If oil is replaced with a more efficient energy source do you think all these middle-eastern problems will magically disappear?Yes. I mean, "magically" is probably an optimistic way to put it though.
Mr. Tewari showed me a stiff conductor about a foot long
Yes. I mean, "magically" is probably an optimistic way to put it though.
Free energy is a bit like chem trails, electro smog and all the other pseudo-scientific bullshit spooking around in the internet.
The temperature has been achieved (over 100 million degrees), however confining the hot fuel plasma using powerful magnetic fields has taken a while to perfect. The behaviour of plasma is now well-understood, and so the building of a power reactor is simply a matter of overcoming engineering hurdles – work is expected to commence on the DEMO fusion reactor in 2030.
What you said is so horribly false. We're not there yet, but by all means we can achieve what we could call "free" energy. Sure, there's no such thing as really free energy, as in no input > energy, but we can come close to it. There's immense energy released in the process of nuclear fusion.. by all means we can create energy out of "thin air", and nuclear energy can be cheap, or return more than the input (http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/02/giant-leap-for-nuclear-fusion-as-scientists-get-more-energy-out-than-fuel-put-in/).must... resist... to... answer... AAARGH...
Just because we're not there yet doesn't mean it's the same as chem trail foolishness and such with no scientific backing.
must... resist... to... answer... AAARGH...
Free energy is a bit like chem trails, electro smog and all the other pseudo-scientific bullshit spooking around in the internet.
I mean, did you actually take a look at the picture of that generator? The hand made windings done by some 5yrs old kid?
If you actually use that thing to generate something similar to an electrical current, it's gonna be all over the place. The overshoot that this thing will generate... it's basically unusuable in any electronic application. Imagine a light bulb changing it's lumen constantly from light to dark. Maybe quick that you don't really see it but you gonna be like "wtf... something is going on with light" causing all kind of nausia and headache... if you're actually able to even supply a light bulb.
Lots of those free energy wankers are like "Look, I can create 10V out of thin air!", not mentioning that they are either putting 15V as supply in or that the load that you can connect is like 3mW cuz the voltage is breaking together if you pull any current out of it in any way.
AAARGH... nearly agitates me as much as "Electro smog gave me cancer in my brain" (ohh, you got brain issues alright!) or the classic "Nuclear energy is cheap" discussion...
/rant
Sowwy :3
No point, you're just mixing up terms here. Not gonna support your rambling...
Hurricane’s current output, although more than the hydrogen fuel put into the reaction, hasn’t yet reached the stated goal to achieve “ignition," where nuclear fusion generates as much energy as the lasers supply. At that point it might be possible to make a sustainable power plant based on the technology.No 'free energy' unfortunately :cry:
But you don't get that... lasers... they are using energy too? Not?
Did I say they're there yet, or did I say exactly that we're not there yet? That doesn't mean it isn't possible on the level of chemtrail stupidity. I don't think you know how this whole thing with energy laws works.I believe you don't know how the term "free energy" is used.
I believe you don't know how the term "free energy" is used.
Go on and google it, for your own sake...
We're not there yet, but by all means we can achieve what we could call "free" energy. Sure, there's no such thing as really free energy, as in no input > energy, but we can come close to it.
If you get more energy than you put in, then that can be considered free, can it not?Imposible
Imposible
You just can do that in math and physics atm and it makes no sense in our current understanding of universe.
Term free energy correlates with perpetuum mobile, which is obviously impossible. Basic laws of physics, stuff like that. It is kinda insulting to relate fusion with that shit.
Possibleso it is not fucking free
You're missing the fact that there's a fuckload of energy in the nucleus... So we're not generating it out of nothing, it's already there. We're just triggering the reaction to release it.
Term free energy correlates with perpetuum mobile, which is obviously impossible. Basic laws of physics, stuff like that. It is kinda insulting to relate fusion with that shit.Thank you.
so it is not fucking free
You just get the energy of inner atomic bound( I really have no idea how call that in englisch) That energy was there no more no less. another transformation, same goes with fuel, it is transformation of chemical energy.
With that said you are unable to get over 100% energy that you put in to engine, dam I think even 100% may be impossible.
it is not like that energy ever disapears it always stay around but in other form.....
I think I will go with molly and stop responding
Sure, there's no such thing as really free energy, as in no input > energy, but we can come close to it.
With that said you are unable to get over 100% energy that you put in to engine, dam I think even 100% may be impossible.
That's why you should probably read the entire thread before?hahahah you got me there nice bait hahahah /thread
I've said like 4 times now what I consider (or what could be considered) free energy. Like I said in my previous post, I don't even consider the term (really) free energy to be worth discussing, why would anyone discuss such a retarded thing anyway?
What energy that you put into engine? Are you counting the material (and the energy inside it), or the actual energy that is required to start up the reaction? Because you definitely can get more energy out if latter.
hahahah you got me there nice bait hahahah /thread
excellent exit strategyI have really no time to explain that to you. I can say that you are wrong but my ingrisch and patience do not let me to withstand your questions.
yes you put lite energy to start reaction and you get much more energy from that
but you need source of what energy(i will call it fuel)
reaction will continue until you are out of fuel.
so fuel is source of your energy
Cheap != free.
Again, can be considered basically free (OR REALLY CHEAP OK?
Don't be insufferable with these terms. Do you really want to argue cheap and free? Even if we literally got energy out of nothing, we would still need to invest in distribution and maintenance or whatever. Nothing is free, if you take in the right (large) context. We're back to that stupid ass term of 'free energy' that I've been trying to avoid and you keep forcing on me. I thought we were past that already, stupid me for thinking so. To be completely honest I didn't even know the term 'free energy' was used to something so ridiculous before this thread. It's like describing a flat object with the term 'earth-like shape'.In engineering chap and free is whole world of difference. On my studies all I learned is to preserve energy with good cost to efficiency ratio /inpact on erth green stuffs.
Don't be insufferable with these terms. Do you really want to argue cheap and free? Even if we literally got energy out of nothing, we would still need to invest in distribution and maintenance or whatever. Nothing is free, if you take in the right (large) context. We're back to that stupid ass term of 'free energy' that I've been trying to avoid and you keep forcing on me. I thought we were past that already, stupid me for thinking so. To be completely honest I didn't even know the term 'free energy' was used to something so ridiculous before this thread. It's like describing a flat object with the term 'earth-like shape'.
Sorry vibe, but you can't change the term 'free energy' to mean something else.
Currently it's well known among the scientific and engineering communities for meaning "energy from nothing". Completely free, like perpetual motion machines.
Btw chemtrails are real. Arrogant twits like Molly get confused between the governments actual weather modification experiments of which they've admitted and the chemtrail conspiracy that suggests the chemicals being released have been designed to harm the population in one way or another.
Free energy = http://free-energy.ws/nikola-tesla/ (http://free-energy.ws/nikola-tesla/)
/thread
Tesla was a genius without a doubt. And we're using many of his inventions today. That doesn't mean free energy is a workable technology, even if Tesla thought about it and dreamed of it.
Also, both of those sites try to sell you stuff. That's not wrong in itself, of course, but it usually serves as a warning sign that what they are presenting isn't the scientific truth.
That site: http://free-energy.ws/old-products/
The site in OP: http://www.tewari.org/
Is selling a book called "Spiritual Foundations".
If the principles of free energy were really explained in these books, most of the world would undoubtedly be already using Tesla generators instead of paying electricity bills like total suckers.
When I was little (like 10) I was told by classmates that actually someone has invented some kind of super washing-ball that could be used 10000 times and would make all washing powder obsolete. Only the powerful washing-powder-industry would be preventing it's publication and mass-development. 20 years later still no super washing-ball :cry:Actually had that in my shared flat, until at some point someone decided it had run out and then suddenly we realized its a scam and we might as well have been washing our clothes with just water. :lol:
Tesla was a genius without a doubt. And we're using many of his inventions today. That doesn't mean free energy is a workable technology, even if Tesla thought about it and dreamed of it.
Also, both of those sites try to sell you stuff. That's not wrong in itself, of course, but it usually serves as a warning sign that what they are presenting isn't the scientific truth.
That site: http://free-energy.ws/old-products/
The site in OP: http://www.tewari.org/
Is selling a book called "Spiritual Foundations".
If the principles of free energy were really explained in these books, most of the world would undoubtedly be already using Tesla generators instead of paying electricity bills like total suckers.
"energy from nothing"
Like Bjords opening post suggested... "Scientific truth" or the boundaries of what's purported to be truth have been pushed back decade on decade and new definitions of what is considered scientific truth have manifested. If we restrict ourselves to convention and to the so called scientific truth of today then we'll never realise the science of tomorrow.
That's a pretty horrible logical fallacy.
Because something is being sold or advertised on a page, vaguely in relation to the topic, it cannot be trusted?
Come on, Rhekimos.
The sentence alone is flawed.like you fully grasped it
It is not nothing. It is there, it's what allows you to exist in the first place.
If quantum physics hasn't shocked you yet, then you haven't fully grasped it.
I know, that's why I said it was a warning sign, and not something that makes their suggestions automatically invalid.
But the fact that they are supposedly offering this awesome knowledge of free energy and making it widely available, and yet we don't have free energy in use, in no country or educational institution or in any basement of a mad scientist, that part doesn't make sense to me no matter how I look at it.
like you fully grasped it
Osram has a light bulb hidden away that never breaks... truth... honestly!
You're right and there are many speculations as to why.I learn from the best.
It would be naive to think that our governments hold our best interest in mind in any case, that much is certain. Even more so the US government. It would be even more naive to think that if there was something that could change the world for the better, we would know about it. Why? Who would tell us? The first to know would be people in power, whom can either finance these things or find out about it through intelligence networks.
Very intelligent response. Personal attack instead of discussing the matter at hand. You're a joke.
I'm not an engineer(...)which means you probably self educated in that matter at best.
You're right and there are many speculations as to why.
It would be naive to think that our governments hold our best interest in mind in any case, that much is certain. Even more so the US government. It would be even more naive to think that if there was something that could change the world for the better, we would know about it. Why? Who would tell us? The first to know would be people in power, whom can either finance these things or find out about it through intelligence networks.
I'm no engineer but I do know better than them.:lol:
Don't you pay a water bill?
No. I pay a rent of 200 EUR per month. Unlimited water, internet and heating of the apartment is included.http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34602621 :|
Sweden is not only the richest country in the world. It's also the safest place in the world.
That's why everyone comes here. Around 100.000 have fled from Denmark to Sweden so far this year.
I'm not poor so I can afford paying 10 EUR per month for it.
No. I pay a rent of 200 EUR per month. Unlimited water, internet and heating of the apartment is included.
The way Bjord throws around his superficial knowledge is frightening.
Sweden is not only the richest country in the world.
Cheap != free.Ah, but what even is cheap? What even is free? You say "cheap" and you say "free", so you must know what they are. Certainly, there are things low in price, of little worth, but such a thing as "cheap" is nowhere to be found. So what does it mean to say "free"? Could that also not be said of something very cheap? One might be tempted to say that "free" exists as an idea, but if this idea refers to no physical thing in particular, how is it different than fictional ideas? Can we meaningfully and rigorously define such a thing? Here I should like to say, if we attempt to move from "free" to "very cheap", how can we ever reach the destination, when to get there, we would first have to move a small distance - figuratively speaking, you understand - towards the idea we must first get halfway to that small step, and in order to get halfway to the halfway, we must first get halfway to the halfway to the halfway, and so on. Therefore, it is impossible: we would have to travel an infinite number of distances in a finite amount of time. Quod erat demonstrandum, there is no meaningful difference between "free" and "very cheap."
Instead it sits right there and at $29.99.
Around 100.000 have fled from Denmark to Sweden so far this year.
One clarifying point I'd like to make:
Some of those "Free Energy" concepts have most of the time one thing in common. They generate a voltage out of nothing. You can do that. You can build some kind of weird circuit which will give you a voltage out of 'nothing'... air... radiation... whatever...
Let's assume you get 5V out of 'nothing'. You can measure that voltage... as soon as you do you'll probably see it drop a little tho. 4.9V left... still nice for a voltage out of 'nothing', right?
Now, a voltage alone doesn't do anything. Voltage is just some weird tension between 2 different electric loads. How do we actually use that voltage now?
I know! We can try to power something with it! Glorious idea... *pads his own shoulder* Let's do that and see what happens...
Hmm... what could we power with it?
Maybe we could charge our mobile phone? Gonna be slow but maybe we'll get somewhere. So, we connect our mobile to our circuitry.
Oh noes... for some reason our voltage is gone D:
The moment we connected our mobile to the circuit, the voltage dropped down to 0V! What happened?! :cry:
The thing is that creating the mentioned 'tension' between 2 electric loads is easy. But the unit, the way we measure energy, consists of 2 values. Voltage is the actually weaker of the 2 we need for power. The electric current is the bad boy motherfucker in this equation. That is the core of power.
Voltage describes the 'tension' between electric loads which are separated from each other by 'distance'.
Electric current describes the directed flow of electrons to equalize the separating distance we created before.
By common sense it's already obvious that a voltage is easier to obtain than a current, right? Rub a balloon on a woolen pullover and you create several hundred, even thousand volts. Easy... Can you charge your phone that way? Nope.
Reason is the amount of electrons which take part in the current. Those little buggers are quick. Like really fast.
You create 5V out of 'nothing' and have said 'tension'. Give those electrons the chance to equalize the tension and they are done doing so in a ns (nano second).
But what now? All the electrons we had on one side went over to the other side... and my shiny sweet voltage is gone.
Guess we have to start over again to get that 'tension', our voltage, back. Only that way we can get another current going. But... oh boy... we have to repeat that quite a lot of times, don't we? If we want something actually useful, we need to repeat that shit all the time. What a hassle!
Hmm... maybe if we force more electrons into the 'tension' we had before. And that constantly. Maybe if the wind rotates something and that rotation separates electrons and those electrons then flow as a current threw my mobile... oh my... we might be on to something here...
But wait, it ain't free any more, is it? Dang!
Didn't really clarify anything, did I? :lol: Oh well...
tl;dr:
"Free Energy" is a hoax because you can't do anything meaningful with it except impress halfwits.
You might wanna call wind and solar power 'free'... kinda... :P
No. I pay a rent of 200 EUR per month. Unlimited water, internet and heating of the apartment is included.
Sweden is not only the richest country in the world. It's also the safest place in the world.
That's why everyone comes here. Around 100.000 have fled from Denmark to Sweden so far this year.
damn refugees.(click to show/hide)
One clarifying point I'd like to make:
Some of those "Free Energy" concepts have most of the time one thing in common. They generate a voltage out of nothing. You can do that. You can build some kind of weird circuit which will give you a voltage out of 'nothing'... air... radiation... whatever...
Let's assume you get 5V out of 'nothing'. You can measure that voltage... as soon as you do you'll probably see it drop a little tho. 4.9V left... still nice for a voltage out of 'nothing', right?
Now, a voltage alone doesn't do anything. Voltage is just some weird tension between 2 different electric loads. How do we actually use that voltage now?
I know! We can try to power something with it! Glorious idea... *pads his own shoulder* Let's do that and see what happens...
Hmm... what could we power with it?
Maybe we could charge our mobile phone? Gonna be slow but maybe we'll get somewhere. So, we connect our mobile to our circuitry.
Oh noes... for some reason our voltage is gone D:
The moment we connected our mobile to the circuit, the voltage dropped down to 0V! What happened?! :cry:
The thing is that creating the mentioned 'tension' between 2 electric loads is easy. But the unit, the way we measure energy, consists of 2 values. Voltage is the actually weaker of the 2 we need for power. The electric current is the bad boy motherfucker in this equation. That is the core of power.
Voltage describes the 'tension' between electric loads which are separated from each other by 'distance'.
Electric current describes the directed flow of electrons to equalize the separating distance we created before.
By common sense it's already obvious that a voltage is easier to obtain than a current, right? Rub a balloon on a woolen pullover and you create several hundred, even thousand volts. Easy... Can you charge your phone that way? Nope.
Reason is the amount of electrons which take part in the current. Those little buggers are quick. Like really fast.
You create 5V out of 'nothing' and have said 'tension'. Give those electrons the chance to equalize the tension and they are done doing so in a ns (nano second).
But what now? All the electrons we had on one side went over to the other side... and my shiny sweet voltage is gone.
Guess we have to start over again to get that 'tension', our voltage, back. Only that way we can get another current going. But... oh boy... we have to repeat that quite a lot of times, don't we? If we want something actually useful, we need to repeat that shit all the time. What a hassle!
Hmm... maybe if we force more electrons into the 'tension' we had before. And that constantly. Maybe if the wind rotates something and that rotation separates electrons and those electrons then flow as a current threw my mobile... oh my... we might be on to something here...
But wait, it ain't free any more, is it? Dang!
Didn't really clarify anything, did I? :lol: Oh well...
tl;dr:
"Free Energy" is a hoax because you can't do anything meaningful with it except impress halfwits.
You might wanna call wind and solar power 'free'... kinda... :P
I remember that discussion I had about the basic plot of Matrix being completely defeated by the observation that humans do not produce energy.
I remember that discussion I had about the basic plot of Matrix being completely defeated by the observation that humans do not produce energy.
Concerning the Matrix, humans don't produce energy but there is chemical energy trapped in humans. And they function as bio reactors. Feed them frozen plants or whatever else organic that survived the global armageddon war that denied the machines solar energy and you get heat that you can convert to electricity. They are equipped with an immune system and resist degradation by microbes. Their shelf life is longer than most organisms, counted in decades, making them actually not bad as a stable long term battery. Computers and machines are weak against even brief losses of power after all, making guaranteed output something to be desired. The Matrix simulation can also double as a method for adjusting the output of the hooked up human batteries.
If the machines had nothing else at hand for power but a huge amount of warm human bodies as the war ended, it would have been logical to use that energy. At least until they could tap geothermal or nuclear sources. After that they would have been replaceable and the story falls apart unless the machines wanted humans along for some other purpose. Like whatever the neo-messiah stuff was at the end of the last movie.
Well no, renewable energy has to come from somewhere, and plants like humans aren't magical energy sources, they have to draw energy from the sun. I think it is said at one point that a lot of time has passed since the machines won the war, and also that humans actually reproduce in the towers to mimic their existence in the Matrix.
I don't know if it was ever supposed to go to infinity. Not a lot of the scifi details of the story were made explicit though.
But humans eventually dying off probably wouldn't have bothered the machines too much. Not before the two civilizations made peace or became friends or whatever happened in the last movie.
if I was a machine, i would get a real hard on to experiment on my former creators. after all, I have just fucked up my gods. its just like humans going to war with baby jesus and not killing him off but letting him think he still rules the universe by sticking him into a cradle with lots of awesome lego.
I just think we need to talk a bit more about god in here.
after all its a science thread.
The most reasonable and pragmatic explanation for the existence of God(s) or Deity(ies) is that they take the form of biological or otherwise naturally-occuring beings countless centuries more advanced in every way than our own species. The passage of such a long period of time allows for development of technology that can only be explained through miracles, magic, or other things commonly attributed to divine intervention or action.
This relies on an assumption that God or Gods need not be completely omnipotent or omniscient or timeless- only that they be extraordinarily, unfathomably more advanced than us.
What about the tooth fairy and Sasquatch?
The most reasonable and pragmatic explanation for the existence of God(s) or Deity(ies) is that they take the form of biological or otherwise naturally-occuring beings countless centuries more advanced in every way than our own species. The passage of such a long period of time allows for development of technology that can only be explained through miracles, magic, or other things commonly attributed to divine intervention or action.
This relies on an assumption that God or Gods need not be completely omnipotent or omniscient or timeless- only that they be extraordinarily, unfathomably more advanced than us.
if I was a machine, i would get a real hard on to experiment on my former creators.
The most reasonable and pragmatic explanation for the existence of God(s) or Deity(ies) is that they take the form of biological or otherwise naturally-occuring beings countless centuries more advanced in every way than our own species. The passage of such a long period of time allows for development of technology that can only be explained through miracles, magic, or other things commonly attributed to divine intervention or action.
This relies on an assumption that God or Gods need not be completely omnipotent or omniscient or timeless- only that they be extraordinarily, unfathomably more advanced than us.
Many believe in infinite amount of universes.
If that is the case there are definately godlike creatures in other places.
Everything is relative though. They may be normal and look at us weirdly.
Many believe in infinite amount of universes.Everything is relative? What even is relative? You say relative so you must know what it is. Such a thing as relative is nowhere to be found (aside from your parents), so what does it even mean to say relative? You cannot meaningfully prove that everything is, as you say, "relative."
If that is the case there are definately godlike creatures in other places.
Everything is relative though. They may be normal and look at us weirdly.
From inside a womb you can pragmatically and reasonably deduce that life only lasts 9 months before you are sucked out into the abyss. This is based on the observations you as a spectator could make from within your own tiny womb universe. As a spectator you can only disprove this by leaving the womb.
From earth we reasonably make assumptions of the nature of gravity and make equations that work. We know that we're 100% correct because these equations work... on earth... on a small scale so we must know everything there is to know about gravity. We only question this when we begin to leave earth.
As we look beyond the earth and our equations operate on a larger scale between two celestial bodies suddenly our old gravity equation doesn't work, but that's fine cos we'll make a new equation that does work at that scale (but conversely doesn't work when applied small scale on earth). This suggests that all of a sudden we don't 100% understand gravity, we just know enough about how it acts on our planet to make an equation that works, on our planet.
The rate at which our universe expands is actually accelerating, this suggests a wholly incomplete understanding of the nature of the universe or matter on our part as something can only accelerate if a force is being applied to it. Possible explanations - a strong gravitational pull from *outside* our universe applying this acceleratory force, or, a negative repulsive gravity component that only functions over huge distances. But if we based our understanding solely on what we observe on our own tiny planet, these aren't concepts we'd ever come across.
The problem is, flawed conclusions in science can still provide functioning models that 'work'. For example, wood contains phlogiston therefore wood burns. I can see the wood burning, so our model is correct, it 'works'. Any substance that burns clearly contains phlogiston. But at the end of the day what is phlogiston, something we've invented to explain why things burn and nothing more. Then when things burn we prove ourselves right. Too much of science works on that basis even now, just cos we've invented concepts and constants that explain how the phenomenon's we experience on earth work (on earth), doesn't mean we have 100% of the story. Science is about hypothesis testing, only shear arrogance ever suggests that we understand everything.
Cosmology
In principle, I agree about models being faulty and we not knowing everything. We have pretty good ideas though, and we're constantly testing and observing if one of them hits closer to the truth than the last idea.
even if every other planet/galaxy did follow the same fundamental laws as our own, you can't really say that you could foresee what to expect there...
...
If we discovered life on another planet even with the same fundamental laws, we still have zero idea what to expect...
Well said, spoke what was on my mind as well.are you serious
are you serious
On the topic of God...(click to show/hide)
The head of the Galactic Federation (76 planets around larger stars visible from here) (founded 95,000,000 years ago, very space opera) solved overpopulation (250 billion or so per planet - 178 billion on average) by mass implanting..
He caused people to be brought to Teegeeack (Earth) and put an H-Bomb on the principal volcanos (incident II) and then the Pacific area ones were taken - in boxes to Hawaii and the Atlantic area ones to Las Palmas and there "packaged".
His name was Xenu. He used renegades. Various misleading data by means of circuits etc was placed in the unplants. When through with his crime loyal officers (to the people) captured him after six years of battle and put him in an electronic mountain trap where he still is. "They" are gone. The place (Confederation) has since been a desert.
The length and brutality of it all was such that this Confederation never recovered. The implant is calculated to kill (by pneumonia etc) anyone who attempts to solve it. This liability has been dispensed with by my tech development. One can freewheel through the implant and die unless it is approached as precisely outlined. The "freewheel" (auto-running on and on) lasts too long, denies sleep etc and one dies. So be careful to do only Incidents I and II as given and not plow around and fail to complete one thetan at a time.
In December 1967 1 know someone had to take the plunge. I did and emerged very knocked out, but alive. Probably the only one ever to do so in 75,000,000 years. I have all the data now, but only that given here is needful.
One's body is a mass of individual thetans stuck to oneself or to the body.
One has to clean them off by running incident II and Incident I. It is a long job, requiring care, patience and good auditing.
You are running beings. They respond like any preclear. Some large, some small.
Thetans believed they were one. This is the primary error.
Good luck.
The interesting thing is that it supposedly hasn't *always* been accelerating:
'At the end of the early universe's inflationary period, all the matter and energy in the Universe was set on an inertial trajectory consistent with the equivalence principle and Einstein's general theory of relativity and this is when the precise and regular form of the universe's expansion had its origin (that is, matter in the Universe is separating because it was separating in the past due to the inflaton field).
According to measurements, the Universe's expansion rate was decelerating until about 5 billion years ago due to the gravitational attraction of the matter content of the Universe, after which time the expansion began accelerating. In order to explain the acceleration, physicists have postulated the existence of dark energy which appears in the simplest theoretical models as a cosmological constant. According to the simplest extrapolation of the currently-favored cosmological model (known as "ΛCDM"), this acceleration becomes more dominant into the future.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space
(Ikr, I used Wikipedia burn me alive. It's been several years since I studied anything academically so at least it's basic enough for a noob like me to understand. I may be rusty on the science front, but I do know that when scientists theorise 'dark energy' it means that something's happening and they cant see why. See 'dark matter', it's the phlogiston of the 21st century, something happens and we don't know why so we invent a substance we cant see to explain it. See also, 'God'.).
The interesting thing is that it supposedly hasn't *always* been accelerating:
'At the end of the early universe's inflationary period, all the matter and energy in the Universe was set on an inertial trajectory consistent with the equivalence principle and Einstein's general theory of relativity and this is when the precise and regular form of the universe's expansion had its origin (that is, matter in the Universe is separating because it was separating in the past due to the inflaton field).
According to measurements, the Universe's expansion rate was decelerating until about 5 billion years ago due to the gravitational attraction of the matter content of the Universe, after which time the expansion began accelerating. In order to explain the acceleration, physicists have postulated the existence of dark energy which appears in the simplest theoretical models as a cosmological constant. According to the simplest extrapolation of the currently-favored cosmological model (known as "ΛCDM"), this acceleration becomes more dominant into the future.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space
(Ikr, I used Wikipedia burn me alive. It's been several years since I studied anything academically so at least it's basic enough for a noob like me to understand. I may be rusty on the science front, but I do know that when scientists theorise 'dark energy' it means that something's happening and they cant see why. See 'dark matter', it's the phlogiston of the 21st century, something happens and we don't know why so we invent a substance we cant see to explain it. See also, 'God'.).
so you guys are suggesting that laws of nature defer depending on location in the universe?
For example, quantum physics have derived that light particles on the sub-atomic level behave differently based on who is observing.This is not how it works, Bjord.
This is not how it works, Bjord.
Then do enlighten me, please.On what? The entire field of quantum mechanics? Why don't you instead say what leads you to believe that light particles behave differently based on who's observing?
[...]Let's keep it to discussing the matters at hand, and as usual I will simply ignore any personal attacks á la Molly the Arrogant Cunt.:shock:
Yes, Molly, please do foolishly misunderstand the discussion entirely. :lol:
You pseudo-intellects are always so funny.
It's particularly galling since this method is one that is not rigid, not written in stone, not dogmatic, as much as idiots like you want them to be.This is the funniest thing about people shitting on "science." They never even know what it is and what it means.
Love the po-mo retardedness. Sure, sure, science is just a competing ideology that is just as biased and erroneous as anything else. Little just-so stories we tell ourselves to make sense of the universe. So arrogant to think we can understand the world through it! Well you tell me Bjord, what is more effective and what has saved more lives, what has revealed more to us about the nature of reality and the universe, "western" medecine (which hasn't been "western" but universal for quite some time now, only po-mo retards call it "western" in a misguided attempt to paint it as arrogant xenophobia ignoring all the "spiritual" benefits of other systems, as if these systems had never emerged in the "west", as if these systems hadn't been the very barriers the scientific method struggled with in it's infancy) or other systems?
I'm so sorry you think the scientific method is "arrogant", and that you are able to communicate as much on a vast, delicate network of interconnected circuitry that would've been impossible without it. It's particularly galling since this method is one that is not rigid, not written in stone, not dogmatic, as much as idiots like you want them to be. If evidence emerges disproving a scientific theory, what happens, Bjord? Is it rejected out of hand as it would be in any of the competing "spiritual" systems, that broke no disagreement or change, ever? The whole point of the scientific method is that it's an ongoing process. You bring up quantum physics as an example, are you literally fucking retarded? "Urh Durh guys, arrogant scientism is wrong! Look, I bring up theory entirely derived from scientific method and testing to prove my point!"
We're on the edge of uncovering a lot of the underworkings of the universe, have been pushing back the edge of our little bubble of knowledge ever since the scientific method first appeared, CERN and other projects are on the cusp of great things. Our knowledge might just be the size of a grain of sand on a beach, comparitively to the "total" truth, whatever the fuck that is. Personally I think the real arrogance comes from idiots pointing that out as if it was some newly revealed, never thought about claim. The only reason we're even aware of our vast ignorance is BECAUSE of the scientific method. The claims of "spiritual" systems throughout history and the world over have always been about TOTALITY of knowledge, a hermetically sealed container containing all the TRUTH you could ever need. And you flip this around and claim the scientific method is the arrogant one. It's really mindblowing. Tell me Bjord, you've been studying social "sciences", yes?
:shock:
Where this hostility is coming from, I don't know.
But yes, I do think your points are ridiculous, that's a different matter tho.
And you confuse arrogance with professional knowledge, at least when it comes to Electrical Engineering... I happen to be one, you know. :wink:
Edit: Omahgag, I happen to agree with Oberyn <3
Fun fact for you Bjord: There are even scientific means to proof that 1+1=2 can be wrong. Can't be bothered to google the specific articles but maybe you'd like to and rub in our faces that science is a lie! Go champ!
but there are things science can't explainvisitors can't see pics , please register or login
"What can't be measured does not exist."
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
I understand perfectly well. You think Dualism, as in the philosophy of mind, is an ongoing arguement, while I think it's been long settled and continues to be disproven every day. You think the human mind is somehow appart and above the human body, while I think they are the same thing. You think humans are somehow above animals, more than animals, while I think we are exactly the same except for some physical differences. And the more science uncovers about DNA, biology, neurosciences, etc, the more I am convinced of it.
What evidence do you have of a "spiritual" realm, and why are you using the scientific method to argue for it? You realize that as soon as something is proven by rationalism ("ultra"-rationalism? what a retarded fucking weasel world. Just say what you mean) it ceases to be a matter of "spiritualism"?
This obviously isn't true, but it's a healthy way of thinking. Until there's at least some evidence pointing at the possibility of such a thing existing, it's not worth it to think it exists. Otherwise there'd be a tad too many variables, don't you think?
Can't tell whether Bjord is trolling or not at this point
You can explain things with math but really, it doesn't even touch the deeper meanings that some spiritual ideas delve into. It doesn't explain the "Why?". Many scientists scoff at the idea of explaining the "Why" because they Believe this is a random universe, everything is random, there is no point. Herein lies the fallacy, but since we cannot fathom the Ultimate Why of "Why are we here? How did we come here?" it's much more comfortable to just flip the finger to the Universe and claim that everything is random.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person)
Those 'Why?' questions belong to philosophy, not to actual science.
Using the power of the "mind" to control the body
Perhaps, if you don't have a way of discerning truth (your truth). Certainly it is important to be wary, to have a healthy and critical way of thinking - as I do. I've had some interesting psychedelic experiences on top of experiences without having used any substances that all suggest to there being a non-physical realm behind the veil of the physical one.
Well, science can explain it with scientific theories but that's closer to tautology than truly explaining something.science
There can be more than one truth to all things but according to science it is the only authority that can explain phenomenons;How can there be more than one truth? What do you mean by this statement? And where does "science" say that "it" is the only "authority" that can explain phenomenons? What else would you use to explain phenomenons? Give us an example, and tell us why "science" can't explain it.
there is only the one scientific explanation for those seeking an answer about the nature of thingsWhat do you even mean by this?
You can explain things with math but really, it doesn't even touch the deeper meanings that some spiritual ideas delve into.Science isn't mathematics.
It doesn't explain the "Why?". Many scientists scoff at the idea of explaining the "Why" because they Believe this is a random universe, everything is random, there is no point.Which "why"? It explains plenty of "why"'s. We know why many prey animals have eyes on the sides of their heads, for example. That is one "why" science gives an answer to. If you mean something silly like "why did the Big Bang happen", then only science can answer that too, indeed, unless the creator itself announces to us why it happened.
Herein lies the fallacy, but since we cannot fathom the Ultimate Why of "Why are we here? How did we come here?" it's much more comfortable to just flip the finger to the Universe and claim that everything is random.I don't think you know what "fallacy" means, but disregarding that, it's actually much more comfortable to believe that Everything Has A Purpose and there is some powerful being out there watching out for us, than it is to believe that nothing truly means anything and everything is random. Not that any of this is relevant to anything, beliefs of some scientists =/= science.
These ideas don't make sense to logical people like you, because your world view is based only on things that can be Heard, Seen or Proven/Disproven.As opposed to what?
Also when I speak of God, I don't mean the Christian religion's idea of God, who judges us and decides who goes to heaven or hell. I mean the supreme intelligence that gave birth to all of Life, or in other terms the Source of Everything. It is in everything, it pervades everything.
The Big Bang made this universe, but what made the Big Bang? I've yet to see any explanation by science other than technical ones of how it happened.Because science is not in the guessing game. But I've yet to hear of a single credible alternative to science. Know why? Because there isn't one. You have science, and then you have Russell's teapot.
Science may derive the how, but the why will never be answered by science alone. You need to combine both Science and Spirit for this, that I Believe 100%. Which is why it's very far from my interest to in any way discredit Science. :)Citation needed. If a scientist announces tomorrow that they've made a quantum computer capable of communicating with the Creator Of All Things, and the COAT says "duuuuuude, I was fucking stoned, sorry about all the shit that makes no sense, you're just a simulation for my college project", then how has science not explained the "why"? Where is "Spirit" needed? What the fuck is "Spirit" by the way? How would the world look different if "Spirit" didn't exist?
I've had some interesting psychedelic experiences on top of experiences without having used any substances that all suggest to there being a non-physical realm behind the veil of the physical one.Psychedelic experiences, the most reliable of all sources. So let me get this straight, physical chemicals in your physical brain caused you to see/experience hallucinations (science can explain these) in your physical brain, and that means there is a non-physical realm out there? Wild, man, wild. You're the first one to ever have these experiences.
http://podcasts.joerogan.net/podcasts/wim-hof
Have you ever heard about the "Iceman"? It's similar to claims of Chi and other "spiritual" forces. Using the power of the "mind" to control the body (I see it as using the power of the body to control the body, since the idea of "mind" as separate from the material is, so far, complete bunk, and disproven more and more as we go forward in the neurosciences). Unlike a lot of cranks, he willingly undergoes scientific testing. And guess what? We can see the physical, chemical changes in the body. We can quantify and measure them. We can, rationally, examine and explain them. They cease to be a matter of "spiritualism". It becomes science.
For thousands of years people thought diseases and other ailments were caused by evil spirits or god being angry at you or a variety of other patently ridiculous explanations from a modern perspective. And they sometimes stumbled upon cures or treatments, that they would explain in that framework. That didn't mean the framework itself was valid and "true". "Spirituality" is, as you say, practically an admition of ignorance. It's knowing we stumbled upon something, but we don't know exactly what, so we build stories around it. Mysticism is obfuscation. Science is revelation. The revealed becomes mundane. So much of what science has revealed would be considered fucking miraculous magic even a few decades ago, and we now go around and use it in our everyday lives as if it was our fucking due. It's really crazy.
Jesus fuck Bjord.
Those 'Why?' questions belong to philosophy, not to actual science. Science is based on things you can observe or somehow test, not things people make up in their minds.
Well you see Bjord's gray matter is a superhuman instrument that can perceive different facets of reality. I'm sure if we had put Bjord into a catscan while he was having these amazing psychedelic experiences we wouldn't have determined the exact neurological and biochemical reactions producing them, what areas of the brain, nope, none of that. It is beyond science's ken, apparently, and we aren't as we speak uncovering more and more of how the brain works. On one hand "science" is limited by the material perceptions of the world, and on the other the mere physical human brain, an instrument limited by an incredible factor to much less perception than scientific instruments, a mass of gray goo residing in the skull of an invidividual, is much better equipped to determine the nature of reality through "lived experience", aka made up bullshit.
Here's your fucking Neuroscience, bitch.His description of "heaven" sounds no different from a dozen tales of good mushroom trips I've heard.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/09/eben-alexander-harvard-neurosurgeon-proof-of-heaven-afterlife-coma_n_1951475.html
How you like them apples?
Still, some remain skeptical. Gawker published a piece comparing Alexander's story to "Experiences" essays written on Erowid.org -- a site a featuring a collection of writings from conscious drug users about their experimentations and trips.
So you're taking pills that make you forget you're taking pills?
His description of "heaven" sounds no different from a dozen tales of good mushroom trips I've heard.
So?So what is the point you're trying to make? What does the article you posted have to do with neuroscience?
Here's your fucking Neuroscience, bitch.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/09/eben-alexander-harvard-neurosurgeon-proof-of-heaven-afterlife-coma_n_1951475.html
How you like them apples?
So what is the point you're trying to make? What does the article you posted have to do with neuroscience?
A successful neurosurgeon, who has taught at Harvard Medical School and other universities, spent his life dismissing claims of heavenly out-of-body experiences and refuting such talk with scientific logic, until he himself had a near-death experience.
A successful neurosurgeon, who has taught at Harvard Medical School and other universities
spent his life dismissing claims of heavenly out-of-body experiences and refuting such talk with scientific logic
until he himself had a near-death experience
Oh my, hahahah. That was a good article.
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
What is Dark Matter if not the admission of ignorance? We stumbled across something we cannot explain and we built a story around it. We called that story Dark Matter and at the moment it's a purely theoretical placeholder for an effect we don't fully understand.
I'm pretty fucking sure he knows a lot more than anyone in here about Neuroscience, pretty sure he was way more dogmatic about trying to disprove Spirituality with logic than anyone here - yet he changed his mind.
I WONDER WHY
"Oh you prove nothing by this point fuck you Bjord you fucking hippie lovin tree hugging po-mo cunt fucker shit druggie"
You guys crack me the fuck up, you're fucking terrible but at least you're funny. :D
I'm pretty fucking sure he knows a lot more than anyone in here about Neuroscience, pretty sure he was way more dogmatic about trying to disprove Spirituality with logic than anyone here - yet he changed his mind.What does his neuroscience background have to do with him experiencing a really good dream and believing in it? Did he back it up with neuroscience why it can't be a dream but must be true? No?
I WONDER WHY
"Oh you prove nothing by this point fuck you Bjord you fucking hippie lovin tree hugging po-mo cunt fucker shit druggie"
It can never be disproven because whatever we eventually find, regardless of it's nature or state, will inevitably be given the name 'Dark Matter', just to prove ourselves right...
I'm sorry you're so fucking stupid that you can't see how "skeptics" not willing to accept an unfalsifiable theory is enraging to you. Maybe you could use a bit more skepticism yourself, instead of swallowing vague, undefinable bullshit with no proof or evidence beyond...well, what is your evidence? What is your proof? That there MUST be an answer to the "why"? Why must there be a why? Have you asked yourself that one, you dumb cunt? Maybe it's just your narcissism thinking the whole of existence must have a satisfactory answer beyond just "because". Thinking that you, a fucking bag of water briefly help up by an agglomeration of calcium before turning into dust, and the 3 or so pounds of equally ephemereal grey matter encased in part of it, are more than what you appear to be is nothing more than wishful thinking?
What does his neuroscience background have to do with him experiencing a really good dream and believing in it? Did he back it up with neuroscience why it can't be a dream but must be true? No?
So because he's an MD his dream is now reality? What kind of foolishness it this now. Is anything he claims actually supported by experiments?
Yes, of course, just like the only reason we uncovered the atom is because we already had a term for it. Really atoms should be known as "aphmolgamites", their true name, but in our arrogance we gave them a term to "prove ourselves right". Holy shit what a fucking retard. So if/when we uncover the "god particle", we'll have uncovered God, right?No no Oberyn, don't you see, someone in the 17th century made a retarded theory about phlogiston (a theory that would never pass muster these days because it worked completely differently from how and what theories are supposed to work and explain these days before being accepted) so science is wrong!!!!!!!!111
I didn't say that, I just found it HIGHLY CURIOUS why a man of such a degree and education would change his mind after such an experience. Don't you? Well, I am not surprised but I do find it enthralling nonetheless.
Ah, now we get to the crux of the issue. The "soul". So basically exactly what I started with, the idea of Dualism between mind/body, which you, like the stupid fucking cunt you are, whined as "misrepresenting" your ideas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondualism
Search for Tolle and Watts in that list, what do you find? Ooooooh, it's almost as if I had you pegged from the very beginning. Your fucking gurus ARE New Age bullshit. Holy shit you can't even recognize it.
http://www.eckharttolle.com/
From one of the greatest minds of our history,
https://www.eckharttolletv.com/new-home-video/?shortcode=z2rz5d
"Eckhart talks about deriving your identity from thoughts. To become free of ego is to become free of thoughts. Many people live with a hostile mind, which often serves as a motivation to change."
You're almost there Bjord, you got the free from thoughts part down. Still some problems with the ego, though. Personally I don't think you'll be able to eradicate your ego, it's like, 99% of your personality.
Shrooms aren't pills, which is by far the most intense psychedelic experience I've had to date.So, basically we're arguing with a fucking junky about his hallucinations?
I've still yet to try Salvia (which I heard is pretty mental) and then there is always DMT, but planning to do it the right way in Peru and ayahuasca. :)
So?
So, basically we're arguing with a fucking junky about his hallucinations?
So, basically we're arguing with a fucking junky about his hallucinations?
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Goodness, you are one stupid motherfucker. God have mercy on your wretched soul.I neither believe in Souls nor God... you're still a junky tho.
Something like that. Could as well be arguing why dragons exist, and just because we can't see them doesn't mean they don't exist. But wait I saw one in my dreams/trips, so it must be real.
I neither believe in Souls nor God... you're still a junky tho.
I kinda start to assume that you never really returned from your latest trip. Some psychosis in development there? You should get that checked. Preferably by someone who actually studied at a proper University with Science and all that mambo-jumbo. Not some Peruvian Medicine Man poking goat intestine to predict the demon which is possessing your soul or whatever they do...
Notice I never based any of my arguments on my experiences, I simply said I had very interesting ones during one of my trips. I simply mentioned it. Ever since I mentioned it, you've managed to blow it out of proportions and now you're talking about dragons lol.
I've had some interesting psychedelic experiences on top of experiences without having used any substances that all suggest to there being a non-physical realm behind the veil of the physical one.
[...]People don't become psychos just because they try psychedelics, though I'm sure people like Molly think it does purely because it's called "psych-edelic" :lol: [...]I actually 'think' that because of a ton of studies proving scientifically that people with a predisposition for mental issues can get 'stuck' on even a single trip.
Excuse me?
This is literally you discerning a spiritual realm out of your psychedelic trip, lmfao. Well guess what, I experienced a dragon on shrooms once, that suggests they exist, so why are you laughing to that?
Man lay off whatever you're doing to your head, whether it's hard drugs, shrooms or whatever the fuck kind of books or meditation you're doing, because clearly the only thing you're achieving is similar to smacking a brick to your head.
The high-dose philocybin or DMT experience does seem to raise some immediate questions about the fabric of reality, and does seem to make some ideas seem compelling, but these questions have been explored in a scientific framework since the early scientific revolution.Anyone who seriously refers philosophers like Locke and Hume cannot himself be taken seriously. If you have to back up your science with the ramblings of philosophers that were working purely on what they felt things should be like, without the benefit of modern science and all its discoveries, then your science isn't very good.
The link below is a lecture from the University of Oslo, of September 2011, an overview of the philosophy of mind since the Enlightenment. Following rationalism, the mind-body problem; Cartesian dualism and the materialism of mechanical philosophy, to Newton's (himself a mechanist) 'action at a distance', until then viewed as mysticism (reaction without contact), to mysterianism and the boundaries of cognition to the debate between schools of thought in modern neuroscience and the conclusions of some of the great figures of the scientific revolution such as Locke and Hume whose science-based skepticism led them to believe that much of Nature is inconceviable to us, that there's phenomena that fall beyond human understanding. Much like discoveries in the field of biology has demonstrated is the case with any animal.
'The machine, the ghost, and the limits of understanding: Newton's contributions to the study of mind': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5in5EdjhD0
A transcript of 'Science, Mind, and Limits of Understanding', a similar 2014 lecture from the Vatican, if you prefer to read: http://chomsky.info/201401__/
Chomsky completely sidesteps the scientific achievements in the neurosciences. We CAN pinpoint what "thought" is, how it works mechanically, and we're only getting more sophisticated at it as we go on. It isn't a case of trying to open a safe with the crowbar that is inside of it. As with matheticatics, physics and the rest of biology, neurosciences ARE part of a unified scientific theory utilizing the same methodology. Once we develop an AI capable of mimicking human speech patterns and thought, will Chomsky still say that the "creative" and "uniquely human" processes of language are anything but mechanical?He seems to espouse the thought that evidence so far shows that limits of understanding (here in regards to mind) seems inherent in the laws of Nature.
The “new mysterianism,” I believe, is misnamed. It should be called “truism” — at least, for anyone who accepts the major findings of modern biology, which regards humans as part of the organic world. If so, then they will be like all other organisms in having a genetic endowment that enables them to grow and develop to their mature form. By simple logic, the endowment that makes this possible also excludes other paths of development. The endowment that yields scope also establishes limits. What enables us to grow legs and arms, and a mammalian visual system, prevents us from growing wings and having an insect visual system.
By pursuing this task we may hope to determine the scope and limits of human understanding, while recognizing that some differently structured intelligence might regard human mysteries as simple problems and wonder that we cannot find the answers, much as we can observe the inability of rats to run prime number mazes because of the very design of their cognitive nature.
Anyone who seriously refers philosophers like Locke and Hume cannot himself be taken seriously. If you have to back up your science with the ramblings of philosophers that were working purely on what they felt things should be like, without the benefit of modern science and all its discoveries, then your science isn't very good.Hume and Locke were leading philosophers of ideas that all modern science is based on, such as empiricism, skepticism, and naturalism. The philosophical findings he mentions were based on the natural sciences of the day, it's a historical overview.
Love you guys.visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Except Molly, get good bundle of sticks.
Genetic endowment that enables them to grow and develop to their mature form...That's an interesting take on evolution. So it's not random external factors then, it's an "endowment", and there is an end goal in a "mature" form, not merely evolutionary niches. So has the turtle reached it's "mature" form? It has more or less ceased to evolve. Many organisms, once they reach a stable niche, do. Chomsky should stick to language and stop pretending he's a scientist.Endowment as in the genetic inheritance or natural ability of some biological classification, and 'mature form' as in said classification reaching its maturity (or the common association so defined) for example adulthood? Not sure we should read more into it than that. The point being that scope establishes limits.
This thread is worrying.
This thread is excellent. Tells true trolls from fake fgts such myself.
"Eckhart teaches us that karma is not what happens to you, but rather, how you react to what happens to you. In other words, how you deal with challenges, situations and people in your life can create more karma, if you are reactive. The arising of Presence transmutes karmic patterns."
Hume and Locke were leading philosophers of ideas that all modern science is based on, such as empiricism, skepticism, and naturalism. The philosophical findings he mentions were based on the natural sciences of the day, it's a historical overview.So? How does that make them relevant today? I hate historical overviews. They take up so much time from everything and are 99% of the time completely useless. Also why so many psychology/philosophy courses are retarded, a lot of the material taught would be better suited to "history."
shut the fuck up everyone with this boring shit
So Bjord, how's that meditation working out for you? http://forum.melee.org/eu-%28official%29/ban-bjord-68736/ :lol: