The Artificial Division Between Physics and Metaphysics

page: 8
11
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Here is a short interview of him:




I see now that the video I posted has been removed from YouTube so I'll replace it.

This one is not short, though.

Here is the Description:


Published on Jan 19, 2013

UFO/Antigravity Expert and Author Bruce Cathie presents The Harmonic Code, an exciting and revealing new documentary into his life and research.

It contains exclusive interviews with Bruce on the Harmonics of Reality, UFO's, Earth's Energy Grid, Matter and Antimatter cycles, the possibilities of time travel and the truth about atomic bomb testing.




(I just noticed a comment posted 12 hours ago saying that Bruce Cathie died yesterday. Don't know whether it's true or not.)




posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Mary Rose
 

It's interesting because there are almost exactly the same number of levels in that chart as there are densities in the Law of One ideal.


Listening to an interview of physicist Matt Pulver, my ears perked up because the Law of One is mentioned.




Here's the video:



The Description:


Published on May 17, 2013

Interview with Physicist and Consciousness Researcher Matt Pulver on the topics of Theoretical Physics, the Sociology of Science, and Consciousness/Perception. Matt works with Dr. Paul LaViolette in modeling Subquantum Kinetics; Dr. Paul's novel systems approach to microphysics and cosmology. Matt is also the coordinator of Project Camelot's Blue Science, an undertaking intended to expand public awareness of 'Censored Science'. . . .


Here's a link to the portion of the video where it comes up: Link. After mentioning the Law of One, Matt Pulver talks about it a little bit and then focuses on Gödel's incompleteness theorem and Russell's paradox. He then talks about the Law of One briefly at 1:04:16.
edit on 06/04/13 by Mary Rose because: Add



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 10:57 PM
link   
A physicist with no degree who got involved with Project Camelot.
I'm impressed.
edit on 6/4/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


There's a very good reason for it.

He realized that he would learn more by not being taught mainstream physics - by learning instead what is going on in black projects and what is going on behind the scenes. Smart guy.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 

No.
Getting a physics degree is hard. For all we know he flunked out as an undergrad. Actually, we don't even know if he graduated from high school.

Disingenuous to call one a physicist if they don't have a degree.
edit on 6/4/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 06:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Well, he's written a paper with Paul LaViolette entitled "Stationary Dissipative Solitons of Model G": Link



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Phage
 


There's a very good reason for it.

He realized that he would learn more by not being taught mainstream physics - by learning instead what is going on in black projects and what is going on behind the scenes. Smart guy.


I don't get this at all. If I somehow "learned" what was going on in black projects that would be one of my best kept secrets. Aren't they "black" for a reason? With all of your claims of brutal suppression of "alternative" technologies how would THEY let these guys spill the beans THEY try so hard to keep secret?

Logically, this doesn't make sense.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 06:40 AM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


Sometimes "they" do kill whistleblowers. Sometimes they don't. Sometimes people within black projects become "white hats" and work to change things. It's complicated. Don't try to understand it without doing some work.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 06:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


On that note then don't think you understand it or that what you do is work. Unless of course it's your job to promote this stuff.

ETA:


Sometimes people within black projects become "white hats" and work to change things. It's complicated.


It's really not that complicated unless you make it so. That's the kind of nonsense that results from opening one's mind to junk like Project Scamalot. It warps people's minds. Makes them believe THEY are simultaneously omnipotent when it comes to "suppressing" technology such as unlimited energy from the breath of baby unicorns and inexplicably impotent when it comes to protecting their own actual secrets.
edit on 5-6-2013 by DenyObfuscation because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


I see. Throw in the accusation. That's one way of dealing with a challenge to your worldview.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
Disingenuous to call one a physicist if they don't have a degree.


Kerry Cassidy does say in this Project Camelot interview that Matt wouldn't classify himself as a physicist, referring to the lack of a degree.

Matt talks about his education and work experience: Link



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose


I thought the interviewer in that video was fantastic so I checked out the YouTuber's channel. The channel "About" page states:


Hello! Please visit my Blog to view Essays and Transcripts. I cover numerous topics including Open-Source, Psychology, Politics, Science, Philosophy, Religion, and Conspiracy. Also investigate PhiBetaIota, the hub for Open Source Intelligence.Thanks!


He links to a website called Open-Source Religion that states:


Link



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



Disingenuous to call one a physicist if they don't have a degree.


Did Edison have a degree? Did Einstein have a degree? Did Graham Bell have a degree? What about Tesla? How many inventors and pioneers do we know that changed the world just be exploring their areas of interest?



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


It's probably the fact that they didn't have a degree that made them so influential, they weren't doctrinated into scientific paradigm bias.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Mary Rose
 

No.
Getting a physics degree is hard. For all we know he flunked out as an undergrad. Actually, we don't even know if he graduated from high school.

Disingenuous to call one a physicist if they don't have a degree.
edit on 6/4/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


~physicist


A scientist who specializes in physics.


or


a person versed in or studying physics



~scientist


— n a person who studies or practises any of the sciences or who uses scientific methods



It seems a degree is not required to be called a physicist.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Did Edison have a degree? Did Einstein have a degree? Did Graham Bell have a degree?

Edison was an inventor, not a Physicist.
Einstein had a PhD.
Alexander Bell was an inventor, not a Physicist.
Tesla was an inventor, not a Physicist. A lot of his ideas about physics were just flat out wrong.
edit on 6/5/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I thought the interviewer in that video was fantastic so I checked out the YouTuber's channel.


But it turns out the YouTuber was not the interviewer. The interviewer was John Maguire. His blog: Link



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 




Edison was an inventor, not a Physicist.
Einstein had a PhD.
Alexander Bell was an inventor, not a Physicist.
Tesla was an inventor, not a Physicist. A lot of his ideas about physics were just flat out wrong.


And yet, despite their "official credentials", they all changed our nation in some way, correct? They all contributed to science. My point here is that a lack of officious paper does not guarantee a lack of inspired talent. Really, I have even more respect for them because they had less to work with than many of our modern scientists. As such, their achievements were proportionally more significant as a result of the dedication and frustration that undoubtedly went into their work.

Personally, I would not demean that in any sense, nor would I demean the idea they represent that even the most uneducated people are capable of adding a few inches to the global leg race.
edit on 6-6-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


My point here is that a lack of officious paper does not guarantee a lack of inspired talent.
I didn't say it did. However it should be pointed out that apart from Einstein (with his degree), none of those you mentioned went beyond the bounds of the science of the time. As I said, they were inventors and innovators.

Calling someone a physicist does not make them one, nor does it add credibility to their claims.
edit on 6/6/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Matt talks about his education and work experience: Link


Transcript according to my ears:

". . . my affinity with mathematics led me to studying mathematics and physics at UCLA; I was part of the quantum computing research group there. I worked with the medium energy nuclear physics research group at UCLA as well. I worked at Brookhaven National Laboratories for a couple summers on their particle accelerator.

"Since learning about Camelot in 2008, I've come to see how essentially off-track academic physics was . . . "





top topics
 
11
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join