Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

You are the god particle!!

page: 6
23
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 11:20 PM
link   
This is misleading. Scale does not directly prove any of your claims. You should look into the 11 dimensions theory (there is an excellent video on youtube about that) and it's clearly evident in quantum mechanics/physics, that all infinities are present, all around you. In infinities, SCALE take a different set of information produced by the foundations of reality, and electrons can be the size of planets, and planets can be the size of blood cells. Every possibility in the reality we live in, carried out into infinity - is NOT infinity itself. Because in another phase (or world) the foundations of reality (CONSTANTS -> FRACTALS TIE INTO THIS - FORCES etc) WILL BE DIFFERENT. THEY ARE NOT EVEN PRESENT IN SOME INFINITIES. In example, imagine gravity having a lesser force to it. Do you know how that would effect evolution? Of stars/planets/sentinent life! What I'm trying to explain is that the foundations of reality have an infinite amount of possiblities. In some phases life does not exist. My main point being, the foundations of reality which we have been given have created a universal SCALE and have shaped the galaxy and universe around us. We are in equilibrium with that scale. SCALE is a derivative of the foundations of reality at any given instantaneous time! SCALE is misunderstood, it is not a force or phenomenon - It is an ordered referance in measurement! And in other realities SCALE has a different meaning tethered to the word! But not ours! Thankyou for your post. I enjoyed the read, Star + Flag.

[edit on 15-12-2009 by Paradox.]

[edit on 15-12-2009 by Paradox.]




posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 01:52 AM
link   
Almost everyone on this entire thread has NO avatar!

Weird.

I recognize that's pointless but I posted a few pages back



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 03:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 



Well the only true evidence of consciousness is the personal experience.


Right, and that personal experience can still be skewed if philosophical zombies are true, we could only 'think' we are conscious, thinking entities when we're not.


It is impossible (from the physical world) to prove another entity actually has conciosuness and experiences.


Too early to make such a statement. It was once impossible to do many thing's, we would be God's to the ancients if they saw us today. You don't want an "ancient mentality" do you?


And nothing is particularly special about human life; this is just the current shape of the physical vehicle we inhabit.


There is nothing known to science that suggests or proves that the body is a vehicle for anything intangible that continues after it's death.


My question is this, does the mind/soul/observing entity stay constant or does it evolve like the physical vehicle?


From a science perspective, it appears to arise from the body and die along with the body.


The existence of a separate entity outside of the physical world to respond to the conscious experience created by the brain is obvious but the question is how raw this observing material is, are we all identical observers (like pure intelligent energy) or does each “soul” have characteristics of its own?


I disagree that this is obvious, and in most cases only seems "obvious" to those who wish it to be true, but wishful thinking doesn't bring about truths in my opinion.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 03:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 



** Removed by me. This isn't a physics class and I shouldn't have such high expectations. **


Unfortunatley you may be right... Having high expectations in this thread may be entirely pointless and futile. Just trying to point out the logical fallacy being employed seems be to hard of a concept for the OP to grasp, let alone the physics itself.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 03:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by belowcommonknowledge
While this is all intuitive conjecture, it does fit in nicely with another recent post on the fractal nature of the universe and our solar system being the equivalent of an atom of Beryllium (see paper referenced in this post www.abovetopsecret.com... paper is at www.gpofr.com... ).

If solar systems are atoms on a different scale, then why could not living beings be the various subatomic particals, with sentient beings' collective sentience being the Boson or "God Particle"?

When I see people try to invalidate intuitive musings like this, I always laugh to myself, because they always argue that "according to this theory or that theory, your assertion falls apart," as you are basing your argument on a theory, not a proven law. Nothing is proven and in my book, logical intuitive conjecture is just as valuable as any scientific theory, as it comes from our internal creativity. The same is true of the notions behind most scientific theories.

The problem is that some scientists in their dogmatic adherence to their specific brand of ignorance, arrogantly close the door on other equally valid brands of ignorance (such as the ideas in this post and posts referenced herein) because those who bring these ideas forth from their internal, God given creativity and intuition, dare do so without having wasted some significant portion of their lives trying to prove and disprove every facet of their idea with the puny maths, such that lie within our capabilities and limitations as we exist today.

I applaud the OP and all who bring such ideas to the forefront, and give them every bit as much credit for not knowing everything as I do the arrogant scientists and naysayers in our midst, because until we know everything for certain, it's all just conjecture.

Peace,

Bryan

[edit on 15-12-2009 by belowcommonknowledge]

[edit on 15-12-2009 by belowcommonknowledge]


If you look at the solar system and what is known about an atom, they look nothing alike nor behave alike. The comparison or attempt to compare is entirely unfounded and ridiculous. No fractal there at all.

As science is not about drawing conclusions from thin air without merit, it is really no surprise that science doesn't accept such conclusions as this. Hell, it's no surprise people with a working brain don't accept ideas such as this. Correlation does not imply causation as the OP claims is the case here. There is no reason to assume that we are even at the center point of scalability in the universe, could be a brown dwarf that is in the middle, not humans as the OP wants to pretend.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Spock Shock
 


no you dont you just need to be alive...

No life = no nothing kiddo



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by die_another_day
 


Its not about size but how you work, scale is just a simple way to point out how meaningless you are in scale but yet you link both together

interesting?

some say no, but then they are the ones who said the world was flat...

and the obervation of matter creates matter so what does that make you?

being observed it what



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Paradox.
 





This is misleading. Scale does not directly prove any of your claims. You should look into the 11 dimensions theory


one word you missed failed to grasp is "theory" None of what i posted is THEORY its FACT.

The scale part is to SHOW YOU how BIG you are and how SMALL you are in if you think scale is some missconseption of the mind i would be pretty amazed at your logic.

The point of this thread is "YOU are the GOD partical"

why do i say you are? Because without YOU being here NOTHING exists..

NOTHING ZIP NADA

do you understand that? or are you going to tell me i was a cat or a tree?

Please elabortate..



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


And yet your focus is on the solar system when the topic states

YOU ARE THE GOD PARTICAL, what part of that did you not get?

It was pointed out in the first page that atoms are 99.999999 EMPTY

funny that because my observation of you = MASS why is that?

Tell me smarty pants or stop trolling,.. Btw did you do the lesson i posted on your thread

8th grade i hope it worked out well for you...



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by 13579
 

In elementary school we learned about the solar system and the atom at the same time. I remember wondering...How come no one is mentioning the similarities here? Why are they not saying an atom is like a solar system but much larger? They didn't know!!??? Hard to believe.
Anyway I have always used this theory to figure things out - how they operate and what elements might be involved driving the forces. What ever you learn about a smaller model you can reasonably predict the same in the larger, and vice versa....via extrapolation.
The God particle...they have found that most of the atom after breaking it down again and again as they have managed to do into particuli...is mostly empty space. The great force some call God I have heard (and believe) is what comprises that empty space....like an ether.



[edit on 16-12-2009 by rusethorcain]



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 12:09 PM
link   
Awww cute little humies. Thinking they understand because they found words to describe. The only thing anyone will ever understand is "nothing".

Nice little thought experiment though, i had a great time reading the whole thread.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
There is nothing known to science that suggests or proves that the body is a vehicle for anything intangible that continues after it's death.


There is nothing known to science that suggests or proves that the mind is somehow “inside” the brain.

Your brain is no more part of your mind than your left toe is.

The idea that you exist in your own brain is an illusion. The placement of the visual fields that monopolize much of the mind’s focus facilitates this illusion.

The idea that the mind “dies” when it is no longer expressed threw the physical body is a complete assumption based on speculation.



Originally posted by sirnex
From a science perspective, it appears to arise from the body and die along with the body.


From a scientific perspective the mind does not exist.

When consciousness leaves the body, the body rots away in the physical world. The obsession with fear and mortality has created the delusion that the consciousness rots away too, this is nothing but an assumption based on speculation.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Been away for a bit to come back to some wonderful conversation.

One thing that ALWAYS gets me is the idea that without "me" to perceive something, it doesn't exist, i.e. without life there is NOTHINGNESS. It is at this point in our conversation that my boyfriend and I start getting a little frustrated with eachother. My boyfriend is of the same mind you are , 133579.

I really hope this doesn't come across the wrong way, but I have a hard time being so arrogant as to think it is only I that makes things exist. If everything is truly one (as I believe it is) then it's not I that has to observe something for it to exist, because if everything is one, then another observer other than me is the same thing as me observing it anyway. Wouldn't that be a reasonable idea?

It's only the limits on my consciousness by being "trapped" in this body that limits my ability to perceive something at the same time another conscious being is.

Furthermore, if something conscious has to be observing matter in order for it to exist, how does one explain how the conscious being came into existence in the first place? What observed the observer? (My theory is that existence is infinite, no beginning, no end. Matter has always existed and always will. It's the way in which it exists that may be the only thing that changes)

*********

I must add that I feel it very disruptive to come into a thread and call anyone that doesn't agree with you "ATSIS" just because they can't prove something when the only "proof" you have is based on scientific theory in the first place.

Aside from that, many thought experiments (like this one) start out unproven. It doesn't mean it's not true. It just hasn't been proven as such yet. That doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss it at all. If you're so certain that others are wrong and you are right (which you very well could be) then you should provide your own ideas/proof to show such.

In a debate, if someone makes one assertion and you believe it to be wrong, you don't just call that person a "liar" and "ignorant" you explain to them why you think they are. I honestly would like to hear why you think some of us are wrong it adds balance to the discussion.

Please, be part of the ATS solution, not it's problem.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 



There is nothing known to science that suggests or proves that the mind is somehow “inside” the brain.

...

From a scientific perspective the mind does not exist.


Ah, OK.... Neuroscience doesn't exist, about as meaningful as a holocaust denier.


this is nothing but an assumption based on speculation.


It's based on the known laws of physics actually. Unless you can show that consciousness is capable of violating those laws, then there is no reason to believe the statement as being true. I'm sorry if I don't readily believe thing's people just make up without proving those thing's. My bad for being an honest man, I'll go flog myself forty times for being honest. Horrible little honest me.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by nunya13
 



I must add that I feel it very disruptive to come into a thread and call anyone that doesn't agree with you "ATSIS" just because they can't prove something when the only "proof" you have is based on scientific theory in the first place.


Please don't purposefully misrepresent me. I never came in here initially to do any such thing as evident by the amount of posts up until the point where the connection to ATSIS is made.


Aside from that, many thought experiments (like this one) start out unproven. It doesn't mean it's not true. It just hasn't been proven as such yet. That doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss it at all. If you're so certain that others are wrong and you are right (which you very well could be) then you should provide your own ideas/proof to show such.


He isn't describing a thought experiment at all, he's giving us a logical fallacy by claiming correlation is causation. This isn't about proof, this is about logical reasoning.


In a debate, if someone makes one assertion and you believe it to be wrong, you don't just call that person a "liar" and "ignorant" you explain to them why you think they are. I honestly would like to hear why you think some of us are wrong it adds balance to the discussion.


Again, misrepresenting me, I never came in here initially attacking him calling him a liar and ignorant. I pointed out that what he was concluding does not exist in the quoted text blocks in the IOP.

Don't jump on my posterior if you have no idea what your getting on me for. I won't put up with ignorant misrepresentation based on unfounded opinions. Try as you might, you won't win here by misrepresenting me. Sit on it.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex

Don't jump on my posterior if you have no idea what your getting on me for. I won't put up with ignorant misrepresentation based on unfounded opinions. Try as you might, you won't win here by misrepresenting me. Sit on it.


I did not misrepresent you. I'll admit that I could be MISUNDERSTANDING you, however. But I did not misrepresent the fact that your intentions (whether initial or not) have resulted in name calling and overall rudeness. Also, I'm not really sure how one can have an "unfounded" opinion. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it's unfounded. It's just not one you share.

Regardless of all that, I understand that you strongly disagree with the OP's assertions. Since that's the case, I implore you to join in the discussion with constructive counters to his "logical fallacy". If you can't do that, then I have to wonder why it is you keep coming into this thread.

Or have I missed something within the numerous posts in this lengthy thread?

edit to add: I did not 'PURPOSEFULLY" misrepresent you. Purpose implies intent and it was most certainly never my intention to do so. But then again, I don't think I misrepresented you at all.



[edit on 16-12-2009 by nunya13]



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Or atleast explain what you mean exactly with this whole correlation causation thing. I'm having a hard time understanding your point to be honest.

Correlation i get the meaning of. Causation aswell. But i don't understand the context at all. If you could explain it in more laymens terms i'd apreciate it. . How does it defy logic and it what context to the OP's ideas?

Thanks.

[edit on 16-12-2009 by JustAThought]

[edit on 16-12-2009 by JustAThought]



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by nunya13
 



I did not misrepresent you.

...

But I did not misrepresent the fact that your intentions (whether initial or not) have resulted in name calling and overall rudeness.


You want to lie to me as well?


I must add that I feel it very disruptive to come into a thread and call anyone that doesn't agree with you "ATSIS" just because they can't prove something when the only "proof" you have is based on scientific theory in the first place.


Did I flipping come into this damn thread outright doing this? Why don't you read the entire thread before misrepresenting my stance on the issue.

OR

Are you just judging hypocritically because you agree with his opinion and allowing him the right of rudeness because I don't accept logical fallacies as evidences?

It's one or the other at this point. Your either a liar, misrepresenting me purposefully, or a damn hypocrite now.

Think before you type please.


Also, I'm not really sure how one can have an "unfounded" opinion. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it's unfounded. It's just not one you share.


Unfounded: Not based on fact or sound evidence; Groundless.

This statement is unfounded:


I must add that I feel it very disruptive to come into a thread and call anyone that doesn't agree with you "ATSIS"


I never came into the thread with this intention. Read the thread before you created an unfounded opinion and misrepresent me.


I implore you to join in the discussion with constructive counters to his "logical fallacy". If you can't do that, then I have to wonder why it is you keep coming into this thread.


I did come in with constructive counters initially. It is of no fault of my own if someone wishes to ignore a correct valid argument due to their own arrogance and pride. I've inquired explicit statements to be quoted that "proved" his assertion that:


The point is YOU are the APEX of scale in our own reality YOU become the missing link in all mathmatics.

You MY friend ARE bosson!

Be happy knowing you make the universe work in a fundermental way and without you, it would not work.


He ignored my request to makes these explicit quotes evident from the quotations he used in the IOP. All he made was a correlation proves causation argument which is a logical fallacy and then preceded to ignore requests to prove the assertion true with evidences. The reason I'm still here is to acquire that recognition of my request and an answer to that request.

He was not called an ATSIS member until he utilized a straw man argument in attempt to "answer" that line of inquiry. ATS is about denying ignorance, best for you to jump on that bandwagon if you want to play with me.



[edit on 16-12-2009 by sirnex]



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by JustAThought
reply to post by sirnex
 


Or atleast explain what you mean exactly with this whole correlation causation thing. I'm having a hard time understanding your point to be honest.

Correlation i get the meaning of. Causation aswell. But i don't understand the context at all. If you could explain it in more laymens terms i'd apreciate it. . How does it defy logic and it what context to the OP's ideas?

Thanks.


Source


"Correlation does not imply causation" is a phrase used in science and statistics to emphasize that correlation between two variables does not automatically imply that one causes the other (though it does not remove the fact that correlation can still be a hint, whether powerful or otherwise[1][2]). The opposite phrase, correlation proves causation, is a logical fallacy by which two events that occur together are claimed to have a cause-and-effect relationship.

...

In other words, there can be no conclusion made regarding the existence or the direction of a cause and effect relationship only from the fact that A and B are correlated. Determining whether there is an actual cause and effect relationship requires further investigation, even when the relationship between A and B is statistically significant, a large effect size is observed, or a large part of the variance is explained.



Now take that knowledge and re-read the IOP. Hope it helps as it's obvious if you understand it.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Well, you know how I feel, I know how you feel now. I was mainly just asking you to have a cooler head.

On topic:

Can you please state how it is that you believe the OP's to be a logical fallacy? Are you saying that it's illogical to believe that we, being the observer, give matter mass by observing it and therefore, that makes "you" the god particle?





new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join