26 replies to this topic

[aryannatimothy]

Quantum theory, though have existed way back, still for me is quite a new science. There are tons of unexplored and unexplained things relating to quantum science, yet we have these events and circumstances that prove that this theory exists. The near death experience also has its own truths. I am very interested to know about quantum theory and this thread somehow enlightened me of the things that is so unknown.

[Lion6969]

Rlyeh, on 01 November 2012 - 06:45 PM, said:

So they haven't actually discovered *anything*, no particle, no soul, etc, they're just proposing a "theory".

Yes a theory based on scientific mathematical axioms and conventions, along with experiential evidence, and other scientific fields, studying energy, electromagnetic forces, fields etc. So they put it together to form a scientific theory.

Quote

In that case there is also a "theory" the earth is 6000 years old.

There is also the spaghetti monster theory, evolution theory, panspermia theory I suppose you can lump them altogether

[Lion6969]

Rlyeh, on 07 November 2012 - 02:35 AM, said:

This is contradictory. Observing the effects is the same as detecting.
So you can observe the evidence of a soul?
Dark matter is verifiable, a soul so far isn't.

Lol....I love blind atheism, see how the above has claimed that his religion of science and it's clergy can verify dark matter.........I think statements like that just sum up the average atheist trolling on anything remotely theistic!

[Rlyeh]

Lion6969, on 22 November 2012 - 10:35 PM, said:

Yes a theory based on scientific mathematical axioms and conventions, along with experiential evidence, and other scientific fields, studying energy, electromagnetic forces, fields etc. So they put it together to form a scientific theory.

Where is the experiential evidence?
What a surprise, looks like someone didn't bother to read the article.

Quote

Lol....I love blind atheism

It is the blindness you love, that way no matter how many times you've been corrected you can always make another ignorant statement.

[Lion6969]

Rlyeh, on 23 November 2012 - 04:53 PM, said:

Where is the experiential evidence?
What a surprise, looks like someone didn't bother to read the article.

Experiential evidence equates the 1000s of reports of NDE's OBE's etc this counts as experiential evidence, all be it subjective to the individuals reporting it, but it's still evidence put together.

Quote

It is the blindness you love, that way no matter how many times you've been corrected you can always make another ignorant statement.

I love your blindness, see when I point out something ignorant in your posts, like dark matter is verifiable (hahahahaha), I make sure the reader understand where your blind. What have corrected? In fact I'm always correcting you! So oh mighty clergy of science, verify frigging dark matter and get a Nobel prize why don't u!!!!

[Rlyeh]

Lion6969, on 23 November 2012 - 05:48 PM, said:

Experiential evidence equates the 1000s of reports of NDE's OBE's etc this counts as experiential evidence, all be it subjective to the individuals reporting it, but it's still evidence put together.

What part of scientific don't you understand?
NDEs have not once been verified to have any link with QM. In fact there is no experiment to test such.

So I'll ask again "Where is the experiential evidence?"

Quote

I love your blindness, see when I point out something ignorant in your posts, like dark matter is verifiable (hahahahaha)

You also must enjoy feeling like a fool.
http://www.space.com...y-clusters.html

Quote

I make sure the reader understand where your blind. What have corrected? In fact I'm always correcting you! So oh mighty clergy of science, verify frigging dark matter and get a Nobel prize why don't u!!!!

Actually you've made yourself look rather ignorant. First you demonstrate your poor reading comprehension, did you even bother to read the article? They've given no scientific evidence to support their theory, you then claim bogus scientific evidence. Then you make the final mistake of asserting dark matter hasn't been observed.
You real clever. lmao.

Edited by Rlyeh, 23 November 2012 - 06:01 PM.

[the eternal me]

no need to fight.....

anything spiritual is a personal thing....

for any evidence of anything to do with it... you have to be open to it... and seek it out...

then and only then can you come to your own conclusions....

if it is dismissed as hokum right off the bat...

then the door is closed .....

no point in arguing to another person that there is something right behind them if they refuse to turn around....

no matter which side of the fence your on....

i am amazed by science.... i read stuff all the time....

i have my own personal beliefs backed up by my own experiences...

i chose to not close the doors on either side of the argument....

i am just saying to some degree or another....

the concept of dark energy, may be tied into other things we never would have thought of...

it seems to be vast and mysterious.... just as the concept of chi...

there may be a way the we sense the dark energy and not realise it...

and that gets into the same whole reasoning for the argument of vinyl and cd's....

on the cd's there is a whole realm of frequencies that are missing.... things you cant "hear" ... but you sense....

they just don’t exist on cd's.....

but we "know" something is different.....

then it gets into a matter of preference.....

do you "want to have that sensing" of those frequencies?

or does it even matter?

but that question is the same as the matter of NDE and the scientific argument....

what does it matter to "you" ? .....

what is the question that you really have underneath it all? .....

everybody thinks about life and death.... life after death.....
is there more to it all?.....

at some point or another....
everybody thinks of this kind of stuff.....

to see a life long atheist lying on their death bed filled with fear....
and questions about life after death....

what would you say to them? .....

[Lion6969]

First of all I never claimed the theory to be fact I said its a scientific theory made up physics cosmology, astronomy, maths, etc and add to that experiential evidence of individuals, whether its objective or subjective is irrelevant, it's experiences of 1000s of people being taken in to consideration, whether they can prove their experience empirically is a different matter! You clearly cannot comprehend this!

Quote

The astronomers used observations from the public archive of data collected by the Japanese Subaru telescope on Mauna Kea in Hawaii.

"The data was observed in 2001 and just had been sitting in the archive and no one ever used it," Dietrich said. "It took a while for us to realize that this data is around."

Though the gravitational lensing was too weak to notice by eye, the team used a statistical analysis of light from more than 40,000 background galaxies to determine that unseen mass in between the two galaxy clusters was warping space-time.

The work follows up on a 2008 study Dietrich worked on, which found hot gas in the area of the filament, suggesting its existence. However, that study did not detect a signal from the dark matter directly.

The researchers would love to search for dark matter filaments around other galaxy clusters, but say they haven't yet found any good candidates that might cause lensing strong enough to be seen from Earth.

You see you still don't get it, how do empirically prove dark matter, it's invisible matter? So how did they view invisible matter? They did not, they interpreted data mathematically etc and the effects of that region of space have been deemed invisible matter, matter that we can't see, yet somehow they found it visible, no it's mathematical interpretation mate. There is no empirical proof of dark matter yet, It's interpretation of data that's all, plasma physicist can interpret that data in a different way etc, depends what theory you jump on, and dark matter is a theory too

[Rlyeh]

Lion6969, on 23 November 2012 - 06:31 PM, said:

First of all I never claimed the theory to be fact I said its a scientific theory made up physics cosmology, astronomy, maths, etc and add to that experiential evidence of individuals, whether its objective or subjective is irrelevant, it's experiences of 1000s of people being taken in to consideration, whether they can prove their experience empirically is a different matter! You clearly cannot comprehend this!

A scientific theory must be verifiable. The theory presented in the article falls short, no hypothesis has been tested that shows a link with QM or of any quantum substance which form the soul.

Quote

You see you still don't get it, how do empirically prove dark matter, it's invisible matter? So how did they view invisible matter? They did not, they interpreted data mathematically etc and the effects of that region of space have been deemed invisible matter, matter that we can't see, yet somehow they found it visible, no it's mathematical interpretation mate. There is no empirical proof of dark matter yet, It's interpretation of data that's all, plasma physicist can interpret that data in a different way etc, depends what theory you jump on, and dark matter is a theory too

You realise we can't see atoms either? We can observe their behavior and effects with the proper tools.
You misunderstand what observation means.

Edited by Rlyeh, 23 November 2012 - 06:43 PM.

[Lion6969]

Theories have verifiable aspects and theoretical aspects yet to be empirically proven! Ie dark matter!

Observations whereby we see the effect of something ie gravity, dark matter acting on Baryonic matter, is a matter of interpretation of the data. Those proposing dark energy theory interpret the data to fit their theory a plasma theorist will do the same, one gets more attention simply on the philosophical criteria and implication if the theory in reality. Does that make sense, if dark matter was verifiable like you claim then it would not be the great mystery phycists are claiming it is! There is a reliance on indirect evidence, which fuels dark matter doubts.

Read this :

Quote

the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, has in the decade since its launch delivered a robust indirect detection of dark matter's footprint on the ancient echo of light known as the cosmic microwave background. And dark matter's effects are also inferred in gravitational interactions around clusters of galaxies as well as around individual galaxies themselves.

Quote

But the dark stuff itself has yet to be detected, either directly, in particle physics laboratories as a new subatomic particle, via neutrino telescopes also operating in the subatomic realm, or with concrete evidence of such hidden matter using telescopes operating in the electromagnetic spectrum.

If it's matter whether visible or not is detectable and observable via neutrino telescopes, LHC and other technology!!!

Quote

Stars at the very edges of spiral galaxies, for instance, rotate much faster than can be explained by Newtonian gravity alone; the picture makes sense only if astrophysicists either modify gravity itself or invoke additional gravitational acceleration due to an unknown source of mass such as dark matter.

See dark matter is an extension theory to model to account for affects that Newtonian physics don't, either gravity needs modification or we add a theoretical accelerator!

Quote

Theory predicts that spiral galaxies, including our own Milky Way, are enveloped by massive dark matter halos that provide the galaxy's missing mass. But the Milky Way's own dark matter halo has also yet to be detected, even indirectly. Its putative existence is primarily inferred from the anomalous rotations of satellite galaxies such as the Magellanic Clouds, which orbit the Milky Way too quickly to be explained by ordinary gravity alone.

Finally I think this point sums up my point.

Quote

"There is a lot of misplaced certainty in the dark matter model—a feeling that it's not 'if' we directly detect dark matter, but 'when,'" Mihos says.

Or, as McGaugh puts it, "Once you convince yourself that the universe is full of an invisible substance that only interacts with ordinary matter through gravity, then it is virtually impossible to disabuse yourself of that notion. There is always a way to wiggle out of any observation."

[Beany]

Cradle of Fish, on 01 November 2012 - 05:53 PM, said:

I'm quite clueless about quantum mechanics other than a popular science education and I assume most people are the same. But one thing I do know is to be wary of any layman who uses the term quantum. It's an old favourite of new agers to give some credibility to their theories. See Deepak Chopra, What the Bleep do we Know? etc.


As for our consciousness returning to the universe upon our death, I'd argue that it never is apart from it in the first place. The energy and matter in our bodies is never separate or distinct from the universe except in the way it is arranged.

Oh, I like that, that our consciousness is never separated in the first place. Maybe it's the way we think about ourselves & the universe that creates the illusion of separation, but not a separation in fact.

[Rlyeh]

Lion6969, on 23 November 2012 - 08:42 PM, said:

Theories have verifiable aspects and theoretical aspects yet to be empirically proven! Ie dark matter!

Scientific theories must be verifiable, not when it suits you. The theory in the OP is in no shape or form observable, even dark matter has better support.

Quote

Observations whereby we see the effect of something ie gravity, dark matter acting on Baryonic matter, is a matter of interpretation of the data.

You don't say.

Quote

Does that make sense, if dark matter was verifiable like you claim then it would not be the great mystery phycists are claiming it is! There is a reliance on indirect evidence, which fuels dark matter doubts.

Which I've pointed out. You aren't very good at reading are you?
The effects of dark matter have been observed, however what dark matter is formed of is hypothetical.

Edit: Not sure why you need to quote mine.

Edited by Rlyeh, 24 November 2012 - 05:43 AM.