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.

 

What we still don't know (BBC Documentaries)

page: 2
45
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Unbelievable.

What a waste of 50 minutes. All of the "science" I already know.
They are trying to push the creator card.
I really hope no one who is just getting into science watches this crap.

Many of the questions they claim they know the answers to are so debatable they shouldn't even be in this type of documentary.

They said that "the laws of nature are so precisely tuned for human life that it is impossible to not have creator". Was that supposed to be a joke?

The laws of nature just exist. Product of the Big Bang as all evidence suggests. The fact that humans are here tell you one thing and nothing else : We can go by them. If we didn't, we wouldn't exist. Simple. The problem I have with this documentary is the logic they go by.

"Without life the universe would have no meaning". That's not science. That's an opinion. That's BS.




posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 


This is just more of the "Watchers" propaganda which was done to death in the 'Ancient Aliens' series and then again in the 'Prometheus' film.

Note that 'Ancient Aliens' was even made by 'Prometheus Productions'. It's all connected propaganda.

Clearly the agenda is to put an end to all religion and so they've come up with this story. They intend to back it up with hologram images that'll make us all believe in aliens.... just you wait and see. The project is called "Blue Beam", look it up.

By the way, why oh WHY do you believe in a BBC production??????????? This is ATS, I thought members know very well that the BBC are downright liars.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Vandettas
 


"The laws of nature just exist." is an assumption, a belief. Assumptions can't be proven and are unscientific by definition. Therefore the very foundation of the concept of the Big Bang is amazingly shaky but yet the vast majority has bought it. THIS is what I call a belief / propaganda and it is not any better than believing in some sort of supernatural creator. There is no proof that the Big Bang actually happened as they say themselves that the laws of physics break down (or do not even exist at all) at some point back in time. So everything there becomes just pure speculation.

I find the logic of said episode quite reasonable - they always show both sides of the coin - not just one. And leave it to the viewer how to decide. Just because you don't like one or the other side doesn't make it bad.

Your point of view is typical for the classical physicist. To believe that everything can be explained by maths and science. Yet the foundation of any theory is ALWAYS based upon ASSUMPTIONS which can NEVER be verified at all. So it makes me laugh when you argument against a creator while it CANNOT be ruled out and while the current mainstream physics also has a lot of unproven / unprovable concepts (string theory, multiverse, dark matter, dark energy, Big Bang etc.).

Take the virtual reality model - which is by far the best to explain all the current anomalies of mainstream physics and other disciplines!! If true this would involve some sort of creator (maybe multiple). And there are many hints that this could in fact be a "simulation" = flow of information according to "programmed" patterns and rules. Quantum physics shows us a lot of signs for that. But it is no regular simulation on a "computer" as we know it.
If you like to know more about a really good model for the virtual reality that we might be living in - look at the work of Thomas Campbell and this "Big Toe" (big theory of everything).

Whether a creator exists or not - the problem that I am having with "mainstream" physics is that they blindly swallow strange assumptions (like the Big Bang just happend out of nowhere and the laws of physics just like a miracle worked) while rejecting other possibilities which are at least equally probable. It's nothing but biased thinking and belief in something that can't be proven. Physics can't prove string theory, can't prove the Big Bang or give a reason for it, can't prove dark matter or dark energy and can't prove that multiverses exist..... and yet they BELIEVE in all this stuff to support their theories. This is not better than any creator based belief. Not at all.

For me the future will show who's "right" and who's "wrong". Meanwhile I bet my money on a consciousness based evolutionary virtual reality system which is creator and experiencer in one thing and at many levels. This is also what Thomas Campbell proposes and it resonates with me the most as it explains MANY unsolved anomalies. Or do you really prefer to explain the results of the famous "delayed choice quantum eraser" experiment by the introduction of "reverse causality" to the physics community if not explained by a virtual reality model? The answer should be obvious...
edit on 20-8-2012 by mrMasterJoe because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrMasterJoe
reply to post by Vandettas
 


"The laws of nature just exist." is an assumption, a belief. Assumptions can't be proven and are unscientific by definition. Therefore the very foundation of the concept of the Big Bang is amazingly shaky but yet the vast majority has bought it. THIS is what I call a belief / propaganda and it is not any better than believing in some sort of supernatural creator. There is no proof that the Big Bang actually happened as they say themselves that the laws of physics break down (or do not even exist at all) at some point back in time. So everything there becomes just pure speculation.


Gravity isn't an assumption. The Big Bang theory isn't shaky, the creator delusion is.
There is some evidence of the Big Bang, a Google search will tell you that. Its
not speculation.



I find the logic of said episode quite reasonable - they always show both sides of the coin - not just one. And leave it to the viewer how to decide. Just because you don't like one or the other side doesn't make it bad.

Your point of view is typical for the classical physicist. To believe that everything can be explained by maths and science.


So you hate that something can be explained? You don't like logic and reasoning?


Yet the foundation of any theory is ALWAYS based upon ASSUMPTIONS which can NEVER be verified at all. So it makes me laugh when you argument against a creator while it CANNOT be ruled out and while the current mainstream physics also has a lot of unproven / unprovable concepts (string theory, multiverse, dark matter, dark energy, Big Bang etc.).


So the foundation of any theory is always based on assumptions and can't be verified?
Are you familiar with Einsteins theories?


Take the virtual reality model - which is by far the best to explain all the current anomalies of mainstream physics and other disciplines!! If true this would involve some sort of creator (maybe multiple). And there are many hints that this could in fact be a "simulation" = flow of information according to "programmed" patterns and rules. Quantum physics shows us a lot of signs for that. But it is no regular simulation on a "computer" as we know it.
If you like to know more about a really good model for the virtual reality that we might be living in - look at the work of Thomas Campbell and this "Big Toe" (big theory of everything).


First you say no theories can be proven. Then you use one of these "unprovable theories" because it fits to your beliefs. I think I get it now.


Whether a creator exists or not - the problem that I am having with "mainstream" physics is that they blindly swallow strange assumptions (like the Big Bang just happend out of nowhere and the laws of physics just like a miracle worked) while rejecting other possibilities which are at least equally probable. It's nothing but biased thinking and belief in something that can't be proven. Physics can't prove string theory, can't prove the Big Bang or give a reason for it, can't prove dark matter or dark energy and can't prove that multiverses exist..... and yet they BELIEVE in all this stuff to support their theories. This is not better than any creator based belief. Not at all.


You must of had a bad experience with a "mainstream physicist". Not only that, but your generalizing an entire group of people and saying they blindly follow assumptions. Please let us know specifically what physicists do this.


For me the future will show who's "right" and who's "wrong". Meanwhile I bet my money on a consciousness based evolutionary virtual reality system which is creator and experiencer in one thing and at many levels. This is also what Thomas Campbell proposes and it resonates with me the most as it explains MANY unsolved anomalies. Or do you really prefer to explain the results of the famous "delayed choice quantum eraser" experiment by the introduction of "reverse causality" to the physics community if not explained by a virtual reality model? The answer should be obvious...
edit on 20-8-2012 by mrMasterJoe because: (no reason given)


Now your words have backfired on you. I'll use them on you :
"Yet the foundation of any theory is ALWAYS based upon ASSUMPTIONS which can NEVER be verified at all." Now it looks like everything in this paragraph can be explained like this : BS.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Vandettas
 


I never said that gravity is any assumption at all as everyone can observe its effects(!) easily for themsevles. And if you believe the Big Bang only has to do with gravity - have you even watched the video not to mention understood what the Big Bang model is about??
This is what we do in physics: watch and describe effects! We do NOT know their ultimate(!) cause and good scientists would tell you just that. However it is assumed that gravity is something very DIFFERENT than the other forces we know. Therefore we struggle to unify gravity and Einstein's Relativity. There are some physicists now who try to figure out whether gravity may be just another form of electromagnetism - and well it COULD be that we were missing that because most of the physicists did not challenge this very assumption for a looong time. They just believed it. Blind faith - not science. I challange closed minds and there are a lot of them around!
Btw: You do not address my criticism regarding the belief-based points which I have pointed out in my post in your reply at all! You tend to avoid this for a very good reason

I do not say the scientific method is wrong at all and I also do not say that EVERYTHING there is an assumption - this is what you want me to say but I did not. However the scientific world has become partly just very unscientific and self-pleased and yet many people fail to recognize this and it is a strong indication that science has partly become what it hates the most: a religion with blind belief which bashes its critics just like you did.
Also I do not say that all assumptions are generally wrong. The proof however is the key issue and when you look at how strong the belief in Big Bang theory has become (especially in the public!) then you can see how easily we could fall for a flat earth yet again when the Big Bang turns out to be wrong. There are MANY scientists who have challenged the Big Bang theory as it includes a singularity which has a lot of unknown properties and cannot be known per se. However the "Big Bang" crew failed to admit when they are uncertain and just guessing. Because they are the science folks and you can blindly trust them. Riiiight.
What I am proposing is an open mind and this is what many scientific folks do no longer have as they on the one hand dismiss any other models and theories they dislike and hold up they own unverified constructs as if they would be any better!
Additionally I do not defend any one theory at all. However things can't be right when they do contain explicity flawed assumptions which can be proven to be irrational. Assuming a singularity which somehow came from nowhere IS extremly strange and if you would know this sector at all you would know that there are a lot of physicists themselves telling that this can't be right as it can NEVER be a solid foundation by definition. Until this very point the virtual reality camp offers the most likely model as it explains most anomalies our mainstream model currently has (and it has quite a few!) and it only has very few assumptions which can't be proven wrong until this very day.
The best theory is the one with the fewest assumptions. I did never say that we as human beings are able to understand everything. But you do. You believe that science can do it while from a logical point there will ALWAYS be one final questions which cannot be answered at all from our point of view. It's NOT just a matter of time until we can answer this. Gödel showed that our theories will never verify themselves but must be verified from an outside view - which we cannot have. And if there would be something / someone outside who COULD verify OUR models then it would again still fail to explain itself and will be in need of yet another point of view. This continues forever.
Science is just a tool. We have abused it as some claim that it can / will explain it all. It will never do that - guaranteed as it is logically impossible. If you still want to believe - do it. It's your personal religion and you may choose it as you wish. Everyone has the right to believe what he / she likes.
Your reaction is typical for someone thin-skinned who fears that his belief could finally be challenged. Religions all around the world have done intense and violent fighting for this very reason. I do not promote this kind of behaviour and want us to be able to have a critical look on any theory or model. The one with the fewest flaws and the best prediction / explanation quote will have my vote. And until this very day it is a consciousness based evolutionary virtual reality model.
Reading your comments I have the strong impression that you neither know Thomas Campbell's "Big toe" model nor you know the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment (done by your beloved mainstream scientists) and its implications. Am I right?
edit on 21-8-2012 by mrMasterJoe because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 02:19 AM
link   
Looks interesting. I'll watch them all. I think though that, people really need to turn to the bible more. It has all the answers you need. Some scientists opinion about something can be poison. Like believing a Dr when they give you a voodoo curse or (diagonosis). They don't know sheatt half the time but being an authority figure people so easily believe them. Anyway, just a thought. But ya I'll check them out, I love a good doc



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 02:44 AM
link   
reply to post by r2d246
 


Science is about status and power these days and maybe it has always been this way. There you can find more know-it-all folks then anywhere else who perceive themselves as some sort of elite who regards knowledge as their property! TRUE scientist in the sense of the word would never look at it this way and would humbly admit the pitfalls of this very tool.
Although I have been an atheist for quite some time I more and more realize that the bible indeed has some wise insights in it which are dismissed right away because hey, today we have a religion called "science"!! What could an old book ever tell us?

It will be the day when science and religion will meet in the middle that will make me happy. The day when they understand that they BOTH have been "right" to some degree



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 03:36 AM
link   
Let's be honest they are short documentaries, they are not going to answer all questions or have a unifying theory. they are meant to stimulate interest in science and the world around you. There is nothing stopping people looking deeper into the issues presented to research more about the claims.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 06:22 AM
link   
Why are we here? Are we alone?
Why are we here? Are we alone?
Why are we here? Are we alone?

WE ARE HERE TO FIND OUT IF WE ARE ALONE!!!!



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 07:09 AM
link   
reply to post by ronnieray123
 



Are we alone? - No. I can see other users posting here - and it's not me!

Why are we here? - To have an open and respectful discussion about the very topic of this thread!

Are we real? - Well, could be some bots here posting but I highly doubt it.



Just a humorous take on the issue



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by mrMasterJoe
 


I read your first wall of text, I'm not reading a whole wall again. For the future, make it easier to read.

What was that you said? Blind faith?

Evidence of Big Bang

Observable Evidence

All evidence suggests.

The evidence that supports it.

Main evidence



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Vandettas
 


By not reading what I posted above you have just disqualified yourself in this discussion and proven that you are not able to

- withstand criticism
- look into other theories and understand them before coming to any conclusion
- argument on concrete elements being addressed
- reflect yourself and your behaviour
- accept any other view than yours

Good job. Congratulations.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by mrMasterJoe
 


No.

I choose not to read because it is a wall of text that would take too long to break down.
Besides, I gave you evidence, which is probably why you are saying these things
in the first place.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vandettas
I have some weird feelings about the "Are We Real" video.

It seems as though they mention religion a great deal.

It also seems like they are trying to jam the "were not here by chance" idea into your head.
I don't know if its just me, but thats what it sounds like.

"Scientists don't want to entertain the idea of a creator"
Well obviously not if there is no evidence of it.
The first two episodes were pretty good, but that "Are We Real" video is 95% completely unscientific garbage.

In that episode Max Tegmark addresses the question people may ask about whether this nonsense is scientific because nobody can ever observe or prove if it's true. Tegmark says he thinks it's valid science because nobody can prove it wrong. And of course nearly the entire episode falls into that category.

If you want to put this in perspective of another scientist who has a more scientific view than Tegmark, listen to this lecture by Richard Feynman for the 26 seconds from 22:04-22:30:

Richard Feynman Messenger Lectures at Cornell: The Character of Physical Law Part 7-Seeking New Laws

Feynman presents his theory that everything is due to moogles, and he concludes that it can't be proven wrong so it's a good theory. His sarcasm is obvious and the audience laughed.

But I didn't laugh when Max Tegmark said practically the same thing in "Are we real"? That whole thing is about different versions of Feynman's "moogles".

I really wanted to jump into the screen and shake these guys, and maybe force them to watch Feynman ridicule their nonsense. That was probably the worst piece of crap by a bunch of guys who call themselves scientists I've ever seen.


Originally posted by Vandettas
Many of the questions they claim they know the answers to are so debatable they shouldn't even be in this type of documentary.
I agree 100%!

And I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed that!

They are all wrong and Feynman was right. It's all due to moogles. Nobody has ever proven Feynman wrong about that!


But I did like the first two episodes.
edit on 21-8-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Thanks for postinjg. S&F.

Bookmarking for later.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   
So what happens if we eventually get to the point where there is no other possible explanation for certain things other than there being a creator?

I once knew a guy who had serious issues with organized religion but still believed in a creator because, as he put it, "I don't have enough faith to believe in evolution" as the origin of species.

Personally I tend to agree with his sentiment on creation - and his issues with organized religion. Perhaps I just don't have as much faith as the hard-core non-creationist folks.

To each his own then!

Personal beliefs being inherently what they are, pointless to argue about, I am anticipating the inevitable collision between the spiritual and the scientific. The answers to the three questions in the OP should be easier to find then.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by djmarcone
 


Yet a creator still requires creation. I mean who created the creator? This is where both science and religion both rely on some faith. the thing with science, is that it isnt all answered for you in a little book. The goal is to find the answers and not be satisfied until it can all be explained.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Very interesting documentaries. I admit I watched the third episode first. I felt illegal watching them, but also felt a bit more educated once they had finished, thanks for sharing!

We are Sim City



new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 1   >>

log in

join