It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 20
<< 17  18  19    21  22 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 07:20 PM
These are all the posts I have made in this thread.

Look up:

Time - You only experience your personal present.

Frequency - You experience 'reality' at a point in time coinciding with a point on a wave from your persective.

Cymatics - The study of wave phenomena.

Metatron's Cube - Six circles resting on a seventh. This is the tool of creation.

Flower of Life - a geometrical figure composed of overlapping circles with a sixfold symmetry like a hexagon.

Fractals - Scalable infinity. Size is relative to perspective and the observer.

Energy - "God". Infinitely segmenting itself into infinity from infinity. The All. There is nothing but "God". "God" does not exist but is existence. Everything that is, was, will or can be is energy.

Matter - The physical reality of a universe. The spectrum for which reality can exist is very broad and relative to the observer.

This is my rough idea of the creation of our universe:

Source Universe --> Energy (A universe's amount) -- Time --> Consolidation of Particles (through cymatic principles) --> Matter --> Gravity --> Heat --> Light (Sound is something that happens in an amosphere, it is dependant on the experiencer to verify audible noise)

The 'rapid expansion' at the beginning of the universe is the snowball effect caused when the first forces of reality were created to form matter, which created forces which created matter, etc. This happened until an energy/matter 'plateu' was reached.
Cosmologists spot a 'knot' in space-time

The 'multiverse' to this universal reality is caused by using 'a universe's worth of energy' for every universe. Each universe's creation and development is random but controlled by the laws of nature. The source continually emits energy to develope new universes. All the same 'universal realities' are from the same source but collectively make every possible outcome to this particular energy source (the undetermined point that is a universe factory).
Parallel universes exist - study

Energy is never created or destroyed, only transfers form. Universes create universes within them and are themselves created within universes. The amount of energy contained in a universe is relative to the universe. It will start as a whole, a pocket of reality expanding within itself and not consuming any space within its source universe. Universal reality cannot expand further than its barrier of time (metaphorical example: air cannot exist underwater outside of a bubble, the bubble will always travel a direction (up)). Time expanded before the universe, it is the water to bubble.

Glimpse of Time Before Big Bang Possible

It may be possible to glimpse before the supposed beginning of time into the universe prior to the Big Bang, researchers now say.
Unfortunately, any such picture will always be fuzzy at best due to a kind of "cosmic forgetfulness."

The Universe is everything that physically exists: the entirety of space and time, all forms of matter, energy and momentum, and the physical laws and physical constants that govern them.

My add: This definition speaks of our universal reality from the start of the "Big Bang" to its current state. There is no proven or disproven source of the universe. The universe cannot be considered a closed system but rather an individual 'whole' on its own. Just as a solar system is within a galaxy and a galaxy is within a universe. The universe is contained within a larger system.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, just sharing some things I've thought about for a long time.

[edit on 12/30/2007 by Spoodily]

posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 07:28 PM
I've heard of this book and it is not my duty to seek out knowledge from books or someone elses philosophies, it's already naturally within me, of me, and around me etc.

Everything and Nothing are both simultaneously absolute and alternately absolute, and not absolute, while being synonomous and antonymous.

Any book I am to read would only be as good as a new age religion.

I'm sorry to tell you that I will never submit to any form of diety, be it in the vernacular appearance of spirit, God, soul, or whatever else will freshly arise to control the mind.

Let the masses be, let the people be. No religion, no borders, no wars, no hatred. We are Human beings as entities of multitudinal energetic forms. No source, no beginning, no end. Just let people be what they are already.

I'm not ready for a book. I don't want a book, anyone's book.

These books are what cause the illusions of imperfection.

Thank you for your input and the chat. I readily enjoyed it, as always.

P.s. I'd just like to add that I think you all have it wrong.
Starting from a bad approach. Someone has drawn on your slate and now you're trying to draw over top of it and make the overlapping art match the underlying scribbles. I'd say wipe the slate clean and then begin again.

[edit on 30-12-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 07:41 PM

Originally posted by Aronolac
Answer: Time-space language requires some explanation as to how we have reached the point in the present.

We never reached it. The present/eternity has always been, it's simply transmutating.

Behind us is history. Ahead of us is potential - undefined destiny.

Behind us was change, ahead of us is change, but there was no beginning and will be no end.

History relates how time-space began, for it does have a beginning, but the underlying forces of universe building existed simultaneously as actual and potential intentions of the First Source before time-space existed.

You are redundantly stating that time-space has a beginning. I can prove logically that it does not. You are yet to show any form of logic that it does, you are only gradually luring me into this "faith" thing. I perceive faith as a veil for stupidity, with no pun emphasized on the word stupidity.

Those of us born in time can not conceive of an un-caused cause as described, but that is what the First Source is.

I can...

That is not religious fantasy, but cosmic truth, and until you and I are far beyond the shores of our origins on this planet, we will have to contemplate that situation as an unexplained probability.

Don't drag me into origins. I have none.
Believe me. I'm sure I have been to many more places that this planet... and even in my life time

I have not responded to all of what you have asked, and I doubt what you are really digging for is fully known even to yourself. Thank you for your good questions, and if what I have not answered is still important to address, well, try again.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ron.

posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 02:28 AM
We as humans are not made of energy although we do harness it within our cellular structure IE:Blood acts as a conductive source [Just a theory of mine] we have a limited capacity for life much like a battery runs low on it's charge, I don't believe our energy disapates but rather Displaces somewhere else.
From a Religous standpoint could that be consittered a soul possibly?
Just a thought.

posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 08:51 PM
No and there are no such things as souls, only a kind of heirarchy of life forms. We don't "die", we just mustate into something else, many other things. Stars do this, planets do this, all animal and plant life. Everythng does this. Yes we are made of energy, everything is.

posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 08:52 PM
So im not even going to bother to look at anything but the original post. This is how I look at it.

When you use solar power you get energy from the sun. If the sun isnt there anymore you cant get energy anymore.

Now You can die due to blood loss, hearth failure, brain/nerve damage,ect. No blood, no nothing. Blood is the bodies gas. Over time your body and heart lose efficiency making you die. Clogging arteries means your not getting blood, which means you die. Simple as that.

posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 04:16 AM

Originally posted by wigit
Okay, I expect a body to die and rot, but not ME that's inside THIS body.

Is the "me" inside this body an independent entity (independent of the body) or just the memory of past physical experiences which we are conditioned to personalize? I think it is the later. Think about it. What defines you to yourself if not the memory of your past experiences and behavior in various circumstances? What does it mean to be self-aware? That memory which gets confused with "self-hood" exists in the brain as all memories do. Once the brain dies, memory is lost and self-awareness then ceases. At that moment, the "me" in this body is no more.

posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 12:07 PM
If the "me" was only dependent on the personalization of past physical experiences, then you wouldn't be able to just quiet your mind and focus on the present moment IMO. IMO you are not your memories and not your physical body.

posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 12:15 PM

Originally posted by TheBandit795
If the "me" was only dependent on the personalization of past physical experiences, then you wouldn't be able to just quiet your mind and focus on the present moment IMO. IMO you are not your memories and not your physical body.

Yes, I find the consciousness facinating.

If I cloned myself, and it had all my memories and the same body, it would still not be me.

What is the truth?

posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 09:00 PM

Originally posted by TheBandit795
If the "me" was only dependent on the personalization of past physical experiences, then you wouldn't be able to just quiet your mind and focus on the present moment IMO. IMO you are not your memories and not your physical body.

There is no present moment. In far less than the amount of time it takes to focus, the "moment" has past. You are left only with the memory of your experience at certain ticks of the clock.

posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 09:04 PM
Yes the present moment changes all the time, but it is still the present moment. The past and future only exist in your mind.

posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 09:31 PM
I am never the moment, yet ever the moment, I am but an eternal memory, remembering the future and reflecting on the past.

For *every-time* I think I have ceased the present, yet it is only a memorable moment of a now in a reflection of a time gone past...

[edit on 6-4-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 12:00 AM

Originally posted by TheBandit795
Yes the present moment changes all the time, but it is still the present moment.

In that sense, yes but the human brain is simply too slow. It cannot perceive and resolve time in short enough intervals to be able to keep up with the ever moving temporal horizon. We may feel we are doing that but it simply isn't possible.

Originally posted by TheBandit795
The past and future only exist in your mind.

When you look up at the stars do you see them as the are or as they were? You see them as they were of course. You are looking into the past. If the past is only in your mind, how do you account for that? If someone hurt a friend or family member in the past is that a past which exists only in the mind of the perpetrator? No of course not, It effected the victim and everyone else close to the situation to some degree, perhaps even society at large.

As for the future, I somewhat agree but let's not forget that actions taken in the past can affect positive or negative outcomes of events in our futures. For example, if you have a masters or higher degree from a major university then barring any accidents, etc. your future is probably very bright regardless of what course you imagine for your life. Those degrees don't exist in your mind only. They are real. Like it or not you're a brick in the wall. The converse is true if you have little or no education. You can dream big and work your fingers to the bone but the odds are stacked against you.

Now just to clarify my original point. Our minds store memories of all our past experiences, thoughts etc. which by the ongoing sense of the passage of time is conflated into a persistent perception of self-hood which is further reinforced by our social interaction with others in our environments. These past memories do not exist in our minds only. Rather they are to some extent shared memories with other people in our lives. It is shared to the extent that others can examine those memories and either agree or disagree with who or what we see ourselves as. We furthermore partake of a general mind-share with society at large which is always at work reinforcing to each of us who or what we are within tacitly accepted bounds which we refer to as culture. But in the end analysis, it is just a beneficial illusion. An illusion which vanishes forever upon death.

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 04:52 PM

Originally posted by DIRTMASTER
I love science but that just shows that Physics is still flawed. Since things do die. despite everything science has accomplished so far. I still think are egos are to big for our britches. We have a lot to learn and will prove ourselves wrong many more times before we get the real clue..

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
If one goes by the basic principles of physics, then yes, death doesn't make sense.

All it shows is that you and the OP are personally ignorant of the subject at hand. Which isn't to say that science knows anything for certain, let alone everything, but this topic is trivially simple. an eighth grader should be able to easily understand what happens.

Basically, death doesn't make sense according to your HORRIBLY FLAWED idea of what physics is.

And even by that HORRIBLY FLAWED idea, energy would still be conserved. when you die, you'd be left with one dead body, with an energy equivalent to the sum total of it's mass, kinetic, chemical, and thermal potential energy, and one soul, with an energy equivalent to the energy of the live body minus the dead body. energy would be conserved.

Of course, in real life, there is no difference in energy between a live body and a dead body in an immediate sense. (defining biological death is kind of tricky though, nobody just spontaneously ceases to be alive, as if god turned the boolean value IS_ALIVE 1 to 0)

Seriously, we are made of matter and energy. As far as biology knows, our minds are the result of an absurdly complicated chemical reaction, far, far more complex than any computer ever built. If this is true, then death makes perfect sense in a physical context. Our minds are essentially the result of the flow of energy. when we die, our brains cease to function, and energy ceases to flow in the manner that creates conscious thought. Thermal energy dissipates to the environment, chemical potential energy is made use of by bacteria and other organisms, who use us for food.

In that context, energy is perfectly conserved, and there's nothing more to understand. If you've got some hard evidence for the existence of consciousness outside a functioning brain, I'm sure everyone would love to hear it.

Originally posted by Schmidt1989
People aren't made of energy. We don't contain energy, we don't produce energy, and we dont use energy to do things. We just call it energy as a lamen term for the public. Drinking a redbull gives you energy right? Nothing can give you energy.


Energy=Mass times the speed of light. Energy isn't around us, Matter is around us. Energy is a force. We con't control or do anything with it.

[edit on 9/15/2007 by Schmidt1989]

People are made of mass, and contain energy. Like you said, mass is equivalent to energy by E=MC^2. Eating food gives you energy, in the form of chemical potential energy. An immediately dead corpse who had eaten a full meal shortly before death contains more energy than the living body of the same person immediately before eating. We use the energy in food to move, think, grow, and create warmth.

Energy is not a force. Energy is the ability to do work. You can have forces that don't consume energy, and energy that is never used to create a force. We can easily control energy through a multitude of different means. Charging a battery puts more chemical potential energy into a battery, for example. throwing a ball puts kinetic energy into it.

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 05:07 PM
reply to post by mdiinican

If you've got some hard evidence for the existence of consciousness outside a functioning brain, I'm sure everyone would love to hear it.

There is already hard evidence that consciousness exists independent of the brain. People just choose to ignore it.

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 05:10 PM
Death doesn't make sense according to physics....

Well neither do the events of 9/11...What your point?

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 05:21 PM

Originally posted by disgustedbyhumanity
Isn't it possible that we die because we have exhausted the last of our energy?

Or as I believe, when we die our energy gets released into nature as a whole?

EMC2 is flawed in my opinion I beleieve there are ways to get more energy out of something than is put in. Imagine a steep pinnacle. Over time it is eroded away,and eventually you have a huge boulder now only connected by a thread to the formation. A raindrop falls, breaks it loose and it rolls downhill eventually destroying several homes. So a little raindrop releases energy to the equivelant of a bunch of dynamite. Where did all the energy come from? .

Not only do you apparently have no idea what E=MC^2 means, but the answer to your question is simple. The energy came from the gravitational potential energy of the boulder and the earth. Were it not for the electrostatic force, everything in the world could fall to the center of the earth and probably collapse into a black hole. As it stands, though, the earth involves a lot of rock and magma stacked on top of itself to form a rough spheroid. Everything is pulled towards the center at all times. This is caused by the force of gravity. Energy is the ability to do work, so the force of gravity causes things that aren't at the center of mass of the earth to have an amount of gravitic potential energy.

This potential energy is how much work (a force times a distance) gravity would do if the object was free to fall. When the boulder is freed from what was holding it up, it falls a certain distance, and converts a certain amount of it's gravitic potential energy into kinetic energy. It then hits the ground and converts that to heat and sound, and damaging things.

You don't get more energy out than existed beforehand, just as Burning fuel doesn't release more energy than it took to make it.

not to mention the fact that it probably took thousands of times more energy in the form of sunlight to evaporate all that water, and form it into clouds that rained and eroded the ground under the boulder than the boulder released.

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 05:35 PM
reply to post by mdiinican

Thanks, mdiinican, for posting that in a way better than I could have.

posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 12:10 PM

Originally posted by mdiinican
Energy is not a force. Energy is the ability to do work. You can have forces that don't consume energy, and energy that is never used to create a force. We can easily control energy through a multitude of different means. Charging a battery puts more chemical potential energy into a battery, for example. throwing a ball puts kinetic energy into it.

Energy is a force. Every force requires and is of energy. If there is no ability to do work then there is no force available. Energy is an unstoppable force and an immovable object. Energy is everything. There are many different forms of energy, but they are all energy.

We don't control energy, and when we think we do we are only using energy to "control" energy.

What type of energy is used to give the ball kinetic energy? What type of energy is used to put more chemical potential energy in the batteries?

I agreed with most of your points, but here you're just going off into fallacy.

posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 12:50 PM
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

There's so much wrong with that post breaking the lunacy apart piece by piece would take a more patient person than I a lot longer than I can spend here.

Energy is the ability to do work, as has been stated. Energy is not a force, and forces are not energy. A force is what we call the changing of a form of energy. When a foot hits a football, the foot has all the energy, then it slams into the ball (which is the force), and after the force, the ball now has some of the foot's energy.

Saying energy is a force is like saying a second hand on a clock is time itself.

new topics

top topics

<< 17  18  19    21  22 >>

log in