It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by badmedia
You can't learn physics from the television. It is too complicated. There's too much of it. And the mathematics is too messy.
When you read science articles in the popular media - even the popular-science media - you aren't reading science. You're reading journalism about science. Big difference. Often - even on dedicated science media like Space.com - what you read is oversimplified, garbled through incomprehension, twisted to play up the 'story value' or just plain wrong.
To say you don't understand physics is not a personal insult. Neither is it an insult to point out that you are totally unqualified to talk about physics. These are simply facts, which you can rectify by taking a course in the subject.
It would be an insult if somebody said you were to stupid, or too crazy or whatever, to understand physics. Nobody here is saying that.
Originally posted by badmedia
Which is again like saying I can't understand the basic principles of throwing and catching a baseball without knowing physics... it's common sense that the more force you put behind the ball, the further it will travel.
Again, do I need to know physics in order to understand these things?
All you are doing is attacking me on a person level as far as what you consider credibility, rather than the things I say.
Are you going to tell that astrophysicist with all those credentials he doesn't understand physics when he repeats and says exactly what I say?
Good luck, I'm tired of wasting my time on people who when pushed resort to such ways.
Bernard Haisch, Ph.D., is an astrophysicist and author of over 130 scientific publications. He served as a scientific editor of the Astrophysical Journal for ten years, and was Principal Investigator on several NASA research projects. After earning his Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin in Madison, Haisch did postdoctoral research at the Joint Institute for Laboratory Astrophysics, University of Colorado at Boulder and the University of Utrecht, the Netherlands. His professional positions include Staff Scientist at the Lockheed Martin Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory; Deputy Director of the Center for Extreme Ultraviolet Astrophysics at the University of California, Berkeley; and Visiting Scientist at the Max-Planck-Institut fuer Extraterrestrische Physik in Garching, Germany. He was also Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Scientific Exploration. Prior to his career in astrophysics, Haisch attended the Latin School of Indianapolis and the St. Meinrad Seminary as a student for the Catholic priesthood. The God Theory is his first solo book. He is married, with three children, and lives in the San Francisco Bay Area with his wife, Marsha Sims.
What I propose is an infinite conscious intelligence -- so let's call it God -- who has infinite potential, whose ideas become the laws of physics of our universe and others, and whose purpose in so doing is the transformation of potential into experience. The difference between being able to do something and actually doing it is vast: making it happen, experiencing what it feels like, savoring the sensations are the tremendous difference between theory and practice. Playing the game is far more satisfying than reading the rules.
How does consciousness arise out of matter?
Well, actually, I don' believe it does. I think that ultimately it is the other way around: that the origin of this universe and all others that may exist lies in the will of a supreme consciousness, a consciousness that we all possess, in varying degrees. Somehow that consciousness created a physical universe. I think we will discover in this century that we shape our reality via consciousness to a much greater degree than is presently acknowledged. The study of consciousness will, I believe, take center stage in science in the decades ahead, and I do not mean simply neurobiology explaining, and thereby in effect explaining away, consciousness.
If you think of white light as a metaphor of infinite, formless potential, the colors on a slide or frame of film become a structured reality grounded in the polarity that comes about through intelligent subtraction from that absolute formless potential. It results from the limitation of the unlimited. I contend that this metaphor provides a comprehensible theory for the creation of a manifest reality (our universe) from the selective limitation of infinite potential (God)...
If there exists an absolute realm that consists of infinite potential out of which a created realm of polarity emerges, is there any sensible reason not to call this "God"? Or to put it frankly, if the absolute is not God, what is it? For our purposes here, I will indentify the Absolute with God. More precisely I will call the Absolute the Godhead. Applying this new terminology to the optics analogy, we can conclude that our physical universe comes about when the Godhead selectively limits itself, taking on the role of Creator and manifesting a realm of space and time and, within that realm, filtering out some of its own infinite potential...
Viewed this way, the process of creation is the exact opposite of making something out of nothing. It is, on the contrary, a filtering process that makes something our of everything. Creation is not capricious or random addition; it is intelligent and selective subtraction. The implications of this are profound. If the Absolute in the Godhead, and if creation is the process by which the Godhead filters our parts of its own infinite potential to manifest a physical reality that supports experience, then the stuff that is left over, the residue of this process, is our physical universe, and ourselves included. We are nothing less than a part of that Godhead - quite literally.
until now everything we decided or chose was based on faith.
Atheism disprooves itself finally, because they act the same as religion.
Believes are only possible by connection.
you talk to talk,
grammar is not important, truth is
Atheism is a term, just as religion is, but everybody has his own believes.
That is how the paradox of life works,
it makes logic and the logic makes logic follow God instead of the other way around.
That is the symbol of the arc, which carries the testimony, we as one with life.
We in a prison by our own choice, not yet, because first there is growth by choice.
If you want to beat me, I invite you, but I will turn your head around, I promise.
If you want to beat me, i invite you, but i will turn your head around, i promise.
Ignorance is for those who care more about nothing than their whole selves. (well done on 'selves')
Ignorance is for those that care more about nothing then their whole selves.
Skepticism is the way to God (no comma) only when you allow truth to change you.
Sckeptisism is the way to god, only when you allow truth to change you.
Jesus and his lost sheep, remember.
First lost, then boomerang.
Main Entry: 1faith
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths \ˈfāths, sometimes ˈfāthz\
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust — more at bide
Date: 13th century
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
synonyms see belief
— on faith : without question