Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

All Of Science Is A Lie

page: 4
54
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


So whats is the universe then, I really want to hear your take on the whole universe. Are we made by accident? Was the universe random? (electrons coming into existence) What is the fabric of space? What is the aether of space?

[edit on 7-4-2010 by Maddogkull]

[edit on 7-4-2010 by Maddogkull]




posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Hi everybody.

As I'm new to these subjects. And I really enjoy the cunningness from a lot of sneers here.

I understand that we have have an understanding of about 4% of the known universe.
Much of this knowledge has or will change do to new discoveries and so on.

I wonder how different the universe will look like, after those missing 96% of knowledge will someday will not be missing anymore.


Of course I don't fully agree on the statement all science is a lie, but all science regarding the universe seems to me like a lot of it really is based on our imagination.
Which is a good thing IMO. But not nearly good enough to go all ad hominem on the OP.


Just my two cents.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maddogkull
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


So whats is the universe, then I really want to hear your take on the whole universe. Are we made by accident? Was the universe random? (electrons coming into existence)


We exist as the product of electrons from the depths of space.

There are things I don't have the answer to, like why should electrons give rise to life and consciousness?

I personally think consciousness is a fundamental part of the universe that stands on its own.

I think that consciousness is what causes life to form and evolve into what we are today.

Given that, I think electrons must be in some way conscious or interact with consciousness. They obey a set rule of physics, but there is no clear understanding of why this set rule of physics should give rise to life or intelligent thought.

The most logical explanation I can come up with is that the body is an antenna for consciousness and the brain is the processor. When we look at maps of brain activity we can see different areas of the brain light up when different thoughts are invoked. However, we can't tell WHAT is causing those thoughts to originate in the first place. We can only see the product of those thoughts, not what causes them.

We can also see single celled creature "thinking." They process information about their surroundings. They find food, move themselves about, replicate when necessary, process food they intake. Since they have no brain but are in some way conscious, this further calls into question the purely physical interpretation of consciousness.





[edit on 7-4-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Humans thoughts are a byproduct of qualia, am I wrong?

2nd Line.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maddogkull
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Humans thoughts are a byproduct of qualia, am I wrong?

2nd Line.


I would say the brain is the processor.

The junction between the physical and non-physical inputs.

The body receives inputs from reality and the brain processes them into the non-physical which interacts with consciousness as its own entity.

When we invoke a thought, that thought isn't being invoked by some physical mechanism, it appears to be arising from nothing, but that nothing is consciousness.

The body acts as an antenna receiving external inputs.

Discussions of qualia are interpretive upon the meaning used. You might call me a dualist I suppose.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Theories that revolve around Maxwell's equations which presume a preferred time and universal speed in an infinite static universe are correct.


Consider it an ad hominem if you wish, but after you voice your displeasure with theories and assumptions, you don't hesitate to put forth your own, which doesn't have merit as far as I can see.


Theories that presume this obey all physical laws which we can measure.


How do Maxwell's equations explain creation of electron-positron pairs in high-energy collisions?


Einstein's insanity does not obey these simple rules.

Einstein's insanity leads us to crazy theories of warping space, black holes, and all other manner of nonsense physicists can dream up on paper.


As I said, if you can't wrap around you brain around something, you just call it insane. That's pretty backward in my book.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Theories that revolve around Maxwell's equations which presume a preferred time and universal speed in an infinite static universe are correct.


Consider it an ad hominem if you wish, but after you voice your displeasure with theories and assumptions, you don't hesitate to put forth your own, which doesn't have merit as far as I can see.


Theories that presume this obey all physical laws which we can measure.


How do Maxwell's equations explain creation of electron-positron pairs in high-energy collisions?


Einstein's insanity does not obey these simple rules.

Einstein's insanity leads us to crazy theories of warping space, black holes, and all other manner of nonsense physicists can dream up on paper.


As I said, if you can't wrap around you brain around something, you just call it insane. That's pretty backward in my book.


No, what is insane is believing that there is a wave particle duality. That somehow light is at the same time a particle and a wave.

Light, like any other electromagnetic function is a wave - purely a wave.

Standing waves well explain ALL functions of light and do not devolve into pure nonsensical theory by claiming to be both.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 03:56 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 04:01 PM
link   
WOW!!!

This is the BEST Thread on Science ever!!!

THE OP IS ACTUALLY CORRECT!!!!!

100 freaking % correct!!!!

Major star and flag here dude.

I am BEHIND YOU!

Don't let these blindly devoted people who CANNOT THINK for themselves dissuade you.

I think EVERY theory you stated is MOST LIKELY TRUE.

S+F
And I will friend you.

You sir are a major value to Earth society, although these people won't acknowledge it yet...

One day in the distant future, this thread will be looked at as prophetic.

You can argue all you want, but I have personally spent years thinking about the SAME questions the OP did, and I have come to the SAME answers!



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Blaze labs did a nice little write up on electron/positron pair creation as seen from the standing wave point of view.

Such suppositions are within the realm of physical possibility, well explain the anomalies of quantum physics, and are compliant with Maxwell's equations and the physical reality that can be observed.

www.blazelabs.com...

Einstein's obtuse theories yet again fall to Occam's razor.

Standing waves are more correct than wave-particle duality.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Well, to go back to OP's statement, I tend to stand on that idea. A few years ago, in France, a man sued TPTB on the case that medicine was NOT a science. In science, you have to make a prediction that can be reproduced independently. You can't have that with medicine because none of us react the same way to a medicament. You will have a percentage that will have a likeness in reactions to any given drug, but not a hundred percent. huh-uh. Can't have that!

And I guess some of you know that the "science" chemistry, well, the word itself comes from the late Greek "khêmeia" which means "black magic". Since when a magic is a science... Officially?

Also, I agree with memeth1's second post. I trust the mechanical surgeon, not their "khêmeia" dispenser counterparts.

And I'll try to find some info on the guy who sued...

Aresh



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 04:09 PM
link   
"Space does not expand, bend, warp, twist, or in anyway do anything other than exist as a place that matter occupies. Matter itself does not bend space, warp space, or cause holes in space."

So are you saying that black holes don't exist? I think the LHC may primarily be a money-waster, but I'm pretty sure that black holes exist.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Also, they will say "you cannot go faster than light".

This is another lie too.

See, in deep space, you are in entropy.

When you apply a force, you go in the opposite direction at that speed. But when the force is no longer applied, you revert to entropy (yet from outside point of view you are actually moving in a direction). Since you are in relative entropy, you can then apply a new force.

This will increase your speed because of entropy. Therefore by doing this process countless times, you will eventually end up going faster than the speed of light.

Also, objects moving faster than the speed of light do NOT INCREASE in MASS. They only "Appear to increase their mass - relatively". In reality their mass remains the same as it always was.

So there will not be any reasons why traveling FTL is impossible. It is totally possible and actually apparently simple.

Also, the physics inside the cockpit of the spaceship will not change either. It is in entropy.

This type of thinking gets slammed on by the mainstream science all the time, except Michio Kaku told me he didn't see anything wrong with it. So at least 1 scientist knows WTF I'm talking about.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 04:13 PM
link   
I agree that Red Shift/Blue shift indicates we are at the CENTER of the Universe.

This is why their theory is junk.

Here is proof the Universe isn't expanding. Galaxies Collide.

In a expanding Universe, all galaxies should be getting further away from each other, NOT COLLIDING!



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


What makes you think we are so important that out of all the galaxies out there, we are in the center. Yeah right


And sorry if I misunderstood your post, this is what I got from it.


[edit on 7-4-2010 by Maddogkull]



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


I think what you say about going faster then light is very interesting.
Although I think Kaku has an elitair bitter sent on him he does and probably one of the few, thinks outside of the box.

Have you really spoken to him ?

I'm getting way to excited here. Please make a thread on it or something. ( The light speed I mean )



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 04:17 PM
link   
Here is a thread I made in 2005 named "Why the Big Bang Never Happened".
www.abovetopsecret.com...

And I know you will probably love this one.

This thread is one of my babies that I personally think is totally legit and prophetic of our future.

"Is This the Unified Field Theory?"
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I shared these with you OP because I felt like you would be interested in seeing some of my "unconventional" theories.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas

Have you really spoken to him ?


Yes I was extremely lucky.

I got to speak to him for a period of 4-5 months during 2000 when I was in college.

We spoke multiple times, and I always asked him questions.

Even about normal mundane stuff, unrelated subjects.

He is truly one of the most open minded people on Earth.

We were talking about Aliens and stuff totally normally back in 2000. He is kind of my hero and I look up to him. He has really helped me on my quest to find the truth and science.

I wish I could have spoken to Carl Sagan before he died, but I was not so lucky. Michio is nicer anyway though



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


I think what you say about going faster then light is very interesting.
Although I think Kaku has an elitair bitter sent on him he does and probably one of the few, thinks outside of the box.

Have you really spoken to him ?

I'm getting way to excited here. Please make a thread on it or something. ( The light speed I mean )


Based on the reality I am proposing (which is the correct reality) there is no speed limit.

Not only that, but anti-gravity becomes a real possibility.

I believe the universe would not be so big if there wasn't an efficient way to travel around in it


Einstein and his statist cronies have set us back 100 years in terms of real scientific advancement.

We would already have free energy and personal space travel if it wasn't for Einstein and his corrupt criminal band of thieving followers.


[edit on 7-4-2010 by mnemeth1]






top topics



 
54
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join