It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Says the person who is unable to debate the physics due to a lack of physics knowledge.
. . . "In fact, I knew in advance, from long experience in trying to achieve the unachievable, that meditation and communion between my Self and the Universal Self was the only way to achieve that impossibility." . . .
In debating something like a political candidate, what you think it just as important as what anyone else thinks since everyone gets one vote, so we're all on equal footing and there's no right or wrong answer, we can all vote for whoever we wish.
Originally posted by Mary Rose
I am interested in what I think,
Originally posted by beebs
Just a note on the source... I believe the University of Science and Philosophy was founded by Lao and Walter. It is a good thing to keep in mind where the author's perspective is coming from, in order to try to attain a certain amount of criticality when you are engaging a text or work.
Buddhasystem isn't being unkind or sick. He's just trying to explain that a great deal of what is said here by Mary and yourself is fanciful bullsh1t, either meaningless or outright false.
The fact that he doesn't express agreement on any of your views doesn't mean that he doesn't understand it. There's a big difference! Claiming that he doesn't understand any of the issues you're talking about is utterly crazy.
Can such a contention be justified? We have found that both the proton and the electron can be transformed into radiation simply by contact with their respective antiparticles. “All matter seems to be radiation,”41 says Morse, and so far as we know, radiation is nothing more than a vibratory motion. Can we say that the proton is inherently different from motion when we can transform it into motion? Are we not forced to the conclusion that the atom could very well be an integral entity endowed with specific amounts of various kinds of motion (or something equivalent to motion) and that what we call breaking it up into parts amounts to nothing more than detaching portions of this motion (or the equivalent thereof)?
And is it not true that the trend of discovery in the sub-atomic field is driving us slowly but inexorably in this direction, toward just such a conclusion as the foregoing? It is becoming increasingly evident that there are no “elementary particles” and that both the atoms and the sub-atomic particles belong essentially to the same class: a class that should be called “primary” rather than “elementary,” in that these are the entities which are formed directly from the basic substance of the universe, the permissible forms, we might say, into which the basic clay can be shaped.
After all, much of this should have been suspected long before the advance of experimental knowledge actually forced us to such conclusions. In retrospect it is clear that serious consideration should have been given many years ago to the possibility that the atom is not constructed of “parts.” When the most strenuous efforts over a long period of years by the best minds in the scientific profession fail to clarify the properties of the hypothetical constituents of the atom, and finally lead in desperation to the conclusion that these entities have no definite properties and do not even “exist objectively,” mere common sense certainly calls for a thorough examination of the obvious possibility that they do not exist at all.
Similarly, the absurd situation into which the notion of the “elementary particle” has led us should have raised the warning signal long before this. In the early years of this century, when the only sub-atomic particles known to the physicist were the electron and the supposedly sub-atomic proton, and when the discovery of radioactivity had demonstrated that the atoms are subject to disintegration, it was entirely logical to conclude that atoms are constructed of parts, and that the then known particles which could be extracted from atoms are the “elementary particles” from which the atoms are built. But when contradictory evidence began to pile up at a fantastic rate, when it became clear that all of the products of radioactive disintegration are created in the process rather than preexisting in the atom, when it was demonstrated that the necessary properties of the hypothetical constituents of the atom were completely at odds with those of the known sub-atomic particles, when the number and variety of “elementary particles” multiplied to such an extent that the apparent necessity of calling them all “elementary” had become definitely embarrassing, when it was no longer possible even to imagine elementary roles which some of these particles, the mu meson for example, might fill, and above all, when it became necessary to admit that the concept of an elementary particle had become so hazy that it could no longer even be defined, it should have been strongly suspected that the answer might lie in the fact that there is no such thing as an elementary particle. In essence this, of course, amounts to the same thing as the conclusion that the atom is not constructed of “parts.”
The evidence now available indicates that the sub-atomic particles such as the electron, the neutron, etc., are not constituents of atoms but incomplete atoms; that is, they are independent entities of the same general nature as atoms, but they lack, either qualitatively or quantitatively, something of what it takes to meet all of the requirements that qualify a particle for the status of an atom. They can all, atoms and sub-atomic particles alike, be converted to motion (that is, to radiation) and hence they must all be constructed of the same basic substance, or of substances that are essentially equivalent.
This brings us down to the question of the identity of the basic substance or substances. Since all units can be transformed into motion in the form of radiation, we might be inclined on first consideration to express the question in this manner: What is there that can exist in a variety of forms and is equivalent to motion? But this is a difficult, perhaps impossible, question to answer, and it leads us into a cul-de-sac. So we need to go back and take note of the fact that radiation is not only motion; it is a particular form of motion. In the light of this additional information we are entitled to rephrase the question in this way: What is there that can exist in a variety of forms and is equivalent to a particular form of motion? The answer is now obvious: other forms of motion.
On the basis of present-day knowledge, it will therefore be necessary to replace existing theories of the atom and the sub-atomic particles with some new theory wherein all such physical entities are complexes of different forms of motion, and wherein both the atom and the sub-atomic particles have the status of primary particles; that is, particles which are constructed directly from the basic motions.
The conclusion that the nuclear theory of the atom is erroneous and that in reality there is no such thing as an atomic nucleus will be difficult for the present generation of scientists to accept. The individual who has from childhood visualized the atom in the manner pictured by Bohr, who has participated in the great debates over the use of “nuclear” energy, who reads Nucleonics and the Annual Review of Nuclear Science, and who has perhaps taught classes in “nuclear physics” cannot be expected to look with enthusiasm on the prospect of life without a nucleus.
One is not easily reconciled to the loss of an old friend in the world of ideas.
Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Arbitrageur
I don't care what you think about protons or any other detail of science.
Originally posted by buddhasystem
If a a person other than Arb offers you a shortcut to s feeling that you actually know something (which you don't) . . .
The case against the nuclear atom?
Wow. The internet never ceases to amaze me with its stupidity.
Perhaps if there was a "case against the existence of the liver" you'd follow that too, rather than talk to people who spend their lives operating on human livers. And you'd defend your right to your opinion, and to not be called crazy. Cool.
Originally posted by beebs
Go do some real work, quit wasting your time here.
You completely do not understand anything I have told you the entire time.
You are not familiar with the source material, nor are you qualified to speak about it since you deny the context it clearly exists within.
Go read some Wilhelm Reich. Your character structure is so predictable, and you put up such hasty and blind barriers to shield your nucleus(ego) from harm.
You are incapable of critical thinking about what you read. No, let me rephrase that... you won't critically think about what you don't want to read.
The only question is why you keep coming back? If you think its a dead horse, then why beat it?
To me, this is clearly a psychological symptom of the suppressed individuation process. There is a deep part inside of you that slightly recognizes the obvious truths expressed by many of the quotes and people we discuss... But the main part - the part with the drive to survive and perpetuate itself - this part of you won't accept the threat the other poses to its own dominant existence.
So the deep down part keeps itching to find a possible kernel of something useful here... while the sadistic majority continually takes over in a blinding attempt to eradicate all opposition to its existence - all the while passing itself off as a noble effort to deny ignorance. In reality, it is denial and poor intellectual honesty.
You think the horse is dead, that the game is won, that you are right, and that you are on top.
Wake up, Mr. Green.
The greatest con that he ever pulled, was making you believe... that he, is you.
Massively false assumption!
Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by Bobathon
Yep, The Case Against the Nuclear Atom. Read it or shut up.
This is why I feel there is a psychological block inside the minds of people like you, and that I must point it out.