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.

 

Conspiracy of human intelligence.

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Ill take that as a no, well i hope you get what your looking for man...


PEACE!!!




posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Lichter daraus
 


No, not really. I'll eventually get to everyone hopefully today. Been busy in the attic trying to decide what to keep and what to trash. My sister-in-law's junk is taking up a lot of room from when I had her stay with me.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
"The universe is not magical, this isn't middle earth and the human species is not special."

Ahhhh, there feel better?


I just found out I am not and elven mage afterall..

How do you think I feel?


I think i'll go make some energy out of matter now..



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by sirnex
 


Well that is according to you my friend.

If you don't think this world is "magical" then you have yet to witness child birth or the Canadian Rockies from a helicopter, or the Hymalayas.

Now I will agree there are an abundance of folks here who lay claim to things that "science" would not agree, but let's not forget what science is.

It is only our best guess at the time. Nothing we know as being scientifically true is truth. It's all just an educated assumption.

~Keeper

Not much to add: Its only model, surely better that the one from the yesterday but model... science of today is the child of mechanistic science of Newtons time etc...dont forget the "perfect model" of the world: gigantic turtle, the elefants etc...
Somewhere I saw nice the schemat:Religion, Magick, Science and Poesy (sic!)pictured as four equal, complete and independent "systems" used by the Human Mind to better cope with the worlds Reality...



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   
I'm a high school drop out and easily the most intelligent person to ever grace this little website.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by liquidsmoke206
 


Was that the result of magic or quantum fluctuations? I think your case might just put this thread to rest.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by liquidsmoke206
 


Two words. Prove it.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by liquidsmoke206
 


Wow, if that isn't the most arrogant thing i have ever heard. I have seen more intelligent members on this, as you call it *little website* than your self.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 01:57 PM
link   
I'll prove my own intellect by understanding Liquidsmoke was using quantum humor.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by silver tongue devil
 


Maybe, but its hard to tell when your typing on a forum...



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Originally posted by sirnex

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.




BRAVO!!!

At long last, the human mind reveals itself.!!

EXCELLENT POINT!!!

I had never considered the notion that matter in and of itself could be considered a "CONDUCTOR" of energy. That's my perspective on it.
I really believe that what you have pointed out merits further study on my part.

Fascinating idea.



While your sources are clear, your notion is relevant.
I would like you to acknowledge that if you had taken the time to explain your perspective in the first place, we could have avoided the previous engagements.


Is it possible for energy to exist without matter, or more accurately mass, Perhaps not.

source

One of the big leaps of quantum mechanics is that momentum can exist without mass, photons can have momentum without having mass. The other is that everything with momentum has a wavelength even 'solid' objects.








[edit on 10/18/2009 by reticledc]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Lichter daraus
 


2 words: prove it.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 02:29 PM
link   
Originally posted by liveandlearn
reply to post by sirnex
 





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.


I understand there is no way to study what hasn't been discovered or understood as of yet, but it is simply illogical and wrong to misuse something in order to come up with an answer for something else. It's like trying to shove a square inside a triangular hole, it won't fit.

@Everyone else

Did you guy's miss what I said about thermal energy and how it's not a separate entity from matter? Am I wrong there? Am I missing something, because from my understanding it definitely appears to be a direct result of matter and not a separate artifact of its own accord.

[edit on 18-10-2009 by sirnex]

[edit on 18-10-2009 by sirnex]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by liquidsmoke206
 


Why do i have to prove it? Cant you decide for yourself, I'm sure you can. I never you had to prove anything. Also, I admitted to possibly not realizing the quantum humor in your post. I wasn't implying you aren't intelligent.

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

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



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by SmokeandShadow
 


The opposite extreme of what I hate huh? Man, ATS denies logic as well. Explain the logic in me being the opposite extreme of disliking the improper usage of scientific theories and terminologies. Seriously, I'm sure your logic there is oh so much more sounder than my logic of the improper usage of a terminology or theory adequately invalidates any theory based upon that improper use.


You are now falsely defining the target that my "opposite extreme" comment was applied to. Way to spin guy. You can misread as much as you like. You adhere strongly to a "what I see is what it is" outlook, correct? You obviously are zealous in the belief that only a "qualified" person is able to define language, space, time, energy, matter and you're reality. Once humans understand something it can never be "magical" right? That sounds like an extreme opposite of a person who see's the world as a spiritual step in a journey and invokes "dimensions to support his hypothesis, trusting imagination alone....am I wrong?



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by liquidsmoke206
 


Showing that you can parrot me is not exactly proving your stance.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by SmokeandShadow
 


So your now advocating that people can freely redefine scientific theories and terminologies to apply to whatever idea they so choose? So, I can legitimately formulate my own idea of what a dimension is and what energy is and postulate any theory based on those new definitions and some how everyone *has* to take me seriously? DUDE THAT IS FREAKING AWESOME!

By that logic... Everyone is right! HURRAY!



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


If you want any respect yourself don't you think that you should extend it to others? You don't have to denigate to disagree. And by the way, only accepting what "experts" say minus any real experience with yourself is a logical fallacy.

Argument from authority or appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The most general structure of this argument is:

Source A says that p.
Source A is authoritative.
Therefore, p is true.

This is a fallacy because the truth or falsity of the claim is not necessarily related to the personal qualities of the claimant, and because the premises can be true, and the conclusion false (an authoritative claim can turn out to be false). It is also known as argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it). [1]

On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism.

SOURCE:en.wikipedia.org...

Now, you were talking at one point about logic and critical thinking were you not?

[edit on 18-10-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


Oh please, you know damn well it's not submitting to authority. It's a simple matter of people redefining terms and theories and using them to postulate something those terms and theories don't postulate themselves in such a manner as if they did.

Honestly, since when was such an act logical or acceptable? If people want to use words with new definitions, then fine, but *at least* define the new terminology before you use it. It really isn't that hard or that big of a deal to ask of someone. When I see words such as, but not limited to, energy or dimension being brandished about as if the current concept of energy or dimension is in agreement with their ideas, that is where I am drawing the line and distinction. How many time's to I have to state that in so many different ways before it sinks in?



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   

How many time's to I have to state that in so many different ways before it sinks in?




A lot i guess, because as you stated, we are to dumbed down,apparently.




top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join