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.
originally posted by: cooperton
Back in the 1926 The Copenhagen Interpretation concluded that matter is nothing without consciousness, and consciousness is the foundation of reality.
.
Although the Copenhagen interpretation is often confused with the idea that consciousness causes collapse, it defines an "observer" merely as that which collapses the wave function.
originally posted by: Raggedyman
Dear Prezbo
many are treating it as an absolute, I can't understand why you would say they are not when many here in this thread have stated as much
I have been roundly slammed for even questioning the theory and even shown the evidence by clearly much "learned" members, evidence based on assumption
You are not a jedi, you have no mind trick, your words hold no substance given the posts written in this thread that show the opposite fact
originally posted by: Raggedyman
originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
Researchers think
My thoughts are the same as the researchers, poor assumptions based on what fits with their beliefs
In a couple of months there will be many problems associated with this new thought, no doubt
Its not science when "thinks" are trumpeted as truths
Lets wait and see what happens in time.
originally posted by: Raggedyman
Dear Prezbo
many are treating it as an absolute, I can't understand why you would say they are not when many here in this thread have stated as much
I have been roundly slammed for even questioning the theory and even shown the evidence by clearly much "learned" members, evidence based on assumption
You are not a jedi, you have no mind trick, your words hold no substance given the posts written in this thread that show the opposite fact
originally posted by: GetHyped
originally posted by: cooperton
Back in the 1926 The Copenhagen Interpretation concluded that matter is nothing without consciousness, and consciousness is the foundation of reality.
No it didn't.
Although the Copenhagen interpretation is often confused with the idea that consciousness causes collapse, it defines an "observer" merely as that which collapses the wave function.
originally posted by: cooperton
If you want to know evolution's achilles heel, research C-14 being found in "billion year old" diamonds, "100 million year old" coal, and "100 million year old" dinosaur soft tissue. Spoiler: it's all less than 50,000 years old.
newgeology.us...
originally posted by: cooperton
originally posted by: GetHyped
originally posted by: cooperton
Back in the 1926 The Copenhagen Interpretation concluded that matter is nothing without consciousness, and consciousness is the foundation of reality.
No it didn't.
I'd rather trust Max Planck than you and your wikipedia quote.
This worthless wikipedia quote contradicts itself. It says consciousness does not cause the collapse, and then goes on to say the observer collapses the wave function.
Seriously, read more on the topic
originally posted by: peter vlar
originally posted by: cooperton
If you want to know evolution's achilles heel, research C-14 being found in "billion year old" diamonds, "100 million year old" coal, and "100 million year old" dinosaur soft tissue. Spoiler: it's all less than 50,000 years old.
newgeology.us...
Spoiler... you can't date diamonds or coal with 14C.
originally posted by: GetHyped
So when you're shown to be talking bollocks, you then make a completely unrelated appeal to authority fallacy?
originally posted by: cooperton
originally posted by: peter vlar
originally posted by: cooperton
If you want to know evolution's achilles heel, research C-14 being found in "billion year old" diamonds, "100 million year old" coal, and "100 million year old" dinosaur soft tissue. Spoiler: it's all less than 50,000 years old.
newgeology.us...
Spoiler... you can't date diamonds or coal with 14C.
Thats if you're assuming they're older than 100,000 years. They've been carbon dated, successfully... coal and dinosaur remains are consistently less than 50,000 years old.
originally posted by: cooperton
Its not unrelated, their quotes indicate their conclusions on quantum physics:
“Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real. In quantum mechanics hasn’t profoundly shocked you yet, you don’t understand it well enough.”
-Neils Bohr
“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
-Max Planck
“We compel the electron to assume a definite position. We ourselves produce the results of the measurement.” - Dr Dean Radin, in reference to the double slit experiment.
originally posted by: cooperton
originally posted by: peter vlar
originally posted by: cooperton
If you want to know evolution's achilles heel, research C-14 being found in "billion year old" diamonds, "100 million year old" coal, and "100 million year old" dinosaur soft tissue. Spoiler: it's all less than 50,000 years old.
newgeology.us...
Spoiler... you can't date diamonds or coal with 14C.
Thats if you're assuming they're older than 100,000 years. They've been carbon dated, successfully... coal and dinosaur remains are consistently less than 50,000 years old.
originally posted by: peter vlar
Furthermore, If dinosaurs were still thriving less than 50KA, why do I not see a single cave painting, petroglyph etc... depicting them?
Nothing to do with observer = consciousness.
C-14 dating can only read reliably up to about 50,000 years (give or take). Anything past that and C-14 isn't used at all.
originally posted by: cooperton
originally posted by: peter vlar
Furthermore, If dinosaurs were still thriving less than 50KA, why do I not see a single cave painting, petroglyph etc... depicting them?
There are plenty, which fits the C-14 approximations:
Ancient Dinosaur Depictions
Observation is an appendage of our consciousness. Unconsciousness cannot observe. There is no observation without consciousness.
This is why it has taken so long for this knowledge to come to the surface, scientists usually did not try dating this stuff because they were under the presumption that it is millions of years old. The C-14 data on it is consistent; its in the thousand year range.
originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: cooperton
So some bad drawings and some pottery that could look like other things (lizards, chickens, emus and other known animals) are your proof?
My 11 year old can draw better dinosaurs. Does that mean they exist now?
originally posted by: TerryDon79
On a side note. What EXACTLY has this got to do with the experiments done in the OP?
originally posted by: GetHyped
LOL! You're citing a CREATIONIST website as evidence?? Thanks for the laugh!
originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: cooperton
Blindly mock isn't accurate.
We open-eyedly mock based on scientific proof.
Now, please show us your "proof" that isn't on a creationist website. Something scientific preferably.
originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: cooperton
I can't access the page (possibly because I'm in the UK), but as has been explained before, C-14 dating isn't the only dating tool used. I could use C-14 and get a false positive. That's where SCIENCE uses all the tools at its disposal to determine an accurate age of something.