New Quantum Theory Discovered "GODDESS WAVE" could prove existance of GOD/GODDESS/ONE

page: 3
26
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lone12
reply to post by primalfractal
 

. . . - about that google doodle though:
it had nothing to do with 'Bohr '
but the atom on the doodle is a stylyzed depiction of the Flower Of Life, encompassing Earth

= the 144 crystal geometric grid


You must be talking about this:




Originally posted by Lone12

..the proof is on 'bohrs wiki page ': the Tao symbol
and the phrase ' opposites complete eachother '
protected by the elephant = hindu Ganesha, " guard of the garden [ of eden ] "

soon, this Grid will ignite
and kudalini will sweep over earth
...making earth a prison of false light


Is this Bohr's Wiki page you're referencing? The Coat of Arms image? Niels Bohr




posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Can someone give me a layman's terms explanation of what Fractal is trying to tell us? I've got my own theories on divinity as related to quantum physics, but I want to see how Fractal can contribute to my ideas...

Maybe he's figured something out that I haven't.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by primalfractal
 


That is nice and all, but can you explain how this "curving light waves" theory, proves the existence of a divine power?

I haven't even seen you provide any evidence for anything you say, whatsoever, tbh.
edit on 12-10-2012 by FlukeNetwalker because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by primalfractal
I CAN MATHEMATICALLY PROVE THE DIVINE NOW

So can you show us the math?
I'm not seeing the God connection here, but I'd be interested in your calculations.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 10:01 AM
link   
So David W.'s Source Field research is probably correct.

Nice!



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by subject x

Originally posted by primalfractal
I CAN MATHEMATICALLY PROVE THE DIVINE NOW

So can you show us the math?
I'm not seeing the God connection here, but I'd be interested in your calculations.


I think someone just really wants to believe in their god.

I've seen no proof at all from this thread. Either OP has no idea what hes talking about, hence he's overhyped over this. Or he's just desperate to find his god, which he never will...



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by subject x
 


That's what's got me hanging here. I haven't seen any mathematical equation in the OP that comes even close to defining, quantifying, or suggesting any sort of nature or order to the divine.

All the excitement about having an answer, but showing us none of it? Give me a break.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   
I have to concur with several of the other posters here. I like the endeavour and the hoops you jumped through and I like the concepts, which if quantifiable, are extraordinary but I fail to see the hoop you jumped through to land in the vicinity of the divine. This is really the hallmark hiccup we hit with every theory scientific, philosophical or otherwise, when approaching the attempt of “proving” god. And it will continue to happen every time.
Science is great but unfortunately, God doesn’t fall within its parameters.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 

Yeah, I'm with you there.
I seriously doubt there's anything of substance there, but I'd really like to see the math before I just write it off.
You never know when somebody's theory might just pan out. We all know that scientific understanding is a constantly changing thing.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Philodemus
 

It's an interesting paradox.

Presume that "all is divine".

If one part of the divine is currently choosing to be unaware of its own divinity... that is *its* choice as equal part of the divine. No amount of effort or "proof" can be given by the divine to the divine that has chosen to not be aware of itself until the portion which has chosen to be unaware of itself chooses to be aware of itself again.

So long as any part of "All that is" still chooses to be unaware of itself as a part of "All that is", there is nothing that the rest of "All that is" can do about it, because the part that has chosen to be unaware has equal divinity and their choice to be unaware is equally divine.

But it makes for a good cosmic show and drama.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by subject x
 

And many theories were "incorrect" at first, but were pointing in the right direction.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by ErgoTheConclusion
 


I totally agree with this concept you speak off, but the inner workings of this realm are subject to rules, and I think that scientific proof could be found for the theory that it is all an illusion created by a consciousness, regardless if we humans chose to forget our real origins.

I think this day is coming closer and closer, and I think that the developments in Quantum physics are such proof, to some extent.
edit on 12-10-2012 by FlukeNetwalker because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by primalfractal
He showed that these curving light waves would exist in 3D-n or beyond the 3rd dimension.

You're referring to David Bohm's implicate order?



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by ErgoTheConclusion
 

No argument there.
I'd just like to see the rest of this theory, as it pertains to proving God's existence.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by FlukeNetwalker
 

Completely agree that it's getting more difficult to deny, but the last holdout on "accidental materialism" won't make the switch until *they* choose to do so. That's why it's a paradox that either leaves you pulling your hair out or a hearty Laughing Buddha laugh.
The proof is always "there" (here), but each individualization of "All that is" carries with it its own necessarily self chosen threshold for when it will "re-member". Some see an ant hill and go "Oh! It's so obvious!". Others need equations.

reply to post by subject x
 

I'm there with you. Was actually more trying to lend credence to the possibility that there may be something in this, but I'm not able to intuit what the OP sees right now in their presentation, and am curious to see/hear more.
edit on 12-10-2012 by ErgoTheConclusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by ErgoTheConclusion
 


Well spoken.

On a far more rudimentary level, there is simply no way of inferring the absolute of “god” or “divine”. Discovering a creator and/or designer, if at all possible, does not imply the discovery of god/divine. It is simply arcane due to our very palpable mortality.
I do not oppose the nomenclature employed for things like “god particle” and “goddess wave” because I understand that it is an attempt to signify the consequence or role these things play. But do not expect me to actually take their presumed (or eventual actual) existence as genuine evidence of an actual god. And certainly don’t ask me to presume his benevolence.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Philodemus
reply to post by ErgoTheConclusion
 


Well spoken.

On a far more rudimentary level, there is simply no way of inferring the absolute of “god” or “divine”.

That is a declaration of faith, not a statement that you can prove.

Originally posted by Philodemus
Discovering a creator and/or designer, if at all possible, does not imply the discovery of god/divine. It is simply arcane due to our very palpable mortality.

It may not "imply" it in a logical sense. But it DOES constitute supporting evidence, much as your pedantic attitude wants to evade the issue.

Originally posted by Philodemus
I do not oppose the nomenclature employed for things like “god particle” and “goddess wave” because I understand that it is an attempt to signify the consequence or role these things play. But do not expect me to actually take their presumed (or eventual actual) existence as genuine evidence of an actual god. And certainly don’t ask me to presume his benevolence.

But then nothing would ever constitute evidence for the existence of God, would it? You have already indicated that above. So your attitude is hardly unbiassed, is it? It is therefore not one to be taken seriously or even respected.

Perhaps the more rigorous, mathematical research here may persuade you otherwise.
edit on 12-10-2012 by micpsi because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by primalfractal
 


sounds like you have good intentions

Workings and actual theory please.

You make very large claims with ZERO evidence/workings whatsoever.


With the help of professional Quantum physicists I have designed an experiment
Really? you mean 2 people on a forum did not call you an idiot.. proof pls


Along with the stick I've given a carrot - A legitimate design to make a black hole based on my theory


Really? you have a design? that will make a black hole? - evidence / theories pls


So I have a legitimate new, logical quantum theory with an experiment designed to prove that Curving 3D-n light wave paths exist. Here's where it gets trippy. David Bohm (famous physicist and Einstein contemporary) predicted the existence of these curving light wave paths, but had no theory for proof. I do and I have an experiment designed to test it.


I thought u said you had the maths that Proves it already? if it has not been tested their is no proof yet.


Perhaps we could discuss the philosophical and metaphysical aspects of this discovery?.


REALLY? its a discovery now..but you said u needed to test it, or you had guaranteed mathematical evidence.

Remember finding the GOD particle puts one nail in Gods coffin that was the idea


i will grant you that your 'new' (/cough) theory may eventually prove fruitful but you have given me no reason to examine it and nothing to examine quite frankly.

Even if the goddess wave exists how do you attribute it to a divine creator rather than a naturally occurring process in the realm of quantum physics?

If this thread was in another forum on ATS with a different topic ..ie ' i ate breakfast with aliens and have the photo's to prove it' it would already be in the hoax bin as you are laughed out of ATS..

i suggest you be more forthcoming with your actual 'ideas' and less forthcoming with massive massive claims declaring they are fact.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by micpsi
 


"All that is knows no other. This does not mean that there may not be more to know. It does not know whether or not other psychic gestalts like It may exist. It is not aware of them if they do exist. It is constantly searching."

I think the higher you go in consciousness, the more you realize you only know what you know and the certainty of it being complete becomes less and less. At the highest level you still can't know if there is "another" off "to the side" or "above" that you/it/we are unaware of.

Even "All That Is" can only infer itself by examining its parts and forming an "image" of what it is, but can't actually see itself in totality even if it is aware of the totality of what it knows.
edit on 12-10-2012 by ErgoTheConclusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ErgoTheConclusion
 



"The only real wisdom is knowing you know nothing." - Socrates


They need to teach this stuff in school more often. I think the younger generations would benefit from realizing how narrow their perspective really is. Maybe by the time they graduate college ("God" willing
) they'll be able to figure out this "Goddess Wave" thing, since OP seems to have vacated the thread.

Shame...I was looking forward to picking his brain...





top topics
 
26
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join