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: 7
11
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 06:14 AM
link   
I'm going to explain this really simply.

The universe was created from a one dimensional point that is the fifth dimension. There was nothing surround the matter from the big bang, everything started from the 'leak' in the fifth dimension.

The soul (what gives us 'life') is a one dimensional point that is part of the fifth dimension.

Can you ever observe something that is a one dimensional point? NO.

Our universe is consolidated energy that is essentially time. Time was created from the one dimensional point that created the 'Big Bang'.

Time->Frequency->Matter->'Big Bang'->Universe

Cymatics, metatron's cube, fractal geometry and frequency explain everything you need to know about our universe.

In conclusion, the universe exists in the fifth dimension but our soul is confined to a fourth dimensional body until death. Your body ages over time and dies, your 'soul' does not age.

Add On:

This universe is three dimensional and coupled with time it is the four dimension (some just all time the fourth dimension combining them will make it easier).

The fourth dimension's 'present' is a one dimensional point along a two dimensional time line. Things go in chronological order.


The fifth dimension is the fourth dimension but its time is the sixth dimension.

The fifth dimension's 'present' is a fourth dimensional line that operates in three dimensional time. What this means is that an experience is your present, not the time and location of the experience. You can go from one experience to another without travelling any distance or any time in between them. It is more like thought or a dream than how real life works.

I hope someone reads this and understands what I am talking about. Science makes me mad sometimes, they couldn't sell more books if they actually put all the information in them (ie: 'ufo' technology).




posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 07:10 AM
link   
It's been done so already, but I'll respond quickly.

There is one fatal flaw.


Originally posted by polomontana
We are energy in state of decoherence.

In respect to what we know scientifically, that's bull#. As far as we know, we're just a body with a brain (though I have my own ideas about consciousness.)
Therefore, the rest of your argument is null and void.

[edit on 17-9-2007 by Johnmike]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 07:57 AM
link   
I've talked to alot of atheists and read through this thread some. This is my viewpoint.

Atheists love the Christian God and the fourth dimension (our universe). I say they love the Christian God because that is their concept of what God must be. This is fact. Atheists also love the Bible, they read it nonstop so they can reference things in it and prove them to be untrue.

They claim that the universe is all there is and the big bang created it without any explanation as to what the big bang comes from. The answer I usually get is 'science hasn't figured it out yet, but they will'. Whatever. Just accept that all the energy in this universe comes from the fifth dimension and that our soul is also part of this fifth dimension. There is no life or afterlife, only being.

Why do people that claim themselves to be so scientifically minded and anti-god/anti-afterlife cling to the preconceived notions of Christianity and want God to be a three dimensional being that exists within the universe? The idea behind 'God' is that God contains all the possibilities, not that God is some story book character with magical powers.

You aren't 'you' when you die, you become everything. Get it? You experience the next dimension as 'self', not as a defined individual. You are already in the 'afterlife' because your 'soul' is made of what the fifth dimension is, the walls (your body) just haven't fallen down for you to see beyond them yet.

[edit on 9/17/2007 by Spoodily]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by polomontana
Here is the source text for the computational universe theorists. It all starts here. You'll need a doctorate in quantum physics to really understand it, I suspect, but the text parts are interesting. I can only splash around in the shallow water on this one.

This is a direct quote from Tom. If he doesn't understand it, how can he debate it?


Because when I say I'm having to paddle around in the shallows on Kantor, I guarantee I understand it better than you. You won't even recognize the symbology, much less can you do any of the math, because so far all you're doing is posting long unattributed cut-and-pastes from the websites you posted and wikipedia.

Want to play? I'll toss out some really butt-simple Newtonian stuff and let's see you solve it. It won't be off the web either.

While I'm quite sure your next defense of your delusion will be to say something on the order of "oh, I only studied quantum physics", that will, of course reveal your ignorance of the matter entirely to anyone here that's had any calculus based physics.

Not to mention I'll toss out some butt simple Hamiltonians if you do, it's just that in order to get the symbology on this website I'll end up having to resort to MathCad, which is a pain.

Or you can avoid the embarrassment and back down from your ad hominems. Your choice.

edit: Quick! Run to wikipedia and find out what a Hamiltonian is!


second edit: Have a preview - here's a fun word problem in beginner quantum physics.

Let's say you have a small lab laser. It has an optical output of 5 mW, and a wavelength of 633 nm. How many photons pass through the output aperture per second?



[edit on 17-9-2007 by Tom Bedlam]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by WorldShadow
As for humankind, knowledge is infinitely indexed into the unknowable light universe. Your spirit at the time of departure retains it's conscious form and wisdom in the light universe. When the conscious form returns for another adventure in the mortal realm, it falls through the ether into physical reality.


Bibble babble. If this was "paranormal", I'd let it slide, but you're in science & tech.


Your evidence for any of this? You say it's unknowable, so I'll take you at your word.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by polomontana

My point is alot of these things can be defined in the parameters of physics. The thing is psychic ability implies life after death and that's a direct challenge to a pre-existing belief system, namely atheism.


Only if you don't have much of a grasp on physics, for example, if your science education consists of reading wikipedia.

Even funnier, I'm not an atheist. I just don't think the subject can be addressed in terms of current science.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Tom Bedlam
 


I wrote this is a response to a guy that said he wanted one logical reason to believe god exists. Keep in my he just wanted a logical reason to believe, not proof of existence.

You should believe in God because God is not a being within the system. You can not find something within the system that is the system as a whole, including us. When science figures things out about our reality they are just figuring things out about 'God', it's just a word that means ALL. Biology explores the way we work but we wouldn't claim we do not exist because we have studied ourselves.

The universe is also played out in the absolute present. That would be a one dimensional point along a two dimensional timeline. How can we, as humans forced to a defined perspective of the universe, even assume that we can deny what we can not observe in its entirety.

Here's an example.

This is hypothetical. You and a friend are in a room watching a tv. You have one eye, your friend has two. He has depth perception, you can not see depth. You also do not see in color but in grey scale.

Get a friend to turn on the tv, puts it on mute and look at it directly confirming there are moving images that resemble real life. Before it comes on you get perpendicular to the tv screen and observe it as a two dimensional plane, it will look like a vertical line (just for argument's sake we'll say you have never even seen the front of the tv while it was on). You look straight down the screen to really make it seem flat. From your observation point there is nothing on the screen to see, it is flat. Your friend on the couch can still see the images on the tv but to you, they do not exist as what he sees.

You and your friend are both looking at the television from these two different perspectives, your friend sees a popular television show that was filmed in a studio while you see nothing very interesting. You don't see the 'show' he's talking about although your friend can describe all types of things about it. From your perspective none of these things exist even though you are both in the same room with two different views of the same experience.

Your friend assumes that because there are real people in the images that it was filmed in a three dimensional place and the images of this show are just two dimensional. Your friend thinks that wherever the show is filmed and where you guys are watching it exist in the same universe. He wonders where this universe exists and has all types of questions about it but is aware of observational limitations because he has observed your limitations.

You think he is crazy so you begin to study the tv from a limited perspective denying the whole time that there is anything more than a flat plane that has no depth or color. Your friend is laughing.

Even if you stepped in front of the television and saw the images on the tv you would still not know what depth or color were. There are infinite limitations we may have and no way to know in what ways we are limited because we have not experienced life without these limitations.

[edit on 9/17/2007 by Spoodily]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Spoodily

I wrote this is a response to a guy that said he wanted one logical reason to believe god exists. Keep in my he just wanted a logical reason, not proof.

You should believe in God because God is not a being within the system. You can not find something within the system that is the system as a whole, including us. When science figures things out about our reality they are just figuring things out about 'God', it's just a word that means ALL. Biology explores the way we work but we wouldn't claim we do not exist because we have studied ourselves.


Ugh. Syncretism, with straw man sauce on top.

I have a friend with schizophrenia. He sees magic ninjas around the house when he's off his meds. They can fly, walk though walls, and listen to his thoughts.

Now, it's possible that they're really there, and no one but Steve can see them. Or maybe he's nuts.

When he's seeing them, it makes perfect sense to him. When he's on the meds, he doesn't understand why he thought that. Are they real, because he sincerely perceives them? Or are they a delusion generated by a malfunction in his wiring?

[edit on 17-9-2007 by Tom Bedlam]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Tom Bedlam
 


Please read my above post as to how atheists believe in a Christian God. I know you have stated you are not an atheist but you are assuming their definition of God.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 08:55 AM
link   
Thank , thank you Tom!


All I want from science subforum is science talk. Can this be done ...pretty please!

Live your 'souls', 'reincarnations', 'pink unicorns' out of science.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by blue bird
Thank , thank you Tom!


Live your 'souls', 'reincarnations', 'pink unicorns' out of science.


Ummm, why are you making such assumptions about the use of fantasy in this thread? Live and leave are two different words also.

The ideas being presented are scientific, but when you hold something so dear because it is printed you aren't doing any better than a devout, Bible touting Christian are you?

I've seen a craft that isn't supposed to exist. Why isn't it supposed to exist? Because it's not talked about in a book. Who's silly, the person saying they are real because they have seen them or the person denying them because they haven't read about them in a science book?

[edit on 9/17/2007 by Spoodily]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 09:17 AM
link   
Yeas, dear member it is pretty much fantasy...little 'theosophy', 'fluffy clouds'...don't just make stuff and try to dress it into science.

I know, I know...its all ego thinking of terrifying notion that we, walking enzymes ( actually with all bacteria 'souls' in us ) will preish - it looks like a survival kit for some of us. And that's OK.. but please don't use thermodynamic for that



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Spoodily
 


Why be insulting. Saying an atheist loves the christian god and the bible is insulting. What's the point of that? Just looking for an argument?

We are familiar with the bible because, in order to argue with the Xians who are always trying to put their religion into the state, and their ID into the schools, we have to "know our enemy."

I'm frankly disgusted by the idea of a god and what is in the bible. So I'd appreciate it if you would a) not speak for how I feel about anything and b) not speak about atheism unless you know whereof you speak.

It's simple. We don't believe in the supernatural. We just have to have a better than working knowledge of what it is supposed to be and what it is not in order to hold our own when people make ridiculous claims about "miracles" et al.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by blue bird
Yeas, dear member it is pretty much fantasy...little 'theosophy', 'fluffy clouds'...don't just make stuff and try to dress it into science.

I know, I know...its all ego thinking of terrifying notion that we, walking enzymes ( actually with all bacteria 'souls' in us ) will preish - it looks like a survival kit for some of us. And that's OK.. but please don't use thermodynamic for that


By your reasoning would it be fair for me to say that stringing a few words together that are poorly spelled at best do not make a concise statement in English and because of this your opinions are not valid here.

I didn't think so but my dictionary and grammar books say that you are saying nothing.

Maybe it is ego that thinks the universe is a system in itself and it has nothing it comes from. This is wrong. I'm not talking magic, I'm talking science. We are actually atoms if you want to get down to it. Everything is comprised of atoms. What can make a frequency consolidate into form? The science that is cymatics. What allows the frequencies that cause cymatics? Time. Where does time come from? The one dimensional point that is the fifth dimension that is emitting it. It's the same energy that powers life. The fourth dimension at one time NEVER EXISTED. Everything in this universe exists in another universe that still exists. Before the big bang the one dimensional point had to have come. It's simple.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by MajorMalfunction
 


I think that the atheists should stay unbiased about the idea of God if they find my observation insulting. I talk a lot in a chat room about this exact topic and see atheists on the opposite side of the Christian fence. By calling them your 'enemy' you acknowledge this. You have taken their beliefs and positioned yourself against those beliefs.

I personally have never read the Bible and have been to church maybe five times in my life. I have watched my fair share of the religious channels on public airwaves when I didn't have cable (it comes in clearest).

My viewpoints are that of a true agnostic that is simply looking for logical explanations to life.


[edit on 9/17/2007 by Spoodily]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by polomontana
Again, I'm not trying to conflate anything. It's very simple. The 1st law of Thermodynamics states, energy can't be created nor destroyed.


it just changes forms. It sounds like with your reasonings a fire should burn for ever.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by ThaDewd
 


Good morning buddy.


A fire can burn forever as long as it is provided a place to burn. The dimensional transfer of energy would be like passing a flame from one torch to another (for example). The temperature may vary depending on the torch (different dimensional realities), but it would still be fire.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Spoodily

The dimensional transfer of energy would be like passing a flame from one torch to another (for example). The temperature may vary depending on the torch (different dimensional realities), but it would still be fire.


I just love it when people get their physics from Sliders.

Yeah, Dewd, the torch can burn forever, but only if it's blessed by the May Queen, then taken to Tir na Nog. Because in Tir na Nog, the dimensional resonance of the time vortexes caused by the reverse polarized tachyons causes a rift in the fifth dimension.

But, of course, only when the moon is in the seventh house, and Jupiter aligns with Mars.

edit: Oh, and I almost forgot, you'll need a unicorn.

[edit on 17-9-2007 by Tom Bedlam]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Spoodily
 



No..it is just one word misspelled, I and I was lazy to edit it - but thank you for opportunity, I will do it now: "perish".

Is this your argument?



The one dimensional point that is the fifth dimension that is emitting it. It's the same energy that powers life. The fourth dimension at one time NEVER EXISTED. Everything in this universe exists in another universe that still exists. Before the big bang the one dimensional point had to have come. It's simple.



Do you have any evidence or you think 'fifth dimension' sound like something nice? Why fifth and not sixth or seventh?



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Tom Bedlam
 


I like your fantasy. It's humorous. Get a grasp on what reality really is and then start picking it apart.

Let's hear your thought's on where the matter that was in the big bang came from, what surrounded that matter and the energy it took to overcome the gravitation pull that it would take to make all of that expand outwards. Because to me, that's sounds a bit like fantasy.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join