New Age United
Well-Known Member
any chance I had at what, connecting my thoughts perhaps, was that not implied, not very perceptive.
The Theory of Relative Motion and Natural Purpose
- Thread starter New Age United
- Start date
tyler.durden
Well-Known Member
It is possible for you to come up with new insights. It is also possible that they all be wrong. That is what we are witnessing so far from you, a lot intuition and insight that easily falls apart with even a cursory examination. The reason your insights seem to be incorrect is because they are not based on the facts of reality. You make statements as facts and claim that you are well versed in physics, and when I point out your mistakes in knowledge you say that I am being close minded. You should thank me instead, and use my criticism as an opportunity to correct the errors in your knowledge. That way, your future insights may hold more merit...
You seem afraid to acknowledge your many limitations, and seem to desperately need not only to protect, but to tout your poorly formed thoughts on a public forum. You state that you want to discuss your ideas, and when I join the discussion to point out errors and ask for clarification, I am accused of limiting my mind.
Rational inquiry and valid criticism are a large part of putting forth one's ideas in a public forum. Get used to it...
Last edited:
mudballs
Well-Known Member
oh i'm settling in here man. if by some outstanding miracle i've met the dude that can write a dissertation explaining the metaphysical and physical worlds interconnectivity on a ganja forum i will be beside myself. i would like to narrow your expoundings to a molecular level. how does an atom know another atom is near it? if you can get passed that we can proceed.
skunkd0c
Well-Known Member
have you been watching Nassim Haramein ?
you might also want to look into the theory of "space jets" (Nevaeh420)
Nevaeh420
Well-Known Member
Yes, SPACE JETS are for the future.
I am sure that in the future, we will have a craft that can fly through the air, swim through the water, and rocket into outer space.
~PEACE~
tyler.durden
Well-Known Member
Who cares what you are sure of? Your certainty means nothing to anyone but yourself. Now keep quiet, Georgie, the adults are having a discussion...
Moebius
Well-Known Member
I like Chopra .. although I don't believe he has all the answers, he's interesting enough. I don't think he's being dishonest. All language when describing the material world is somewhat metaphorical and imprecise. Even maths is insufficient when attempting to explain, describe or speculate upon fundamental 'truths' whatever they may be.
One of the most freethinking physicists of our age 'Richard Feynman' completely made up a language to describe his own ideas, he called them Feynman diagrams. Essentially they were squiggly lines and arrows. These were metaphorical too.
Moebius
Well-Known Member
Everything is happening because of 'entropy' ... maybe that's the ''reason' you're looking for. Out of disorder comes what appears to be order. In the end, things fall apart.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe
Last edited:
Moebius
Well-Known Member
Electromagnetic force?
eye exaggerate
Well-Known Member
This all sounds so exciting.
tyler.durden
Well-Known Member
Here's a short snippet of Chopra getting caught being dishonest about his use of quantum jargon. When cornered, we see him start his craziness of science hijacking quantum language for their own purposes. WTF? He then predictably switches into irrelevant ad hominems that scientists are arrogant and exclusive. I'll post more like this from him later on, gotta do some stuff...
gorillagrower0840
Well-Known Member
Dude, I feel exactly the same way. I read your statement and thought it must be my clone writing it. I'm not trying to be arrogant or cocky, but I too feel that I am smarter than most people I ever come in contact with in life. And you are right, it can be a lonely place. Most people would think that being so smart is such a wonderful thing, but they don't realize the negative aspects of it as well, like the feeling of being alone and on your own. You can almost feel trapped sometimes. Often people might perceive your intelligence as being disrespectful, rude, or condescending towards them, but that's not the case. It can be very aggravating sometimes. You just wish people could operate on higher levels of thought like you do, and you believe it would be better for the world to do so. I too tend to read things relatively slowly, but thoroughly. I don't make great money either.I think it's mostly a matter of practice. When I first started down this path, my brain cramped all the time trying to understand what seemed so simple to these geniuses. I'm naturally a slow reader and retain 90+% of the material, but I had to reread physics paragraphs DOZENS and dozens of times to really understand and mentally picture what is actually happening. Having said that, yes I feel that I am much smarter than most people I've met. It often sucks, because it is a lonely place to be when you can easily understand what most others seem unable to. In a certain way, ignorance is bliss. If it's any consolation, you make more money than I do
Moebius
Well-Known Member
We first heard Chopra state 'If you feel genuinely attractive, you'll attract other people to you' .... I tend to agree with him here.
Then he stated, 'if you create a shift in consciousness, you create a shift in biology, that's it' ... he's correct here also. Many studies into placebo's, Human psychology and neuro-psychology also concur to some degree.
Regarding Dawkins claim that Chopra has hijaked quantum terminology to describe his own idea ... isn't this what great physicists/thinkers do all the time to describe their concepts?
Einstein had little time for the idea's of Schroedinger's 'Quantum entanglement' among other principals of QM he disagreed with. 'Spooky action at a distance' I think he disparagingly called it, but Einstein appears to be wrong about this.
I just feel that only through the discussion of ideas can we debate and progress. We need more free thinkers and ideas in this world NOT fewer. This is my main gripe with Dawkins approach to science and metaphysics. The man is too quick to point the finger of quackery at those that fall outside of the conventional paradigm.
Last edited:
tyler.durden
Well-Known Member
Chopra is brilliant, no doubt, plus he's an MD. He wouldn't be nearly as effective as he is if that weren't the case. He's also a competent MD, so he knows a thing or two regarding biology...
No. Chopra takes the terminology from quantum physics and attempts to alter the terminology's meaning to disingenuously give credibility to his own specious and unproven ideas in order to sell his media. This is why he is facetiously called The Profit, and why we refer to it as hijacking. When great minds are honest and they use other great thinker's terminology, they are true to the original meaning and context of the words. So they are simply using others' terminology as opposed to hijacking it...
Einstein may not have personally liked the quantum entanglement theory, but afaik he did recognize it as fact. He did not like the uncertainty and probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics in general, he was fond of saying, "God does not play dice".
I agree about progress being attained through the discussion of ideas. I don't see a shortage of 'free thinkers', as Nevaeh and New Age United fall into this camp, along with anybody else who likes to be seen as 'thinking outside the box'. What is of value are free thinkers that base their work on credible theories and the facts about objective reality, as opposed to the ones that are largely uneducated or attempt to warp the facts of objective reality to further there own bias agendas. Dawkins has little tolerance for this type of thing, so he rubs many people in both camps the wrong way. I don't think he harsh on people because the are outside they conventional paradigm, I think it is because they make statements of fact that cannot be proven or supported, or are spreading misinformation via some other form.
Chopra's circular reasoning and logic is often used against him in TED Talks and the like. It seems the more educated the audience, the worse he fairs. His bread and butter seems to be those that don't know enough to see what he's up to. Here's a cute snippet of such an instance -
Here's the full length interview from which I took my earlier video snippet, it is very amusing -
Here's 2 hour debate with Shermer and Harris vs. Chopra and one of the worst picks I've ever seen anyone make, Jean Houston. She is an idiot. I could think of several people that would have lent more credibility to his position, especially against such skeptic heavyweights like Shermer and Harris! It is a very amusing debate, but spoiler alert, Chopra and Houston clearly get owned, as their ideas and positions cannot stand up to world class scrutiny. I've seen it several times, being a fan of Chopra, I think you'll enjoy it -
Ten minute clip -
Full 2 hour debate -
Last edited:
tyler.durden
Well-Known Member
This is also a fun site, I like to generate random Chopra quotes sometimes when things are slow. Try it and post your favorites! -
http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/
"Imagination meditates on subjective balance"
"Intuition reflects the flow of destiny"
"Interdependence transcends precious sensations"
http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/
"Imagination meditates on subjective balance"
"Intuition reflects the flow of destiny"
"Interdependence transcends precious sensations"
New Age United
Well-Known Member
Yes thank you Mr Durden, I am learning from you, you are very well educated. I never said that I was well versed in physics I said I like to study physics, now many of my perspectives about the subject are astray from the norm, and yes I am well aware that I could be wrong. I'm not touting my intellect I am actually coming to you and admitting my own limitations and uncertainty.It is possible for you to come up with new insights. It is also possible that they all be wrong. That is what we are witnessing so far from you, a lot intuition and insight that easily falls apart with even a cursory examination. The reason your insights seem to be incorrect is because they are not based on the facts of reality. You make statements as facts and claim that you are well versed in physics, and when I point out your mistakes in knowledge you say that I am being close minded. You should thank me instead, and use my criticism as an opportunity to correct the errors in your knowledge. That way, your future insights may hold more merit...
You seem afraid to acknowledge your many limitations, and seem to desperately need not only to protect, but to tout your poorly formed thoughts on a public forum. You state that you want to discuss your ideas, and when I join the discussion to point out errors and ask for clarification, I am accused of limiting my mind.
eye exaggerate
Well-Known Member
New Age United
Well-Known Member
I will heed your advice Mr Durden, I can use time dilation and simultaneity to support my hypothesis on relative motion. I will try to track down credible links and build an actual theory before I present this again. Very good responses from everyone, I wanted to present the idea because I know that there are some very intelligent people on here, I too am aware of my keen intellect, just as I am aware that I am grossly uneducated, their is a difference between stupidity and ignorance.
Moebius
Well-Known Member
Einstein did not recognise the principal of Quantum Non-locality and as you correctly state the uncertain and probabilistic nature of QM but this IS the defining nature of Quantum Entanglement. He felt that entangled particles must have had an inherent 'DNA' within them that allowed the state of these particles to be determined before hand. The notion that the spin state of one particle could instantaneously effect the spin state of another across infinite distances was an anathema to him, it violated his general theory of relativity that states 'Nothing could travel faster than light'. '' it appears however that on the Plank scale Space/time does not exist in the classical sense. .. Einstein argued for years about this with Niels Bohr.
Einstein also felt reality existed independent of the observer.
But the so called 'facts' of 'objective reality' ARE debateable. This was what Niels bohr and Einstein argued about throughout their lives. Bohrs felt there was no objective reality that is knowable or that reality on the atomic scale didn't even have any meaning. The mere act of observing a particle would change the state of the particle. .. So when new-agers/freethinkers discuss the relationship between consciousness and matter I tend to believe this is in the tradition of the great physcist, Niels bohr. ..... When Einstein stated 'God does not play dice' he was basically saying the Universe is ultimately deterministic, Bohrs reply was 'Einstein should stop telling God what to do'.
In 1963, John Bell (physicist) proved the non-deterministic, non-localised nature of photons with his experiment using polarized light. This was in keeping with Niels Bohr view of the nature of reality.
I never said I was a fan of Chopra, I enjoy listening to the guy and pondering his ideas. I think I would like having a drink with him and talking about his concepts. I suspect calling me a 'fan' suggests by you that I blindly follow his teachings, an attempt to disparage and stiffer debate perhaps?. I'll certainly watch that video later.
I don't think it's useful if we get bogged down too much discussing Chopra, he is but one individual and exponent of this 'new-age', 'non-scientific' thinking of which you seemingly have such disdain for. I just say, that in our attempts to form an understanding of our physical world we cannot rely on empirical raw data alone. There is a place in this discussion for meta-physical freethinkers.
Niels Bohr (physicist) wrote - 'We must look towards thinkers like Buddha and Lao Tzo who try to harmonize our position, both as spectators and actors in the great drama of existence'.
Below is a worthwhile documentary on the topics discussed here. I have quoted from this video.
and here is a short video (5 min) from David Bohm, physicist and protege of Einstein on perception and reality