Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Conscious universe getting more support by scientists.

page: 4
42
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by mahajohn
 


How does energy exist by itself? Well, let's say you heat up something, like a kettle, some of the energy escapes as heat. Now let's say you destroy the kettle, the heat still exists, therefore, you can conclude that the heat can exist without the kettle, i.e by itself.

You might argue, but the heat comes from the fire heating up the kettle. Well then, we have to ask, what is fire? For simplicity sake, we can say that fire comes from matter. Since you admit that matter is energy, therefore we can conclude that matter(energy) can exist by itself, without needing to be a property of something else.




posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


What are you talking about? Scientists agree that matter and energy are the same things. In other words, energy can exist by itself, or as a property of itself.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by np6888
reply to post by sirnex
 


What are you talking about? Scientists agree that matter and energy are the same things. In other words, energy can exist by itself, or as a property of itself.


I cited contrary sources, I would also like to point out Einsteins equation E=MC2.

Can you show me one form of energy that is not a function or property of matter and please cite sources for me to review.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   
It should be noted that we don't really "see" anything, from the atom and its constituents down. We can only detect their "effects." The smallest thing that we can see with a microscope is equal to the wavelength(inverse of frequency) of the light that we use.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


If you agreed that matter and energy are the same thing, then matter is a form of energy that can exist by itself.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   
some famous guy said once (just can't remember who nor when):

"humanity? it is the universe that is contemplating Himself"

beside that, i wanted to state that the collective consciousness phenomenon is being studied at least since decades and there is little doubt about the conclusion of those studies :

humanity has a collective consciousness,
living form have their collevtive consciousness
earth has her collective consciousness
the solar system has a collective consciousness
the milky way etc etc


Is There Scientific Evidence?

If more and more people are talking about collective consciousness, is there any scientific evidence to back it up?

Yes – and that’s important. Rigorous science helps us avoid the fuzzy thinking and unquestioned assumptions that too often characterize spiritual and New Age discussions. Moreover, science may ultimately introduce mainstream society to collective consciousness and demonstrate how it can benefit us all.

Over the past 12 years, I’ve studied a good deal of intriguing research about collective consciousness. It suggests that we influence each other in many subtle, yet powerful ways, and that our collective wisdom and creativity can be harnessed for the common good much more than we do presently.


this is a long and very interesting paper i advise to read to get a different perspective on the consciousness of the universe.

connect the dots.

www.collectivewisdominitiative.org...



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by np6888
 



It should be noted that we don't really "see" anything, from the atom and its constituents down. We can only detect their "effects." The smallest thing that we can see with a microscope is equal to the wavelength(inverse of frequency) of the light that we use.

...

If you agreed that matter and energy are the same thing, then matter is a form of energy that can exist by itself.


There is a reason I cited sources, so you can understand the concept a little better.

Now, are you going to answer my inquiry or just leave it as an empty claim?

"Can you show me one form of energy that is not a function or property of matter and please cite sources for me to review."



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   
I have seen enough of this quantum spiritualism bull#. It's so easy to buy into, because it is so easy to understand!!!!! Why don't the viewers look into real quantum physics/mechanics and not what a few "researchers" and "scientists" trying to sell their books claim in these videos? Idiots.

[edit on 23-12-2009 by Paradox.]



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by np6888
 


matter doesn't exist outside of your mind.

it's the way you perceive that makes you believe that what you perceive is "material" : your observations are completely relative to the reference system you're observing from, completely dependent of the paradigm you've been evolving in.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 02:14 PM
link   
I don't get it, but it is pretty entertaining none the less. I find that most posts are fun to watch and read, buthard to believe. anyway, cool science.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Paradox.
I have seen enough of this quantum spiritualism bull#. It's so easy to buy into, because it is so easy to understand!!!!! Why don't the viewers look into real quantum physics/mechanics and not what a few "researchers" and "scientists" trying to sell their books claim in these videos? Idiots.

[edit on 23-12-2009 by Paradox.]


Man I don't know what to say about this post because labeling it stupid filled with baseless conjectures is an understatement.

These are high authoritarians of science, and plenty of evidence has been presented, such as, manipulating the outcome of a number generator with mind power, which has been documented. Had this been a video of these same exact scientists debunking a conscious universe, you would have been eating this # up.

Hide your solipsism better.



[edit on 23-12-2009 by GrandKitaro777]



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by GrandKitaro777
 


It has already been debunked on page 1.

You may be ignorant of the truth in your human nature, but do less coat tail riding off of these scientists, and more of your own research. Wikipedia has a detailed quantum physics layout you should start with. I would not be arguing if I did not have a full understanding. I have seen too much of this spiritualistic nonsense being professed almost religiously. This is not real quantum physics/mechanics. This is a dreamers take on science.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by GrandKitaro777
 


All is one being, all is the One Infinite Creator experiencing and learning of it's infinite self.

That which is infinite cannot be many, for many-ness is a finite concept. To have infinity you must identify or define the infinity as unity; otherwise, the term does not have any referent or meaning. In an Infinite Creator there is only unity. You have seen simple examples of unity. You have seen the prism which shows all colors stemming from the sunlight. This is a simplistic example of unity.


Each creation is another beat of the great central sun (our sun is a sub-sub-sub-sub etc.. version of the great central sun) with new infinite probabilities. Each creation is a break up of unity and eventually unity again, this process continues as an indefinite heart beat. It merely is one beat of the heart of this intelligence from creation to creation.

The galaxy and all other things of material of which you are aware are products of individualized portions of intelligent infinity (Of the original thought or Infinite Creator). As each exploration began (For a galaxy), it, in turn, found its focus and became co-Creator. Using intelligent infinity each portion created an universe and allowing the rhythms of free choice to flow, playing with the infinite spectrum of possibilities, each individualized portion channeled the love/light or light/love into what we might call intelligent energy, thus creating the so-called Natural Laws of any particular universe.

Each universe, in turn, individualized to a focus becoming, in turn, co-Creator and allowing further diversity, thus creating further intelligent energies regularizing or causing Natural Laws to appear in the vibrational patterns of what we would call a solar system. Thus, each solar system has its own, shall I say, local coordinate system of illusory Natural Laws. It shall be understood that any portion, no matter how small, of any density or illusory pattern contains, as in an holographic picture, the One Creator which is infinity. Thus all begins and ends in mystery.

Namaste.



[edit on 23-12-2009 by Psychonaughty]



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex

Originally posted by np6888
reply to post by sirnex
 


What are you talking about? Scientists agree that matter and energy are the same things. In other words, energy can exist by itself, or as a property of itself.


I cited contrary sources, I would also like to point out Einsteins equation E=MC2.

Can you show me one form of energy that is not a function or property of matter and please cite sources for me to review.


Electromagnetic radiation is a form of energy. Did it exist before the discovery of the x-rays and gamma-rays? Of course it did. Just because we didn't know about it back then doesn't mean it didn't exist back then.

Light is a type of energy that exists both as a particle and a wave, source. Is an electron considered to be matter? What about a photon? It has energy but no mass, source.

One definition of a photon is that it's a "massless packet of energy, which behaves like both a wave and a particle", source.

The definition of matter seems to be changing to account for the more exotic "things" in our Universe. Isaac Newton viewed matter as anything that was "solid, massy, hard" etc. Now, however, we have to take into account the sub-atomic and elementary particles of matter such as electrons, quarks and leptons. And even now, we find there things called "W and Z bozons", carriers of the "weak force", that "while not considered matter, they do contribute to the total mass of atoms or subatomic particles", source.

So who is right? Was Newton right for his time? Of course he was. The only thing we can honestly be assured of is that we can't be assured of anything, even the defination of 'matter'. Truth is ever changing, depending ones point of view. Maybe a 'Unified Field' theory will once again negate what we consider the truth today.

Maybe the Hadron Collider will discover the 'god particle', the higgs boson particle. "The Higgs boson would explain the difference between the massless photon, which mediates electromagnetism, and the massive W and Z bosons, which mediate the weak force. If the Higgs boson exists, it is an integral and pervasive component of the material world", source.

Science is reaching into worlds that will forever change what we consider reality today.



[edit on 23-12-2009 by Neo__]



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by GrandKitaro777
 



Man I don't know what to say about this post because labeling it stupid filled with baseless conjectures is an understatement.


I've already shown that the claims in this one clip are sensationalized garbage way back on page one. There is no 'understatement' going on, but there is sensationalized garbage being applauded as science.


These are high authoritarians of science


Most everyone in that clip are no name schmucks who make erroneous claims about the science discussed and explained in this thread by mean, with cited sources for your personal review. They are perhaps as authoritative as you would be if you wrote a book on black hole physics by researching Stephen Hawking's work on black holes.


and plenty of evidence has been presented, such as, manipulating the outcome of a number generator with mind power, which has been documented.


No such thing to my knowledge has ever been documented nor has any substance labeled as 'mind power' ever been observed, measured or experimented upon. You need to get your head out of your ass and stop watching mindless sensationalized garbage. Go look at the science itself, look into the claims before you applaud it without merit.


Had this been a video of these same exact scientists debunking a conscious universe, you would have been eating this # up.


I can't answer for anyone else here, but as for myself if the attempt to debunk or make claim is done through making erroneous claims about something else, I would argue and point out the erroneous information just as equally.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 



We are basically witnessing the integration of new age science with old age science, with old age science being gradually replaced with new age science.


No, we actually are not. I demonstrated this in that one clip. What we are witnessing is the purposeful act of new agers trying to hang onto their narcissistic beliefs by sensationalizing and muddying quantum theory.


Awesome post!



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   
This thread could use a little lightening up:






posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   
I was watching a program on the Science channel last week and they showed a picture of the entire known universe. The first thing I said was that it looked like nurons in a brain. It was really a "wow" moment.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by np6888
reply to post by mahajohn
 


...Now let's say you destroy the kettle, the heat still exists, therefore, you can conclude that the heat can exist without the kettle, i.e by itself.


Yikes! This has to be the most tortured logic I've read in some time. There are numerous things going on in the example you cite. So I've heated up a kettle on my gas stove. The water heats up and the heat from the hot water radiates to the surrounding air, comprised of oxygen, carbon dioxide, and other gases. The air is how hot. There is not disembodied "heat" floating about anywhere. Instead, you have heated molecules of gas permeated the space around the kettle. I destroy the kettle, and soon enough, without an energy source in the form of the kettle, the atoms inside those gaseous molecules stop moving around as much, and the heat dissipates. There simply is no 'energy' existing "by itself." You must understand that heat can not be divorced from the medium that is itself heated. It's like sound. We are not receiving a signal directly in our ears from an orchestra on stage. The musicians' instruments are merely vibrating air molecules, and we sense that organized disturbance of air as "sound." There is no magical energy that exists by itself.

I have to seriously wonder if you aren't someone devoted to making these discussions seem preposterous by stating outlandish ideas.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Neo__
 



Electromagnetic radiation is a form of energy. Did it exist before the discovery of the x-rays and gamma-rays? Of course it did. Just because we didn't know about it back then doesn't mean it didn't exist back then.


Right, and it is propagated by what? Aha!


Light is a type of energy that exists both as a particle and wave, source.


I think it would be best to review: Wiki:Wave and Wiki:Complementarity for further clarification here. Also, I suppose this would be a big help in understanding the concept nearly perfectly Wiki:Wavelength


Is an electron considered to be matter?


Yes.


An electron is a subatomic particle that carries a negative electric charge. It has no known components or substructure, and therefore is believed to be an elementary particle.[2] An electron has a mass that is approximately 1/1836 that of the proton.
source


What about a photon? It has energy but no mass, source.


Yes, it is considered matter.


In physics, a photon is an elementary particle, the quantum of the electromagnetic field and the basic "unit" of light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation. It is also the force carrier for the electromagnetic force. The effects of this force are easily observable at both the microscopic and macroscopic level, because the photon has no rest mass; this allows for interactions at long distances. Like all elementary particles, photons are governed by quantum mechanics and will exhibit wave-particle duality – they exhibit properties of both waves and particles. For example, a single photon may be refracted by a lens or exhibit wave interference, but also act as a particle giving a definite result when quantitative mass is measured.

...

One definition of a photon is that it's a "massless packet of energy, which behaves like both a wave and a particle",


I'm not sure what specifics you wish to raise from the article, but it doesn't appear to state that a photon is not matter. Perhaps your confused with the concept of 'the photon has no rest mass'?


The definition of matter seems to be changing to account for the more exotic "things" in our Universe. Isaac Newton viewed matter as anything that was "solid, massy, hard" etc. Now, however, we have to take into account the sub-atomic and elementary particles of matter such as electrons, quarks and leptons. And even now, we find there things called "W and Z bozons", carriers of the "weak force", that "while not considered matter, they do contribute to the total mass of atoms or subatomic particles", source.


I could not find this anywhere in the source material, including by using Firefox's search function.

"while not considered matter, they do contribute to the total mass of atoms or subatomic particles"

Are you sensationalizing the source material or can you cite the proper source for this statement? This statement does not even exist in the W and Z Bosons page on wiki either and does appear to back up the assertion that these force carriers are particles.


The W and Z⁰ bosons are the elementary particles that mediate the weak force.
source


So who is right? Was Newton right for his time? Of course he was. The only thing we can honestly be assured of is that we can't be assured of anything, even the defination of 'matter'. Truth is ever changing, depending ones point of view. Maybe a 'Unified Field' theory will once again negate what we consider the truth today.


Right compared to whom? To people who are arguing about puffs of smoke without showing anything to the contrary or compared to people who sensationalize the science they discuss through misunderstandings?


Maybe the Hadron Collider will discover the 'god particle', the higgs boson particle. "The Higgs boson would explain the difference between the massless photon, which mediates electromagnetism, and the massive W and Z bosons, which mediate the weak force. If the Higgs boson exists, it is an integral and pervasive component of the material world", source. Science is reaching into worlds that will forever change what we consider reality today.


You need to dispense with the term 'God Particle' as this term does not exist in science.


The Higgs boson is often referred to as "the God particle" by the media,[19] after the title of Leon Lederman's book, The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question?.[20] While use of this term may have contributed to increased media interest in particle physics and the Large Hadron Collider,[20] it is disliked by scientists as overstating the importance of the particle.[19]
source

The higgs boson wouldn't give rise to any profound weird aspect to reality, it's just the force carrier of mass and that's all it is. Please don't sensationalize it, it's ridiculous.






top topics



 
42
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join