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.

 

Is Matter Self Aware?

page: 6
5
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Originally posted by 1littlewolf
I have; and what you say is not completely true. There are many eminent physicists who support the consciousness hypothesis. They may not be all be prepared to take their quite as far as those who made such docos as 'What The Bleep', you also have to keep in mind of the 10 or 11 scientists who appeared on that film only one disagreed with the films conclsions.

There have also been double blind experiments conducted which prove the effects are caused by human observation and have nothing to do with proximity of the recording equipment etc. While the conclusions regarding consciousness actually causing effects in reality on a macro scale maybe be a little far-fetched for many scientists who quite rightly will only take their conculsions as far as what can be proven experimentally, there is one fact which cannot be ignored.

The human mind effects the particles which are the very building blocks of all matter and energy in this universe

This is a proven fact and shows that the human consciousness is not bound by the physical body. What conclusions you make after this short of further scientific experimentation are your own but it opens a rabbit hole which questions the very nature of reality as we know it.

Also while it doesn't completely disprove your premise of 'consciousness without matter', (in fact this would be almost impossible as there is matter everywhere in the universe in various concentrations) it does , as I have stated already, show that the mind can and does effect other matter beyond the confines of the physical human shell.



The human mind effects how we view the particles which are the very building blocks of all matter and energy in this universe


Again not true. How we view these particles/waves has nothing to do with whether the wave is collapsed into a particle or not. It’s whether it is viewed that makes the difference. We are not viewing the particle/wave, we are viewing the interference patterns which they create. How we view them doesn’t change – we use our eyes….


Originally posted by TheSubversiveOneIt's solipsistic to think our own consciousness can affect matter, despite the fact nothing has proven that mind can affect matter. We only wish it to be true. It's self-centeredness, and can be debunked by going outside and trying to affect matter with the mind. It just doesn't happen. There's too many variables to just conclude that "it must've been because we were watching it."


Solipsism has nothing to do with it, it is simple logic. When we observe something it is a particle, when we don’t it is a wave. What is the driving force behind us choosing to view something? What is it that makes sense of the visual stimuli our eyes receive? Consciousness.

As for mind effecting matter, as a Pagan I have seen things which cannot ‘logically’ be explained in any other way other than the fact that the mind can and does directly affect matter in all forms all the time. I know these experiences won’t be enough to convince you but this is no concern of mine. Your beliefs are your own.


Second, we don't live on a quantum level. Nothing does.


Seriously…!? You think somehow the macro scale is separated from the quantum scale with and the two have no affect on each other? As has already been stated these are particles which are the very building blocks of all matter and energy in this universe. There already exist working prototypes of quantum computers which use the phenomenon of entanglement and superposition theory. This is the quantum world directly affecting the macro world.



These experiments tell us more about humans, the human processes and the way our equipment works than they tell us about the universe. We draw the lines on the map, we make the equipment, we come up with the experiments. We measure them, calculate them and dream up conclusions. It tells us more about how we work.


So you say. These are tools which measure and calculate real world phenomena. You say we ‘dream up conclusions’ as if these experiments have no bearing on our lives and predict/measure nothing but imaginary phenomena. This may be the case if the physical world is in fact an illusion, but even if this is the case it still has no bearing on their validity.


Name one place in the universe where there are no outside forces influencing particles. There isn't such a place. Every instrument, "observer," and the result of the experiment is entirely synthetic—made up by man. How does this explain reality? It doesn't, you only wish it does.

Everything else you said is based on a variable-less, completely synthetic, man made, man conceived, void of nature, observed by instruments and entirely unnatural version of the universe. Explain to me how this translates into reality?


True, but eventually it becomes illogical to conclude that it simply some random interference which is causing these results. The unnaturalness is in place to make the interference of outside influences negligible which in turn only strengthens the conclusions drawn from the results.

How does this translate into reality? Well I’m talking to you on the ‘internet’ via a ‘computer’ for starters. Almost all technology, and most of our knowledge of ‘reality’ (however you choose to define it) is the result of synthetic, unnatural experiments.


Again, Every instrument, "observer," and the result of the experiment is entirely synthetic—made up by man. How does this explain reality? It doesn't, you only wish it does. The experiment is relative to the experiment only. Show me in nature how particles act this way, show me a place in the universe where there are only two slits and particles flying through them, show me without having to find everything through layers of powerful electron and screens. The result tells us more about the equipment, our methodology, and the experiment than it does about the universe.
Your failure to think for yourself is sheep-like at best.


Again I find it interesting that you believe that scientific experiments have no bearing on actual reality, but this is you pov and not worth discussing any further.

One thing worth mentioning is you wonder where do you find electrons behaving like they did in the experiment….? Look around you SO. Everything you observe is made up ultimately of quantum particles. Therefore everything you observe will behave just as they have in these experiments, slit screen or not. I’m not sure how you plan on observing it without the ‘fancy screens’ but the fact is its everywhere….





edit on 18/7/2012 by 1littlewolf because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 08:29 AM
link   



There is a lot of proof that particles "know" stuff.


What kind of proofs? New Age proofs? If you are referring to the double slit experiment, it has been debunked. I read a paper in a physics forum one year ago.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by swan001
 





If you are referring to the double slit experiment, it has been debunked. I read a paper in a physics forum one year ago.


Care to post what was debunked exactly? What did they find that was making the wave function collapse and making information travel backwards in time?

You know exactly what I'm talking about.

If you are such a scientific man, why do you limit yourself to these non substantial drive-by debunk attempts?

Please post a link to that one paper you read on a forum last year so that I can review it.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by swan001



There is a lot of proof that particles "know" stuff.


What kind of proofs? New Age proofs? If you are referring to the double slit experiment, it has been debunked. I read a paper in a physics forum one year ago.


Really!? They certainly kept that pretty quiet. It would be nice if you could show your source Swan for as far as I'm aware it is still being in many undergraduate Physics101 courses.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 08:49 AM
link   



Please post a link to that one paper you read on a forum last year so that I can review it.


I would love to do it, but as it was one year ago, I'll have to dig the paper up in Google. As this information was not heavily published, we can assume that is the reason why media (which promotes New Age vision because it is part of its New World Order agenda) kept it quiet.
Basically the detector affected the shape of the slit so it gave an "anomaly" which made it look as if electron were aware. We need a detector to detect the passage of an electron, but, as Heisenberg showed it, the detector will temper with the behaviour of the particle affected by the detector.

edit on 19-7-2012 by swan001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by swan001
 





I would love to do it, but as it was one year ago, I'll have to dig the paper up in Google. As this information was not heavily published, we can assume that is the reason why media (which promotes New Age vision because it is part of its New World Order agenda) kept it quiet.




Or was it because it is totally flawed, and disproven by the experiments I refered to in this thread, and something that was also explained in other threads which I know you have visited.

So you are willingly and repeatedly spreading information of which you should know it is incorrect.

Not very scientific, Swan. Talking about agendas.




Basically the detector affected the shape of the slit so it gave an "anomaly" which made it look as if electron were aware. We need a detector to detect the passage of an electron, but, as Heisenberg showed it, the detector will temper with the behaviour of the particle affected by the detector.


This is the exact same reasoning that is debunked by these experiments. They erase the info of the detection and the wave function still does not collapse, even though the detection did take place. The means of erasure also doesn't affect the particle.

This proves that the detector is not causing the collapse of the wave function.

The only thing that matters is if the Which Path info is available or not.

Are you simply ignoring this? I know you must have read this information before.

You seem intellectually dishonest to me.
edit on 19-7-2012 by TraitorKiller because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by swan001
As this information was not heavily published, we can assume that is the reason why media (which promotes New Age vision because it is part of its New World Order agenda) kept it quiet.


Interesting theory. I would almost pay money to see anyone even attempt to create a NWO with me and my new age crystal-loving hairy unwashed vegan hippy friends. Nor have I ever seen any major broadcaster publish a story even remotely new age without a few smirks and giggles from the broadcasters.

Surely it would be far easier to divide and conquer the sheeple through spreading an agenda of fear and distraction throughout the masses. That’s how I’d do it anyway….


Originally posted by TraitorKiller

This is the exact same reasoning that is debunked by these experiments. They erase the info of the detection and the wave function still does not collapse, even though the detection did take place. The means of erasure also doesn't affect the particle.

This proves that the detector is not causing the collapse of the wave function.

The only thing that matters is if the Which Path info is available or not.



These are the experiments that I am familiar with and alluded to earlier in this thread. Just remember peeps not it is not just the debunkers that posses science degrees, although I will be the first to admit that I only did a minor in physics.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by swan001
 





As this information was not heavily published, we can assume that is the reason why media (which promotes New Age vision because it is part of its New World Order agenda) kept it quiet.


What I am seeing is a state of denial, conservatism and deluded opposition to undeniable facts and a glaring truth smacking us in the face with a big stick.

Most scientists are afraid to make the bold statement that consciousness is playing an intrinsic role at the core of reality.

The ones that do are labeled New Age idiots. New Age, a word that only skeptics seem to use.

When I look at comment sections at physics sites, discussing these kind of experiments, and see people going around in circles, going out of their way to explain away the results in order to secure their own safe little paradigm, when the answer is really pretty simple as to why they happen, it just makes me cringe.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by 1littlewolf
 


I don't have a Physics degree either.

Seems like some people with degrees sometimes have a much harder time to accept facts that contradict their education.

A bit of self-entitlement and arrogance here and there too.


edit on 19-7-2012 by TraitorKiller because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by TraitorKiller

Most scientists are afraid to make the bold statement that consciousness is playing an intrinsic role at the core of reality.

The ones that do are labeled New Age idiots. New Age, a word that only skeptics seem to use.

When I look at comment sections at physics sites, discussing these kind of experiments, and see people going around in circles, going out of their way to explain away the results in order to secure their own safe little paradigm, when the answer is really pretty simple as to why they happen, it just makes me cringe.



Could not agree more. If one views the evidence as a whole from as unbiased viewpoint as one can muster it actually become illogical to deny that the human mind does not effect reality in one way or another. I honestly don't understand why people are so keen to hang on to their outdated paradigms of a static reality. If you look at many other scientific disciplines the scientists themselves are jumping all over each other trying to come up with discoveries which will turn that particular discipline on its head.

These experiments bring into question the very nature of reality as we know it. If anything is being suppressed its the ramifications these experiments could have on society. It is far more NWOish to suppress the fact that we can and do affect the reality around us all the time and simply leave us believing that we are merely passive spectators in a world beyond our control.

Sorry Swan but your gonna have to try a little harder than simply playing the old 'I'm physicist and I read some paper last year’ card….



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by 1littlewolf
 


Couldn't agree more either.




posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by TraitorKiller
 

reply to post by 1littlewolf
 

reply to post by TraitorKiller
 


I just gave in my 2 cents. I don't expect you to do any research about what I just said. I don't expect you to believe me. I don't expect you to open a book of physics or read Arxiv. Who I am to tell you what to believe? You are old enough to believe what you want. I just popped here to tell you, your beliefs lack truth.
No I will go. I need to rest.
Peace.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by 1littlewolf
 


reply to post by whoevertheotherguywas
 


You make some good points littlewolf. It may have been unnecessary for me to discount the usefulness of experiments. I only did so to inspire the gentleman to think for himself and at least wait until something more concrete arrises. To me, any experiment that doesn't involve my own nervous system is suspect. This is a curse I have for a fear of being duped. There is nothing wrong with suspending judgement—which is the state I am at. I am obviously a layman in quantum physics, much like everyone else in this thread.

I am skeptical of the idea that consciousness affects matter because I am unable to affect matter with my being conscious. It's as simple as that. I tried it on a grain of sand. Nothing happened to that sand. If I was to believe the hypothesis, I would then have to conclude that every particle was in wave-form before life existed. I'm not quite ready to take that leap of faith quite yet. So excuse my stubbornness in blindly accepting something.

Furthermore, I am not a materialist or skeptic or unspiritual. I'm still discovering and experimenting and haven't come to any conclusions regarding physics or metaphysics. My mind is entirely open.

That being said, you had me second guessing myself because of your surety and conviction. I wondered if the evidence I looked at was wrong. So for the past number of hours I've been scouring the internet looking for the facts you mention (at the expense of work), and I found none. I only discovered various interpretations, problems and guesswork, the majority of which anyone in this thread has failed to recognize or take into account. I've read all these and still cannot reach the same conclusion you do. Please take a look through and help me realize these facts.

Quantum Consciousness

Quantum Decoherence

Quantum Mind

Quantum mind–body problem

Quantum Mysticism

Also, I couldn't find anything that mention quantum principles working above the sub-atomic level. If you can point those out to me, I would be gracious.

As for your spiritual experiences in regards to consciousness and matter, I will give you the benefit of the doubt. I'm not sure what your Pagan beliefs have to do with it, but I respect your interpretations of how you interact with the world. They are no more or less valid than mine.

For now, let's excuse the bickering and find us some sort of foundation we can agree on, and take it from there.



edit on 19-7-2012 by TheSubversiveOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by swan001
 





I just gave in my 2 cents.


No, you came in here, mentioned you studied physics, and said it was debunked. Even though I know that you have seen the information that proves your argument wrong, before.

That is not 2 cents. It's dishonest.




I don't expect you to do any research about what I just said.


Because you would not give us a link. Furthermore, you already told us the conclusion of that paper and I proved it wrong again, didn't I just tell you how the experiments prove that the detector is not influencing the particle?

And still you refuse to acknowledge the facts?




I don't expect you to open a book of physics or read Arxiv.


Are they going to prove that the detector is in fact responsible for the wave collapse? If not, how is it relevant?




Who I am to tell you what to believe? You are old enough to believe what you want. I just popped here to tell you, your beliefs lack truth. No I will go. I need to rest. Peace.


And I'm telling you your words lack substance, they're nothing solid.

This is not about beliefs, it is about simple fact and undeniable logic.

It's ok if you want to remain in your paradigm, just don't make these empty drive by statements, and discuss the facts at hand if you want to bud in. If you can't or won't discuss the presented facts, you are probably not right.

Peace out.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
 





reply to post by whoevertheotherguywas


Are you trying to make a point?




It may have been unnecessary for me to discount the usefulness of experiments. I only did so to inspire the gentleman to think for himself and at least wait until something more concrete arrises.


No, you were wrong and now you are trying to use me as an excuse.

As pointed out before, multiple times, you are taking the standpoint of someone not thinking for himself, I am the one talking about factual experimental results that are undeniable. Remember?




That being said, you had me second guessing myself because of your surety and conviction. I wondered if the evidence I looked at was wrong. So for the past number of hours I've been scouring the internet looking for the facts you mention (at the expense of work), and I found none.


The experiments posted in this thread prove it. You can't get any more direct proof, instead of listening or even acknowledging it, you run off to find other people to tell you that we are right or wrong, when the proof is right here.

And you repeatedly accused me of not thinking for myself. Oh brother.




Also, I couldn't find anything that mention quantum principles working above the sub-atomic level. If you can point those out to me, I would be gracious.


Nor did anyone mention that here if I'm not mistaken. What was said was that quantum particles are the buildingblocks that make up atoms and matter, and that everything has a quantum level lying beneath.

Not that quantum principles apply to the macro world, although there might be some examples, I'll look em up.

I am glad that you are at least keeping an open mind and I wanted to make a friendlier reply to this post but you weren't really nice either.

Buddy.






posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   
I was just kidding about the name. I'm glad you caught it! No disrespect meant, I actually forgot your name when writing the bbcode.

I've looked at the experiments you posted and nothing adds up to what you claim. Please, find me one fact that says consciousness has anything to do with matter, whether on a macro or microscopic scale. I'll take anything that isn't interpretation or conjecture, but solid agreed upon facts.

Also, was the "observer" active or passive? Please enlighten me.

At least read the links I have provided as I have done to yours, and then we can start this again. No more asserting without something solid to back it up. I will gladly do the same.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
 




Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
You make some good points 1littlewolf. It may have been unnecessary for me to discount the usefulness of experiments. I only did so to inspire the gentleman to think for himself and at least wait until something more concrete arrises. To me, any experiment that doesn't involve my own nervous system is suspect. This is a curse I have for a fear of being duped. There is nothing wrong with suspending judgement—which is the state I am at. I am obviously a layman in quantum physics, much like everyone else in this thread.


I’m all for inspiring folks to think for themselves, and I completely understand your fear of being duped though given what I’ve seen of your posts I find it hard to believe that would happen. I too am no expert of quantum mechanics and unlike you have not ever really looked too far into philosophy either. But I understand enough of the quantum world to know that it brings into question the very nature of reality as we know it, and the possibilities it points to echo many commonalities that are present at the core of most belief systems.


I am skeptical of the idea that consciousness affects matter because I am unable to affect matter with my being conscious. It's as simple as that. I tried it on a grain of sand. Nothing happened to that sand. If I was to believe the hypothesis, I would then have to conclude that every particle was in wave-form before life existed. I'm not quite ready to take that leap of faith quite yet. So excuse my stubbornness in blindly accepting something.


Stubbornness excused. If you are serious about giving it a go then maybe try on something a little less substantial than an actual grain of sand. I myself have had had a lot of fun manipulating candle flames in a totally draft free room and others I know have great success with psi wheels.

But here’s the clincher. It requires a suspension of scepticism. Why? Well it relates in some ways to the whole mind double slit/superposition/entanglement thing if you can make that leap of faith. It also relates to the whole New Age ‘there is one universal mind, the universe is its body, we merely multiple awareness’s of this one great consciousness, holographic universe’ thought process. Note that what I say has no hard proof attached to it so it does require faith to a certain degree.

It is my belief that we are ultimately all one, which is entirely possible if you consider the theory of quantum entanglement and then consider that at the time of the big bang all particles were entangled. There is a distinct possibility that they still are especially considering time does not really behave how we expect at the quantum level.

Now if you consider that imho the mind can in fact affect reality to some degree, you have to expect that it will affect it in accordance to your expectations. Now if you are sceptical then subconsciously you are actually denying the possibility that it can happen, which in turn manifests into reality.

Also you are (as are most of us) operating under a set of beliefs which have been reinforced since birth which states that the universe is static and we are merely passive spectators. It takes a lot of faith to break free of this and few can do it for more than a few fleeting moments. It is a hard frame of mind to hold for you must operate under a system of ‘knowing’ what you want to happen has in fact already happened, yet at the same time you must not really care whether it does or doesn’t happen. For if you ‘want’ something, again you are sending out subconsciously to the universe (which is merely a vast extension of you the ‘greater’ you) a signal that you do not have it and hence the universe responds accordingly. Hopefully you get what I’m driving at.

Also you must consider these experiments are dealing with 1 subatomic particle. Unfortunately this is not Hogwarts, and you have to ask yourself how many of these particles must be present within one grain of sand. You will have far better luck trying to influence life events through belief via a ‘Law of Attraction’ type mindset (and no I don’t mean that mass marketed ‘The Secret’ BS). This is an epic thread on the subject written by one of the mods who is also a published New Age writer.


Furthermore, I am not a materialist or skeptic or unspiritual. I'm still discovering and experimenting and haven't come to any conclusions regarding physics or metaphysics. My mind is entirely open.


Well that’s the first step



That being said, you had me second guessing myself because of your surety and conviction. I wondered if the evidence I looked at was wrong. So for the past number of hours I've been scouring the internet looking for the facts you mention (at the expense of work), and I found none. I only discovered various interpretations, problems and guesswork, the majority of which anyone in this thread has failed to recognize or take into account. I've read all these and still cannot reach the same conclusion you do. Please take a look through and help me realize these facts.


Please narrow down which particular facts you are after. The only thing I have said for certain (I think) is that an electron which is observed behaves as a particle, and when not observed it behaves as a wave. Through my own logic I have concluded that it is in fact the observer’s mind which collapses the waveform (as opposed to some magical attribute of the observer’s eyeball) and everything else I’ve stated have been my own conclusions which I try when possible to base on logic as well as commonalities I see throughout many belief systems. I will admit however they are coloured by own personal (though unprovable) experiences.



Also, I couldn't find anything that mention quantum principles working above the sub-atomic level. If you can point those out to me, I would be gracious.


The example I used was that of the quantum computer. It is also beginning to be used in the field of nano-technology (which technically is still macroscopic) and another article here which alludes to the fact that it can operate on a macroscopic level, but does so via quantum interactions which are not initially obvious when viewing the world from a classical Newtonian pov. Sorry I don’t have time to provide more but I also am at work
though if there is something in particular you are looking for I will be quite willing to have a look.

I will admit that none of these examples actually utilise the human mind but the technology is still in its infancy and few scientist are prepared to go down that rabbit hole quite yet. I personally believe that there are enough indicators to show that this is completely possible but again this is my pov.


As for your spiritual experiences in regards to consciousness and matter, I will give you the benefit of the doubt. I'm not sure what your Pagan beliefs have to do with it, but I respect your interpretations of how you interact with the world. They are no more or less valid than mine.


My background – My (ex) stepfather was a Wiccan high priest and through their gatherings I have been privy to many events which cannot simply be explained by mere coincidence. I personally have accomplished a few feats which I consider amazing such as causing a pile of damp wood to burst into flames and calling down a number of wild finches onto my person through suggestion of the mind alone just to name a few (I was quite ‘high’ at those times on…..universal energy….or whatever….so it’s not like I go around doing this stuff everyday). I also have a degree in geology and also anthropology which also gives me quite a logic based thought process and helps in understanding a few of the basic principles. Not in any way trying to big note myself here just giving you an idea of where I’m coming from.

I left the whole Wiccan scene behind as it was my feeling that they, like most established belief systems, they tend to over-complexify things that I believe are really quite simple and now I merely classify myself as a spiritual pantheist (or pagan when I’m dealing with fundamentalists and really want to rile them up).


For now, let's excuse the bickering and find us some sort of foundation we can agree on, and take it from there.


No bickering on my behalf. I like what you do and you have definitely made me think as well. Its people like you that help me redefine my beliefs and point out the flaws in them which can only be a good thing. The people I tend to bicker with are those who make unsubstantiated claims based on a piece of paper they earned at uni and then provide no sources to back up their statements.





edit on 19/7/2012 by 1littlewolf because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 11:39 PM
link   
I believe this is a technology, interactive holographic universe and Soul/Intellect is Consciousness only.



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 06:43 AM
link   
reply to post by TraitorKiller
 

A link? You want me to waste 3 hours of my limited time, to hop around Google, search for an ancient paper that I came across one year ago, then what? You say, Oooh, this is not conclusive?

And yet you just admitted that you never opened a book of physics or visited ArXiv. That explains why you use the word "wave collapse function" abusevly, as the wave function is a set of wave-like equations that represent possible outcomes for an event and when an event is set, the whole equation collapses to zero.


So, you are no physicist, yet you want me to hop around giving you links?



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by TraitorKiller
 

A link? You want me to waste 3 hours of my limited time, to hop around Google, search for an ancient paper that I came across one year ago, then what? You say, Oooh, this is not conclusive?

And yet you just admitted that you never opened a book of physics or visited ArXiv. That explains why you use the word "wave collapse function" abusevly, as the wave function is a set of wave-like equations that represent possible outcomes for an event and when an event is set, the whole equation collapses to zero.


So, you are no physicist, yet you want me to hop around giving you links?


Look Swan, you make a claim you have to back it up with something. If I were to tell you that the theory of plate tectonics had been debunked based on a single paper I read in a forum a year ago and to trust me cos I'm a geologist (which I am) you would at the very least want to see the paper. It's that simple. I certainly would not expect you to take my word at face value.

I know if I were a physicist and had read a paper that debunked one of the greatest quantum experiments of all time I'd definitely be saving a copy.

There are multiple experiments such as the Quantum Eraser Experiment which show that equipment used does not in any way interfere with the waveform collapse. I'm sorry but you are really gonna have to do a little better if you expect anyone to take you seriously.





edit on 20/7/2012 by 1littlewolf because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
5
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join