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: 9
11
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Zaarg asked for a link to the story about the psychic. Here's what I found. Even the skeptical detective acknowledges the psychic. I can give you example after example like this. You had detectives who tried to test a psychic before they showed her the current case.

They put 5 pictures upside down on the table and asked her to pick the picture of the killer and she did to their amazement. She then talked about energy and how your energy is affected when you kill someone. These are not just some guy off the street vouching for the psychic, these are police veterans. You would have to suspend reason and say a little ole grandma fooled these veteran police officers who are trained to be skeptics. Instead it makes more sense to examine these things within certain theories like and they make sense when you look at them this way.

Psychic ability occurs naturally, it's not a supernatural event. We call it supernatural because we don't fully understand and some like atheist fear it because it directly challenges their pre-existing belief system.

www.angelfire.com...




posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 02:59 PM
link   
No one dies we simply move on, the body in which we exist dies our energy lives on passing through the system of this three dimentional reality in which we live.
We are reincarnated many times over, this is why so many have recalled past lives.
The true human is trapped within the cycle of this reincarnation by the overpowering architect that has created this world.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Zaarg,

That's not the Travis Walton case. There were seven witnesses who saw the spacecraft and saw Travis get out of the truck and get struck by a blue light from the craft. The guys in the truck took off and the driver stopped and turned the truck around to try and help Travis.

Here are the list of eyewitnesses:

www.travis-walton.com...

The skeptic only has their opinion, they don't have any evidence. In ufology you have both direct and circumstantial evidence. So do I follow the evidence or the skeptics opinion? That's an easy answer.

Direct evidence - eyewitness accounts from Presidents, police officers, pilots and more.

Circumstantial evidence - cave painting, ancient manuscripts, paintings, photos and video.


[edit on 17-9-2007 by polomontana]

[edit on 17-9-2007 by polomontana]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 04:17 PM
link   
I am still waiting for a thorough description and explanation of the Big Bang or any variation of the creation of this universe.

Here's a newsflash, there aren't sources for new science. I linked the article about seeing further than ever before into the big bang. I think it's rediculous that I am arguing in support of the Big Bang and the critics can't even give me a definition as to what the Big bang means to them.

Please, I am waiting for an answer that doesn't involve 'energy can not be created or destroyed so the universe has always existed as three dimensional in the fourth dimesnion of time'. That's the maggots in the meat argument. Where are the flies?



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Badge01 wrote:
Turn off the PC and that 'alive' person you were just talking to is gone. Do they still exist in the absence of the PC? No.

Same way for the 'Meat-based Super Quantum Computer' that is you.

When the meat and flesh becomes so disorganized that the necessary reactions can not proceed, the 'you' die.

Is there a 'you' when the 'human computer/brain/neuron net' is gone? Well, by analogy, the answer is the same as with the electronic computer.


I'm willing to entertain the idea that this reality is nothing more than a computer simulation running on a super quantum computer. If we are simply AI constructs within this simulation, then yes when the power is turned off, we will cease to exist. There is however the possibility that it's a virtual reality simulation and that consciously we are all plugged in from the outside, so in that case we also exist outside this simulation and that means there is life beyond this reality.


I love the Tibetan's beliefs in regards to life and death.


Tibetan book of living & dying:
People often make the mistake of being frivolous about death and think, 'Oh well, death happens to everybody. It's not a big deal, it's natural. I'll be fine'. Thats a nice theory until one is dying." Without any real or authentic faith in an afterlife, most people live lives deprived of any ultimate meaning. Believing fundamentally that this life the only one, modern people have developed no long term vision. So there is nothing to restrain them from plundering the planet for their own immediate ends and from living in a selfish way that could prove fatal for the future.

“Modern industrial society is a fanatical religion. We are demolishing, poisoning, and destroying all life-systems on the planet. We are signing IOUs our children will not be able to pay. Without radical changes in heart, mind, vision and action, the Earth will end up like Venus, dead!” Brazilian Minister for the Environment

There is no place on earth where death cannot find us - even if we constantly twist our heads about in all directions as in a dubious and suspect land … If there were any way of sheltering from death's blows - I am not the man to recoil from it … But it is madness to think that you can succeed …

Men come and they go and they trot and they dance, and never a word about death. All well and good. Yet when death does come - to them, their wives, their children, their friends - catching them unawares and unprepared, then what storms of passion overwhelm them, what cries, what fury, what despair! …

To begin depriving death of its greatest advantage over us, let us adopt a way clean contrary to that common one; let us deprive death of its strangeness, let us frequent it, let us get used to it; let us have nothing more often in mind than death … We do not know where death awaits us: so let us wait for it everywhere. To practice death is to practice freedom. A man who has learned how to die has unlearned how to be a slave. Michel de Montaigne 1533-1592



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by polomontana
It seems this Wikipedia scholar is running circles around people who have degrees in physics
.


Only in your own mind. I note that your stellar grasp of quantum physics hasn't proved sufficient to win the field against my very easy question. So much for your understanding of quantum 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.


Actually, bollocks. Not that you'd understand what they have to say about it, because you don't understand any of 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.


Again, only in your mind. We've basically cleaned the floor with you on every point of your belief. But you don't understand it, so like another poster I could name, you state something absurd and declare victory when you don't understand the replies you receive.



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...


...and therefore full of excrement. However, I'm quite right in identifying the source of your confusion as theosophy, at least that's where it mostly originated from. The elves came in when it was quite obvious that you were unable to understand a substantive answer, and it became amusing. Like you are now.




Lets give a general history of the universe.


Delivered by a guy that doesn't understand basic physics...this should be fun.



In the bulk ..bla bla bla..Einstein...bla bla..Kaku.


And bees smell fear, and the human head weighs about 8 pounds.

A nice long soliloquy, with no relevance that I can see to your statement.



This also brings us to things like the paranormal and ufology. These things can be explained within theoretical physics..bla bla bla Travis Walton...bla bla bla ... UFOs...bla bla bla. We would have to suspend reason and accept the opinion of the skeptic.


Reason...I do not think this word means what you think it means.

However, I knew you'd have to bring in UFOs and the occult eventually. Thanks.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpoodilyOnce 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.


Spood:

There really ISN'T something called "a frequency state".

Frequency is an attribute of repetitive phenomena. It is not a "thing" in and of itself.

It's sort of like saying some large amplitudes got together. The statement is incomplete until you add "large amplitude of what".



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 04:59 PM
link   
“If someone says they understand quantum mechanics, they don’t.”

Richard Feyneman



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spoodily
Here's a newsflash, there aren't sources for new science. I linked the article about seeing further than ever before into the big bang. I think it's rediculous that I am arguing in support of the Big Bang and the critics can't even give me a definition as to what the Big bang means to them.


As I said previously, cosmology leaves me cold except for one or two very focused areas.

But I don't have to have a new exciting cosmology - I'm enjoying asking you "frequency of WHAT" and you not being able to tell me. That I'm not a cosmology buff doesn't prevent me from asking the simple questions you can't answer.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by kindred
“If someone says they understand quantum mechanics, they don’t.”

Richard Feyneman


I agree, but there's various levels of ignorance.

You have Deepak Chopra, who only understands that he can quote buzzwords and make money. You have polo, who thinks he does but can't do a first semester qp problem. You have me, who sees simple twistors and goes "hoo boy I hate tensor calculus, warm up the mathcad and mathematica". And you have Feynman, who walks on water, second only to von Neumann, who made the water by the power of his mind.

If not, then your quote is a "This statement is false" type of paradox. If Feynman doesn't understand ANYTHING about quantum mechanics, then he can't make the statement.

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



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 05:59 PM
link   
Why is it ignorance. I see it as an honest statement. When it comes to Quantum Physics, most theories are unproven. Science has yet to provide proof of an afterlife but that doesn't mean there isn't one.

I've yet to read any of Deepak Chopra's books so I cant comment on his reputation. You probably think the same about Robert Bruce-Astral Dynamics. But thanks to people like him and his excellent books. I've probably experienced the best gift I could ever hope for in life. Personal proof that there is an afterlife.

Based on my own personal experiences I believe there is, as I've had first hand experience of the afterlife. I've had an NDE and numerous outter body experiences. Of course I cant prove it to anyone else, but then I couldn't careless what anyone else thinks regardless of who they are. I've proved it to myself and that's all that matters. Having said that I'm still none the wiser as to the bigger picture. I got a glimpse, but that's all. Through meditation I'll just continue to search within until I find the answers I'm looking for and I have all the tools I need to do exactly that. My own mind.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by wigit
I don't know about physics but it doesn't make sense to me. Okay, I expect a body to die and rot, but not ME that's inside THIS body. I don't think this is all that I am. There are millions of folk on this planet, animals too, and plants if you want to call them conscious beings. But there's only one of me who sees it all from my perspective. Maybe I'm the only one? My body/container will die but I can't die. There would be no purpose to me being here in the first place. The universe will cease to exist if I die. That surely means I'm taking you all with me? If I die you all go? No?

[edit on 15-9-2007 by wigit]


When you die your self awareness ends. The parts of your body that created your self awareness decomposes and that energy become other forms of energy , gas, insect food etc... Your self awareness is not energy in and of itself it is simply a by product of certain reactions withen other energies.

When you die its like a light bulb going out. No more light except you cannot turn it back on if you did not save the information in your brain and have another to put it into. Cloning and memory transfer is the only way to immortal life.

No we all do not go with you you just end.

Being just gone is not all that bad really. You no longer exist so you no longer fear, feel, hate, love, think. Death really only hurts those left behind who miss you. Fear of nothingness is what drives religions as we just do not want to accpt the fact that our awareness our uniqueness can just end.

[edit on 17-9-2007 by Xeven]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 06:20 PM
link   
First of all, I'd like to apologise for my poor knowledge of the English language.

I believe polo has made a soup, consisting of physics, pseudo-physics, meta-physics and a bit of his own theories, in order to complete his own theory about some kind of "energy" that makes afterlife a reality.

Afterlife maybe is real, maybe not, but polo your whole theory is a big big mess.

You seem unable to understand the meaning of the word energy as a term in physics. And energy is not alive.

Our consciousness is the result of chemical/electrical reactions in our brain. Our consciousness is not energy. At least, this is what we really know for now.

But if it is, please tell us how to measure it.

What we really really know, is that we know almost nothing about the universe, about the nature of our own consciousness and bottom end, we aren't even sure about the reality we witness and take for granted.

But because a guy said that the universe looks like a giant computer and because there are psycics out there and because we have OOBEs all these are not proofs of afterlife.

They are just indications for something. That something maybe is the afterlife, God, or more chemical/electrical mysteries of the brain.

We don't know yet and certainly you don't know either.

Tom Bedlam, I'd like to thank you for your intelligent posts in here but I suggest you should direct your energy on other threads.

The topic creator seems unable to receive opinions that don't much his own.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by kindred
Through meditation I'll just continue to search within until I find the answers I'm looking for and I have all the tools I need to do exactly that. My own mind.



My point exactly. Religion, meditation, philosophy, these are the proper tools for this research, IMHO.

It isn't a "science-y" thing. That doesn't mean that it is meaningless, just that you can't (IMHO) whup out thermodynamics, make a couple of simplistic (and wrong) statements and say "voila, I have proved an afterlife using physics". Noooo, really you haven't. But that doesn't mean it isn't worthy of consideration as a topic, but to me using physics to discuss "pneuma" or whatever you'd like to call it is a bit like delivering a baby with a post-hole digger.

It's the wrong tool.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by panther512
 


don't shoot the messanger, polo might not know exactly what he or she is talking about, but that doesn't make this thread a waste of space. In my opinion i don't think no one won or lost while debating. I think everyone just got a little wiser or smarter. Anyway thanks at least for the wonderfull post polo.



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by polomontana
Zaarg asked for a link to the story about the psychic. Here's what I found. Even the skeptical detective acknowledges the psychic. I can give you example after example like this. You had detectives who tried to test a psychic before they showed her the current case.

They put 5 pictures upside down on the table and asked her to pick the picture of the killer and she did to their amazement. She then talked about energy and how your energy is affected when you kill someone. These are not just some guy off the street vouching for the psychic, these are police veterans. You would have to suspend reason and say a little ole grandma fooled these veteran police officers who are trained to be skeptics. Instead it makes more sense to examine these things within certain theories like and they make sense when you look at them this way.

Psychic ability occurs naturally, it's not a supernatural event. We call it supernatural because we don't fully understand and some like atheist fear it because it directly challenges their pre-existing belief system.

www.angelfire.com...


First of all, from what I can tell, this is NOT an official news site of any kind.
Second of all, the article is full of gross misspelling and grammar issues.
Third of all, the website has an advertisement for the psychic at the bottom.

Looks like the page was made by the "psychic" as an attempt to gain business, if you ask me.



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by polomontana
Zaarg,

That's not the Travis Walton case. There were seven witnesses who saw the spacecraft and saw Travis get out of the truck and get struck by a blue light from the craft. The guys in the truck took off and the driver stopped and turned the truck around to try and help Travis.


Wikipedia Article

According to the wiki article, there is a lot of controversy regarding a polygraph test that Travis was asked to take after the incident. The controversy lies in the disputed claims that he either failed two tests or the administer was acting unprofessionally. Either way, this casts some shadow of doubt. Also, some investigators supposedly found "story-blowing inconsistencies"

Here is another important point:



Matheson argues that Walton's book makes a few fundamental errors that severely harm his case. While Travis "proclaims self-righteously" that he intends only to relate events and not "interpret" them, Matheson writes that "the reader will see almost immediately that large sections of the book are nothing more than highly speculative, purely imaginative recreations on his part." (Matheson, 109) For example, after he is zapped by the blue beam and knocked unconscious, Walton offers precise, novelistic dialogue describing the conversations of his fellow crew workers after they drove away in a panic. Yet Walton never mentions if he is paraphrasing their words based on what they related to him, if he interviewed the others to determine who said what, or if he simply assumed what they said. Matheson argues this represents a "lack of concern for literal accuracy that the reader cannot help but suspect is characteristic of the entire work." (Matheson, 110)


If Travis and his friends invented the story, and were stupid, then his book would probably read like a novel.



Here are the list of eyewitnesses:

www.travis-walton.com...

The skeptic only has their opinion, they don't have any evidence. In ufology you have both direct and circumstantial evidence. So do I follow the evidence or the skeptics opinion? That's an easy answer.

Direct evidence - eyewitness accounts from Presidents, police officers, pilots and more.

Circumstantial evidence - cave painting, ancient manuscripts, paintings, photos and video.


[edit on 17-9-2007 by polomontana]

[edit on 17-9-2007 by polomontana]


First of all, your assessment of what evidence skeptics have, and your assessment of what counts as direct and circumstantial evidence, is incorrect.

In the court of law, testimony can be used as direct evidence, but I *believe* a case cannot rest solely on eyewitness testimony; there has to be physical evidence. People can make visual mistakes or have ulterior motives and lie under oath.

Direct Evidence

Now, there have been many UFO cases with multiple witnesses. Even the original quintessential abduction case, the Betty and Barney Hill incident, consisted of two people. The Alagash abduction story had multiple witnesses as well. There was also a case when there was a supposed UFO sighting at a British air force base, and RAF Officers swear they saw a UFO and little men at the bottom.

These testimonies are supporting evidence, but not PROOF of factuality or the existence of aliens and their spacecraft. There is a lot of money to be made off of such stories (especially at the time), and there are other reasons why a group of people might lie. Mothman, for example, is a creature supported by sightings from hundreds of people, and I believe, after having done a lot of research, that it is a lie perpetuated by the town to generate tourism. That oppinion is based off of the fact that there exists no physical evidence of Mothman, and that this creature has only been sighted near that town.

(Continued on another post)



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by kindred
Based on my own personal experiences I believe there is, as I've had first hand experience of the afterlife. I've had an NDE and numerous outter body experiences. Of course I cant prove it to anyone else, but then I couldn't careless what anyone else thinks regardless of who they are.


Of course you dont have to prove anything, nor should you feel you have to. Its all opinions anyway.

As I have an opinion that NDE and O.B.E. are all in the mind.
(Having had similar experiences myself, it made me ponder other peoples experiences as well as my own - and the most consistent conclusion is that its the mind)

I would venture to guess that all the people who have N.D.E.s are not brain dead.
1 day is like a 1000 years, 1000 years is like a day. When your 'out' you can have a whole 'eternity' pass by before you 'wake up' again, so to speak.

Like in dreams where days can seemingly pass by and many events and stories take place in the place of a few seconds/minutes of dreaming time.

So when our neurons stop firing, we 'loose our place in the force Luke' - or rather become 'one' with it, and 'unconscious' of 'ourselves' (that which we call ourself now.)
Like energy dispersed in the ocean...billions of particles of who we are separate and blend with the environment around it, no longer having an 'identity'.

Sure it may sound like a bummer - but Im sure someone, somewhere will (or has) found a way to physical 'immortality' of sorts. No doubt about it - albeit, I highly doubt it is/will be for the masses. Select few.
Kind of reminds me of the movie the 6th day (yes, I know that the cloning aspect was not the 'actual' person reliving, thats not the point Im going with which is...) in the movie the main 'bad dude' would plant somekind of 'bug/virus/disease' in the cloned bodies as to ensure that they would not survive if they 'rebelled' whatnot.

Same with immortality, its not for the masses...or not available.
Who knows, with all the dna collection that is being done it may be like a mini 'Noahs Ark' - or 'major', in trying to collect samples to reproduce a species or to 'raise the dead' in a certain manner of speaking. So I suppose if you want some form of 'you' to be around, better not complain in the conspiracy forums about your dna being taken or you may be 'blotted out of the lambs book of life' - see a connection to the terminology/symbolism? Of course one would question to what purpose an 'freedom' "they" would have once someone reconstructed 'them' from the dna. (I use quotes, as the word is not the right one...its not actually 'you'...'you' is gone, its more like a 'clone' I suppose.

But interesting topics for sure. Nothing to get down about, on the contrary, it should make one search further. After all..."dum spiro spero" - while I have breathe I have hope. ;-)

Peace

dAlen



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 12:55 AM
link   
(Continued from my last post)

Now, you mention that a skeptic questioning their testimony is "making an oppinion about their honesty/factuality of claims without proof."

The real world works like this:

Burden of Proof

Anyone giving testimony about something needs physical evidence to back their claims or otherwise their claim will not hold alone (again from the law example). Were this not the case, a murder could occur after which a man could be arrested and held trial because a witness placed him at the scene of the crime. Of even five or six people swear it was him, unless they can prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was him, he walks. That proof must consist of physical evidence. If 6 people claim it was him, it's still possible there was a look-alike out there who perpetrated the crime.

Another important point to bring up about abductions and UFO sightings, and this relates to the concept of burden of proof, is the concept of Ockhams Razor. The concept is simple enough for me to explain it here without a quote, but you can read the wiki page if you'd like.

Occam's Razor (Also Ockham's Razor)

Basically, the concept is this: The possibility which is most PROBABLY true or correct is the one that makes the LEAST ASSUMPTIONS.

If we assume that they are telling the truth, we must also assume:
1) Aliens exist
2) Aliens have visited earth
3) UFO sightings are of alien spacecraft visiting earth
4) We don't know this because: 4a) The government is hiding the truth 4.a.1) The government has struck a hidden deal with the aliens 4.a.2) The government is hiding the truth due to threats from the aliens 4.a.3) The government is hiding the truth because they have stolen technology from the aliens 4.a.x) Many more reasons 4.b) The aliens have hidden themselves from the people and the government 4.c) This occurrence, and maybe a handful of others, were the only real alien encounters on earth, and all other UFO sightings are explainable or hoaxes, and the remaining unknown cases aren't enough to warrant any real government activity.
5) The aliens are flipping retarded, and know how to build interstellar or inter-dimensional craft but have extremely primitive medical examination procedures.
6) The aliens actually live under water, under ground, or somewhere very near the planet, thus explaining their primitive medical examination procedures. 6.x) TONS more explaining to do
x) A million more assumptions

OR

(phew)

If we assume the event did not occur, we might also assume:
1) The men were lying 1.a) For money 1.b) For attention/publicity (or for money as well) 1.c) For the purposes of perpetuating mass hysteria 1.d) For some religious/occult reason 1.e) A huge drug trip which involved them all feeding each other's hallucinations. 1.x) Many other reasons
2) The men were mistaken (unlikely)
3) The government did this to experiment on it's people (unlikely, but funny)

Now, each assumption comes chained with it's own set of required additional assumptions, as well as their deviation from normal past events (for example we can safely say the sky will probably not flash rainbow colors tomorrow because it never has and we have no reason to believe it will). If we consider that, we can then proceed in recognizing that the assumptions required for the possibility that this event DID NOT OCCUR are far more "likely" and require less assumptions in general than if the event did occur.

Thus, by being tedious here, I have used Ockham's Razor, a tool of simple logic, to knock out the pillar of probability holding this case together. Since the burden of proof rests on the witnesses to provide physical evidence of the encounter, and to which theres none, we can safely say that there is NO ABSOLUTE PROOF THAT THIS EVENT EVER OCCURRED.

Make sense?



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Spoodily
I am still waiting for a thorough description and explanation of the Big Bang or any variation of the creation of this universe.

Here's a newsflash, there aren't sources for new science. I linked the article about seeing further than ever before into the big bang. I think it's rediculous that I am arguing in support of the Big Bang and the critics can't even give me a definition as to what the Big bang means to them.

Please, I am waiting for an answer that doesn't involve 'energy can not be created or destroyed so the universe has always existed as three dimensional in the fourth dimesnion of time'. That's the maggots in the meat argument. Where are the flies?


Basically, there is physical observational evidence that suggests the Universe "started" this way.

WIKI BIG BANG

If you really care about this, read it yourself, because I've already posted a whole ton and I want the people I was addressing in my other posts to notice the very lengthy explanations and logical-breakdowns I made for them.

If you are into metaphysical/philosophical type stuff, try reading some books at the library. I recommend "Elegant Universe" and other books by that author, that talk about String Theory. Also try some books about the Big Bang theory that will do a lot more to explain it than a wiki article.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join