|
Post by goz on Oct 8, 2019 21:55:11 GMT
Thanks for that. Oh, here we go. It's not like you get it right all the time, is it? You're welcome, however I did answer the stupidest post eventually, though yours was a close second. Read and weep. Whatever this means, at least I don't go around like Heeeeey telling people what they think and being inaccurate a spectacular amount of the time because she puts people into convenient boxes to suit her pathetic agenda. Now, are you going to answer why you said that taking the testimony and work of others is a good thing when you previously claimed that it wasn't in reference to science and medicine? You wouldn't even take my evidence that I had visited a friend of mine in hospital who had had a heart lung transplant which you claimed at the time didn't happen and didn't and couldn't exist!
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Oct 8, 2019 21:57:44 GMT
You're welcome, however I did answer the stupidest post eventually, though yours was a close second. Read and weep. Whatever this means, at least I don't go around like Heeeeey telling people what they think and being inaccurate a spectacular amount of the time because she puts people into convenient boxes to suit her pathetic agenda. Now, are you going to answer why you said that taking the testimony and work of others is a good thing when you previously claimed that it wasn't in reference to science and medicine? You wouldn't even take my evidence that I had visited a friend of mine in hospital who had had a heart lung transplant which you claimed at the time didn't happen and didn't and couldn't exist! Aren't you in essence telling people what to think when you declare in no uncertain terms that there is nothing outside of the five senses, no soul, no spirit, no God, and that we are basically automatons?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 8, 2019 22:00:34 GMT
You're welcome, however I did answer the stupidest post eventually, though yours was a close second. Read and weep. Whatever this means, at least I don't go around like Heeeeey telling people what they think and being inaccurate a spectacular amount of the time because she puts people into convenient boxes to suit her pathetic agenda. Now, are you going to answer why you said that taking the testimony and work of others is a good thing when you previously claimed that it wasn't in reference to science and medicine? You wouldn't even take my evidence that I had visited a friend of mine in hospital who had had a heart lung transplant which you claimed at the time didn't happen and didn't and couldn't exist! Aren't you in essence telling people what to think when you declare in no uncertain terms that there is nothing outside of the five senses, no soul, no spirit, no God, and that we are basically automatons? No, because I didn't claim any of those things. YOU are claiming them for me right now and confirming what I just about to attributing beliefs to people to suit your own pathetic agenda. You just don't 'get' it, do you? How about you answer your own post from me?
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Oct 8, 2019 22:08:04 GMT
No, you're the one who doesn't get it, and I find it hilarious. Wow, ok so tell me what I got wrong. Your premise seems to be (with the leaf) that a leaf has some kind of energy field and that the field remains after you take away some of the leaf, this proves that energy (which is apparently analogous to consciousness) created the leaf. is that correct? No, that is not correct.
I'm saying the energy field was there BEFORE the leaf was. THEN the leaf came into materiality -- it solidified. The energy field wasn't seen until the piece of the leaf was removed.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Oct 8, 2019 22:57:30 GMT
Lately, though, I think it is more likely that someday science will discover that when breaking down atomic particles into smaller and smaller units, what these units will finally break down to is a form of pure energy, which has no particles. There is literally no such thing as energy not carried by a particle. What about potential energy? According to Newton gravitational potential energy E = mgh. Einstein's equations involve a slight modification for relativistic effects, but even here, in a static gravitational field there are no gravity waves, hence no exchange of gravitons.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 8, 2019 23:01:49 GMT
Wow, ok so tell me what I got wrong. Your premise seems to be (with the leaf) that a leaf has some kind of energy field and that the field remains after you take away some of the leaf, this proves that energy (which is apparently analogous to consciousness) created the leaf. is that correct? No, that is not correct.
I'm saying the energy field was there BEFORE the leaf was. THEN the leaf came into materiality -- it solidified. The energy field wasn't seen until the piece of the leaf was removed.
ok. The experiment you described says nothing about the prior state of either the leaf or it's energy field, how can you make that claim based on that experiment?
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Oct 9, 2019 0:54:09 GMT
No, that is not correct.
I'm saying the energy field was there BEFORE the leaf was. THEN the leaf came into materiality -- it solidified. The energy field wasn't seen until the piece of the leaf was removed.
ok. The experiment you described says nothing about the prior state of either the leaf or it's energy field, how can you make that claim based on that experiment? The prior state of the leaf? What do you mean? They can't see the field of energy or particles that form the leaf before it's formed. Like I said, science can't explain everything. If anything, all it does is 'catch up' to whatever they happen to discover at any given time. What it does it make discoveries of what already exists.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 9, 2019 1:14:08 GMT
ok. The experiment you described says nothing about the prior state of either the leaf or it's energy field, how can you make that claim based on that experiment? The prior state of the leaf? What do you mean? They can't see the field of energy or particles that form the leaf before it's formed. Like I said, science can't explain everything. If anything, all it does is 'catch up' to whatever they happen to discover at any given time. What it does it make discoveries of what already exists. What I mean by the prior state of the leaf is that your experiment comes to the leaf as it is when it is already formed, therefore anything you can derive from actions performed on that leaf is unable to tell you about the prior state of the leaf. Your timeline is as follows: 0. You have a leaf with an energy field. 1. You remove part of the leaf. 2. You observe a residual energy field.
All this can possibly tell you is that a leaf has an energy field that retains some residue after removal of part of that leaf, it cannot tell you anything about the leaf prior to step 0. You are talking about things that happen before step 0, I am wondering how you can manage to justify that.
|
|
fatpaul
Sophomore
@fatpaul
Posts: 502
Likes: 193
|
Post by fatpaul on Oct 9, 2019 6:27:38 GMT
WTF is this? You do realise that no-one was asking or saying the same thing? Shit, you can't even grok individual consciousnesses and here you are banging on about about a vast individual consciousness that's non-physical, non-sensed, non-causal (Fucking hell, he's a real nowhere man, sitting in his nowhere land but apparently making all his nowhere plans for somebody, because....)
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Oct 9, 2019 6:40:26 GMT
You're welcome, however I did answer the stupidest post eventually, though yours was a close second. Read and weep. Whatever this means, at least I don't go around like Heeeeey telling people what they think and being inaccurate a spectacular amount of the time because she puts people into convenient boxes to suit her pathetic agenda. Now, are you going to answer why you said that taking the testimony and work of others is a good thing when you previously claimed that it wasn't in reference to science and medicine? You wouldn't even take my evidence that I had visited a friend of mine in hospital who had had a heart lung transplant which you claimed at the time didn't happen and didn't and couldn't exist! You're forgetting a third option, perhaps because it is often the wisest. I do not immediately accept or reject others' testimony. I merely note it. I note it hundreds of times more than you. I pay equal attention to all sorts of people. Many of you claim to "lack" belief which doesn't seem likely when I have to show you how. I have not forgotten your testimony about remarkable medical procedures. It is however only one incident and doesn't tip the scale much. You have not told me how much you enjoyed my science fiction story about the real Frankenstein.
|
|
fatpaul
Sophomore
@fatpaul
Posts: 502
Likes: 193
|
Post by fatpaul on Oct 9, 2019 7:58:35 GMT
There is literally no such thing as energy not carried by a particle. What about potential energy? According to Newton gravitational potential energy E = mgh. Einstein's equations involve a slight modification for relativistic effects, but even here, in a static gravitational field there are no gravity waves, hence no exchange of gravitons. Potential energy is the representation of the negative work done by gravity on a body of mass which is being opposed by positive external work done on said body of mass, such as a ball being held on a mountain, tall building, rockets, a person or even the ball itself, i.e. inertia. The external positive force acts upon the the negative gravitational force creating an equilibrium. Technically, potential energy is represented as PE = -∆mgh (the delta symbol is important as it represents a change within a dynamic, not static, system). Also gravitons are still highly theoretical since they've not been detected so far.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Oct 9, 2019 13:39:55 GMT
There is literally no such thing as energy not carried by a particle. What about potential energy? According to Newton gravitational potential energy E = mgh. Einstein's equations involve a slight modification for relativistic effects, but even here, in a static gravitational field there are no gravity waves, hence no exchange of gravitons. You obviously know your physics better than I ever will, but I was thinking strictly in terms of things actually happening in real time, which is transactional and always involves particle exchange.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Oct 9, 2019 14:23:54 GMT
What about potential energy? According to Newton gravitational potential energy E = mgh. Einstein's equations involve a slight modification for relativistic effects, but even here, in a static gravitational field there are no gravity waves, hence no exchange of gravitons. You obviously know your physics better than I ever will, but I was thinking strictly in terms of things actually happening in real time, which is transactional and always involves particle exchange. There's many cases where no particles get exchanged. Another common form of energy, kinetic energy, can be transferred from one body to another with no particles getting exchanged. For example the Voyager flybys of Jupiter imparted enough energy on the spacecraft to allow them to reach escape velocity from the sun, kinetic energy which they didn't have prior to their encounters with Jupiter. In quantum physics particle mediators are usually associated with (dynamic) forces, not energy.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Oct 9, 2019 14:39:02 GMT
You obviously know your physics better than I ever will, but I was thinking strictly in terms of things actually happening in real time, which is transactional and always involves particle exchange. There's many cases where no particles get exchanged. Another common form of energy, kinetic energy, can be transferred from one body to another with no particles getting exchanged. For example the Voyager flybys of Jupiter imparted enough energy on the spacecraft to allow them to reach escape velocity from the sun, kinetic energy which they didn't have prior to their encounters with Jupiter. In quantum physics particle mediators are usually associated with (dynamic) forces, not energy. Well, I'll have to defer to you on this, but when I did my homework I encountered scientists saying stuff like "No matter what the interactions are, energy is never seen to exist on its own, but only as part of a system of particles, whether massive or massless" or "There is one form of energy, however, that may not need a particle at all: dark energy." Is there maybe some semantics involved? Dunno, it's beyond my pay grade.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Oct 9, 2019 14:51:48 GMT
There's many cases where no particles get exchanged. Another common form of energy, kinetic energy, can be transferred from one body to another with no particles getting exchanged. For example the Voyager flybys of Jupiter imparted enough energy on the spacecraft to allow them to reach escape velocity from the sun, kinetic energy which they didn't have prior to their encounters with Jupiter. In quantum physics particle mediators are usually associated with (dynamic) forces, not energy. Well, I'll have to defer to you on this, but when I did my homework I encountered scientists saying stuff like "No matter what the interactions are, energy is never seen to exist on its own, but only as part of a system of particles, whether massive or massless" or "There is one form of energy, however, that may not need a particle at all: dark energy." Is there maybe some semantics involved? Dunno, it's beyond my pay grade. Yup, fair enough, it does seem that in just about every case energy is always associated with matter and it doesn't look like we'll run into non-particulate matter any time soon. At the risk of giving the hopelessly ignorant OP the false hope that there's some science to back up her ridiculous assertions I'll mention that vacuum energy, along with dark energy, may be possible matterless forms of energy, though I believe both are still pretty speculative at this point.
|
|