IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Science + God = ?, You decide.

brokensticks
post Sep 21 2009, 02:42 PM
Post #21





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 26
Joined: 15-September 09
Member No.: 4,619



QUOTE (CJEAN @ Sep 21 2009, 07:29 PM) *
And remember the next: **The double slit experiment ! ! **
We could start a thread on this. . . the slits.. . cool.gif


right on lol
although personally i reckon its a limited understanding of photons, but hey, what do i know? lol

start the thread! we could get a nobel prize if we work it out smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Oct 2 2009, 09:42 AM
Post #22



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



Oil and water don't mix? They actually will in the weightlessness of outer space.
Both can contain gas. The gas acts as a barrier between the oil and water.
If both are degassed first, then they will mix very well, in gravity.

Interesting note:
A. Crowley wrote about mixing god (his god) with science,
L. Ron Hubbard wrote about mixing the 2 and came up with Scientology.
They were good friends.

I think the idea is to mix the religions of the East with Western Science.
...but the science is not going along with it, and they can't change the religion,
so they are changing the philosophy behind science.

I think that religion is sort of a science of consensus,
and, that, is what they are trying to bring into science.

...i guess it is good to keep in mind,
that the only ones, (that we know for sure)
that can do anything about anything, (or non-thing,)
are the living.
And that's us.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Oct 2 2009, 10:34 AM
Post #23



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



NO ONE really understands the results of the double-slit experiment. Us humans, as smart as we think we are, are pretty un-sophisticated that way.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Oct 2 2009, 11:11 AM
Post #24





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (Sanders @ Sep 30 2009, 12:34 PM) *
NO ONE really understands the results of the double-slit experiment. Us humans, as smart as we think we are, are pretty un-sophisticated that way.

I keep thinking, often as I drift of to sleep, about this problem, being more interesting than counting sheep, that I am about to grasp the true meaning and then I awake in the middle of the night with the usual excruciating pain in my back and realize that Feynman was right after all.

It's that old wave-particle duality business. As a particle it cannot work, maybe because we think of a particle as a small ball, or other fragment but as a wave it can. A wave can act through both slits at once and yes create interference patterns behind.

But what really gets me is the Schrödinger bit, the single act of enabling a sensor to detect the passage of a particle through one of the slits ensures that the particle 'choses' the other slit. But then of course it is the wave function which does it. Or is it?

Here I went looking for an online version of the description by Professor Markus Arndt and Professor Anton Zelinger of the Department of Physics, University of Vienna under the heading of Buckyballs and the Dual-Slit Experiment on page 24 of:

Quantum: A Guide for the Perplexed by Jim Al Khalili

I could type it out without the explanatory diagrams, which later would take a little longer to implement if, requested.

EDIT:

I have found this for now:

Double-slit experiment

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: Oct 2 2009, 11:19 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Oct 2 2009, 05:50 PM
Post #25



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ Oct 6 2009, 09:11 AM) *
...It's that old wave-particle duality business. As a particle it cannot work, maybe because we think of a particle as a small ball, or other fragment but as a wave it can. A wave can act through both slits at once and yes create interference patterns behind.

But what really gets me is the Schrödinger bit, the single act of enabling a sensor to detect the passage of a particle through one of the slits ensures that the particle 'choses' the other slit. But then of course it is the wave function which does it. Or is it?...


I think if you could figure out what was "waving" then it would start to make sense.

Since light travels fine through empty space, that's difficult (so far, impossible) to answer.

There was an Australian physicist, specialist in neurology I think, named 'Bass', can't remember the first name, who was named at the end of a book I read many years ago, can't remember the book name. I can't remember much of anything, except his last name, and his hypothesis...

He pointed out that the molecule which regulates whether a neuron fires or doesn't fire can be oriented one of three ways, and is so small (made up of three small atoms) that this orientation is open to quantum weirdness. He claimed that "something" was causing the quantum wave function to collapse and allow these molecules to "commit" and subsequently fire and create, collectively, "consciousness", and that "consciousness" was what really was observing these events and causing the collapse of the wave function in the first place, in a feedback loop which essentially CREATES consciousness, bringing a whole new meaning to the word "bootstrapping".

I would give anything to read what that Bass guy said again to refresh my memory, I have done searches looking for him, but in vain. Maybe I just imagined it?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Oct 3 2009, 12:59 PM
Post #26





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (Sanders @ Sep 30 2009, 08:50 PM) *
I would give anything to read what that Bass guy said again to refresh my memory, I have done searches looking for him, but in vain. Maybe I just imagined it?

Here you go Sanders, I found this first search:

QUOTE
Goswami continues and notes that Australian physicist L. Bass and American Fred Alan Wolf have observed that for intelligence to operate, the firing of one neuron must be accompanied by the firing of many correlated neurons at macroscopic distances--as much as ten centimeters (the width of the cortical tissue, apparently). Goswami writes: In order for this to happen, notes Wolf, we need nonlocal correlations (in the manner of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, of course) existing at the molecular level in our brain, at our synapses. Thus even our ordinary thinking depends on the nature of quantum events.


at:

Barbelith Underground

and also this which provides a quick run through the history of the topic:

Science's Last Frontiers

I have some books by the physicist Paul Davies here but I only get a part way through them before he starts to irritate. Not quite sure why this is, maybe its because I wasn't that impressed by him at Beyond Belief 2006. Perhaps I should give him another chance.

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: Oct 3 2009, 12:59 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Oct 3 2009, 01:59 PM
Post #27



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



Omega, thank you ... THANK YOU !!!! handsdown.gif


Amazing stuff.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aeronca
post Dec 31 2010, 05:16 PM
Post #28





Group: Newbie
Posts: 2
Joined: 30-December 10
Member No.: 5,551



QUOTE (CJEAN @ Sep 21 2009, 01:29 PM) *
You will NOT see [ science + god ]


Would wiser minds see that as an erroneous assumption bordering on bigotted or ignorant foolishness?
Here's why they could.
The Creator is all that moves in Creation.
The Creator is a sentient being which communicates via dreams and visions (see Numbers 12:6) and everyone dreams.
Einstein used his dreams to develop his Unified Field Theory and his Theory of Relativity.
Tesla and Edison used dreams and visions for their science based inventions.
Darwin used his dreams to discover evolution.
Mendeleyev used his dreams to create the Periodic Table of Elements.
The benzine ring was a discovery from dreams.... and countless other scientific discoveries and Nobel Prize winners discoveries used a Creator provided connection, their dreams and visions.
So science is clearly linked to God and the means God communicates to us.
Just because religion's addled or ignorant leaders know little or nothing about the Creator or the means of communication provided to everyone does not provide you an excuse to disbelieve when far more brilliant (and lesser) minds found and used that connection. Knowledge about their successes are as well or better known in scientific circles as scriptures. How did you miss that?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st October 2019 - 02:06 PM