Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Lighten-up. This isn't physics class.

Then why did you claim that the existence of dark matter and dark energy would imply the existence of a pilot wave medium? What does one have to do with the other? How did you connect them?

We're playing with concepts here, and that's dangerous if taken too seriously.

In other words you are just spouting made up nonsense just to be a contrarian?

Dark matter is not just "a concept." It is a measurable phenomena of the universe. Dark energy is a little more complicated but still measurable.

Your post modern view of the subject is boring and not the least bit useful.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I don't think of the electromagnetic field stuff as "pseudoscience," since there a lot of things in the world that human beings don't know about yet.

But, the manner in which this organization approaches the topic has all the field marks of pseudoscience. They made up a term "coherence" that magically answers all your questions.

"How does the heart rate of one individual affect the brain of another?"

"Coherence."

"Oh? What is that?"

"We have no idea."

"Then how can you say that coherence is the cause of your claimed connection?"

"Uhm, wouldn't you like to buy our gizmo and purchase an App so that you can find out for yourself?"

However, when someone asks if you have the details about studies that support your beliefs, and the response is "maybe someday," that does sound like a True Believer.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Not true. They are posted all up and down this thread.

What IS true is that Vandal does not accept any evidence that is given.

Your idea of what constitutes evidence is woefully inadequate to the task at hand. Basically, to you, evidence is anything that someone says that seems like it agrees with what you think.

To me, evidence needs to be something that can be objectively determined to be accurate and is as free from mental bias as we can manage.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Then why did you claim that the existence of dark matter and dark energy would imply the existence of a pilot wave medium? What does one have to do with the other? How did you connect them?

In other words you are just spouting made up nonsense just to be a contrarian?

Dark matter is not just "a concept." It is a measurable phenomena of the universe. Dark energy is a little more complicated but still measurable.

Your post modern view of the subject is boring and not the least bit useful.

Dark matter is only measurable by the most indirect of means. In other words, we see effects, gravitational for example, and construct mathematical models to explain them. Mathematical models are not reality. They are stories about reality. You tend to equate the two, and that limits your thinking. If Einstein had been limited that way, he would have never have had his 1905.

Maybe Richard Feynman is a better model.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Dark matter is only measurable by the most indirect of means. In other words, we see effects, gravitational for example, and construct mathematical models to explain them. Mathematical models are not reality.

If that is all you know about dark matter, then you are just as big a pretender as Eric.

They are stories about reality. You tend to equate the two, and that limits your thinking.

Nope. Those "stories" can be tested against reality for validity. Guess what, dark matter is real. It is not a "constructed mathematical model."

If Einstein had been limited that way, he would have never have had his 1905.

Maybe Richard Feynman is a better model.

I'm beginning to suspect that, like Eric, you don't really understand what it is Einstein and Feynman actually discovered. You just like to appear like you do.

I am still noticing a complete lack of explanation concerning the connection between dark matter, dark energy, and de Broglie-Bohm interpretation. Why is that?

One thing we need to keep in mind, is that experimental science experiments, which people such as Vandal rely on as the arbiter of all truth and fact, depend in turn on the concepts we use. You can't test the validity of the concepts you use to set up and define your test. You can only examine them, or take them for granted. That's what philosophy and mysticism are for.

Our language and concepts can distort our view of the world, if we let them. We tend to think, for example, that the world is made of things, and that we ourselves are separate individuals. And so science attempts to hold the world still and cut it up so that it can measure and test it. We can control and use it that way. But the real world is always moving; always in process. That's what the uncertainty principle confirms, and what has been known in philosophy since ancient times.

We tend to separate object and subject; that some entity does or causes something else to happen. But this is a confusion engendered by our language. Actually, there are no things or separate objects, but only actions and events. Did the lighting flash, or are the Hopi right to just say "flash?" We as people are processes, not separate individuals. People are part of the process of the whole universe; something the universe is doing; whole beings, also part of a greater whole.

If you are interested in knowledge, and how we know what we know, then you can't ignore looking at how we really experience ourselves and our world, and the concepts we use to describe it.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I don't think of the electromagnetic field stuff as "pseudoscience," since there a lot of things in the world that human beings don't know about yet.
However, when someone asks if you have the details about studies that support your beliefs, and the response is "maybe someday," that does sound like a True Believer.

You brought it up; you get the data. Don't expect me to do your work for you by conjuring up inside info immediately that isn't even on the web.

Sometimes you amaze me, Dr. The Rani.

Originally Posted by apollonian

This by u is just crass mysticism, childish wishful thinking, and blatant, gross HUBRIS. U're not God, period, and u have no perfectly "free" will, just the will of a sinner seeking ur self-interest, in accord w. ur will, like anyone else. Can't u see it's just presumption and question-begging to pretend u can change reality?--how would u construct an experiment to demonstrate "free" will which changes the way it would otherwise be?--impossible. The only rational conclusion is cause-effect, hence absolute determinism.

Then just go away and stop trying to use your will to change our opinions and thus change reality. Just go unconscious and be a slave or a machine, sinner.

Originally Posted by apollonian

Ho hoo ho ho ho--what's the matter, little eric?--poor little hubris-filled baby who imagines he's God within a subjective universe. Ho ho ho ho ho

It's a pretty good deal; why not try it? It's great to be God, and to have imagination and life. It's a lot more life and hope than imagining that your whole life is determined and unconscious (objective). That's being a slave, is it not? How do you get around that one?

Everything is energy, according to Deepak Chopra:
http://youtu.be/J-S3c1U4FPA

Evidence for remote viewing:
http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/...g-stanford.pdf

Holograms, and this is just a ride!
http://youtu.be/YFZnDvuVcG4

from
http://www.shift.is/2013/04/does-mat...t-an-illusion/

In subatomic physics, mass is no longer seen as a material substance but is recognized as a form of energy. When a piece of seemingly solid matter–a rock or a human hand or the limb of a tree–is placed under a powerful electronic microscope: the electron-scanning microscope, with the power to magnify several thousand times, takes us down into a realm that has the look of the sea about it… In the kingdom of corpuscles, there is transfiguration and there is samsara, the endless round of birth and death. Every passing second, some 2-1/2 million red cells are born; every second, the same number die. The typical cell lives about 110 days, then becomes tired and decrepit. There are no lingering deaths here, for when a cell loses its vital force, it somehow attracts the attention of macrophage.

As the magnification increases, the flesh does begin to dissolve. Muscle fiber now takes on a fully crystaline aspect. We can see that it is made of long, spiral molecules in orderly array. And all of these molecules are swaying like wheat in the wind, connected with one another and held in place by invisible waves that pulse many trillions of times a second. What are the molecules made of? As we move closer, we see atoms, the tiny shadowy balls dancing around their fixed locations in the molecules, sometimes changing position with their partners in perfect rhythms. And now we focus on one of the atoms; its interior is lightly veiled by a cloud of electrons. We come closer, increasing the magnification. The shell dissolves and we look on the inside to find…nothing.

Somewhere within that emptiness, we know is a nucleus. We scan the space, and there it is, a tiny dot. At last, we have discovered something hard and solid, a reference point. But no! as we move closer to the nucleus, it too begins to dissolve. It too is nothing more than an oscillating field, waves of rhythm. Inside the nucleus are other organized fields: protons, neutrons, even smaller “particles.” Each of these, upon our approach, also dissolve into pure rhythm. These days they (the scientists) are looking for quarks, strange subatomic entities, having qualities which they describe with such words as upness, downness, charm, strangeness, truth, beauty, color, and flavor. But no matter. If we could get close enough to these wondrous quarks, they too would melt away. They too would have to give up all pretense of solidity. Even their speed and relationship would be unclear, leaving them only relationship and pattern of vibration.

It follows then that in the world of subatomic physics there are no objects, only processes. Atoms consist of particles and these particles are not made of any solid material substance. When we observe them under a microscope, we never see any substance; we rather observe dynamic patterns, continually changing into one another–a continuous dance of energy. This dance of energy, the underlying rhythm of the universe, is again more intuited than seen. Jack Kornfield, a contemporary teacher of meditation, finds a parallel between the behavior of subatomic particles and meditational states:

When the mind becomes very silent, you can clearly see that all that exists in the world are brief moments of consciousness arising together with the six sense objects. There is only sight and the knowing of sight, sound and the knowing of sound, smell, taste and the knowing of them, thoughts and the knowing of thoughts. If you can make the mind very focused, as you can in meditation, you see that the whole world breaks down into these small events of sight and the knowing, sound and the knowing, thought and the knowing. No longer are these houses, cars, bodies or even oneself. All you see are particles of consciousness as experience. Yet you can go deep in meditation in another way and the mind becomes very still. You will see differently that consciousness is like waves, like a sea, an ocean. Now it is not particles but instead every sight and every sound is contained in this ocean of consciousness. From this perspective, there is no sense of particles at all.

An alternative view from materialists about this big "Higgs Boson" discovery. And yet, they admit that matter has no mass until it passes through a field that occupies the entire universe. Sounds mystical to me. Interesting.

"Can't matter just inherently have mass without the Higgs boson confusing things? Not according to the standard model. But physicists have found a solution. What if all particles have no inherent mass, but instead gain mass by passing through a field? This field, known as a Higgs field, could affect different particles in different ways. Photons could slide through unaffected, while W and Z bosons would get bogged down with mass. In fact, assuming the Higgs boson exists, everything that has mass gets it by interacting with the all-powerful Higgs field, which occupies the entire universe. Like the other fields covered by the standard model, the Higgs one would need a carrier particle to affect other particles, and that particle is known as the Higgs boson."

http://science.howstuffworks.com/higgs-boson1.htm

A carrier particle? Hmmmm. A particle with no mass unless it passes through that very field which constitutes it. Hmmmmm Materialists can't avoid getting tripped up on their language habits.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

An alternative view from materialists about this big "Higgs Boson" discovery. And yet, they admit that matter has no mass until it passes through a field that occupies the entire universe.

No. Mass is the interaction of a particle with the Higgs field. Matter doesn't start out massless and then get mass. Certain particles have mass because their properties include different levels of interaction with the Higgs field. Now, at different energy concentrations, the level of interaction with the Higgs field changes and some particles would be massless but that is not the same thing.

Sounds mystical to me. Interesting.

That's because you are an uneducated rube, blinded by confirmation bias.

"Can't matter just inherently have mass without the Higgs boson confusing things? Not according to the standard model. But physicists have found a solution. What if all particles have no inherent mass, but instead gain mass by passing through a field? This field, known as a Higgs field, could affect different particles in different ways. Photons could slide through unaffected, while W and Z bosons would get bogged down with mass. In fact, assuming the Higgs boson exists, everything that has mass gets it by interacting with the all-powerful Higgs field, which occupies the entire universe. Like the other fields covered by the standard model, the Higgs one would need a carrier particle to affect other particles, and that particle is known as the Higgs boson."

http://science.howstuffworks.com/higgs-boson1.htm

A carrier particle? Hmmmm. A particle with no mass unless it passes through that very field which constitutes it. Hmmmmm Materialists can't avoid getting tripped up on their language habits.

Just because you've read an incredibly simplified explanation of a tiny piece of the standard model does not mean you actually understand what physicists actually know. Furthermore, you have no grounds to claim "gotcha" with their words.

Try a different attempt to simplify the concept.

Or try this attempt.

Or this video:


For Eric, pay particular attention to the part where it explains why nothing with mass, like an electron, can travel at the speed of light, contrary to your repeated claims.

Originally Posted by apollonian

Eric: "whom the gods would destroy, first they render mad"--and u're utterly mad, the very picture of HUBRIS, u poor fool. I consider myself perfectly "conscious," moron. So tell us, what's a test to find whether one is "conscious" or not.

Why are you conscious? If you are totally determined, then you are just a machine. Do you think machines are conscious? Tell me how that's possible.

If you believe in tests, but you "consider" yourself conscious, why do you hold such an untestable, unscientific opinion?

Try learning to think. It could help you out.

Eric,

There's a course that pops up in many graduate students' programs called "Statistical Thermodynamics."

You might give it a try. It does an interesting job of sorting out different kinds of energy at the molecular level. A little heavy going at times, but the math is fairly straightforward - a nodding acquaintance with differential equations will suffice.

Originally Posted by The Rani

It's better to be humble.

There is no conflict in that regard.

If you consider what Jesus said in the Bible to be "evidence" of this non-contradiction (admittedly that might be a stretch), then consider this one:

"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone."
http://biblehub.com/mark/10-18.htm

and then there is this one:
"Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? the words that I speak I speak not of Myself: but the Father abiding in Me doeth the work.' -- John 14:10"
http://biblehub.com/library/murray/w...abiding_in.htm

So Jesus knew he was God, and yet was humble:

John 10:30 "I and the Father are one."

Luke 22:24-27 (NEB) A dispute arose between them about which should be reckoned the greatest, but he said to them, "Among pagans it is the kings who lord it over them, and those who have authority over them are given the title Benefactor. This must not happen with you. No; the greatest among you must behave as if he were the youngest, the leader as if he were the one who serves. For who is the greater: the one at table or the one who serves? The one at table, surely? [...by worldly standards.] Yet here I am among you as one who serves!"

Mark 10:42-45 (Phi) so Jesus called them all to him, and said, "You know that the so-called rulers of the heathen lord it over them, and their great men have absolute power. But it must not be so among you. No, whoever among you wants to be great must become the slave of all men! For the Son of Man himself has not come to be served but to serve, and to give his life to set many others free."

Buddhist monks are another example. They know they are one with God (universal consciousness; what "God" really is), but dedicate their lives to compassion and service.

Originally Posted by TnT

Eric,

There's a course that pops up in many graduate students' programs called "Statistical Thermodynamics."

You might give it a try. It does an interesting job of sorting out different kinds of energy at the molecular level. A little heavy going at times, but the math is fairly straightforward - a nodding acquaintance with differential equations will suffice.

How would it profit or educate me to know this?

It seems knowledge of energy at the subatomic level is so new that it might not be included in such courses yet.

I notice you did not take up my challenge to your beliefs that pi and the speed of light are constants. My replies to your posts went unanswered. Are you willing to question your materialist beliefs? If not, where is that interest in epistemology you expressed in your replies to apollonian?

It is good though that you don't fight with him. Your approach is admirable (I think)

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I notice you did not take up my challenge to your beliefs that pi and the speed of light are constants. My replies to your posts went unanswered. Are you willing to question your materialist beliefs?

I'm sorry, I guess I missed your description of why pi is not a constant.

Oh, and the speed of light? I don't believe that it is a constant. The usual assumption when folks speak of "c" is that speed in a vacuum. It is dependent on the medium through which it passes.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

How would it profit or educate me to know this?

It seems knowledge of energy at the subatomic level is so new that it might not be included in such courses yet.

It's just a very cool course. And most of the material deals with energy at the molecular and atomic level. I'm not sure where you would draw the line between atomic and subatomic, so can't say exactly what you have in mind with this last statement.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

How would it profit or educate me to know this?

Well, you have quite an expressed interest in "energy." Stat Thermo is another perspective on energy, a fairly rigorous one at that. It might help you expand your own view on "energy."

Originally Posted by TnT

It's just a very cool course. And most of the material deals with energy at the molecular and atomic level. I'm not sure where you would draw the line between atomic and subatomic, so can't say exactly what you have in mind with this last statement.

Subatomic means within atoms. Within atoms, are protons, neutrons and a "cloud" of electrons. Then, within these are smaller subatomic phenomena called quarks and leptons and others. If memory serves, they are as small compared to protons as protons are to atoms. And they apparently only get mass when they pass through the boson field, according to my most materialist post I made above. So does your course deal with these new discoveries?

So what do you think about the fact that matter dissolves into waves, fields and energies? Where does that leave the idea that matter is what exists as opposed to energy and rhythm or vibration? And what is this energy?

Time for a little "epistemology," do you think?

The notion of "matter" is still used by these physicists, but what does it mean now?

Originally Posted by TnT

Well, you have quite an expressed interest in "energy." Stat Thermo is another perspective on energy, a fairly rigorous one at that. It might help you expand your own view on "energy."

Do you have knowledge of this that is relevant to this discussion?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Subatomic means within atoms. Within atoms, are protons, neutrons and a "cloud" of electrons. Then, within these are smaller subatomic phenomena called quarks and leprons and others. If memory serves, they are as small compared to protons as protons are to atoms. And they apparently only get mass when they pass through the boson field, according to my most materialist post I made above. So does your course deal with these new discoveries?

So what do you think about the fact that matter dissolves into waves, fields and energies? Where does that leave the idea that matter is what exists as opposed to energy and rhythm or vibration? And what is this energy?

Time for a little "epistemology," do you think?

The notion of "matter" is still used by these physicists, but what does it mean now?

Epistemology, by my reckoning is how we know what we think we know.

I make no claim to be a sub-atomic physicist who understands everything there is to know at this point in its march.

I suppose you could talk about a "cloud of electrons" as being "subatomic," and yet in and around that "cloud of electrons" is where all of chemistry happens. And I suppose that you could consider a hydrogen nucleus as being "sub-atomic", and yet that very item, once surrounded by water molecules is used to treat our swimming pools!

I honestly don't know enough about the pieces and chunks of whatever makes up protons, neutrons, et. al. to make much of a discussion.

Originally Posted by apollonian

If we exist within determined universe--which is assumption, following fm objectivity, u brainless little punk--we can still be conscious--why not?

There is no consciousness is a determined universe. Machines are unconscious. Only machines are determined.

Saying we're "machines" is ur assertion.

No, it's YOURS.

Consciousness is also necessary assumption, idiot, following fm objectivity.

No, consciousness is subjective, not objective. Objective is the object of consciousness. Learn some philosophy.

Science is founded upon objectivity, a necessary assumption, genius.

You sound like the Wizard of Oz
http://youtu.be/amclN9RG49c?t=1m21s

You throw around a lot of insults, but we should pay no attention to the man behind the curtain I guess.

Sounds like you make a whole lot of assumptions!

Originally Posted by TnT

Epistemology, by my reckoning is how we know what we think we know.

How do you know that matter exists?

I make no claim to be a sub-atomic physicist who understands everything there is to know at this point in its march.

I suppose you could talk about a "cloud of electrons" as being "subatomic," and yet in and around that "cloud of electrons" is where all of chemistry happens. And I suppose that you could consider a hydrogen nucleus as being "sub-atomic", and yet that very item, once surrounded by water molecules is used to treat our swimming pools!

Yes, I said, we think matter exists and become materialists because that way of thinking is useful to us. It helps us make tools and machines that work or "treat" things the way we want. But that has nothing to do with what things are before we get a hold of them. To think technology is reality seems to me enormous idolatry on our part. The universe does not exist just for our use.

I honestly don't know enough about the pieces and chunks of whatever makes up protons, neutrons, et. al. to make much of a discussion.

I have much more to learn too. But from "epistemology" I know that there is no matter. Many physicists insist on using the term anyway, but as you can see from what I posted, the notion is getting rather thin indeed.

Why call them "pieces and chunks?" A bit materialist there, don't you think?