Conspiracy of human intelligence., page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 5 times


reply posted on 17-10-2009 @ 09:52 PM by sirnex
reply to post by Lichter daraus


Oh I'm sorry... I tell people they're using the energy as if implying it's something it's not, and then I give a basic definition of what it is and then they turn around shoving information at me that essentially says what I just said and I'm the bad guy?

Please. Look, I am just getting annoyed with people either not understanding what they're talking about or improperly using terminology and theories.

I'm dead serious, you or anyone, even just those two examples of energy. Tell me how they work. It's so easy for every one to tell me I'm the tool and I'm full of myself, but you folks can show me that your right?

I'm going to bed tomorrow and if the next response I see isn't an explanation, then I'll explain all these mysterious different forms of energy to you guys. It's soooo easy to understand if you bother reading about it.

Again, for those who may not know my stance on the issue, the universe is *not* that mysterious.


reply posted on 17-10-2009 @ 09:56 PM by liveandlearn
reply to post by sirnex




@liveandlearn Ah, well by that definition I would say I am open to possibilities, but what I don't like is misusing terminology or theories in order to postulate those possibilities.

How that is a closed mind is way beyond me, the logic there just eludes me.


I went back and read a few of your posts. You are indeed open to possibilities. Maybe I didn't read far enough, but your possibilities seem to be within the bounds of science.

I am not trained in the sciences, except biological, so understandably you may feel free to ignore anything I have said. Feel free not to respond.

Your mind is closed due, I think, to academia. There is no way to study the things that science has yet to discover or understand. I do believe you are bright enough to understand that...you are certainly smarter than I in the sciences and no doubt in many other areas as well.

I speak of the unexplainable, things science can not answer...yet.

To see you must wish to see. Maybe you do and it just does not come across to me. You seem limited by science.


reply posted on 17-10-2009 @ 09:58 PM by Lichter daraus
Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Lichter daraus


Oh I'm sorry... I tell people they're using the energy as if implying it's something it's not, and then I give a basic definition of what it is and then they turn around shoving information at me that essentially says what I just said and I'm the bad guy?

Please. Look, I am just getting annoyed with people either not understanding what they're talking about or improperly using terminology and theories.

I'm dead serious, you or anyone, even just those two examples of energy. Tell me how they work. It's so easy for every one to tell me I'm the tool and I'm full of myself, but you folks can show me that your right?

I'm going to bed tomorrow and if the next response I see isn't an explanation, then I'll explain all these mysterious different forms of energy to you guys. It's soooo easy to understand if you bother reading about it.

Again, for those who may not know my stance on the issue, the universe is *not* that mysterious.



I don't have to explain anything, I'm not the one claiming i know how they work so, guess you gotta wait for someone else.
BTW, look at your own posts, would you wanna talk to someone like that?

Also if you show us how all this works, great, it will still be magical to me, because it goes way deeper than anybody can imagine or explain.

[edit on 07/16/2009 by Lichter daraus]



reply posted on 17-10-2009 @ 10:01 PM by Xtraeme
Originally posted by sirnex
@tgidkp

OK, listen up cupcake. Your theory is based on other planes of existence, not dimensional physics. Please learn what a dimension is before you come up with silly terminology such as 'rising into a fifth dimension'. Your whole theory you got going on there is dead wrong because you show utter lack of knowledge on what a dimension is. We exist in all dimensions all at once, they are not separate things you can pop in and out of, nor does dimensional physics even postulate such a dimwitted idea. Learn it.


I don't want to rain on you flame-fest, but you do realize that matrix transforms rotating from the 3rd to an xth dimension do in fact require shifting in to a larger volume by adding another axis orthogonal to the current world space, right? If you have a hard time understanding this just look at a simple tesseract. Almost all games use quarternions to perform object interpolation by extending the points to a hypersphere in a four-dimensional space (more commonly known as SLERP).

While, yes, we would exist in several dimensions simultaneously it doesn't mean that we traverse into the higher-dimensional space adjacent to the current volume, or at least not in a way that's necessarily observable.

The best argument thus far that no 4th dimensional space actually exists is that if we release a gaseous material it doesn't magically disappear in to thin air. However where the concept of extra-dimensional space starts to hold water is when we look at quantum particles coming in to and out of existence, suggesting a non-closed system.

Frankly if you have a hard time seeing the miracle of the universe just remember the Bekenstein & Hawking calculation stating that the chances of there being a big bang in a low entropy state (seemingly violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics - don't take my word for it read the eminent physicist R. Penrose's diatribe) with all the physical constants the way they are, is roughly as likely as 1 part in 10^10^123.

That's truly amazing.

Furthermore lets look at something really simple to see just how poor our understanding of reality actually is:

a + b = a - b

The only time this can be true is when b = 0, right? With 'b' representing the additive identity.

Well lets solve for b:

a - b = a + b =>
b = (a - a) / 2
b = 0


Looks good so far right?

Well now lets solve for 2.

2 = (a - a) / b = indeterminate


Think about that! b = 0. This formula says that 2 = (a - a) / 0. The way we usually handle this in math is by saying any divide by zero is indeterminate, but for (a - b) = (a + b), 2 must be equal to (a - a) / 0. The only way to make this work in any currently understood way is to view the operation thusly:

2 = a(1-1) / 0 = indeterminate =>
2 = [a * (1-1)] / [1 * (0)] =>
2 = a / 1


Because (C * y / D * y) = C / D. Put another way the 0's cancel each other only leaving 'a' divided by 1. However this is also confusing because 'a' is supposed to be free to equal any given 'x' from -infinity to +infinity. However if we solve for 'a' what do we see?

a - b = a + b =>
a = a+2b =>
a = a + 0

__or__

a - a = 2b =>
a(1-1) = 2b =>
a = 2b / (1-1) = indeterminate


Again using the same technique a = 2(0) / (1-1) => a = 2*c / 1*c (where c = 0) => a = 2. Making the whole thing work, but not freeing 'a'.

So amazingly we can say a = 2 = indeterminate and 'a' equals any given Real because all Reals satisfy 'a' where 0 = (a - a) / 2.

The universe is pretty damn magical if you ask me.

[edit on 17-10-2009 by Xtraeme]


reply posted on 17-10-2009 @ 11:24 PM by reticledc
reply to post by sirnex


"Conspiricy (Conspiracy) of human intelligence"
It seems you are, without a doubt, the most perfect case point.
Put up or shut up!!


reply posted on 18-10-2009 @ 04:51 AM by koekert
well oke.. i sense a lot of negative energy here... (sorry couldn't resist)

Now before i go and announce that anything i have to say is based a nothing at all except for my own gut feeling, let me tell you i did drop out of school. I only had one year of bio and something science-like-fusion-class I don't remember anything about...
But that doesn't mean I or anyone else that did not go to school is to stupid to understand anything. (sorry touchy subject for me) After 5 years i just went back to school to become a computer programmer... So any education or not doesn't matter. If you want to learn something, just go out and learn.

So now we have established that... let me point something out to you all.

this is a pic of a table.. not that hard, everyone knows what a table is.



But why do we call it a table?
That's very simple, because some stone-age dude needed something to put his coffee on and made this and named it.... TABLE.
If i can't think of the name for table, I'll just say the big wooden plank we sit around when eating dinner and everybody knows what i mean.

What I'm trying to say here, is why get so worked up about the (intentional) misuse of a name for something. You know what they are trying to say. Why not educate ppl with the right name for what they are trying to say in stead of putting them down for what they are misusing. Maybe the def. of energy should be redefined?
Ppl that misuse names do not equal dumb.. the core of the statement could be valid, they just need different labeling.

I'm not that long on ATS but i got the point of ATS was to share (far out) theories and the really smart ppl comment and, if needed, correct you?
For example: I state that next week evil garden gnomes will come and take over the world with pink fruit-flies. My theory is based on the fact that my gnome is missing from my backyard. and then some super smart dude comments on my post and states that it is more likely that my gnome was stolen that that it was taking over the world. After some consideration i do agree that, that is more likely so the world is once more saved from evil gnomes. That is how ppl learn, you make mistakes and you learn from them...

Also i'd like to make a compliment to a lot of ppl that stayed calm on this topic. There was a lot of bashing around and there are quite a few that kept there cool. congrats!

BTW the only thing you have accomplished with me so far for this topic, is that I'm now interested in the multi dimensional theories moving around ATS.

so good luck with your language purism.

~Bella


reply posted on 18-10-2009 @ 05:37 AM by sirnex
reply to post by tgidkp


but i am still quite wary about the notion that, at least within the terms of our current form of existence, our personalized consciousness has ANY direct control AT ALL over our environment or condition.


THANK YOU! Look, I misunderstood what you meant with using the word dimension, but damn do you make me so proud with that above statement! Some people think that QM does say that is what happens and mostly because of stupid films like that. I do want to point out though, the observer effect does *not* state that something needs to be observed in order to exist. I'll leave it to everyone else to check the validity of what I just said, but if anyone is having trouble, I'll point you to a proper description of what it means.

@eight bits

Love is not a form of energy, it's an emotion. Nor does QM states that you have any control over the universe at large in any way, shape or fashion.

@koekert

It's not the definition of the word energy that is the problem, it's the usage of it as if it's some weird magical separate substance from matter. The whole exercise of having people explain to me how all the different forms of energy works is to get them to understand why I am telling them they are wrong in how they use the word when they imply certain things as energy. Like that guy's use of energy equaling love, it's wrong as love is not a form of energy, it's an emotional response. People want to tell me I am the one who's wrong here but I don't see anyone jumping up on the plate to bat away at what energy really is. Nah, instead two people decided to jump at a misspelling of *one* word. Hey, if you can't argue against what's right.... find something else to attack!


reply posted on 18-10-2009 @ 06:58 AM by Amagnon
reply to post by Xtraeme


Lovely post Although I am not sure that the OP claimed that we always exist in all dimensions or not - he said two different things, not sure if he got it anyhow.


Now to address the OP.

The other guy who was using the word 'dimension' - it is fair usage, he was not using it scientifically - he was using metaphysically - so he can wander off using whatever words he pleases as far as anyone else would care. Do you own a patent on the word dimension, so that it can only be applied according to its scientific application?

Your argument is one dimensional, but the question of science versus metaphysics is surely at least two dimensional? Did I just break a rule? How can I claim a concept is one dimensional - when it must be composed of thought, which you postulate exists in reality only, therefore existing in all possible dimensions at once? So my claim that I can identify a one dimensional argument when I see one, is clearly at odds with reality. Oh, woe is me - I broke a rule. Is Mr. IMA JERK going to pound me with 'cupcakes' and 'idiots'? Oops - broke another rule .. can't pound someone with words, unless they are in a book. Sorry to break the reality rules again.

The whole point of anyone who is trying to relate a scientific answer to things like consciousness, creative thought and random events (I am specifically talking about quantum events) is that they are trying to DEMYSTIFY - or take out the magic involved in describing those things.

I think that something existing in two places at once, or vanishing at one point and re-appearing at another is fairly magical.

On the other hand, if the answer is that these events are controlled by physical laws that apply only at higher dimensions, then we aren't postulating magic spells - we are in fact using models to try and resolve observations. Models that extend beyond what is measurable and observable.

There is plenty of room for spiritualism in the large vacant spaces left by modern science. In fact, it could easily become a science in the future - especially if humans do indeed extend into more than the visible and measurable dimensions - which I feel is a distinct possibility.

[edit on 18-10-2009 by Amagnon]

[edit on 18-10-2009 by Amagnon]


reply posted on 18-10-2009 @ 08:00 AM by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by sirnex


You know. I could point out how you don't even understand the thing about which you rant about. But it's already been done, ad infinitum. But I will say. You sir are an example of the reason we have millions dead in so called "holy wars". You sir are an example of why we cannot come together as a species and live in peace. You sir are NO DIFFERENT than those you claim to be above.
You know why I say that? Do you really care? I would imagine not. I am most likely already with my unkind words already delegated to the ranks of the "idiots" you soo self-rightously think you are above. But I will tell you though I know it will fall upon a deaf mind. With your inability to accept a differing of opinion WITHOUT branding those whom you disagree with mentally defective and worse you are committing on a lesser scale the same crimes that LEAD TO those so called "holy wars" I mentioned earlier. Your ego sir, the very thing that most likely rules your actions, is nothing more than a predatory ego that in hiding from it's lack by seeking to denigrate others who are not like you. And in that, it's people like you that keeps us as a species from EVER advancing.


reply posted on 18-10-2009 @ 10:10 AM by reticledc
reply to post by sirnex


As I see, you have yet to avail us of anything substantial as to the depth of your "Knowledge".
If you were to offer a valid theory regarding "your" perspective, then I'm sure that we could talk it over.
I am willing to see all side of an argument.
As of yet, the only think you have convinced and or proven is your lack of "knowledge".

If you are so interested in these subjects, it would bode well to at least consider something outside of your normal perspective.

I am going to be frank with you,
I really enjoy debates with people like you.
It allows me the opportunity to expand my own knowledge.
Bashing heads against a posts, serve no purpose other than injury.
So once again I'll reiterate, (put up or shut up).

Now as far as energy and matter go:

Consider this example:

Water, has more than one state, do we agree on that?
OK then, in normal state water is a liquid, at lower temperatures, it's a solid, at higher temps it's a vapor/gas, at higher temps and pressure it becomes a fluid like gas, with characteristics of both.
When superheated and under almost immeasurable pressure, it becomes another form of ice, but this ice is scorching hot.(That was only recently discovered)

The point is, all these states of water are in essence the same thing. Water.
Point taken.
They may be water but they are also what they're called.
Gas
Liquid
Solid


Matter may be a condensed form of energy, but it is not energy until acted upon by a catalyst to release the stored energy of that matter.
Ever burn something(other than this thread)?
The matter breaks down, and heat(energy), light(energy) and constituent components such as carbon(matter), silicon(matter), and gasses(matter) are released.
It is said that matter cannot be destroyed, and neither can energy, but they can exchange properties between one another.

So much like WATER energy and matter have the same potential to take differing states.

So.....
We await some constructive input, or are you going to continue to badger us.
If so, then I suggest you be content in your own understanding and stop trying to convince anyone else.
Nothing personal, but I'm tired of wasting my time, if you won't even entertain valid and plausible arguments.

Says a lot about me considering how much effort I have wasted on you already.



[edit on 10/18/2009 by reticledc]


reply posted on 18-10-2009 @ 12:28 PM by Conclusion
I know what you are talking about. You are saying that another dimension can not be another realm of existence. Hmmm.

Lets look at this for a minute.

Such as could be explained with:
en.wikipedia.org...
In mathematics and physics, the dimension of a space or object is informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify each point within it.[1][2] Thus a line has a dimension of one because only one coordinate is needed to specify a point on it. A surface such as a plane or the surface of a cylinder or sphere has a dimension of two because two coordinates are needed to specify a point on it (for example, to locate a point on the surface of a sphere you need both its latitude and its longitude). Cubes, cylinders and spheres are three-dimensional.

The concept of dimension is not restricted to physical objects. High-dimensional spaces occur in mathematics and the sciences for many reasons, frequently as configuration spaces such as in Lagrangian or Hamiltonian mechanics; these are abstract spaces, independent of the physical space we live in. The state-space of quantum mechanics is an infinite-dimensional function space. Some physical theories are also by nature high-dimensional, such as the 4-dimensional general relativity and higher-dimensional string theories.

But also i refer to Dimensions as to what constitutes:

www.ask.com...

The following represents a suggested overview of the primary universes or self-manifest modes of the Supreme that constitute the "vertical" or prakritic planes axis of the Cosmos. This is however only one dimension, and these gradations or hypostases should also be considered in terms of the "concentric" levels of being. To collapse the spectrum of being to a single ontocline or paraneter is misleading.

In defining these levels or gradations I have borrowed from Neoplatonism, Gnosticism, Tantra, Sufism, Kabbalah, the Theons, and especially from Sri Aurobindoan concepts. If I rely upon the latter a lot, it is only because in his Life Divine and Letters on Yoga he presents such a clear and comprehensive overview of the spectrum of realities. Even so it is important to remeber that Sri Aurobindo was concerned to lay out a practical path and technique to divinization, and for this reason the states of consciousness in his yoga of ascent refer to states actualised in the physical body and physical mind, and the metaphysical planes and hypostases (which are actual states or dimensions of existence in themselves, as distinct universes) were often more described less thoroughly. Certainly he does not shy away from referring to these, and in fact is one of the very few Indian teachers who does (perhaps due to his incorporating Theosophical and Theonist ideas), but he does not distinguish between these states when actualised in the physical consciousness, and the states as they exist as autonomous supra-physical hypostases. However there is a distinction, if only in terms of "octaves" or "resonances", and Sri Aurobindo's descriptions (as phenomenological exemplars or "type specimens" of consciousness so to speak) is primarily concerning the phsyical embodiment, integration, and union, of these higher states.


reply posted on 18-10-2009 @ 01:20 PM by sirnex
reply to post by Amagnon


Whether it is true or not - Einstiens famous equation tells us energy and mass are the same thing; E=mC^2


Look at all the different forms of energy.

We know Kinetic and potential energy has mostly to do with physical matter, that's an automatic given that most sound minded people don't argue against.

Yet, let's look at thermal energy. Thermal energy is the total of the kinetic energy due to the motion of molecules (translational, rotational, vibrational) and the potential energy associated with the vibrational and electric energy of atoms within molecules or crystals. LINK We can take it even further and measure thermal energy as temperature. Heat is not some esoteric entity separate from matter, when something is what we call 'hot', it's thermal energy is in a higher state of motion compared to when something is 'cold' or in a lower state of motion. Yet, for thermal energy to exist we require matter to exist to propagate that thermal energy.

Look at all the different forms of energy and show me at least one form of energy or even a force that does not require some particle of matter to propagate through. Even the forces themselves are propagated by other pieces of matter.

What I'm finding troublesome is the usage of something like energy as if it's something we can die and exist within as if it is a separate 'thing' from matter. I'll bet no one here can legitimately show me one 'thing' of energy that does not require matter at all. If you think you got something, post it and I'll attempt to show tot he best of my ability why it does require matter, why energy is not separate from matter.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>    ^^TOP^^



Only read this if you are quite young?
  Posted 10 days ago with 71 member flags
The World Is Waiting On You To Liberate Yourself From Ego!
  Posted 5 days ago with 36 member flags
Crazy Sufi Wisdom: The Moon Is More Valuable Than The Sun
  Posted 8 days ago with 25 member flags
PEACE To attempt the impossible...
  Posted 4 days ago with 23 member flags
Something I Learned from Looking at my dog in the eye.
  Posted 16 days ago with 17 member flags
Experiment: What would YOU do?
  Posted 16 days ago with 12 member flags
A cry for help....anyone out there?
  Posted 16 days ago with 11 member flags
The unsung canine heroes of 911 (12 of 100 remain)
  Posted 3 days ago with 11 member flags