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: 8
11
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 10:01 AM
link   
I think we all know the real explanation to the universe. There is only one truth, and that truth is - Time Cube.

All other theories are as nothing to the Time Cube.




posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by blue bird
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?



Here's you and your's evidence of the fifth dimension.

www.space.com...


"It came as a big surprise that some properties of the universe before the Big Bang may have only such a weak influence on current observations that they are practically undetermined," Bojowald said of findings detailed online July 1 in the journal Nature Physics.

One implication of this "cosmic forgetfulness," as Bojowald calls it, is that history does not repeat itself-the fundamental properties of the current era of the universe are different from the last, Bojowald explained. "It's as if the universe forgot some of its properties and acquired new properties independent of what it had before," he told SPACE.com.


That 'cosmic forgetfulness' they are looking at is time creating frequencies that create matter. The universe was never all compressed into a ball at one point. Once the system was started it could maintain and create within itself. Everything is frequency (energy).

I call it the fifth dimension because one through four are taken. I already decribed its 'time' as the sixth dimension because we call the third dimension's time the fourth.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
I think we all know the real explanation to the universe. There is only one truth, and that truth is - Time Cube.

All other theories are as nothing to the Time Cube.


You're never going to find the horse by digging through the manure.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 10:13 AM
link   
I'm not quite sure why you think "frequencies create matter".

Cymatics doesn't deal with matter creation, more like Chladni patterns. But go on, it's fun to listen to.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Tom Bedlam
 


Cymatics deals with all frequencies, not just sound. Sound is just a practical example. The frequencies will adhere to metatron's cube. How long it takes frequency to solidify into matter when time is the only thing present, I do not know. But I am still waiting for your explanation of the big bang and the formation of the universe, because I'd really love to hear that.

Keep in mind that metatron's cube is a fractal and scalable to infinity. It is represented in two dimensions but that simply makes it easier to look at. This image would be a cross section.





[edit on 9/17/2007 by Spoodily]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Tom Bedlam
 


Tom, I am totally not religious and do not believe in a god. But; I have experienced it myself as a sphere of light energy and was shown the universe of darkness with a quick glimpse into the light universe.

To explain it scientifically will not happen. Religion is BS and the bible is a story book. The reality is we are energy signatures en fleshed with a physical sense that is expirational.

Although it sounds biblical, how can one explain something thats so unknowable from this end. I use descriptive words to tell my experience that have a root in religious text. The difference is I am not promoting to begin a doctrine, just explain the events as it is.

I further believe this reality is an illusion created by the universe of light for each energy signature to explore the mortal realm as a physical being. Our very future relies upon the sophistication building upon itself as our minds conceive achievement of the, for a better word, construct or illusion.

Science may one day make a connection, until than we have to discuss and explore the mystery of ourselves in any and all ways possible. My thought is the answer is there, we just have to continue discussing it in a rational manner for listening minds to apply words of understanding to the unknowable.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Odd, because it really seems that cymatics deals with the interaction between waves and matter, and typically sound waves at that.

How do you plan to have an interaction between frequency and nothingness, since you're postulating that created matter?

Worse, what sort of wave function is it? Certainly not sound. You haven't said frequency of what yet.

As far as cosmology goes, I'm not all that interested except in one very focused area. Nor do I have to be, really, had you said that the universe was created by Skladnor the Elf defecating in the void, I'd take exception to that too. One doesn't really have to have an alternative explanation not to agree with something that sounds like manky bollocks.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by WorldShadow
reply to post by Tom Bedlam
 


Tom, I am totally not religious and do not believe in a god. But; I have experienced it myself as a sphere of light energy and was shown the universe of darkness with a quick glimpse into the light universe.

To explain it scientifically will not happen. Religion is BS and the bible is a story book. The reality is we are energy signatures en fleshed with a physical sense that is expirational.


How do you know you weren't, how shall I put it, seeing things? That it wasn't a delusion or misperception, however comforting, that you needed to see to fulfill some psychological need?

Steve thinks magic ninjas are real, too, sees them, can describe them, it's very spooky and convincing. Especially the part where he hears Satan talking from the sink drain telling him to kill himself.

I'm also mildly curious about the "was shown" aspect, that implies a "shower" and a "showee", if you will. So if you refute the concept of a God, yet there is a being which can show you the true nature of the universe (putatively), does not fulfill the definition of God?

I'll also file an objection to the metaphysical/theosophic use of "energy" here, unless you're talking about EM fields, chemical bonds or the like. Heat would do as well. But I'd bet you're using it ala Polo, where you might more accurately have said "spirit" or "pneuma".



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
Odd, because it really seems that cymatics deals with the interaction between waves and matter, and typically sound waves at that.

How do you plan to have an interaction between frequency and nothingness, since you're postulating that created matter?

Worse, what sort of wave function is it? Certainly not sound. You haven't said frequency of what yet.

As far as cosmology goes, I'm not all that interested except in one very focused area. Nor do I have to be, really, had you said that the universe was created by Skladnor the Elf defecating in the void, I'd take exception to that too. One doesn't really have to have an alternative explanation not to agree with something that sounds like manky bollocks.


The frequencies interacted with other frequencies. The frequencies were from the entire spectrum, just as the color white comprises all colors. Some frequencies were more adept to tranferring their energy as matter. After all, energy can not be created or destroyed, energy has always existed, matter has not, especially in this universe.

Your jesting about fantasy elves and mythical figures is juvenile.

I am still waiting to here your version of the creation of the universe. I'll start you off: Big bang, go.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam

Originally posted by WorldShadow
reply to post by Tom Bedlam
 


How do you know you weren't, how shall I put it, seeing things? That it wasn't a delusion or misperception, however comforting, that you needed to see to fulfill some psychological need?



Maybe it is comforting for you to think there is nothing beyond our universe or our lives. I know I would prefer to not exist any longer when I die but the more I look into it the more I see that that is wishful thinking.

It really simplifies things when you just don't acknowledge them. Easier on the mind that way I guess.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Spoodily
The frequencies interacted with other frequencies. The frequencies were from the entire spectrum, just as the color white comprises all colors. Some frequencies were more adept to tranferring their energy as matter. After all, energy can not be created or destroyed, energy has always existed, matter has not, especially in this universe.


Frequencies of WHAT? You understand that you don't just have "frequency", frequency is an attribute of a periodic phenomenon? So something can HAVE a frequency, but just saying that "a frequency did it" is meaningless.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Some here really need to explain their definition of and understanding on some of the words and sciencey sounding comments they make, otherwise its hard and a bit pointless to have a decent discussion, we are in the Science & Technology forum remember?

[edit on 17/9/07 by just theory]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Tom Bedlam
 


Ok, everything just existed. That makes much more sense.


Remember what I said about the source? That one dimensional point contains all the information that our entire universe does, will and has, all at the same time no less. It's just a transfer of energy. Once time for our universe comes into play, the system started. It's like evolution for energy. Form for function, function for form. This universe has a completely different method for time that the one that created it.

I don't know what is so hard about understanding that energy is energy whether it is in a physical or frequency state.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by just theory
Some here really need to explain their definition of and understanding on some of the words and sciencey sounding comments they make, otherwise its hard and a bit pointless to have a decent discussion, we are in the Science & Technology forum remember?

[edit on 17/9/07 by just theory]


We're also on a site who's motto is 'Deny Ignorance'. Putting ideas out isn't hurting anyone and the handicapping of people who don't act pretentious 24/7 is ludicrous.

Seems like there's a witch hunt comparable to when people first claimed the Earth was round, the sun doesn't revolve around the Earth and maggots come from flies, not spoiled meat.

The idea behind science is that it's not done, ever. If people can't take some outside viewpoints and new ways of thinking then maybe science isn't for them.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Tom Bedlam
 

I don't think he understands what electromagnetic radiation is and how it interacts with matter.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 12:43 PM
link   
]reply to post by Tom Bedlam
 



How do you know you weren't, how shall I put it, seeing things? That it wasn't a delusion or misperception, however comforting, that you needed to see to fulfill some psychological need?


My eyes were closed so seeing is not relevant but your correct, it wasn't a delusion or misperception.


Steve thinks magic ninjas are real, too, sees them, can describe them, it's very spooky and convincing. Especially the part where he hears Satan talking from the sink drain telling him to kill himself


Who's this, a discriptive alter ego?


I'm also mildly curious about the "was shown" aspect, that implies a "shower" and a "showee", if you will. So if you refute the concept of a God, yet there is a being which can show you the true nature of the universe (putatively), does not fulfill the definition of God?


No being was involved. That is a proposed supposition on your part.


I'll also file an objection to the metaphysical/theosophic use of "energy" here, unless you're talking about EM fields, chemical bonds or the like. Heat would do as well. But I'd bet you're using it ala Polo, where you might more accurately have said "spirit" or "pneuma".


Your implide connection, energy to spirit is correct.

I will now have to end my responsive presence in this thread. the thread is scientific based and my experience is not recognized in that view point. Thank you for alerting me to the fact. I have only been on ATS for a short time and still learning the ins and outs of posting and in the future clicking on recent post, look to the thread category before joining in.

Best regards,



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 12:53 PM
link   
It seems this Wikipedia scholar is running circles around people who have degrees in physics
.

So far, Tom and others are the ones going beyond physics to try and hold on to their death belief. The physics they are espousing says nothing about these things, but things like theoretical physics, digital physics, brane cosmology and more have alot to say about it.

It seems Tom and others have basically conceded to the basic premise of my post, they are now trying to answer questions that go beyond your everyday Newtonian 2nd year physics class.

You mostly hear about madame Blatksy or elves in lieu of any substantive discussion. This reminds of a quote from biologist Alfred Russel Wallace who worked with Darwin on Natural Selection. He was also a Spiritualist:

I thus learnt my first great lesson in the inquiry into these obscure fields of knowledge, never to accept the disbelief of great men or their accusations of imposture or of imbecility, as of any weight when opposed to the repeated observation of facts by other men, admittedly sane and honest. The whole history of science shows us that whenever the educated and scientific men of any age have denied the facts of other investigators on a priori grounds of absurdity or impossibility, the deniers have always been wrong.

Lets give a general history of the universe.

In the bulk exists an infinite number of potential universes. A quantum fluctuation occurs in the bulk and one of these potential realities becomes an observed reality. These potential realities are called many worlds, many minds, bubble universes, branes and more. Even Hawking-Hartles wave function of the universe in quantum cosmology not only provides for these potential realities but connects them through wormholes.

The bulk in brane cosmology helps to explain the weakness of gravity relative to the other forces of nature. In short, gravity is not confined to our brane but the other forces of nature are. So gravity 'seeps" into our brane. This was something harvard theoretical physicist Lisa Randall talked about in a very interesting documentary on parallel universes. you can check it out here: www.youtube.com...

There's some experimental evidence of the bulk through the MiniBoone experiment on sterile neutrinos. It seems as if sterile neutrinos cross the bulk.

It seems Tom and others are under the delusion that we have an objective existence seperate from our infinite structure. Plato had it right, we are shadows of something greater than ourselves. Einstein was in awe of the glimpses into this infinite structure that physics could bring. Dr. Michio kaku calls it constant creation in a sea of Nirvana.

This also brings us to things like the paranormal and ufology. These things can be explained within theoretical physics. Some choose to stick their head in the sand in the face of evidence that supports these things.

In ufology for instance you have eyewitness accounts from Presidents, pilots, high ranking government oficials, police officers and more. In any sense of the word logic these accounts would be given more weight than the skeptics opinion but this is not the case here. It's like a skeptic going to the eyewitness of a crime and saying it didn't happen based on my opinion . In areas like ufology and the paranormal that run counter to pre-existing belief systems this logic is accepted.

The Travis Walton case alone is conclusive evidence of ufology. There's no other explanation. We would have to suspend reason and accept the opinion of the skeptic.

www.travis-walton.com...
www.youtube.com...

My point is that true freethinkers follow the truth wherever it may lead. Many atheist deny these things based on their pre-existing belief system which is truly sad.



[edit on 17-9-2007 by polomontana]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spoodily
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.


Cite source please.



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


Cite source please.



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


Nugget of truth.



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


Probably true, since scientists theorize everything else, including the 4 forces, derived from this point.



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

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


... What?



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.


Cite sources please? I'm sorry but you can't criticize science when you are making foundation-less facts from your... personal explorations?



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.


That may be a way to visualize time, but I wouldn't necessarily say that it IS a one dimensional point on a two dimensional line.




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


... ... what?



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).


What are you even talking about? None of this makes much sense. There is no evidence to suggest there is anything separate from the biochemical processes of the brain that comprises consciousness. Science is not this cold, heartless, limited approach to viewing the world, it's rather simply observational analysis, no different than "the sky is blue." If everyone cannot see that the sky is blue, and only a few people can look up and say it is blue, then it may not be blue. If everyone cannot plainly see that there is a soul that exists, then it may not exist, and you have to face the fact that your "feelings" and "spiritual revelations" are emotional experiences and not physical experiences of real observation.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spoodily

We're also on a site who's motto is 'Deny Ignorance'. Putting ideas out isn't hurting anyone and the handicapping of people who don't act pretentious 24/7 is ludicrous.


Well putting ideas out is fine if you at least make that clear, the problem arises when you don't do this and try to use words and say things so it sounds like science when it's not or questionable at best.


Seems like there's a witch hunt comparable to when people first claimed the Earth was round, the sun doesn't revolve around the Earth and maggots come from flies, not spoiled meat.


What rubbish, do you use that line when ever you come up against these sort of reasoned opposing arguments?


The idea behind science is that it's not done, ever. If people can't take some outside viewpoints and new ways of thinking then maybe science isn't for them.


Viewpoints are one thing, testable evidence is another.


reply to post by polomontana
 

Are you even going to acknowledge and respond to this point at all?




posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by polomontana

This also brings us to things like the paranormal and ufology. These things can be explained within theoretical physics. Some choose to stick their head in the sand in the face of evidence that supports these things.

In ufology for instance you have eyewitness accounts from Presidents, pilots, high ranking government oficials, police officers and more. In any sense of the word logic these accounts would be given more weight than the skeptics opinion but this is not the case here. It's like a skeptic going to the eyewitness of a crime and saying it didn't happen based on my opinion . In areas like ufology and the paranormal that run counter to pre-existing belief systems this logic is accepted.

The Travis Walton case alone is conclusive evidence of ufology. There's no other explanation. We would have to suspend reason and accept the opinion of the skeptic.

www.travis-walton.com...
www.youtube.com...

My point is that true freethinkers follow the truth wherever it may lead. Many atheist deny these things based on their pre-existing belief system which is truly sad.
[edit on 17-9-2007 by polomontana]


I wish people would stop bashing atheists, they really have nothing to do with what you're talking about.

For one thing, Travis Walton's testimony and having been missing are not definitive proof that he was abducted by aliens. He very well good have had a schizophrenic episode in the woods for 5 days, lied, etc.

You have to consider ALL the possibilities. Considering most people don't have an abduction experience, the testimony of a few does not prove anything, especially considering that nobody has been able to validate their experiences, through taking artifacts, marks on their bodies etc.

I don't recall a president having a close encounter experience.

Now, pilots, high ranking officials, and important military people have made these claims, but these are people too. Being a pilot, a high ranking official, or a military guy doesn't make you any more credible as a civilian when it comes to PROVING the existence of aliens or alien craft.

I'm not a believer or a non-believer. I have done a lot of research into paranormal phenomenon, since I was in middle school, and I've read a dozen books or so on various subjects and read tons and tons of internet articles as well as seen tons more television documentaries recounting tales of people's experiences. The bottom line is, the community is skeptical because NO DEFINITIVE PROOF EXISTS as of yet. When we have proof, we believe, when we don't, we question. This isn't about people not WANTING to believe, this is about people refusing to believe without due evidence. If we find proof of extraterrestrial visitation on earth, bigfoot, chupacabras, mothmen, ghosts, demons, other kinds of apparitions... then most people will acknowledge the reality of their existence, and only a minority will still deny out of fear.

I think the reality is, a fair amount of people who believe with all their heart that these things must exist are unfair to skeptics in accusing them of burying their heads in the sand. If you are going to believe that these things DO EXIST, you do so under the understanding that there is currently no proof and you are putting faith into this.

People claim to see angels, saints, and Jesus. Like-minded people believe their testimony on faith, not reason.

Don't bash people for being rational.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join