Jump to content

The anti-gravity plasma engine. Fake or already the future?


Recommended Posts

Maurizio - these people who like to control what is known by most - they do it also to control the history. what is history

but findable facts and if there exists many falsehoods and few truths then probability dictates the likelihood of encountering

generated falsehood over fact. Its a problem.

One quiet voice tells the truth and a hundred loud voices lie. What gets heard? and who is responsible? Collectively we must

choose the truth.

I think that's why control is so incredibly important for those who wish to maintain their apparent superiority and necessity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 696
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Why are you people in such a hurry?   Relax......or you'll die all tensed up. 

Flying cars? Never happen. The population at large has a hard enough time driving on a two dimensional plane let alone three dimensions. How many air traffic controllers would be needed to sort out fl

Dave, the older you get the more you realize how much you don't know.  Teenagers know everything.  Octogenarians say, "I don't know." a lot.    Noel

Posted Images

These are very interesting thought, it's true that if you want to mantain the control, often is necessary to falsificate the history too, because history creates awardness of the things, humans are intelligent and can elaborate things. Dictators try to mantain people at a low level of culture, otherwise the game doesn't work anymore.


I have never thought that money makes the health, there are certainly most important things, often people with a lot of money are not happy. Anyway what disturbs me it's the attempt to manipulate things from the above, thing possible only if you have a good number of people disposed to follow the same way, and a lot of money too.


In economy for instance there are many theorical models about how the economy should work, but none of them works really, we see it when periodically we experience big cracks. Also the majority of the money is concentrated in few hands, a sort of oligarchy. This makes me think a lot too.


If the aliens would search a method on how to make things confused, here is because they are here watching us and learn :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

No they aren't Lawrence, but they control the production and distribution of them.

Noel

I thought it was ultimately the climate that controlled them.

If you are a billionaire and the Winter never stops, you grow nothing and raise no chickens.

 

I'm just prodding at the generic human opinion that we (money) control our destiny.

This planet is 4.5 billion years old, has been through thousands of situations that would have wiped the human race out totally, and is far from finished producing situations just like that.

Our tenure as the so called "dominant" species is only a half a wink in the geological history of this planet, if that.

 

We could be reduced to very small piles of elemental potassium in about a hundreth of a wink.

 

Gold or no gold.....in fact the gold would be among the survivors.....along with the rest of the periodic table of elements.

 

And that's just the good news....under many of those conditions it could be a long process of extinction.

 

;D

Link to post
Share on other sites

We can't even control our wives (or husbands)and children. What would make anyone think they can control our environment (except to destroy it) let alone the cosmos?

My brother lives in California and tells me so many agricultural acreages have for sale signs on them. Without water even bottomland is useless. Without hay and feed cattle wither and die.

But having said that in places where the water still flows and the grass still grows those with gold control the short term destinies.

But time is the great equalizer. The elements left in one's coffins has no greater value than the elements in any other coffin.

Noel

Link to post
Share on other sites

One large solar flare could take out all our satellites and electronics and reset the whole lottery to zero.

Ah, that would just be an opportunity for the corporations (and doubtless some up-and-coming opportunists) to sell us replacements. "Now with 50% extra solar flare protection!"  You can bet they'd get production started again within days.

 

But our relantionship with other possible worlds are difficult to understand, i don't think that someone is interested in our planet for our resources, but maybe instead we could be interested we humans towards other lands. It's true that we're trying to reduce the impact of our activity on the planet, but the process is by now irreversible, at least to not discover other type of energies that could change our economies and the way we use the resources here.

I can only assume that the motivations of other intelligent species would be similar to our own, very much including curiosity.  If, when we become advanced spacefarers, we find a planet like Earth, we'd be fascinated to see how it develops.  We would observe them to satisfy our curiosity, just like we observe wildlife today.

 

I think Noel is right Lawrence, money has a lot to do also in which way wars are fightned. It's also true that all the money of the world nothing could against special forces of the nature and also for this reason i think it's fool to think to control the nature, there always is something you can't foresee. I read about the project HAARP and i was very confused and worried.

And Lawrence spotted our major sick point.... yes because an arm who turn off all the electric devices, really come back us to the stone age. I am wondering if strong electromagnetic fields are able to do something like this, thinking to a possible alien technology.

While wars have sometimes been about money, often there are other motivating factors too, such as religion and ideology.  Or even just prestige.  It's about enforcing/denying some sort of rule or control, for various reasons.  The events in the Middle East today seem to be less about money than other factors; money is a resource to help win, not the goal itself.  Of course, all wars also create opportunists who use them to get rich.

 

I know there are a lot of claims about HAARP, but I can't see how it can do anything harmful, apart from maybe disrupting ionosphere-based communications.  It's just radio waves.  Radio communications & sensing (and jamming) have been with us for a long time now.  I think it's a bit like those claims that CERN would create earth-destroying black holes ;)

 

...

I think it can all be explained by saying that mass is nothing more than a state of energy and everything we think of as reality

is simply the energy we can 'touch'.

...

jabble - You mentioned that lasers take a lot of power but they don't really. We are surrounded by lasers...CD'DVD players, handheld pointing devices.

...

We can't simply say that mass is a state of energy, as it must be regarded as a scalar property itself.  However, it can be converted to/from other forms of energy, such as EM radiation, though other properties are usually involved too.

Entanglement isn't the same as simply parts of a wave - it refers to particles that have their own shared waveform. It's a relationship that's still not fully understood.  It could be evidence of more spatial dimensions (e.g. string- or M-theory), as there is no obvious linear spatial connectivity (or relationship) between the two, but there may be other explanations too.  This is an area of very active research.

So the 'waves' in QM aren't 'energy waves' - the best way of thinking about them is as probability waves, representing the position of some particular intrinsic property (or rather a set of properties) which constitute the particle.  Sure, Einstein didn't think that was correct, hence the famous phrase "God doesn't play dice" ("God" is interpreted as being a metaphor for nature, not specifically a deity) but every experiment since then shows he was wrong on that.  He was sure a genius that brought us very valuable science, but it seems his head was stuck in classical physics and couldn't really get to grips with the concepts of QM which we now accept as valid.

An electron (charge = -1, spin = 1/2) exists as a waveform or wavelike region of probability density, where that probability is of the position of its hypothetical point source at any one time.  This probability density stretches to infinity, i.e. it exists over all space, but far from the centre the value of the probability is very low.  Clearly the total value over all space is 1, and so the value within any one spatial region can be calculated. Physicists represent this as a "wavefunction", a mathematical construct which is very useful in working out QM interactions.  We call it wavelike, as the interactions are wavelike, e.g. include interference.  That's part of the wave/particle duality.

If you were to detect a particular electron, you 'reduce' that probability distribution to a definite location of -1 charge and 1/2 spin.  Your detector records those properties at that definite location. It's called 'collapsing the wavefunction' in QM jargon. If you detect many electrons in the same way, it would build up a pattern of locations, revealing that probability density in the shape of a waveform.  That's the waveform that the wavefunction represents.  Spin and charge are intrinsic properties of the particle, not variable states of its waveform.

Well, I confess I was one of Peter Higgs' QM students many years ago, and that's pretty much how he explained it to me.  The core point about QM is that it is all about probability, and that is quite different from the 'deterministic' everyday world we think we live in.

An example of that; in the 'classical' physics world we are familiar with radioactive decay, where isotopes have half-lives. This is the time taken for a lump of such stuff to decay by 50%.  So far, so good.  However, each individual decay of an isotope is a QM event, and cannot be precisely predicted. We cannot know which particular isotope will decay when, we just know that the probability is such that 50% of them will decay within a certain time period. That's one example of how QM probability relates to the illusion of everyday 'certainty'.

Electrons don't simply exist at the crest of a wave - the waveform is their existence. The shape of the waveform is dependent on its energy level, amongst other factors.  The quantum leaps are about energy levels of bound electrons (orbitals of an atom), where the only stable states for such waveforms are discrete.  If you add enough energy, it will 'go up' a level.  Then its waveform will be a different shape (or probability distribution), representing that higher energy state.  Similarly it can emit that same amount of energy to go down a level.

 

As for laser cooling, domestic lasers may not use a lot of power, but such a technique is only used on a tiny quantity of atoms.   To ramp that up to the scale needed for domestic or industrial use may be difficult, as it would need to be done on molecules in large quantities.  Also, it's not just the laser itself, but energy would be needed for the containment and transport of the cooled molecules so that they can be useful.  I don't know enough about the engineering issues there, though, so maybe.

 

I think your idea is quite correct Dave, a primary energy field is necessary to create even more energy. Also bob Lazar talked about a particle accelerator to start the process in making antigravity waves, that needed to be amplified.

the creation of anti-matter paticles, in quantum mechanics and also considering the theory of the strings, is precise only if you know the exact operations to do, i mean the way the strings operates to generate the matter (and eventually the antimatter).

According to what i've read, they are trying at CERN to understand how this process works, because it seems that only sporadic antimatter particles are created (and it's also very difficult to individuate them during the experiments).

I need to know more about the Higg's boson because i am not too much prepared on this, i am trying to find a point in common of all these subjects, because it's true, they are many arguments. Instinctively this point in common is the energy, like Dave spotted in. The energy creates the matter in all the forms we know, and it seems also in the other forms we don't know, very infinitesimal particles with some soul inside, able to generate different things, a bit like your DNA that with his variations generates creatures all different from the others. So i think we have to investigate the energy in his deepest status. If with the big bang theory, where a status of energy with a small mass was able to create all the universe we know, the energy is amplified and able to regenerate itself.

As all the ideas about string theory, etc, are hypothetical, we don't know where they will go, or what practical benefits they will bring us.  If Bob Lazar (or anyone else) claims a certain idea is correct, then that should be testable in a laboratory.  If it isn't testable, then how can anyone claim it is correct?  It might be a good idea that makes sense (as string theory does, and its competitors), but only experimental testing could confirm it's correct.  The history of science is filled with many good ideas that turned out to be incorrect when eventually tested.  Plum pudding atoms with ice cream, anyone? ;)

 

The Higgs mechanism is important in the idea that the 4 fundamental forces (electromagnetic, strong, weak, gravity) are manifestations of one underlying force.  The concept is that the early universe had that single force, but as it expanded and cooled, its properties changed in a way that divided the force into those 4 asymmetric interactions.  If so, there must be the evidence of that earlier symmetry being broken, or looking backwards, we try to see how they are combined.  The 'electroweak' force is part of that, and experiments since the 1970s have brought verification of that idea closer.

 

However, the electromagnetic interaction relies on the massless photon, whereas the weak interaction relies on massive particles (W & Z bosons), so the two forces are not symmetric.  The Higgs field & associated particle was proposed as the mechanism that gave mass to the W & Z, hence causing that symmetry-breaking.  And, as a consequence, why all matter has mass.  This was hypothetical until recently, when the LHC detected strong evidence of the Higgs.  So the Higgs is crucial to understand why the electromagnetic and weak forces are now separate, but were once combined.  Strong & gravity are the other players in this game, though we're nowhere near finding their symmetry breaks experimentally yet.

 

We don't know the initial state of the Big Bang, and we don't know why such a state existed, so there is a lot of speculation on that.  We don't even know that the observable universe was created, and indeed we can say that the total Universe (big 'U') cannot have been created.

 

Think of it this way - time isn't nothing, and is part of spacetime.  Time is part of the Universe.  A state of 'no Universe' is a state of 'no time'.  So there cannot ever have been a time when the Universe did not exist.  At every point in time, the Universe exists (in some form).  That doesn't necessarily mean infinite time, but can have time=0 as an initial state.

 

Or put it another way - any creation of X is a transition from (1) 'X does not exist' to (2) 'X exists', which is forward in time.  (1) must be before (2).  However, if X is the Universe, (1) must be a state of no time, which cannot be before anything.  Such a transition is a logical impossibility.  Of course, there are also speculative scenarios (e.g. M-theory) where our Big Bang is not the beginning of time, just the beginning of our universe's (small 'u') time.  Local time!

 

However, at the QM level, specifically at Planck scales, space and time become weirder, so it's not so simple.  Close to the initial state of Big Bang, these Planck scales apply, and we don't have experimental data to give us answers.

 

I like a lot the history because a real historian have to tell the history as precise as possible, analizing the facts and trying not to be empathized by the events. The task is to investigated what happened and why it happened, normally having only incomplete informations and this is fascinating.

In the history is not so important what would be happened if.... but what happened and the consequences of what happened.

I always think that the best histories are written some time after the events, when historians can be more objective.  Of course they use contemporary accounts and sources, but the arguments and conclusions are not clouded by the emotions and 'accepted views' of the events, and often important information is only available afterwards.  They live in their own times and societies, though, so that can add a different bias.  Even now there is dispute if Alexander the Great was a brilliant general or uncivilised barbarian.  Or both!  ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it's true, best history is written after :)


The theory of the time zero caught me a lot, sure that it's difficult to think at the moment where time didn't exist and nothing existed. I tend for the second option, that our universe was created when something already existed, and the fact that an event is unforeseable in QM, that you can only calculate the probability is also difficult to assimilate, because far respect our logic. You know that an event will happen but you don't know when, you can't calculate it. And the interaction of the 4 forces is really fascinating for me, for a lot of time i didn't know exactly what the theory of relativity was, now we discovers that's necessary to put in relation these 4 forces to understand how the universe was created and how it works.


Certainly i would try to study more and more about this, because i really love these things. I also loved Tesla's experiments, because it was a great too. On our national TV there was a very interesting transmission on these things and i was totally caught. It seems yet a mistery if he succeeded to discover something more that we don't still know. I think that the life of a scientist is not easy, expecially if you discover something really important that could have many implication on our life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm somewhat of a history buff too Maurizio.


 


I've found that novels written during the era give you a pretty good idea of what happened if the writer doesn't have an agenda. 


 


Last year I read 8 books on Afghanistan, a country I find immensely fascinating with all of it's different languages and ethnic groups.  It's mor a collection of people than a nation.


 


6 of the books were histories going all the way back to Alexander the Great.  But two contemporary novels written by an Afghan doctor, Khaled Husseini, The Kite Runner and A Thousand Splendid Suns give a good account of the the period just before and just after the Taliban took over.


 


I know were are going far afield here, but I wanted to point out that contemporary novelists can write a pretty good account of what was happening when it happened.


 


Noel


Link to post
Share on other sites

These are very interesting thought, it's true that if you want to mantain the control, often is necessary to falsificate the history too, because history creates awardness of the things, humans are intelligent and can elaborate things. Dictators try to mantain people at a low level of culture, otherwise the game doesn't work anymore.

...

If the aliens would search a method on how to make things confused, here is because they are here watching us and learn :D

Official myths and propaganda are still quite common, more in some places than others, although a free press makes it harder to maintain them indefinitely.  Certainly dictatorships rely on them, but often that causes an underground 'rumour society' that provides alternative versions, though not necessarily truth.  Free societies have the benefit of a free press, but often that means powerful media barons pushing their opinions.  That is balanced by investigative journalism that can expose many abuses and secure accountability, so it's a mixed picture.

 

As for economists, it's well known that they have predicted 9 out of the last 4 recessions. ;)  I suppose it's part of the state of humanity that we can't manage economies without big problems, but I do think we're now better at it (or less bad) than at all times in history.

 

If I were an alien watching Earth, I would definitely avoid contacting that crazy "human" species!  Maybe the dolphins...

 

This planet is 4.5 billion years old, has been through thousands of situations that would have wiped the human race out totally, and is far from finished producing situations just like that.

Our tenure as the so called "dominant" species is only a half a wink in the geological history of this planet, if that.

That idea is behind the concept that any significant spacefaring civilisation must have arisen and got its act together between mass extinctions.  While we humans gain abilities and remain adaptable, we are far from the sort of microbes and insects that might survive the next Big One.  Of course, getting out there also means we're more likely to prevent the next one happening, but you can't play those odds forever on a single planet.

 

The theory of the time zero caught me a lot, sure that it's difficult to think at the moment where time didn't exist and nothing existed. I tend for the second option, that our universe was created when something already existed, and the fact that an event is unforeseable in QM, that you can only calculate the probability is also difficult to assimilate, because far respect our logic. You know that an event will happen but you don't know when, you can't calculate it.

...

Perhaps the biggest mystery of the universe is: why isn't there nothing?  We sure don't have an answer to that yet.  Figuring out Big Bang will take us closer, though.

 

Yep, QM is hard to assimilate - it took me a while -  but the evidence is there.  The problem is that much of the scientific frontier is far from our everyday experience, so to understand it we have to 'bend our minds' a little.  Or even a lot. :)

 

But isn't that always so?  In the time of Galileo, his ideas were revolutionary, contrary to the understanding of ordinary people, and especially contrary to the official doctrine of the authorities.  Likewise when Mendel and Darwin produced their ideas, they were not easily accepted, as they contradicted the common societal expectations.  That "Atom" TV series starts with the suicide of Boltzmann because he was ridiculed for suggesting the existence of atoms.  Tesla was clearly a genius, not appreciated in his time (only quite recently, I think), but he was very eccentric too.  You're right - there remain many mysteries about his work.  If you go back far enough, even early scientists like Archimedes and Hypatia had a violent end, caused by those who did not appreciate their work.  It's like tormented artists, who live short lives in poverty, maybe cutting off their own ears, but become famous and appreciated after they die. ;)

 

In modern times, science is much more civilised, with scientists leading perfectly normal lives, but that doesn't mean the public always understand their work.  We sure like the resulting technology, though!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know were are going far afield here, but I wanted to point out that contemporary novelists can write a pretty good account of what was happening when it happened.

I agree, and sometimes good history books can read like a gripping novel.  Two examples I can think of:

 

1) "The Redundancy of Courage" (Timothy Mo) is a novel that tells the story of Indonesia's invasion of East Timor, written during the occupation, at a time when the world knew little about it as the territory was sealed off.

 

2) "The Conquest of the Incas" (John Hemming) is a gripping account of the conquistadores' conquest of Peru; a blow-by-blow story from arrival, capture of Atahuallpa, to the protracted warfare that took so long to subjugate the Inca state.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"How to live longer and feel better" (Pauling) has always been right up there with "Vitamin C and the common cold" (Pauling) in my library, which also contains "Alice in Wonderland" (Carrol) which helps a bunch when you try to really understand Quantum Physics and basic plumbing repair, which are similar

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Could the human race go faster than the light? Einstein with his theory of the relativity said no, but you know....

You experts, what do you think?

 

As said in a post above, it does not seem physically possible, at the present time of our understanding of classical physics and quantum physics. quantum physics and quantum mechanics are still advancing day by day. there are still many many things to be found and discovered. we are discovering new dimensions everyday, hard for us to understand in our own world designed in three dimensions.

 

there is a cool website which explains up to tenth dimension. i find it really educative and full of new ideas. still, it is difficult to understand and imagine for a person like me coming from a science-math based high school and university ground.

 

www.tenthdimension.com

 

 

and another answer to your question, travelling faster than the speed of light is possible through a wormhole where we can bend the timespace. if we have a wormhole through which we can pass from our present location to another location far, far, far away deep in the space in just an instant, then we will have succeeded in travelling faster than the light. but thinking otherwise, firing our spacecraft rocket and accelerating to the speed of light and even overtaking the light will have many side effects on us, and on our observers on the ground where we lifted off. this theory is very interesting, i like reading articles about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it's very very interesting that site, and it helps to understand. The M theory, the theory of everything with eleven dimensions caused by the strings. I don't know why, but i really love this theory because it could explain a lot of things.


Maybe, when we died, we could enter another dimension, and this would explain the way some really sensitive people, can interact with this world. I think our brain is not used at 100% of its abilities, so maybe also a thing like this would be possible.


Travel forward and back in the future, like in the famous movie with Michael J. Fox, and this obviously bring to the answer if one would be only an observer or able to interact, and then cange the events.


And your reflection about the effects on our bodies, traveling at super speeds it's really good, a point that we have only slightly mentionned. I have seen a TV transmission where our space woman Samanta Cristoforetti showed us her activity during 3 years of hard training, physic and psychic, to afford well the space mission. And this in a rocket, because if you travel at a speed of light, also the time slow down to zero, and then i ask myself if it would stop also the body function...


The second point is that according to me a special device to contrast the heavy G force would be needed, an anti G generator so that the people inside the spaceship don't suffer for that.


One thing that i thought, is that maybe it's not said that those we call aliens, if they exist and come to visit us with their spaceships, are really them... i mean, it's possible that clones with special features are created to afford these space travels.... and for us it would be the same. We know that clones are possible, even if not so morals for the majority, and this is another fascinating arguments. Clones with identity or just clones? Many movies about this too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maruzio, if we are simply an evolved species of life on this planet then we are like the rest of the life on the planet.  Would it hold true then that when my cats die would they enter another dimension?  What about whales and dolphins?  Or even amoebas?


 


Or would this only hold true for sentient beings?  Are there degrees of sentience?  And at what degree of sentience does a life form fail the test for entering another dimension at death?


 


 


Noel

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maruzio, if we are simply an evolved species of life on this planet then we are like the rest of the life on the planet.  Would it hold true then that when my cats die would they enter another dimension?  What about whales and dolphins?  Or even amoebas?

 

Or would this only hold true for sentient beings?  Are there degrees of sentience?  And at what degree of sentience does a life form fail the test for entering another dimension at death?

 

 

Noel

No.

The whole region is unbelievably congested.

You must avoid the whole business through not dying.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good post. reminds of the Twilight Zone episode where the guy refused to enter 'Heaven' because they wouldn't allow his dog.

Maruzio, if we are simply an evolved species of life on this planet then we are like the rest of the life on the planet.  Would it hold true then that when my cats die would they enter another dimension?  What about whales and dolphins?  Or even amoebas?

 

Or would this only hold true for sentient beings?  Are there degrees of sentience?  And at what degree of sentience does a life form fail the test for entering another dimension at death?

 

 

Noel

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually Dave I saw that Twilight Zone episode not too long ago.  The first gate they got to was really Hell and they wouldn't let the dog in so the guy refused to go.  Down the road a piece was the gate to Heaven and they did let the dog in.

 

Noel


I think I'll take your advice Lawrence and avoid it.  I'm kinda anxious to see if Orbx will have all the global land classes out by the time I'm 90.

 

Noel

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually Dave I saw that Twilight Zone episode not too long ago.  The first gate they got to was really Hell and they wouldn't let the dog in so the guy refused to go.  Down the road a piece was the gate to Heaven and they did let the dog in.

 

Noel

I think I'll take your advice Lawrence and avoid it.  I'm kinda anxious to see if Orbx will have all the global land classes out by the time I'm 90.

 

Noel

By then you'll be down to one joystick......... :banghead:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maruzio, if we are simply an evolved species of life on this planet then we are like the rest of the life on the planet.  Would it hold true then that when my cats die would they enter another dimension?  What about whales and dolphins?  Or even amoebas?

 

Or would this only hold true for sentient beings?  Are there degrees of sentience?  And at what degree of sentience does a life form fail the test for entering another dimension at death?

 

 

Noel

 

this is a very deep answer, and i thought to it several times, seen my love for the animals in general. I hope our pets will be with us, even after death, there is a very nice credence that when you pass away you have to cross a bridge, and your pets have already spotted you and waiting on the other side. this is what i hope, because for me the animals are part of the family as well as the other members.

It's difficult to say, but there are many stories about animal phantoms too. The experiment that a guy made trying to weight the soul, was made also on the animals, and it seemed that there wasn't difference in weith for them, instead for the humas about 20 grams less, anyway i like to think that the most evolved animal species have a soul too and need our deep respect.

And about the time manipulation it comes to my mind a transmission that i saw on tv about the Giza pyramid, because it seems that its function it wasn't only the tomb of faraons. Recently it was discovered another chamber inside, and the archeologists obviously needed to understand the function of that chamber, because it was very isolated respect the entire structure. Well, when they entered the room, according to their tell, they felt something really strange, they felt confunded. They remained inside the chamber only 10 minutes, because the humidity and the hot made very difficult to breath, but when they was out the pyramid, they realized that 3 hours had passed, and not 10 mins like they believed, and they can't today explain this phenomena.

It's possible that the pyramids worked as portals, or maybe very big point of reference for the space travels. Fascinating too and again once time, many misteries are behind these ancient civilizations, many unexpalined things. I think to Stonehenge too, because it's not said it was only a temple, they are wondering how they built it transporting a very heavy stones not available immediately near, and this theme repeat itself in many other very ancient buildings.

This is one of the most valid reason i think that we have never been alone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are right, Maruzio, and the body weighs 20 grams less after death and that 20 grams represents a soul then the soul has mass. And if we can measure the mass of subatomic particles shouldn't we also be able to physically identify a 20 gram (0.7 ounce) soul as part of a living human body? It has to reside somewhere.

Noel

Link to post
Share on other sites

but what if that 20 grams actually exists because God is 'pressing us into existence' for our time here?

When He stops 'pressing' - when the force is gone - we have less mass...His breath has gone out of us.

and as for animals in Heaven...I find it impossible that God would create this earth with all manner of plants and animals and finally humans and then decide to create a new Heaven and a new Earth and yet not also populate that with plants and animals and probably many things we cannot even comprehend.

Link to post
Share on other sites

... 

We can't simply say that mass is a state of energy, as it must be regarded as a scalar property itself.  However, it can be converted to/from other forms of energy, such as EM radiation, though other properties are usually involved too.

Entanglement isn't the same as simply parts of a wave - it refers to particles that have their own shared waveform. It's a relationship that's still not fully understood.  It could be evidence of more spatial dimensions (e.g. string- or M-theory), as there is no obvious linear spatial connectivity (or relationship) between the two, but there may be other explanations too.  This is an area of very active research.

So the 'waves' in QM aren't 'energy waves' - the best way of thinking about them is as probability waves, representing the position of some particular intrinsic property (or rather a set of properties) which constitute the particle.  Sure, Einstein didn't think that was correct, hence the famous phrase "God doesn't play dice" ("God" is interpreted as being a metaphor for nature, not specifically a deity) but every experiment since then shows he was wrong on that.  He was sure a genius that brought us very valuable science, but it seems his head was stuck in classical physics and couldn't really get to grips with the concepts of QM which we now accept as valid.

An electron (charge = -1, spin = 1/2) exists as a waveform or wavelike region of probability density, where that probability is of the position of its hypothetical point source at any one time.  This probability density stretches to infinity, i.e. it exists over all space, but far from the centre the value of the probability is very low.  Clearly the total value over all space is 1, and so the value within any one spatial region can be calculated. Physicists represent this as a "wavefunction", a mathematical construct which is very useful in working out QM interactions.  We call it wavelike, as the interactions are wavelike, e.g. include interference.  That's part of the wave/particle duality.

If you were to detect a particular electron, you 'reduce' that probability distribution to a definite location of -1 charge and 1/2 spin.  Your detector records those properties at that definite location. It's called 'collapsing the wavefunction' in QM jargon. If you detect many electrons in the same way, it would build up a pattern of locations, revealing that probability density in the shape of a waveform.  That's the waveform that the wavefunction represents.  Spin and charge are intrinsic properties of the particle, not variable states of its waveform.

Well, I confess I was one of Peter Higgs' QM students many years ago, and that's pretty much how he explained it to me.  The core point about QM is that it is all about probability, and that is quite different from the 'deterministic' everyday world we think we live in.

An example of that; in the 'classical' physics world we are familiar with radioactive decay, where isotopes have half-lives. This is the time taken for a lump of such stuff to decay by 50%.  So far, so good.  However, each individual decay of an isotope is a QM event, and cannot be precisely predicted. We cannot know which particular isotope will decay when, we just know that the probability is such that 50% of them will decay within a certain time period. That's one example of how QM probability relates to the illusion of everyday 'certainty'.

Electrons don't simply exist at the crest of a wave - the waveform is their existence. The shape of the waveform is dependent on its energy level, amongst other factors.  The quantum leaps are about energy levels of bound electrons (orbitals of an atom), where the only stable states for such waveforms are discrete.  If you add enough energy, it will 'go up' a level.  Then its waveform will be a different shape (or probability distribution), representing that higher energy state.  Similarly it can emit that same amount of energy to go down a level.

 

As for laser cooling, domestic lasers may not use a lot of power, but such a technique is only used on a tiny quantity of atoms.   To ramp that up to the scale needed for domestic or industrial use may be difficult, as it would need to be done on molecules in large quantities.  Also, it's not just the laser itself, but energy would be needed for the containment and transport of the cooled molecules so that they can be useful.  I don't know enough about the engineering issues there, though, so maybe.

------------------------------

As all the ideas about string theory, etc, are hypothetical, we don't know where they will go, or what practical benefits they will bring us.  If Bob Lazar (or anyone else) claims a certain idea is correct, then that should be testable in a laboratory.  If it isn't testable, then how can anyone claim it is correct?  It might be a good idea that makes sense (as string theory does, and its competitors), but only experimental testing could confirm it's correct.  The history of science is filled with many good ideas that turned out to be incorrect when eventually tested.  Plum pudding atoms with ice cream, anyone? ;)

 

The Higgs mechanism is important in the idea that the 4 fundamental forces (electromagnetic, strong, weak, gravity) are manifestations of one underlying force.  The concept is that the early universe had that single force, but as it expanded and cooled, its properties changed in a way that divided the force into those 4 asymmetric interactions.  If so, there must be the evidence of that earlier symmetry being broken, or looking backwards, we try to see how they are combined.  The 'electroweak' force is part of that, and experiments since the 1970s have brought verification of that idea closer.

 

However, the electromagnetic interaction relies on the massless photon, whereas the weak interaction relies on massive particles (W & Z bosons), so the two forces are not symmetric.  The Higgs field & associated particle was proposed as the mechanism that gave mass to the W & Z, hence causing that symmetry-breaking.  And, as a consequence, why all matter has mass.  This was hypothetical until recently, when the LHC detected strong evidence of the Higgs.  So the Higgs is crucial to understand why the electromagnetic and weak forces are now separate, but were once combined.  Strong & gravity are the other players in this game, though we're nowhere near finding their symmetry breaks experimentally yet.

 

We don't know the initial state of the Big Bang, and we don't know why such a state existed, so there is a lot of speculation on that.  We don't even know that the observable universe was created, and indeed we can say that the total Universe (big 'U') cannot have been created.

 

Think of it this way - time isn't nothing, and is part of spacetime.  Time is part of the Universe.  A state of 'no Universe' is a state of 'no time'.  So there cannot ever have been a time when the Universe did not exist.  At every point in time, the Universe exists (in some form).  That doesn't necessarily mean infinite time, but can have time=0 as an initial state.

 

Or put it another way - any creation of X is a transition from (1) 'X does not exist' to (2) 'X exists', which is forward in time.  (1) must be before (2).  However, if X is the Universe, (1) must be a state of no time, which cannot be before anything.  Such a transition is a logical impossibility.  Of course, there are also speculative scenarios (e.g. M-theory) where our Big Bang is not the beginning of time, just the beginning of our universe's (small 'u') time.  Local time!

 

However, at the QM level, specifically at Planck scales, space and time become weirder, so it's not so simple.  Close to the initial state of Big Bang, these Planck scales apply, and we don't have experimental data to give us answers.

 

...

jabble - Ive read this three times now and Im still not able to come up with an intelligent response. You current grasp of math and physics is far beyond me.

I think its amazing that you are/were a student of Peter Higgs. That explains your grasp of this stuff.

I just don't have that grasp but I hope you don't mind if I continue to throw out ideas and questions because I have many.

What you call "one underlying force", I envision as a wave or waves on the surface of a yet undiscovered medium. and I have no idea what im talking about but I have fun talking...

so... Thanks for trying to explain things to me. I will continue to read.

But why exactly cant time have a start? I consider time a man made thing. Time is nothing more than our framework of occurences. This happens then that happens and we say that time has passed. What if 'the universe (all of what we think we are aware of) - what if all of it were coming into existence and then ceasing to exist again and again either in some pattern or some random state. From our perspective both time and the universe would be 'always on'. But in reality it would not be. We may be flashing on and off very quickly and not even know it.

People who have seizures know all about this.

Im not willing to make definitive statements like 'the universe could not have been created' and I think the assumption might limit discovery.

P.S.: Do you believe in ghosts? Does anyone here?

It appears that Maurizio and Noel both do. I do. Ive seen one. and experienced several

but I didn't know it at the time.

I doubt ghosts fit in with the physics and math but only because it implies massless entities who have thought and intention.

Why would anyone believe in God and yet not accept the spiritual realm?

I always feel hesitant to talk about these matters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Dave, yes, i believe in ghosts, even if i have never seen one. My wife had an entity in her previous house, also able to throw away objects. My wife's mother also told me that she saw this "shadow" in the house, and other members of the family that for first didn't believe in my wife, until they experimented by themselves the entity.


Respect to this argument, i think that not everyone can see or interact with a ghost, that's pure energy, maybe a sort of predisposition is needed. There are particular places, anyway, where you can feel a strange sensation, difficult to explain, but, yes, i have experimented this too. It was in Mexico, in a town called Guanajuato, just in hotel that was an old farm readapted to colonial style, with several mines around. And it's difficult to explain the sensation i felt in the night along those hotel's corridors. It wasn't suggestion, because only there it happened to me. I had the sensation that something was looking at me, but there wasn't anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

' a shadow' is exactly how I have always described what I saw. and I wasn't alone. My two friends saw it as well.

We were at a place we liked to go - because we were teenagers - and it was rumored to be haunted - and

we liked to hang out there on occasion. This one night we were about to leave and we were walking toward the edge of the building when I saw something and I was sure it was my imagination but then my two friends started having a conversation about it. One said "Did you see that?" and the other says "you mean a shadow that rose up from there and then moved across the ground?" and the first "yeah, and then it went behind that tree"

and I was of course fascinated by their discussion because they were describing what I thought was my imagination.

it was a shadow...like a shadow seen on the ground from the light of a full moon...but it was standing in three dimensional space. and it appeared to have thought. It went to hide behind a tree and my friends started to chase after it and then it went to hide in a place where an outhouse once was.

the outhouse had been removed but for some reason this thing couldnt see that.

It was at that point that it headed quickly for the edge of the building and when we got to that corner, it had vanished.

I spent my childhood always wanting to see a ghost but after that, Ive never really cared to again.

and when I think back to other situations Ive been in, I realize that there were ghosts there too.

They usually manifest as voices or footsteps in other rooms. You think nothing of it until you learn that the house was actually empty except for you. (or they all went to bed and you just thought they stayed up for hours.)

P.S: the shadow I saw was full of holes and the holes were like stars. I don't know what that means.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as the human mind goes, a desire to believe generally gives full support to the mind creating support for the belief.


 


So one tends to keep tweaking the personal reality changes needed to accomplish the goal.


 


That's how we tend to manufacture gods and ghosts.


 


And I'm sure that's how my mind manufactures disbelief.


 


Very creative brains we have.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lawrence - have you ever learned anything new? have you ever been surprised at something you learned?

if personal reality was manufactured then its not likely to contain contrary thought or unknown thought.

besides that, in my story, I had two friends each completing each others half of what I thought was in my head. Consider that...you have a dream and two other people are able to describe in detail exactly what you saw. what are the odds?

As far as the human mind goes, a desire to believe generally gives full support to the mind creating support for the belief.

 

So one tends to keep tweaking the personal reality changes needed to accomplish the goal.

 

That's how we tend to manufacture gods and ghosts.

 

And I'm sure that's how my mind manufactures disbelief.

 

Very creative brains we have.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We all have out beliefs and disbeliefs based on our education and life experiences. But this is not the venue for that because it gets very personal and argumentative.

Having said that I think if anyone would like to read a good book on the evolution of the idea of god(s) and religion (as good as any and one of the best I think, although it's fiction) pick up The Source by James Michener. Although that's not what the book is primarily about it is a thread that runs through the story line.

Now if there is such a thing as reincarnation I want to come back as a crow. They soar, they perform aerobatics, and they just seem to have great time flying.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0pJ_LEnUdc

Noel

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lawrence - have you ever learned anything new? have you ever been surprised at something you learned?

if personal reality was manufactured then its not likely to contain contrary thought or unknown thought.

besides that, in my story, I had two friends each completing each others half of what I thought was in my head. Consider that...you have a dream and two other people are able to describe in detail exactly what you saw. what are the odds?

 

The odds for me are zero.

For you, whatever you think they are........... ;D

We all have out beliefs and disbeliefs based on our education and life experiences. But this is not the venue for that because it gets very personal and argumentative.

Having said that I think if anyone would like to read a good book on the evolution of the idea of god(s) and religion (as good as any and one of the best I think, although it's fiction) pick up The Source by James Michener. Although that's not what the book is primarily about it is a thread that runs through the story line.

Now if there is such a thing as reincarnation I want to come back as a crow. They soar, they perform aerobatics, and they just seem to have great time flying.


>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0pJ_LEnUdc

Noel

They also tick off a lot of farmers, who then shoot them as fast as they can.

I can soar, perform aerobatics and have a great time flying....and I don't even poop all over peoples cars.

Link to post
Share on other sites

....and I don't even poop all over peoples cars.


 


That's the price some people are going to have to pay so I can fly without fuel costs, expensive maintenance and overhauls, or having to deal with ATC or the FAA.


 


Noel


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lawrence - have you ever learned anything new? have you ever been surprised at something you learned?
if personal reality was manufactured then its not likely to contain contrary thought or unknown thought.

 

People are trying to teach me something new every day.  Like how the pyramids were built by space aliens.  And the existence of bigfoot.  But just because they trying to each me something doesn't mean I have to buy it Dave.

 

Take bigfoot for instance.  Millions believe it or he or she exists.  Thousands have claimed to have seen one.  They accept grainy video of a shadowy backpacker 6 and a half feet tall crossing a road and accept it as evidence and proof.

 

But as of yet there is no scientific evidence that can stand up to a peer review.

 

Think about this.  We have found skulls of humanoids thousands of years old.  We have bones of ancient man in museums.  Yet not a shred of verifiable evidence of a contemporary being claimed to have been seen by thousands.

 

No bones.  Are they buried?  Where are the graves?  No scat found in the wild.  No evidence of what they eat.  People have claimed to have seen them in every state of the union, but none have ever been hit by a vehicle crossing a highway.  We have roadkill of every almost every know species in the country from moose to mice, but none of bigfoot.  The woods are crawling with hunters, fishermen, back packers, campers, boy scouts, girl scouts, cub scouts, rangers. surveyors, naturalists, wildlife biologists, and no definitive, verifiable sightings or evidence.  Just footprints easily faked and nothing else but shadows.

 

But one thing bigfoot has done was to spawn TV series and specials produced by smart people knowing a buck can be made from myths.

 

And if you listen to them (my wife dotes on them and I hear them from the next room) almost every sentence begins with, "Could it be possible..."  Nothing definitive.

 

And then people say, "I don't believe your theory or belief but I do believe mine."  We're talking here about personal beliefs we are trying to foist on others.

 

That's not to say bigfoot doesn't exist.  I can't prove a negative.  But I need real, hard evidence.

 

To be accepted as truth you need scientific, peer reviewed evidence.  For ghosts and spirits and afterlife existence and space aliens and bigfoot none has been forthcoming.  My faith gave out when I was 14 years old and expelled from St. Ignatius High school in San Francisco for questioning then accepted doctrine.

 

Noel
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can only tell of my experiences.

If someone tells you something happened and they appear to have been changed by that occurrence, it would be reasonable to assume that something happened. Since we are talking about things that cant be touched in the first place, its very hard to provide 'touchable' evidence...except for the person themselves. they are the evidence.

Im not trying to foist anything on anyone, Noel.

We may not know what equipment to use to find evidence of ghosts but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

but lets get back to those quarks and subatomic particles and other such things.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thank you Dave to share your experience with us, and i can observe that when we speak about paranormal, this is a very personal experience. When my wife told me that the entity sat down on her bed, leaving the ass form, very large in the truth, and she screamed to ask the others so they could see too, the reaction were obvious.... they saw the weight on the bed and nothing above. I have not seen this but i believe it because my wife wouldn't have a reason to simulate this with me.


I can tell only that i haven't had that experience, and i neither know my reaction if i was there.


Science can't explain everything, can't measure everything, it would be too reductive if it were this way. For instance many experiments and studies have been done on subjects that were dead and returned to life after a coma status. A woman, i don't remember her name now, talked with those people, who had this experience, and even with some difference, they told her the same things, people who didn't know each others.


If we reject everything that we don't have an immediate proof, well, nothing strange around us would exist. But there are things you can believe it or not, you haven't a direct evidence. Neither a religion have a direct evidence, you believe it or not, it's inside you that a thought grows step by step, during your life, or goes away because you loose the faith. All are personal experiences, it's not that you want to convince someone, maybe you're happy to share with the others. I follow this line, trying to understand many things that we can call stranges, but it's not true that your mind creates things because you wish to believe. Have you ever changed opinions? When you change an opinion, not always it happens because there is an evidence, maybe there is all a series of circumstances that makes you to change opinion. And sometimes not. You remain anchored to your opinion even if you discover something valid. Also, if you ever act following the logic, you can't understand why on some occasion you do exactly the thing you know that wouldn't be the optimum for you. This to say that our emotions are the add value to our brain, they interact. Paranormal is something that has more to do with our emotions and less with our brain, or better, are related to the part of brain we know less, that part that always we don't use. This is also proved in science that our brain has a capability extraordinary if it was used whole.


I think to be religious, and religion doesn't talk about aliens or big bang, but i am happy to evaluate also these arguments, it's my curiosity and the awardness that everything can't be entirely explained.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You're not trying to foist anything on my Dave, but many people do. And they won't let you alone.

I have friend who insists he saw his dead father and son in his bedroom and they were wearing the clothes he last saw them in. Do ghosts wear clothes? And he won't let up. And he never will. Unless I give in and agree he's like the Energizer Bunny. He want's validation.

Back to quarks and sub-atomic particles. I'll have to bow out because I know little or nothing about them and would only be making a fool of myself if I pretended I did just to join the discussion.

Noel

Link to post
Share on other sites

the key to interstellar travel or seeing the future or the past is in the brain ithink dreaming is a very important part to geting  to any of these places,


 but first you need to be able to "fall asleep".  its really great .


Link to post
Share on other sites

What we really need is an ORBX developed space simulator designed for interstellar travel.


Microsoft used to market a space sim years ago....actually it wasn't bad for its day.


 


All that's out there today is Orbiter......but it is so realistic most can't handle it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What we really need is an ORBX developed space simulator designed for interstellar travel.

Microsoft used to market a space sim years ago....actually it wasn't bad for its day.

 

All that's out there today is Orbiter......but it is so realistic most can't handle it.

 

this is really cool Lawrence... i didn't know about it! A space simulator wouldn't at all a bad idea, really i hadn't thought to a thing like this. I played with Microsoft Freelancer, that's pretty cool, the graphic too, because i love a lot the space trade as idea for a game, i was a fan of Elite, one of the best innovative games in its field.

Now i play often with X3 Albion Prelude, a sort of Freelancer but much more evolved, also about the artificial intelligence of the game.

If ipotetically Orbx, in the future, would take this possibility into the account, i would be in for sure.

And in science, or better in psychology, dreams are studied to reflect our problems with the reality, could be defined as a mirror of the soul. I have read many books on this, freud, Jung and other, in modern psychology they are used to understand better the problems that a people can have. Your brain speaks you encoding a bit the data, you often dream things that could have a total different meaning from the thing that the dream shows. It's a code of our brain, that after many studies behind, psychologists have decoded in large part, but obviously all need to put in relation with the life of the dreamer, not always they have the same meaning. While during a normal day your brain has a lot of defense mechanism to filtrate the reality, when you dream these filters are off, and it's directly the unconscious that speaks, the part of you that is always right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...