Science does it again: Big Bang going out the window?

Originally posted by filledcup
well thats understandably the perspective u would like to hold. but it is still baseless. they dont know enough to know that God doesnt exist FOR SURE!.. thus its a philosophy. a theory.. whether or not aligned politically or however else it is classed. a rose by any other name.

But the point is, atheism is not the claim that god doesn't exist for sure.

I do understand where you are coming from though. It seems to give theists comfort to "downgrade" atheism to the same level as their own belief. So they label it a religion, theory or philosophy. This way they don't have to be skeptical about their own belief, as it is as good as the other. Its a powerful mechanism of fooling yourself.

Originally posted by filledcup

we say there is no observation of a hidden intelligence at work. but let us again re-examine the double slit experiment. quite simply. a photon carries wave properties when there is no observer. but as the observer looks* (interacts with/communicates with) the photon changes to carry particle state.

is this not an interaction with consciousness on the fundamental levels of creation? a conscious being observing the photon causes it to behave like a particle. suggesting that conscious, thought capability, has the ability to affect the behaviour of the structures on the most fundamentally observable aspects of creation. (my inferrence. and its the same Einstein came to)

The results of the double slit experiment do not depend on a conscious observer but depend on information transfer.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by filledcup
Perfect: everywhere. as u go deeper.. infinity, divide by zero, spirit, inter-dimensional bridge, rules of time and space distorted, intelligent design. it cannot be escaped.

Michio just refuses to accept.

I don't know how you get all that gibberish out of that video.

George Box explained that video well when he stated that all models are wrong, but some are useful. That sums up the video in a nutshell. No model is a perfect representation of reality, and when you reach the limits of the model the model no longer works. But the model was just a model, not reality.

It wasn't long ago that our primate ancestors were swinging from the trees, so while our brains have advanced somewhat they might need to advance some more.

Not only that, but it's religious people that tried to stop science from advancing, like when Galileo was not allowed to say the Earth orbited the Sun. If science had been allowed to proceed without religious interference, we might be further ahead by now and have some of this stuff figured out.

However the Catholic church finally did apologize to Galileo, about 300 years after he died. Look at how much we've accomplished in the last 100 years, and imagine if we didn't lose those hundreds of years, how much further ahead we would be in our understanding.

the reason the models are declared wrong are because they throw up infinity for a result. when infinity is encountered, science backtracks. but as they move forward again in another direction, as they reach around the same depth again they encounter infinity. i attribute this to being that logic alone cannot process the whole of existence, because existence is made up of logic and creativity. logic cannot calculate creativity. creativity comes from the spirit.. the observer. and this is why we can only produce artificial intelligence (logical intelligence with no innate creativity).

Originally posted by EasyPleaseMe

Originally posted by filledcup

we say there is no observation of a hidden intelligence at work. but let us again re-examine the double slit experiment. quite simply. a photon carries wave properties when there is no observer. but as the observer looks* (interacts with/communicates with) the photon changes to carry particle state.

is this not an interaction with consciousness on the fundamental levels of creation? a conscious being observing the photon causes it to behave like a particle. suggesting that conscious, thought capability, has the ability to affect the behaviour of the structures on the most fundamentally observable aspects of creation. (my inferrence. and its the same Einstein came to)

The results of the double slit experiment do not depend on a conscious observer but depend on information transfer.

im not sure where ur coming from. do u have a source to quote? my source, which comes from leading quantum scientists, states that the introduction of an observer changes the result from a wave pattern to that of particles. and this is why Einstein hypothesized, that thought was affecting the experiment. and i agree with him!

Dark matter is simple. It is the ghostly sea of unlimited energy that exist in all places and all times. It can only be accessed using the bending of space and a catalyst (normal energy). The process is actually simple. The output could be extremely dangerous if not controlled correctly. If the zero-point energy in the area the size of a tea cup was harnessed, you could boil all of the Earth's oceans! The energy is always there, clean, unlimited, and at this time totally suppressed by TPTB. Scientist always talk about how vast quantities of energy would be needed for interstellar travel. It's already there waitng to be harnessed.

Originally posted by filledcup

Originally posted by EasyPleaseMe

Originally posted by filledcup

we say there is no observation of a hidden intelligence at work. but let us again re-examine the double slit experiment. quite simply. a photon carries wave properties when there is no observer. but as the observer looks* (interacts with/communicates with) the photon changes to carry particle state.

is this not an interaction with consciousness on the fundamental levels of creation? a conscious being observing the photon causes it to behave like a particle. suggesting that conscious, thought capability, has the ability to affect the behaviour of the structures on the most fundamentally observable aspects of creation. (my inferrence. and its the same Einstein came to)

The results of the double slit experiment do not depend on a conscious observer but depend on information transfer.

im not sure where ur coming from. do u have a source to quote? my source, which comes from leading quantum scientists, states that the introduction of an observer changes the result from a wave pattern to that of particles. and this is why Einstein hypothesized, that thought was affecting the experiment. and i agree with him!

In physics 'observe' means 'measure'. Your interpretation is common and understandable.

In the double slit experiment the interference pattern only disappears if which slit the photon, atom or molecule passes through is detected. This is known as 'which path information'. You only have to have the detectors operating for the pattern to disappear, whether a consciousness knows the result or not makes no difference.

All the real information on the net will say this, the only issue is your interpretation of 'observer'. You may also be interested in 'quantum eraser' and 'delayed choice' experiments.

reply to post by EasyPleaseMe


ok i understand the perspective now. my perspective is deeply mystical. and to me was only reinforced by this documentary:



as you see the documentary does carry your same perspective. but look what happens, they end up in the paradox of random chance, once more presenting itself (divide by zero). it's the admitted reason they cant predict where the electron is going to appear where measured with absolute certainty. in effect.. based on the point at which the electron is measured they can guess a general area at which it can appear.

but there is somewhere else, where we see particles transforming into waves and back into particles based on the focus. random particles which move with a sort of 'brownian motion' and as they move out of focus they are visibly witnessed to display wave properties. and as focus is increased, we see waves converting into individual particles.

the dots are fully transparent, and if one looks closely, they refract and emit light in the colours of the rainbow. they appear to be spinning at a great speed. ive always believed them to be atoms of some sort. they are always in the air, and seems to make up the fabric of reality. as ive described, when not focused on, all that is seen is a wave-fabric, but as an observer increases his focus on a point in empty space, the particle begin to appear. they are seen easily outdoors and are certainly some form of charges, since at times of cloudiness, when rain is about to fall, the concentration of these particles in an observed area is significantly increased per square meter. and they can be easier seen outside when looking at cloudy skies for focal amateurs.

the technique is in looking at empty space. to do that one must simply have their focus set on a point of empty space, between them and a visible object. we usually tune our focus to objects at a measured distance. but if we deliberately mis-measure and adjust our focus to be focused on a point half-way between our eyes and the next object in line of sight, as focus increases on the area, little particles begin to rip out of the fabric carrying wave properties. the focus adjustment reveals at first, tiny shadow-orbs, as focus increases, the orbs are given clarity and viewed a perfectly transparent tiny spheres. attempting to single out a particular dot/charged particle for detailed observance, reveals a sheen of rainbow colour on it's surface.

some have described these to be some sort of pigment in the eye etc being observed. but that would not account for why a much larger density of particles can be observes during times of bad weather. they travel in all sorts of random paths, curves and spirals.. but i dont think ever.. not once.. a straight line. not that i have been able to observe.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by filledcup
reply to post by EasyPleaseMe

 

ok i understand the perspective now. my perspective is deeply mystical. and to me was only reinforced by this documentary:

That's great, it's rare on here for someone to be open minded enough to actually learn something!

Originally posted by filledcup
but there is somewhere else, where we see particles transforming into waves and back into particles based on the focus. random particles which move with a sort of 'brownian motion' and as they move out of focus they are visibly witnessed to display wave properties. and as focus is increased, we see waves converting into individual particles.

the dots are fully transparent, and if one looks closely, they refract and emit light in the colours of the rainbow. they appear to be spinning at a great speed. ive always believed them to be atoms of some sort. they are always in the air, and seems to make up the fabric of reality.

..SNIP..

This is quite a common phenomenon and I personally believe it is due to overactive neurons in the visual cortex. In many the effect is stronger in total darkness and during bad weather. In total darkness their is less signal to mask the noise and in bad weather there is an increased electrostatic gradient which would also increase the noise.

There is a condition called Pyroluria and people that suffer from this often describe what you describe. This effect can also be drug induced or induced by other external stimuli such as electric or magnetic fields.

Originally posted by EasyPleaseMe


This is quite a common phenomenon and I personally believe it is due to overactive neurons in the visual cortex. In many the effect is stronger in total darkness and during bad weather. In total darkness their is less signal to mask the noise and in bad weather there is an increased electrostatic gradient which would also increase the noise.

There is a condition called Pyroluria and people that suffer from this often describe what you describe. This effect can also be drug induced or induced by other external stimuli such as electric or magnetic fields.

ahh but then, why can i turn it off and on at will? the way u put it seems like we are subjected to it without consent or conscious approval. but as i stare now i see the world as anyone else does. but if i adjust my focus i can make those particles to appear.. anywhere. i have used it to predict when rain is going to fall for sure over the years. sometimes it's cloudy but the clouds wont burst.. but when the concentration of those charged particles reaches a certain density in the air.. i know for sure, the clouds will burst.

im very sure they are everywhere there is space. like air particles.. or something.. but it is definitely external.

there is somewhere else they are noticed.. in cameras.. old 0.3mp digital cameras. when recorded video is played back, the cameras display what seems to be moving pixels. even if the camera is steady and focusing on a steady background. it is these particles refracting light and infrared light being picked up by the camera optics as they move past the lens. as we increase our camera optics to 2mp and 16 mp we filter those things out by the level of camera focus.

but theyre there!

just relax the eyes while focusing on an empty space in front of u. trying to look at the fabric of reality itself. it might take some practice. but ull see them. try doing it outside looking up at the sky for better results. it's easier outdoors because we most usually mis-estimate the height of the sky and end up having our eyes come to focus on empty space.

reply to post by filledcup


If you can turn it on and off then it may be something different.

With the cameras they all pickup noise, especially in low light conditions. Older smaller resolution cameras are generally more susceptible to noise and would look noisier when scaled up on screen.

Images Noise

Originally posted by EasyPleaseMe
reply to post by filledcup

 

If you can turn it on and off then it may be something different.

With the cameras they all pickup noise, especially in low light conditions. Older smaller resolution cameras are generally more susceptible to noise and would look noisier when scaled up on screen.

Images Noise

yup, that's it. see how it reflects the colours of the rainbow in some pixels in a sort of sheen-over fashion? those things are in the air always. the camera is picking them up as theyre refracting light. that's why u see random colours appear. the pixelation size squares-off the round detail since it's so small.

this im very sure of. what im seeing with my eyes and what the camera portrays cannot be separate. and i doubt my eyes are seeing noise. that's something to look into.

i think that noise might be in the atmosphere and it's picking it up. not as clearly as i can see them with my eyes.. far from. but it's picking up something. must be just the light refraction, because for the most part these things are invisible.


Edit: just came up with a new test. while looking at them flying around i changed my point of view moving from left to right. and bet ur last buck, they didnt move. as in if it was internally generated then when i change position the picture should move with my eyes. but i could basically walk around a block of them while observing them dance in my field of view. definitely external.