodily
reply to post by RedDragon
 


Do you have any evidence as to what is at the center of the big bang or how something can have 'nothing' surrounding it? Isn't the "things can't exist in nothing or outside of time" an arguement used against God? I mean, where would an observer observe this infinite energy density from? If you can't observe something it doesn't exist, right?. The universe most definately exists and it was started by an energy transfer from higher dimension.

I believe the beginning of the universe to be a one dimensional point that is the fifth dimension. This one dimension point is 'leaking' time. I believe the 'soul' is a one dimensional point along a two dimensional linear timeline. Our 'soul' is to the fifth dimension what our body is to the third. I will have an easier time proving this than any one disproving it.


I've already answered to this post, but you didn't read it or didn't want to answer.

So, in what facts do you base this theory?

So, by adding one extra dimension, we automatically solved all the answers for the existance of our universe and the existance of ourselves?

The fact is that we don't know yet. We are searching for the answers.

The real dead end is assuming without facts and without proof that something else exists name it God, luck, 5th or 11th dimension and believing that this is the answer.

Our best tool to understand the universe and our existance is science.

Everything else is just speculation or belief in something that you cannot proove(God, luck, extra dimensions etc etc).

And as you correctly wrote, you believe on a fifth dimension. You don't know it, you cannot prove it.

It's the same with believing that the Flying Spaghetti monster created the universe.

As for the Bing Bang, I believe your inability to understand that there was nothing surrounding the concentrated-in-a-single-point universe is the reason for your belief on a fifth dimension, trying to give an explanation that you can understand more easily.

No matter how many dimensions you add, this is not the answer. You just add more properties to the universe.

[edit on 19-9-2007 by panther512]



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by panther512
 


Yea, I read your post and decided you have beliefs of your own that you are not willing to change. I am using science and an open mind to logically figure out the cause of the big bang. I fully believe in the big bang, I just don't believe science wants to accept the beginning of it.

The BELIEF that everything came from a condensed ball of hot matter existing in nothing is rediculous in my opinion. That in itself is a religion, not science.

The point is that people claiming to represent 'science' are looking for the opposite of a creator. The evidence of people linking Flying Pasta God and joking about elves, unicorns and teacups really shows that there is a black and white outlook about the universe and a strange need for a being or character to be the creator of all things from atheists and the religious.

I'll start a thread with links and some video I've come across to help show what I am talking about and why I believe my theory to be correct. I don't want to just throw it together.



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 09:33 AM
link   
Who is trying to find an opposite to a Creator?

And I didn't say anything about the existance or not of a Creator.

What I am saying is that we don't know!

Simple as that.

And one of our greater minds of today, Hawkins (super-string theory, Chronicle of Time, etc etc) says that he wants to find the origins of our universe, only to understand the reason God created all these.

To believe that nothing surrounded the compressed universe is as mind provoking as saying that the universe or universes are endless.

Also, not believing in God, but believing in an infinite universe/universes is as mind provoking as believing in an infinite God.

What I am saying to you is that science searches for the truth, nomatter if this truth contains a God or one,two,three or 1000 extra dimensions.

We have evidence for the Big-Bang. At this time we cannot find what happened before it or what happened inside the compressed universe. Eventually we'll find out.

The new particle accelerator in Cern will work exactly on these questions on spring 2008, by recreating the Big-Bang.

I don't understand why you cannot understand that nothing surrounded the compressed universe.

I'll make it simpler to you: What surrounds the universe of today? Does our universe have borders? What's outside of these borders?

Do you understand that space is part of the universe and not something that the universe "floats" into?

Do you know of quantum entanglement and the implications it has on our view of empty space?

The mysteries of our existance and of our universe are so many that calling a "fifth" dimension and an exotic fifth dimensional energy to answer them is at least naive and the same as a religion.

Belief on something you cannot prove.



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by RedDragon

Originally posted by paul762
One theory is that our home pc's are created by a more advanced computer(our brain) and so maybe our brain is created by an even more advanced computer again(Universe,God,ET)?

Define "advanced". And evolution proves that more "complex" things can arise from simpler things.


Sorry, I just meant that our brain is more advanced/powerful than current pc's



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by RedDragon
 


NO, I'm talking about the very first religions of those people. The first African religions were that of a spiritual belief, or animism. They belieevd in a Great spirit and minor spirits.

And Buddhists may have their atheists sects, but I'm not talking about those, I'm talking about the original ones in Asia, not those with changes messages from different cultures. All I know is that quote is true, religion is a flood that will never be stopped, and I'm a proud molecule of H2O in that flood.



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by RedDragon
 


NO, I'm talking about the very first religions of those people. The first African religions were that of a spiritual belief, or animism. They belieevd in a Great spirit and minor spirits.

And Buddhists may have their atheists sects, but I'm not talking about those, I'm talking about the original ones in Asia, not those with changes messages from different cultures. All I know is that quote is true, religion is a flood that will never be stopped, and I'm a proud molecule of H2O in that flood.

I'm pretty sure the original Buddhist sects were atheist then as it spread it was modified to people worshipping Buddha as a god.

And talking about being proud that the spread of religion will never stop, and being proud that you're a part of it, makes you sound like you're part of the Borg. I guess education is futile.



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by RedDragon
 


Borg? nah, but a collection indeed.

The Buddha was big on reincarnation and life lessons. Doesn't that kinda make it obvious they believed in a higher power?

Maybe not "God" but certainly not atheists.

Buddhism is sorta like an expansion pack to any religion. It helps you strengthen your faith with any religion.



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Tom Bedlam
 


You keep asking for proof, however, you do not offer proof otherwise. That is, you do not offer what consciousness is not. And so, you are just stating another arbitrary position. I can speculate on this issue and philosophize for ages, but when it comes down to the bare bones neither science nor religion offer any answers to the phenomenon of consciousness. That science can offer evidence of biological processes does not even begin to address the fact of consciousness. I find myself repeating this often around here: Evidence of absence is not absence of evidence. It's a cliche worth repeating and remembering.



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by panther512
Who is trying to find an opposite to a Creator?

And I didn't say anything about the existance or not of a Creator.

What I am saying is that we don't know!

Simple as that.


Excellent. I am glad you said that the answer has not been found. I personally do not believe in a 'creator' but do believe that death is the end of our physical body but not the end of our 'soul'. I strongly believe that what created the big bang (not caused it but brought the energy into this universe) is closely related to the soul and what causes 'life'.


To believe that nothing surrounded the compressed universe is as mind provoking as saying that the universe or universes are endless.


The fifth dimension is surrounding us. We are a pocket within it, this is why we are our own dimension. Both are universes and both have energy, yes, but with different properties.

Loose example: Imagine water coming to a boil, air bubbles form within the water. The air comes from the water but is not wet like the water. They are within the same system but do not interact with each other as equals.

This is water in a vacuum. It is boiling but will eventually freeze due to energy transfer.



Also, not believing in God, but believing in an infinite universe/universes is as mind provoking as believing in an infinite God.


God is the system in it's entirety, the universe is not the system in its entirety. This system in which everything is a part of is infinite.


What I am saying to you is that science searches for the truth, nomatter if this truth contains a God or one,two,three or 1000 extra dimensions.


You will never find a God because you are a part of it. There is nothing for a God to be outside of because the system is infinite, thus making the system God.


We have evidence for the Big-Bang. At this time we cannot find what happened before it or what happened inside the compressed universe. Eventually we'll find out.


Yes, the Big Bang happened. That's 100% true. The contents of the big bang that comprise the universe today were not there to begin with. The universe of today was also not all present at the time of the big bang. There is no telling how long time ran for before matter formed. There is nothing outside of time, it is the edge of the universe.


The new particle accelerator in Cern will work exactly on these questions on spring 2008, by recreating the Big-Bang.


Looks to me if the recreate the big-bang they are going to kill everyone. Unless they are creating it in it's own pocket of time, that's a disaster waiting to happen.


I don't understand why you cannot understand that nothing surrounded the compressed universe.


Everything must be contained in something. Really think about it. Contained in nothing. By that definition 'nothing' is 'something' which defeats the meaning of 'nothing'.


I'll make it simpler to you: What surrounds the universe of today? Does our universe have borders? What's outside of these borders?


The universe is surounded by the fifth dimension. Our universe's border is the 'surface tension' of linear time, from the center 'leak' to the edge is two dimensional time.


Do you understand that space is part of the universe and not something that the universe "floats" into?


The universe can go no further than the edge time allows it, time is expanding and the universe is expanding with it.


Do you know of quantum entanglement and the implications it has on our view of empty space?


I don't see how this affects my theory.


The mysteries of our existance and of our universe are so many that calling a "fifth" dimension and an exotic fifth dimensional energy to answer them is at least naive and the same as a religion.


No, it's a practical deduction about the creation of the universe using logic. All the answers to the universe are already right in front of you.


Belief on something you cannot prove.


I'll get my thread put together soon enough. Hopefully I can get some kind of scientific credit for thinking of it.



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Areal51
reply to post by Tom Bedlam
 


You keep asking for proof, however, you do not offer proof otherwise. That is, you do not offer what consciousness is not. And so, you are just stating another arbitrary position.


Bzzt. Sorry.

I need not offer proof otherwise - which one depending on which sub-thread you're talking about.

For example. Let's say Polo says "Consciousness is the flatulence of fairies that live in your head". I say "No, not only are there no fairies, but there is a good deal of biological data that says your head is full of brains instead of fairy farts"

Now, apparently, in your world, unless I can somehow cough up a complete guide to the production of consciousness, that somehow validates the fairy flatus theory. You would be quite incorrect.



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Tom Bedlam
 


I don't think he has claimed anything along those lines. You are the one who continually shoots down logical reasoning with mythical figures and fable characters.

No one has brought up any fairies or fantasy aspects to this discussion except for the people trying to keep a closed mind about the topic.


[edit on 9/19/2007 by Spoodily]



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam


Energy is not alive. Say it with me. It is not alive. Energy can't "die" because it isn't "alive". You are using inappropriate terms. Similarly, energy can't become pregnant, or any number of other things.



Tom where is the separation?

We are alive, we are made up of energy, hence a large mass of energy can become pregnant.

Everything is energy, but not everything is alive, thus logic can't explain metaphysics, because of the invalid statements that can be created.

It's almost like trying to explain religion and the existence of god with a holy book.



posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 01:23 AM
link   
What is death?There is not a convincible answer for all of us.

What I know is that we usually fail to associate metaphysics with physics,though no evidence are afforded to prove that our soul or spirit would be some kind of substance.

I still maintain that death can not be explained simply as a chemical reaction because creatures are very mysterious.

When we cease to breath,we are dead.We can't move or talk any more,we will rot .Undoutedly,your body finally come back to nature,and your energy still survives, in another form.But your spirit dies and vanishes,you can no longer feel the world.Your body means nothing to yourself.Maybe spirit is a kind of energy,however,it is impossible to observe that spirit can transform to another kind of enerage(heat enerage or others).

But i'm not sure whether there exist souls if we died?


[edit on 20-9-2007 by nanoha]



posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 02:52 AM
link   
When we live, we eat food which we burn with stomach acid. This burning of food is why we have energy in our bodies, not because there are "souls" in us. Our life processes run off of the chemical energy created by digestion. This chemical energy is turned into mechanical/kinetic energy when we move, electrical energy when we think, etc. When we die, we stop eating and digesting, and therefor the supply of energy to our bodies shuts off.

Energy already existing in our body exits in a number of ways. Much of it is radiated out of our bodies in the form of heat, which is why dead people are cold after awhile - the chemical energy their body ran off of in life was converted to heat (body heat) and dissipated into the surroundings when they died.

True, the energy still exists after our bodies die. However, the energy is no longer "ours," it is the environment's. It is no longer concentrated in one body, it is dispersed entirely. Saying we are still alive after death because the energy still exists is literally exactly like saying your radiator is still running after it shuts off because the heat energy it put out still exists.

In order to understand this argument, you must realize that "destroyed" does not mean "changed" or "broken" or "turned into something else." It means "made to vanish entirely from existance."



posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Spoodily

I don't think he has claimed anything along those lines. You are the one who continually shoots down logical reasoning with mythical figures and fable characters.


Actually, the reply was to areal51, perhaps you noticed that.

Areal said: "...you do not offer what consciousness is not. And so, you are just stating another arbitrary position."

This is logically fallacious. It is a non-sequitur. The first statement is also logically impossible. There are a huge, possibly infinite, number of things that consciousness is not. It is not, for example, an orange popsicle. A canonical list of things that something is not, especially when the something is a non-tangible, is not possible to make.

But the crux of the matter is that I need not offer another competing position in order to refute an obvious fallacy. This is tough for some people to understand. You, for instance, repeatedly ask me for cosmological conjecture. I am not a cosmologist, and it's not even a hobby of mine.

Yet, when you push your insupportable cymatics theory forward, it is straightforward to poke a hole in it by asking "frequency of what?" at which point it becomes blazingly obvious you don't really understand "frequency", which doesn't bode well for your GTOE.

Since you guys are having trouble with explanations like this one, it's easy to use a nice simple metaphor. I forgot that a lot of you coming over from paranormal are concrete thinkers.



posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Realtruth

Tom where is the separation?

We are alive, we are made up of energy, hence a large mass of energy can become pregnant.

Everything is energy, but not everything is alive, thus logic can't explain metaphysics, because of the invalid statements that can be created.

It's almost like trying to explain religion and the existence of god with a holy book.



Nope. Everything is not energy. Matter has an energy equivalence, but it is not energy. It's like saying that a sack of feed corn is money, because you exchange money for it. Yes, I can buy a sack of feed for money. I can sell it and receive money. But there is not money somehow hiding in the sack that you could find if you dug it out. It has a monetary equivalence. But it is not money.

What is the definition of "alive"?

Do you know?

What is the definition of "energy"?

And for both, I mean the scientific definition. Not the woo-woo paranormal one.




top topics



 
11
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join