Suicide

[IJesusChrist]

I didn't follow, who;s the famous G

 

[_Avatar_]

Sacred geometry. These people (Nassim Haramein, Dan Winter, David Wilcock and others) are showing how all aspects of reality (the universe, solar systems, planets, DNA, consciousness, bliss) are related to sacred geometry, like the platonic solids and Phi. It is the new emerging paradigm, one that's very popular amongst hippies and psychonauts.

And no, I don't have time or the financial freedom to take a college course on particle physics. Nor do I find the material interesting.

Nassim Haramein certainly studied particle physics. I'm not expecting a college course is going to enable me to debunk his theory. E. A. Rauscher, the co-author of the theory, is a Ph.D. in Nuclear Physics and Engineering (University of California at Berkeley).

Nassim Haramein is quickly becoming very popular within the psychedelic community, through his presentations at psy-festivals and his associations with Alex Grey, Martin Ball, Lorenzo Hagerty, Rick Doblin, Jan Irvin, Max Freakout and many others in the scene. Like it or not, his name is going to show up more and more.

If someone is in the position of debunking or refining the theory, it is you. But it would be better if you first thoroughly studied his ideas with an open mind, before trying to find fault with it and talking about debunking it. I still don't know whether you read the whole theory, or just the first paragraph upon which you commented.

 

[ophiuchus]

avatar; if you take a intro college course on particle physics (difficult to do without a professor) you could debunk this yourself... You can debunk it with what has been Tested. Hey, I've been thinking alot about physics lately - you should continue to read what you're reading - I've come across a very popular book "The Trouble With Physics" and is quite delightful in that regard.

I don't think you can split elementary particles adrian, unless they are composed of some sort of density, in which case, you could. The energy is partitioned in to quantized bits... meaning it fits neatly into certain areas, we don't see constant spectrum in many areas of particle physics pertaining to energy levels...

Whatever though, it may come crashing down.

dude, you've drawn a box from inside all of your theories, and that is where you stand. of course you dont know what im talking about, because science hasn't come up with a theory for that yet :roll: . is it that you honestly can't see what im saying? or what?

 

[IJesusChrist]

Here is my point: I used to believe we can go faster than the speed of light, because a cosmic speed limit seems ridiculous... but now that I understand it, and I understand limits can be applied to the universe, it's real.

Same goes for how energy and matter seem to be quantized.

 

[ophiuchus]

Here is my point: I used to believe we can go faster than the speed of light, because a cosmic speed limit seems ridiculous... but now that I understand it, and I understand limits can be applied to the universe, it's real.

Same goes for how energy and matter seem to be quantized.

you keep constantly forgetting that those "limits" you speak of, are arbitrary limits. it's like the centimeter versus the inch. neither is any different except one is larger. neither is empirical. neither is a "true" measurement. (you know what i mean, lets not get into another etymology discussion)

I don't think you can split elementary particles adrian, unless they are composed of some sort of density

of course we can't see that they have any density now, because our scales simply do not weigh small enough, our microscopes not that complex, our splitters aren't "splitty" enough. :lol: i realize that i am not knowledgeable in this area like you, but you do not realize that it does not take a degree at all to see that, whatever we decided to turn into a "quantized" anything, means nothing, in real reality. (aka not on a piece of paper, not in word form, and not on a computer screen, not on anything) because it is simply a construct, a representation, an approximation, a protoype, for the real thing. anything that man has produced in the way of "information" is simply a vague guide for you, only to be able to recognize an event that is ACTUALLY happening in reality, which can never be "quantized" and remain whole/true/the way it was. you've put it in a box. you've put limits on what we can see, and what can(or what one will allow to) interact with it. it's isolated from the whole, therefore not how it really is.

quantized: noun (websters.com)
to restrict (a variable quantity) to discrete values rather than to a continuous set of values.

the world is not pictures, it's video. for that definition, there is your metaphor. a metaphor, just like EVERY PIECE OF INFORMATION EVER INSCRIBED. there can be no "facts" in this line of thinking. by trying to document it, you grossly oversimplify what it truely is

because, not only is the word "quantized" arbitrary, but so is the language that this word is founded upon, and so is the idea of writing, and so is even the idea of thinking. because it is not real. the only thing that is real is the reality that the words allude to.

 

[ophiuchus]

"Something strikes me as invariably incorrect with the current theory of light; according (apparently) to relativity, light cannot interact with any matter - in fact, a particle of light is everywhere simultaneously - if you were to 'sit' and observe the universe on a photon.

Yet light does react with reality... This doesn't quite make sense to me. "

i know that you know what im talking about

 

[IJesusChrist]

Here is my point: I used to believe we can go faster than the speed of light, because a cosmic speed limit seems ridiculous... but now that I understand it, and I understand limits can be applied to the universe, it's real.

Same goes for how energy and matter seem to be quantized.

you keep constantly forgetting that those "limits" you speak of, are arbitrary limits. it's like the centimeter versus the inch. neither is any different except one is larger. neither is empirical. neither is a "true" measurement. (you know what i mean, lets not get into another etymology discussion)

No, it's really not arbitrary... You'll eventually see what I mean, well, I always do this. Here's the explanation - once you get close to the speed of light, space & time become very different - they become very short, i.e. the universe compresses in the dimension of your trajectorie - and this compression increases as you approach the speed of light. If you were to hit the speed of light, the universe would become a 2-dimensional pancake, with it forever extending off to your left, right, top and bottm, yet in front of you and behind you would all simultaneously be in the same place; thus how could you go any faster?

That is to say, as you approach the speed of light - you are everywhere at once, which creates quite a paradox: light does not experience time - yet it interacts with us periodically... Meaning the universe MUST be deterministic, otherwise what light interacts with would be not the same as what light perceives.

It's a limit, a universal limit, you cannot argue that.

I don't think you can split elementary particles adrian, unless they are composed of some sort of density

of course we can't see that they have any density now, because our scales simply do not weigh small enough, our microscopes not that complex, our splitters aren't "splitty" enough. :lol: i realize that i am not knowledgeable in this area like you, but you do not realize that it does not take a degree at all to see that, whatever we decided to turn into a "quantized" anything, means nothing, in real reality. (aka not on a piece of paper, not in word form, and not on a computer screen, not on anything) because it is simply a construct, a representation, an approximation, a protoype, for the real thing. anything that man has produced in the way of "information" is simply a vague guide for you, only to be able to recognize an event that is ACTUALLY happening in reality, which can never be "quantized" and remain whole/true/the way it was. you've put it in a box. you've put limits on what we can see, and what can(or what one will allow to) interact with it. it's isolated from the whole, therefore not how it really is.

quantized: noun (websters.com)
to restrict (a variable quantity) to discrete values rather than to a continuous set of values.

the world is not pictures, it's video. for that definition, there is your metaphor. a metaphor, just like EVERY PIECE OF INFORMATION EVER INSCRIBED. there can be no "facts" in this line of thinking. by trying to document it, you grossly oversimplify what it truely is

because, not only is the word "quantized" arbitrary, but so is the language that this word is founded upon, and so is the idea of writing, and so is even the idea of thinking. because it is not real. the only thing that is real is the reality that the words allude to.

I may digress, I don't believe time & space are quantized - therefore I see no reason for matter to be quantized. A theory which I just read about which includes the existance of particles called "Preons" is exactly what you are going for. I.E. quarks (our current 'elementary particle') is actually made up of 3 preon flavors,.

all for now

 

[ophiuchus]

you think i should go by poopster? kind of catchy i suppose... well before i begin i should(have done this in my last post) say that i do NOT propose that we can go faster than the speed of light. it is simpler than that.

Here is my point: I used to believe we can go faster than the speed of light, because a cosmic speed limit seems ridiculous... but now that I understand it, and I understand limits can be applied to the universe, it's real.

Same goes for how energy and matter seem to be quantized.

you keep constantly forgetting that those "limits" you speak of, are arbitrary limits. it's like the centimeter versus the inch. neither is any different except one is larger. neither is empirical. neither is a "true" measurement. (you know what i mean, lets not get into another etymology discussion)

No, it's really not arbitrary... You'll eventually see what I mean, well, I always do this. Here's the explanation - once you get close to the speed of light, space & time become very different - they become very short, i.e. the universe compresses in the dimension of your trajectorie - and this compression increases as you approach the speed of light. If you were to hit the speed of light, the universe would become a 2-dimensional pancake, with it forever extending off to your left, right, top and bottm, yet in front of you and behind you would all simultaneously be in the same place; thus how could you go any faster?

i want you to look at one thing in regards to this.
disregard the labelling as it's not the graph i want to show you, it's the shape of what is happening on the graph

*once again, before i begin, i want you to know that i am not trying to say that it is possible to go beyond the speed of light.*

you never STOP moving forward, it is simply the scale that gets too small for us to be able to see the difference anymore.

if you started at the top of the point that we CAN see on the graph, made that our starting point, and then made another graph, you would see another curve, just like that, sprouting out of the top of that almost* "straight" :roll: line.
the bottom line is that it NEVER becomes a straight line, just keeps increasing and increasing exponentially(whether it be increasing or decreasing, it does not matter) to a point that it gets so far from our ordinary perception, that we simply can't perceive any more, our senses simplify it into "oh it just keeps going that way". there's no cap, no "limit", only a(n arbitrary) "point" aka the speed of light (aka pi does not equal 3.14).
it's just that the amount of time consumed to get to light speed would kill you and disperse your particles across the universe so damn fast, you wouldn't even know what happened, because to you, it would seem like you peacefully just lived out the rest of your life going lightspeed (and then started to rot, and then eventually broke down to the point that you simply begin to dissolve due to half lifes, bacteria, etc). get it?

That is to say, as you approach the speed of light - you are everywhere at once, which creates quite a paradox: light does not experience time - yet it interacts with us periodically... Meaning the universe MUST be deterministic, otherwise what light interacts with would be not the same as what light perceives

that is not quite accurate, as you make your approach upon the speed of light, you dont simply hit a point where *pop* you become everywhere at once, your words lead to that implication. it is a slow transition, just as you make an approach on the speed of light, you would also make your approach to being everywhere at once. that wasn't my point though, it's just to clarify that you dont just hit a point where you go from "normal" then poof, "infinity". anyways lets not quarrel THIS point, as there are more fundamental points to address.

so, seeing now from my point of view that the universe does NOT HAVE TO BE STRICTLY deterministic from this point, light could never perceive what it is truely interacting with, in the same way that we cant. you only see the LIGHT bouncing from the object into your eyes, and thus light only perceives light, we only perceive light, it/we do not perceive what it interacts with, unless it is in our physical perception, aka our skin (or taste), physically sensing the object, not looking at or hearing. do you at least follow this distinction in the example? i dont expect you to believe me in the whole deterministic thing just yet, because i dont believe whatever the polar opposite idea that you have for determinism. i just want to make sure that you are following my train of thought, because im following yours. so right now we have NOT proven, nor disproven determinism, just pointed out that the point you presented in regards to the last quote, does NOT lead to the conclusion that the universe MUST be deterministic.

moving on

I don't think you can split elementary particles adrian, unless they are composed of some sort of density

of course we can't see that they have any density now, because our scales simply do not weigh small enough, our microscopes not that complex, our splitters aren't "splitty" enough. :lol: i realize that i am not knowledgeable in this area like you, but you do not realize that it does not take a degree at all to see that, whatever we decided to turn into a "quantized" anything, means nothing, in real reality. (aka not on a piece of paper, not in word form, and not on a computer screen, not on anything) because it is simply a construct, a representation, an approximation, a protoype, for the real thing. anything that man has produced in the way of "information" is simply a vague guide for you, only to be able to recognize an event that is ACTUALLY happening in reality, which can never be "quantized" and remain whole/true/the way it was. you've put it in a box. you've put limits on what we can see, and what can(or what one will allow to) interact with it. it's isolated from the whole, therefore not how it really is.

quantized: noun (websters.com)
to restrict (a variable quantity) to discrete values rather than to a continuous set of values.

the world is not pictures, it's video. for that definition, there is your metaphor. a metaphor, just like EVERY PIECE OF INFORMATION EVER INSCRIBED. there can be no "facts" in this line of thinking. by trying to document it, you grossly oversimplify what it truely is

because, not only is the word "quantized" arbitrary, but so is the language that this word is founded upon, and so is the idea of writing, and so is even the idea of thinking. because it is not real. the only thing that is real is the reality that the words allude to.

I may digress, I don't believe time & space are quantized - therefore I see no reason for matter to be quantized. A theory which I just read about which includes the existance of particles called "Preons" is exactly what you are going for. I.E. quarks (our current 'elementary particle') is actually made up of 3 preon flavors,.

all for now

so, if time, space, and matter are not quantized, and light is matter, and these are all various forms of energy... im just saying.

there will be things beyond preons, best believe.

 

[IJesusChrist]

I will write more on the determinist implications of light later, for now my point with preons was being that there doesn't seem to be an end...

They keep finding theories that fit - continually creating particles from sub-particles, and so on.

Atoms -> Nuclei -> quarks... Preons? ->?->?

 

[peach]

NEVER LISTEN TO THE DRUGS WHEN THEY BEGIN DISCUSSING SAFETY!

e.g.

"Yeah you can step down from this window to the floor"

or

"Death wouldn't be so bad ya know"

Great... now wait for the drugs to fully wear off, reassess your lifestyle and don't rush death, that could piss him off.