Subatomic Worlds

More
30 Apr 2020 12:22 - 30 Apr 2020 12:24 #351527 by Rosalyn J
Replied by Rosalyn J on topic Subatomic Worlds
Hi EnergyGem,

Just so you know, I am reading your suggested book. Zhuan Falun is not my cuppa, but I respect any sort of seeking because of what it can provide in terms of self discovery. No effort is wasted, hmm?

I'd like to explore that more when I get a bit farther.

My favorite sort of meditation is the one suggested by John Kabbat Zinn in "Wherever You Go, There You Are"

Alexandre Orion suggested this when I spoke with him this morning: iai.tv/video/philosophy-bites-back

Pax Per Ministerium
File Attachment:
Last edit: 30 Apr 2020 12:24 by Rosalyn J.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Alexandre Orion

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • EnergyGem
  • EnergyGem's Avatar Topic Author
  • Guest
30 Apr 2020 15:18 - 30 Apr 2020 15:20 #351533 by EnergyGem
Replied by EnergyGem on topic Subatomic Worlds

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were talking about elementary particles when you said "elementary particles". I guess I should have put words in your mouth and not listened to what you actually said. Now you had to shift the goal post. I'm so sorry. My bad.



You wrote: "This makes it sound like neutrinos are at some kind of more "microscopic" level than electrons, nucleons, or quarks. This is incorrect."

And yet: "The mass of the neutrino is much smaller than that of the other known elementary particles." - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino

So you were wrong.

Nonsense. If it did that, it wouldn't progress at all. It wouldn't make useful predictions and inform development of new technologies if it did that. People wouldn't trust the words of scientific experts or the devices they use to assist them in life if it were so. You wouldn't be here trying to weave science into your woo-woo, if science was like that. You can't have it both ways. If it is rigid and narrow-minded, and bars itself from making meaningful progress, and yet supports your woo-woo, then, well... you can finish this thought yourself, I'm sure.


I never said science doesn't make progress. It however stifles itself by labeling everything not understood by current scientific methods and instruments as 'pseudoscience'. If science broadened it's thinking it would as Tesla had said, make great strides in it's knowledge and insights into the mysteries of the universe. Our current scientific path is not the only way to understand life, the human body and the universe. There are other paths to knowledge and wisdom that are far deeper and more encompassing then what our current scientific paradigm has come to uncover.

No, they are nothing like that, no matter how often you keep repeating it. Electrons are charged and charge has a sign. Mass does not. If electrons orbited their nucleus like a planet does its sun, they would drop down into the nucleus. There would be no such thing as a stable atom if that were the case. I don't care if that's what your spiritual great enlightened masters revealed to you. If that is what they said, then they don't know what they are talking about. And instead of finding that out, you chose to just follow what they say, not question it. Tell me again how it's people of science who are rigidly holding on to their own axioms because of emotions. How much of the teachings you take from your masters have you bothered to scrutinize lately?
Oh, and before you say that I take my lecturers' words for granted - The device you use to tell me what you have to say only works because we know enough about electrodynamics to exploit it for radio communications. The workings of nature that allow you to speak to me literally prohibit the electrons from orbiting nuclei.


You are still trying to understand multidimensional concepts from this dimension. You cannot understand these things if you stubbornly hold on to these limited scientific concepts and understandings. Science is now theorizing that other dimensions exist but they cannot see them:

bigthink.com/philip-perry/physicists-out...youd-experience-them

Great awakened ones can tangibly see into these dimensions and many others that science hasn't detected at it's current stage. Space/Time are completely different in different dimensions. Time itself is different across these dimensions. The 'electron cloud' of an atom is only a cloud from our dimension. If one had a way to pierce into that microcosmic dimension they would conform to that dimensions space/time constraints and would see that the rotation of those electrons are very much the same as our solar system.

I have studied physics and I have no clue what he means by "layers". I guess molecules are made of atoms, atoms of a nucleus and electrons, nuclei of nucleons, and nucleons of quarks. Neutrinos are the odd one out here, though, they have no such relation to the others.
May I point out at this point that a nucleon is not fully described by quarks alone. Nucleons consist of three quarks, but the sum of their masses is about two orders of magnitude smaller than the mass of the nucleon. Most of a nucleon's mass is actually carried by the gluons I mentioned in the last post. But wait! Gluons are (supposed to be) massless! How can they contribute? That's right. Mass is more complicated than just lumps of weight. And "those of us who have studied physics" understand that. Moving on...


In terms of layers, Master Li Hongzhi talks about this:

"This cosmos is so vast and its structure is so complex. I’ve told you about the composition of dimensions. For example, matter is composed of molecules and even more microscopic particles. The dimension that we know of is also composed of these particles. Today, the particles known to science include molecules, atoms, neutrons, atomic nuclei, and electrons; and then there are quarks and neutrinos. What’s further down is unknown to today’s science.

So what I’ve said is that the realm of each level of these particles is what we call the plane of that level. Actually, particles aren’t distributed on a plane; instead, within a given level, they exist everywhere—not on a plane. Humankind doesn’t have a term for it, so we’ll just call it a plane; this is the only way we can describe it. Right within that realm—within that layer of particles’ realm—a dimension is formed.
Between particles are dimensions, and inside particles themselves are also dimensions. Yet particles can also make up particles of different sizes. Then, among the particles of different sizes that are composed of one particular particle are again dimensions. This is the concept of dimensions that I explained to you last time.

I’ve always said that between atoms and molecules is a vast dimension. We humans live between the layer of the largest particles made up of molecules, and planets that we see, which are a layer of particles. Humans live in that dimension. A planet is also a particle. Going further, the Milky Way galaxy also has an outer shell. Might the Milky Way galaxy and the countless other galaxies spread throughout the cosmos form a dimension? They’re also interrelated. Then beyond the galaxies, there is still another cosmic expanse—then is this cosmic expanse a layer of particles? It sure is a layer of particles. The cosmos is incredibly vast—there’s simply no way to describe how vast it is.

Furthermore, three thousand universes like the one we inhabit make up a larger layer of universe, which has an outer shell and is a particle of a universe of an even larger layer. Yet the particles I just talked about was expanding from just one point. As a matter of fact, particles of each layer are spread throughout the entire cosmos."


Really? What about stars/suns? What about distant galaxies?


In regards to macroscopic particles, the planets we see are considered a single particle in the macrocosm.

No, that depends on what we mean by a microscope. There are microscopes that allow us to resolve atoms just fine.


No light microscope can see atoms. So it does depend on what 'microscope' meant in terms of that statement.

That depends entirely on what one means by matching. There is nothing a computer can do that a human in principle couldn't. But some tasks that took humans entire lifetimes a few hundred years ago took computers only a few days in 1996 and mere hours or even minutes today, and with far fewer errors. With those tasks I'd say it is us who can't match the performance of our computers.


The brain is actually multidimensional in nature: www.sciencealert.com/science-discovers-h...-up-to-11-dimensions

A computer can do lighting fast calculations but there are many mysteries about the brain such as the mysteries of consciousness, how memory is stored and how the brain processes vision among many others that science still doesn't understand:

jonlieffmd.com/blog/subjective-experience-brain

Now this is getting embarassing. Not only is this false, but this even contradicts what was said earlier. The author already pointed out nuclei and even quarks, i.e. a substructure of the atom, and now he says that in science atoms are seen as points? Come on, if they're going to lie about science, the least they could do is keep it consistent!


No you just didn't complete the full sentence:

"Modern scientists can only understand an atom as a point, one of its small structures. In fact, the place where atoms exist is also a plane, and the physical dimension formed by such a plane is also quite huge. It is only that what you have discovered is a point. Within this plane then, how big is this dimension?"

So there's no contradiction whatsoever, you just omitted the full sentence and the context. An atom is indeed a small structure.

Well it's not much of a compliment to say that someone is a greatest scientist, if science itself is oh so unfit to find out what ever magical satisfaction you're asking for, is it. "Science is pointless, also my magnificent friends are best at it." Yeah, good job.
Also, if these Buddhas are so great at science, how come everything they seem to be telling you about science is either wrong, or nonsensical, or both?


Buddhas are indeed the greatest scientists but it's not the 'science' that is understood by today's scientific establishment. It is a far greater and deeper and more profound science, a science that is multidimensional in nature and transcends the limited knowledge that our current scientific paradigm understands.


Yea, all the component structures... except the lens, a diaphragm, a retina, an optic nerve, optical muscles, a vitreous body... But everything else, absolutely!


The pineal gland is photoreceptive just like our eyes:

"Five years after the publication of Zhuan Falun, Lucas et al. (5) published a paper in Science, one of the most well known scientific journals. They described several experiments they did with mice that genetically lacked retinal photoreceptors. The experiments revealed that photic suppression of pineal melatonin remained unaffected in mice genetically lacking cones or both rods and cones. That is to say, mice genetically lacking retinal photoreceptors responded normally to light. What is especially noticeable is that one group of mice genetically lacking retinal photoreceptors also had defection in their optic signal transduction pathways and yet their photic suppression of pineal melatonin remained unaffected.

It is well known, with neither retinal photoreceptors nor optic signal transduction pathways, that the conventional visual pathway cannot be established. The authors were unable to explain how the pineal concealed in the skull could respond to light."


www.pureinsight.org/node/164

It's funny then, how quite the opposite is true. For centuries thinkers were trying to think of all things at once, physical nature, the human spirit, the gods, the arts, and morals and they progressed from living in mud huts to living in mud huts reinforced by some straw - except I guess their kings who had stone palaces build for themselves, with tiny windows for daylight and holes in the ground for toilets... And then the printing press came along, the dreadful physical sciences followed, and within a few decades life expectancy grew from 30 to 70, and travel changed from a likely death sentence to a leisure activity. I don't know if that Tesla quote is genuine or not, and we can say what we will about his importance in the history of electrical engineering, but the contents of that quote are garbage, much like your grasp of science, which, for the record, nobody is forcing you to use to justify your woo. You could have argued philosophically or spiritually. You chose not to. You chose to talk of things you clearly have no clue about. Any embarassment you are now enduring is all a consequences of your decision.



Ah, Telsa's quote is garage? Quite alot of hubris there. What have you invented that changed the world, care to share it?

Something is garbage if it doesn't fit in to current science's understandings? Thank you for making my point for me.

I suppose Isaac Newton's quote was garbage too:

"About the times of the End, a body of men will be raised up who will turn their attention to the prophecies, and insist upon their literal interpretation, in the midst of much clamor and opposition.”


Science has made many notable achievements but for it to progress it needs to open it's mind to new avenues and understandings. There are many methods to plumb the mysteries of life, the human body and the universe and contemporary science is but one avenue.

I will leave with with another excerpt from Master Li Hongzhi where he talks more on this matter:



“It’s really hard to use human language to describe the range of the Three Realms. Now when I tell you how large the Three Realms is, I’m using concepts from human sensual and visual perceptions, and from the particles that are at the same level. The biggest difference between how divine beings and how human beings look at the cosmos is that divine beings don’t look at things on the basis of the structure of this one layer of particles.

They simultaneously look at things from all directions and three-dimensionally, on the basis of the combined cosmic structures of the different layers of particles below that and the different layers of particles above that. They can see the whole structural appearance of things at different levels in the cosmos, and see what they look like on a fundamental level.

Human beings, on the other hand, can only see this world that’s composed of this molecular layer of particles; they can only see things that are composed of this layer of particles. But the cosmos isn’t composed of just this one layer of particles. Human beings can’t see the true picture; human beings can only see this one layer.

This results from the separation and restriction that’s due to various factors, and the limitations of the human eye’s structure, all of which are meant to produce this false picture of things for human beings.

Humans just aren’t allowed to see the true picture. In other words, even when it comes to things that are composed of this layer of particles, human beings aren’t allowed to see the full picture, and human beings are given this kind of eye precisely to limit their perception of the cosmos, which makes for this culture here. Everything has been created with a certain purpose.

You know, besides infrared and ultraviolet light, there are other invisible kinds of light and inaudible sounds, but they do exist. Today’s scientific devices can detect and recognize that they exist, but human eyes can’t see them.

In other words, human eyes aren’t even allowed to see all the things that are at this level of the human world. The kind of world human beings are allowed to see is deliberately designed so that human beings’ cognition is stabilized in this state.

But actually it’s not absolutely stable or impenetrable—through cultivation a person can break through it. But how much a person can break through and how much of the truth of the cosmos he can see depend on the cultivator’s level. Conversely, the more materialistic a person is, the more he’s trapped inside this maze. The more materialistic a person is, the more so his thoughts and understandings are trapped in this “reality,” and the more he is within this “reality.”



Rosalyn J wrote:

Hi EnergyGem,

Just so you know, I am reading your suggested book. Zhuan Falun is not my cuppa, but I respect any sort of seeking because of what it can provide in terms of self discovery. No effort is wasted, hmm?

I'd like to explore that more when I get a bit farther.

My favorite sort of meditation is the one suggested by John Kabbat Zinn in "Wherever You Go, There You Are"

Alexandre Orion suggested this when I spoke with him this morning: iai.tv/video/philosophy-bites-back


Hey Rosalyn, no worries. Everyone has free will and chooses the path that's right for them. I also have been a seeker of Truth for a long time and have come to understand that there is far more to the universe and life than meets the eye.

Thanks for the quote and link, i'll check it out. :)
Last edit: 30 Apr 2020 15:20 by EnergyGem.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
30 Apr 2020 17:58 #351539 by Gisteron
Replied by Gisteron on topic Subatomic Worlds

EnergyGem wrote: You wrote: "This makes it sound like neutrinos are at some kind of more "microscopic" level than electrons, nucleons, or quarks. This is incorrect."

And yet: "The mass of the neutrino is much smaller than that of the other known elementary particles." - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino

So you were wrong.

No. Neutrinos are exactly as large as electrons and quarks: pointlike. They are lighter, not smaller. They are not however, the lightest of elementary particles. They are only the lightest matter particles, which is not something that Wikipedia quote makes any effort to emphasize, and not something you made any effort to look up until I pointed out that actually, there are even lighter elementary particles.


Our current scientific path is not the only way to understand life, the human body and the universe. There are other paths to knowledge and wisdom...

I agree. And I invited you multiple times to use those as much as you please. I made very clear that you don't have to use science at all in attempts to support your woo. But if you do, you'll do well to present scientific findings accurately. If you happen to make a mistake, nothing wrong with that, someone can come in and correct it. You then have the choice of acknolwedging the mistake and attempting at salvaging your conclusion, or - as you are choosing to do instead - either shifting the goal post, pretending like you never made the mistake (like with what is the lightest elementary particle), or even doubling down on the false presentations from earlier (like your insistance that electrons orbit their nuclei, which we know they do not). You don't have to use any science at all for the wisdom you are trying to spread. You just don't get to lie about science unimpeded here.


The 'electron cloud' of an atom is only a cloud from our dimension. If one had a way to pierce into that microcosmic dimension they would conform to that dimensions space/time constraints and would see that the rotation of those electrons are very much the same as our solar system.

You are shifting the goal post again. Your guru's initial claim was that electrons behaved around the nucleus "really no different" from how the Earth orbits the Sun. When I pointed out that actually they are completely incomparable systems, you quoted another guru who said that the electron was orbiting the nucleus very fast and that with the timescales we are stuck living with we cannot resolve it and therefore throw our hands up in the air and proclaim "uncertainty". Then I pointed out that no, they are not rotating too fast for us to see either and that we would know what it would look like if they did. I also pointed out that uncertainty is fundamental, and not a matter of measurement precision, and that this can be proven mathematically. So now you say that the electrons are still rotating around their nucleus, just not the real electrons in real space-time that we can really see and really predict to a precision matched by absolutely no other field of study in history, but woo-electrons spinning around woo-nuclei in woo-space-woo-time. Tell me again about emotional attachments to sacred ideas that people of science are too arrogant and tight-minded to let go of. Yes, sure, if you enrich your claim with so much magical handwavery, I can object to it no longer. And don't worry. You don't need to admit that your masters are wrong every time they open their mouth about matters of science. That you need to employ such dishonest tactics is admission enough for all to see.

In terms of layers, Master Li Hongzhi talks about this:

Yea, no, I'm done responding to your scriptures. Sure, it looks like one can't get past a single paragraph before encountering the first lies, but this is getting boring and you have better ways of promoting your religion. If you have something interesting to say, I'm all ears, but your masters are not here to talk with us so I'm not here to talk back to them. If we are going to discuss any more profound misunderstandings of physics, they shall be coming from someone who is actually here to present theirs themselves.


The largest things that we see with human eyes are planets,...

Really? What about stars/suns? What about distant galaxies?


In regards to macroscopic particles, the planets we see are considered a single particle in the macrocosm.

Irrelevant. As you see, the quote I was responding to said that the largest things that we see with human eyes are planets. That's false. In fact, most planets we actually can't see with human eyes, and most of the things on the night sky that we can see are many orders of magnitude larger than any planet we can see. We can't see many galaxies with the naked eye, but some we can. And no, "in regards to macroscopic particles", those stars many times larger than any planet we can see can be "considered a single particle in the macrocosm". And at the appropriate scales, so can galaxies. Quit trying to shift the goal post. The quote you posted did not specify these "regards" you point at, and it would be wrong even if it had.


... and the smallest things that we can see under the microscope are molecules.

No, that depends on what we mean by a microscope. There are microscopes that allow us to resolve atoms just fine.


No light microscope can see atoms. So it does depend on what 'microscope' meant in terms of that statement.

If I took 'microscope' to mean 'light microscope', the statement would also be wrong. You can't see molecules through a light microscope. But there are microscopes that can show molecules. I've actually used one myself just a few months back. And there are microscopes that can show atoms, too. I haven't used one like that yet, though I know people I can ask if I needed an image like that. But yes, different microscopes can resolve different scales. In some sense particle accelerators can also be seen as microscopes, you know. In that case we can see far into the subatomic, too. This idea that the smallest thing any microscope can show us is a molecule is frankly false. But I was feeling generous so I let it depend on what we mean by a microscope.


A computer can do lighting fast calculations but there are many mysteries about the brain such as the mysteries of consciousness, how memory is stored and how the brain processes vision among many others that science still doesn't understand:

Irrelevant. The claim was that "However developed a computer is, it cannot match the human brain." to which I said that this depends on what "matching" means. Computers vastly outperform our brains in most tasks they are designed to do.


"Modern scientists can only understand an atom as a point, one of its small structures. In fact, the place where atoms exist is also a plane, and the physical dimension formed by such a plane is also quite huge. It is only that what you have discovered is a point. Within this plane then, how big is this dimension?"

So there's no contradiction whatsoever, you just omitted the full sentence and the context. An atom is indeed a small structure.

Looks like a contradiction to me, sorry. We can't model something like it is a point and has structure. That's why atoms, at least in atomic and nuclear and particle physics, are not modeled as a point. Yet your master says that "modern scientists can only understand an atom as a point." This is both false and inconsistent with what else he says.


Buddhas are indeed the greatest scientists but it's not the 'science' that is understood by today's scientific establishment. It is a far greater and deeper and more profound science, a science that is multidimensional in nature and transcends the limited knowledge that our current scientific paradigm understands.

Let's say it how it is, shall we. It doesn't "transcend" our limited knowledge, it "contradicts" it. And yes, this is a problem for them. Because our "limited knowledge", despite its limits, actually works. It tripled life expectancy, flooded (some of) our lives with luxury so much that "boredom" has become an actual problem some of us get to have sometimes, and allowed your masters so much time on their hands that they can sit in the comfort of their ergonomic armchairs and speak of the primitivity of the very same science that enabled them spewing that message around the globe. If anything fits the famous picture of a man sitting in a tree, chipping at the very branch that supports him, this would be it.


Yea, all the component structures... except the lens, a diaphragm, a retina, an optic nerve, optical muscles, a vitreous body... But everything else, absolutely!


The pineal gland is photoreceptive just like our eyes:

"Five years after the publication of Zhuan Falun, Lucas et al. (5) published a paper in Science, one of the most well known scientific journals. They described several experiments they did with mice that genetically lacked retinal photoreceptors. The experiments revealed that photic suppression of pineal melatonin remained unaffected in mice genetically lacking cones or both rods and cones. That is to say, mice genetically lacking retinal photoreceptors responded normally to light. What is especially noticeable is that one group of mice genetically lacking retinal photoreceptors also had defection in their optic signal transduction pathways and yet their photic suppression of pineal melatonin remained unaffected.

It is well known, with neither retinal photoreceptors nor optic signal transduction pathways, that the conventional visual pathway cannot be established. The authors were unable to explain how the pineal concealed in the skull could respond to light."


www.pureinsight.org/node/164

So just like I said, then. None of the component structure. It'd do you well to read your own sources, sometimes. All the less reason for me to read them, I guess, if you can't even be bothered to.

Ah, Telsa's quote is garage? [sic] Quite alot of hubris there. What have you invented that changed the world, care to share it?

Nothing.


Something is garbage if it doesn't fit in to current science's understandings?

No, something is a garbage description of a state of affairs or sequence of events if it fails to match said state of affairs or sequence of events on any level. If someone said the sky is purple, or the earth was flat or some ten thousand years old, I'd call that garbage. And if someone says that a lot more progress could be made if science ceased to focus on nature, that saying is garbage, too. In the passage that you quoted from my post I admitted for any amount of praise and acknolwedgement of Tesla's importance to the history of electrical engineering. I did not say he was a prophet saint, though. If he said something that is garbage (one should note here that I did express my doubts that the quote was genuine, by the way), then he said something that is garbage. I take on no "sin against science" for recognizing it as such. A lot of very smart people say very dumb things, sometimes, and there is nothing wrong with that. Tesla, with all his achievements, is still a human, and it's okay for him to say something stupid. It also doesn't discredit everything else he did in my eyes, because I never demanded perfection from him. The world isn't so black-and-white. Maybe you need to open your mind to a more nuanced perspective. :P


I suppose Isaac Newton's quote was garbage too:

"About the times of the End, a body of men will be raised up who will turn their attention to the prophecies, and insist upon their literal interpretation, in the midst of much clamor and opposition.”

I imagine Newton said many much dumber things than this, too. I suspect he also had a much clearer grasp on physics than any of the Buddhas' and spiritual teachers whose words you swallow without question, if what came out in this discussion is any indication. What's your point?


Science has made many notable achievements but for it to progress it needs to open it's mind to new avenues and understandings. There are many methods to plumb the mysteries of life, the human body and the universe and contemporary science is but one avenue.

Yes, it is. There is therefore absolutely no reason to be misrepresenting it. You could just as well try and support your spirituality through any of those other avenues, but instead you elected to base it on misunderstandings (if I'm feeling that charitable) of science.
*shrug*

Better to leave questions unanswered than answers unquestioned
The following user(s) said Thank You: Rex

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
30 Apr 2020 21:44 #351546 by Rex
Replied by Rex on topic Subatomic Worlds
If someone makes scientific claims, they shouldn't be surprised if someone fact checks them. No one will say someone is wrong if they're making garden variety spiritual claims, but the minute someone tries to get profound and talk about some subject they really don't understand, they deserve whatever factual misrepresentations they've made to be brought to light.

Something as simple as the neutrino claim could be corrected by a high school student. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of half of the terms used. Photons, if they have rest mass (it's been a while since I took a physics class tbh, so I might not remember this correctly), are necessarily magnitudes smaller than the smallest possible physical constituent.

Knights Secretary's Secretary
Apprentices: Vandrar
TM: Carlos Martinez
"A serious and good philosophical work could be written consisting entirely of jokes" - Wittgenstein
The following user(s) said Thank You: Gisteron, Carlos.Martinez3

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
30 Apr 2020 22:23 - 01 May 2020 01:28 #351547 by Rosalyn J
Replied by Rosalyn J on topic Subatomic Worlds
I don't think it's too uncommon in the bid for legitimization.

I remember when the Jedi community routinely sought for the validity of energy manipulation with works like the celestine prophecy and the field. Both of which I had as lessons in 2012.

I remember watching "What the Bleep Do We Know" and even Zeihtgiest.


People come from all walks of life to study here. I think it's most important to lead socratically and allow people to come to their own realization.

We might be right, but its a bit like me trying to convince my Mormon friend that their is no historical evidence for the native Americans being descendants of Jews. The more I push with logic, the less they yield.

Pax Per Ministerium
File Attachment:
Last edit: 01 May 2020 01:28 by Rosalyn J.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Rex

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
30 Apr 2020 23:03 #351551 by Carlos.Martinez3
Replied by Carlos.Martinez3 on topic Subatomic Worlds
2.
A modern day Jeddist acknowledges the Force. Descriptions often come from our own choices. Good and Bad- Light and Dark- Harmony and Unbalance-theses are our own descriptions of what we see actually present and how we are relative to it. Our labels describe but can never fully identify the Force. Not even its name. A Jeddist can search and dwell in the ebb and flow, the result is not from the seeker but from the flow- from the Force. A Jeddist can dwell there and leave and return- it all depends on them. With or without, the Force is.


www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/Clerg...e-a-shepards-journal


I could very well be describing the same others use other definitions for. To me : that’s a connection I can’t explain and don’t try.
That’s just me. Just a lowly practitioner.

Contact The Clergy
Pastor of Temple of the Jedi Order
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The Block
Build, not tear down.
Nosce te ipsum / Cerca trova

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
01 May 2020 01:22 #351557 by Adder
Replied by Adder on topic Subatomic Worlds
Crikey, these 'particles' are not grains of something.... are they? Aren't they just 'points on a scale of measurement' which reflect certain observable/measurable attributes, and generally limited by only the capability of the tools being used to explore them.

Knight ~ introverted extropian, mechatronic neurothealogizing, technogaian buddhist. Likes integration, visualization, elucidation and transformation.
Jou ~ Deg ~ Vlo ~ Sem ~ Mod ~ Med ~ Dis
TM: Grand Master Mark Anjuu

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
01 May 2020 09:09 - 01 May 2020 09:50 #351566 by Gisteron
Replied by Gisteron on topic Subatomic Worlds

Adder wrote: Crikey, these 'particles' are not grains of something.... are they?

The fundamental ones are not, if only in the sense that there isn't an underlying structure or further substance they consist of. There is a discomfort some philosophers feel in understanding particles of this kind as "mere" collections of attributes. Intuitively, many would like to think that a property is something an object has, not something an object is. A case can be made against that intuition even in the macroscopic world (and I shall try and make that argument just in a moment), but at the level of fundamental particles the distinction becomes all the harder to justify, as many other classical intuitions we might have had before already needed to be given up and there seems to be no utility in keeping this one in particular.

Consider a question like "How much mechanical energy does Earth have?". What would an answer to a question like that look like? Well, we can try and sum up Earth's translational and rotational kinetic energy, and potential energy, and... already we run into problems:
How do we go about estimating rotational energy without looking at the stars for reference to even measure it's rate of spin? Can we objectively say that the Earth is in motion without comparing its position to the positions of other bodies? There is after all no aether that is static throughout all of space, else the experiment of Michaelson and Morley would have turned out differently.
What about the potential energy? Well that depends on the potential, but again, space itself does not provide any, absent masses to induce curvature. The earth might do that, but if it only gets to see its own gravitational well, then there is no external force acting upon it and thus no potential. Potential energy is then something that only makes sense as the energy of a system of interacting objects, like masses interacting gravitationally. So the Earth's gravitational potential energy is really the description of a relationship it has, say, with the sun, or the sun and other planets, or any number of objects we want to consider. Indeed, the entire system is in motion with respect to the nearby stars and the rest of the galaxy.
So every part of the question of Earth's energy turns out to be a question not so much about Earth itself as about the relations it has to other things. We ourselves can only know the Earth not by what it is, but by looking at it, touching it, in other words - interacting with it, and registering those interactions. Things of nature we thus know not by what they are - if they "are" anything at all - but only by what they do. So to say, for instance, that an electron "is" a lump of something that "has" properties like mass, charge, and spin really says more about it than we can actually meaningfully speak of. We only know it by its properties. To say that it "is" anything above and beyond a sheer bundle of those properties frankly raises more questions, like what this "something" it is allegedly a lump of is like, than it helps answer. Looking at it from another angle, if it were not for the way the electron interacts with other things, if it were not for the properties we can measure about it, we wouldn't know to speak of any such thing as an electron at all.

I hope I'm making some sense with this.


Incidentally, this was a philosophical take on matters of science, where I didn't need to misrepresent the facts, and that still left me with interesting ideas that might have implications for my Jedi path: I am free to relax my language a bit and to say that, in some sense, speaking of individual things in isolation is difficult. In the end every identity is nothing more or less than an intersection of all the relations between that point and others, and as we consider more and more relations, an ever wider spanning web connecting things, the closer we get to understanding the individual thing in full. Ultimately, I can argue for the importance of at least an emotional recognition of the connectedness and oneness of the entire visible universe, and I don't need to lie about science to do this.

My anti-bad-science is not anti-Jedi. It's just anti-bad-science. Bad science is not part of being Jedi, in my opinion. It is possible to justify a study of nature from a Jediist perspective, and it is possible to justify some Jediist sensibilities from philosophical ponderings of scientific matters. Committing to Jediism does not condemn one to bad science, and studying science does not lock one into a rigid and dry box of anti-spiritualism.

Better to leave questions unanswered than answers unquestioned
Last edit: 01 May 2020 09:50 by Gisteron.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • EnergyGem
  • EnergyGem's Avatar Topic Author
  • Guest
01 May 2020 13:13 - 01 May 2020 13:16 #351571 by EnergyGem
Replied by EnergyGem on topic Subatomic Worlds

No. Neutrinos are exactly as large as electrons and quarks: pointlike. They are lighter, not smaller. They are not however, the lightest of elementary particles. They are only the lightest matter particles, which is not something that Wikipedia quote makes any effort to emphasize, and not something you made any effort to look up until I pointed out that actually, there are even lighter elementary particles.


Yes, like I was saying. Our current science sees these particles as indivisible or point like but Great Enlightened Beings and Buddhas can see far deeper into the microcosm.

"As I said before, of the surface of matter that humans are able to understand, the largest particles are planets and Milky Ways, and the smallest particles include—that is, those that can be known through the use of instruments—molecules, atoms, nuclei, neutrons, electrons, quarks, and neutrinos.

What’s smaller down the line is unknown. But [what is known] is so very far away from human beings’ original matter and from the original matter that forms living beings. Even [what is known] is reduced in size by countless hundreds of millions of times, by countless and countless hundreds of millions of times, but it’s still not the ultimate end."


- from the 1996 Fa Lecture in Beijing: falundafa.org/eng/eng/lectures/19961111L.html


Science can't actually detect their size with their current understandings and yet has detected that their mass is lighter and from that inferred that they must be smaller then all other particles:

"Based on the model below, neutrinos (if that's the correct plural form) are smaller than even the smallest of quarks: the top quark." - www.quora.com/Which-one-is-smaller-a-neutrino-or-a-quark

"Neutrinos are the smallest massive particles that we have currently measured and catalogued." - www.quora.com/Is-there-any-particle-smal...e-of-a-neutrino-1-ym

"We believe that neutrino masses are at least a million times lighter than quarks." - www.science.ca/askascientist/viewquestion.php?qID=1283

I agree. And I invited you multiple times to use those as much as you please. I made very clear that you don't have to use science at all in attempts to support your woo. But if you do, you'll do well to present scientific findings accurately. If you happen to make a mistake, nothing wrong with that, someone can come in and correct it. You then have the choice of acknolwedging the mistake and attempting at salvaging your conclusion, or - as you are choosing to do instead - either shifting the goal post, pretending like you never made the mistake (like with what is the lightest elementary particle), or even doubling down on the false presentations from earlier (like your insistance that electrons orbit their nuclei, which we know they do not). You don't have to use any science at all for the wisdom you are trying to spread. You just don't get to lie about science unimpeded here.


Science is too limited to understand the full profundity of Buddha Law. It only understands a few phenomena from only this one dimension and yet the universe is multidimensional in nature as I have already mentioned. Everything changes when one breaks through into these other dimensions including time and space. Buddha Masters can penetrate into worlds so microcosmic it's unfathomable to contemporary science. If you read Zhuan Falun you will come to understand this.

You are shifting the goal post again. Your guru's initial claim was that electrons behaved around the nucleus "really no different" from how the Earth orbits the Sun. When I pointed out that actually they are completely incomparable systems, you quoted another guru who said that the electron was orbiting the nucleus very fast and that with the timescales we are stuck living with we cannot resolve it and therefore throw our hands up in the air and proclaim "uncertainty". Then I pointed out that no, they are not rotating too fast for us to see either and that we would know what it would look like if they did. I also pointed out that uncertainty is fundamental, and not a matter of measurement precision, and that this can be proven mathematically. So now you say that the electrons are still rotating around their nucleus, just not the real electrons in real space-time that we can really see and really predict to a precision matched by absolutely no other field of study in history, but woo-electrons spinning around woo-nuclei in woo-space-woo-time. Tell me again about emotional attachments to sacred ideas that people of science are too arrogant and tight-minded to let go of. Yes, sure, if you enrich your claim with so much magical handwavery, I can object to it no longer. And don't worry. You don't need to admit that your masters are wrong every time they open their mouth about matters of science. That you need to employ such dishonest tactics is admission enough for all to see.


You're still basing everything from our current scientific models and methods which crawls within but this one dimension. Buddha Law transcends modern science. I have repeatedly told you that Buddha Law is a multidimensional science. Great Enlightened Beings can look into the macrocosm and microcosm far deeper then any microscope or telescope invented by mankind. The mind is the greatest scientific instrument once it has been unlocked through inner cultivation methods. A molecule behaves exactly like a solar system. Perhaps, one day science,(once it has broadened it's understandings), will come to understand this:

"As I said before, of the surface of matter that humans are able to understand, the largest particles are planets and Milky Ways, and the smallest particles include—that is, those that can be known through the use of instruments—molecules, atoms, nuclei, neutrons, electrons, quarks, and neutrinos. What’s smaller down the line is unknown. But [what is known] is so very far away from human beings’ original matter and from the original matter that forms living beings. Even [what is known] is reduced in size by countless hundreds of millions of times, by countless and countless hundreds of millions of times, but it’s still not the ultimate end. So, that’s how microscopic matter can be. And yet, the more microscopic the matter is, the larger its volume is as a whole. You can’t view one single particle alone. That one particle is only one point of its whole volume, but it is one whole entity. So, the more microscopic the particle of matter is, probably the larger the surface of the whole entity is. When the particles that form the matter are large, the plane formed may not be proportionately large. Humanity only understands the dimension made up of molecules, and yet they are content with what they have achieved and are constrained by various definitions in empirical science, and are unable to break through them."

- 1996 Fa Lecture in Beijing: falundafa.org/eng/eng/lectures/19961111L.html

Irrelevant. As you see, the quote I was responding to said that the largest things that we see with human eyes are planets. That's false. In fact, most planets we actually can't see with human eyes, and most of the things on the night sky that we can see are many orders of magnitude larger than any planet we can see. We can't see many galaxies with the naked eye, but some we can. And no, "in regards to macroscopic particles", those stars many times larger than any planet we can see can be "considered a single particle in the macrocosm". And at the appropriate scales, so can galaxies. Quit trying to shift the goal post. The quote you posted did not specify these "regards" you point at, and it would be wrong even if it had.


Master Li Hongzhi meant that planets are the next larger layer of particles:

"Which layer of particles does mankind exist in? The largest things (meaning the next largest particles*) that we see with human eyes are planets, and the smallest things that we can see under the microscope are molecules." - *added for clarification

Of course planets aren't the largest. Let me rephrase it, or better still, a different excerpt (don't worry it's short) that explains what this means:

"We humans live between the layer of the largest particles made up of molecules, and planets that we see, which are a layer of particles."

If I took 'microscope' to mean 'light microscope', the statement would also be wrong. You can't see molecules through a light microscope. But there are microscopes that can show molecules. I've actually used one myself just a few months back. And there are microscopes that can show atoms, too. I haven't used one like that yet, though I know people I can ask if I needed an image like that. But yes, different microscopes can resolve different scales. In some sense particle accelerators can also be seen as microscopes, you know. In that case we can see far into the subatomic, too. This idea that the smallest thing any microscope can show us is a molecule is frankly false. But I was feeling generous so I let it depend on what we mean by a microscope.


My mistake, my knowledge of microscopes is limited. I stand corrected.

Irrelevant. The claim was that "However developed a computer is, it cannot match the human brain." to which I said that this depends on what "matching" means. Computers vastly outperform our brains in most tasks they are designed to do.


A brain can't be compared to a computer. It cannot imagine, dream, have inspiration, feel compassion, joy or wonder. They only outperform brains in terms of raw speed and processing power. A computer is just a very fast calculator. A brain created computers but I am yet to see a computer create something as intricate and mysterious as the human brain. Remember too that our brains are multidimensional (possibly 11 dimensions) in nature as that previous article stated:

"What they discovered is that the brain is full of multi-dimensional geometrical structures operating in as many as 11 dimensions." - www.sciencealert.com/science-discovers-h...-up-to-11-dimensions

No computer can do that.

Looks like a contradiction to me, sorry. We can't model something like it is a point and has structure. That's why atoms, at least in atomic and nuclear and particle physics, are not modeled as a point. Yet your master says that "modern scientists can only understand an atom as a point." This is both false and inconsistent with what else he says.


Master Li Hongzhi wasn't using the mathematical term for 'point'. That's where you got confused. He was just trying to convey this principle: When scientists study atomic particles they usually just study one particle at a time but atoms exist on a plane of particles which are actually different dimensions. This excerpt from Zhuan Falun should clarify it for you:

"But consider this: what if research were to go further than just studying particles like molecules, atoms, and protons, and to reveal for us the plane of each such level, and not just any isolated particle—if we could see the plane of the molecular level, the atomic level, the proton level, and the atomic nucleus level—we would see how things really are in other dimensions. Any physical thing, including our bodies, exists in parallel to, and in connection with, various planes of other dimensions in the universe. The research done in modern particle physics merely studies particles in isolation by splitting them through fission, after which it looks to see what matter results from the breaking of the nucleus. If instead there were an instrument that could reveal to us all that exists at the plane of atoms or molecules, and give the entire picture, it would represent a breakthrough to another dimension, and we would be seeing the reality of that world. People’s bodies correspond to other dimensions, which are like I just described." - from Zhuan Falun, Talk 2, The Inner Eye


Let's say it how it is, shall we. It doesn't "transcend" our limited knowledge, it "contradicts" it. And yes, this is a problem for them. Because our "limited knowledge", despite its limits, actually works. It tripled life expectancy, flooded (some of) our lives with luxury so much that "boredom" has become an actual problem some of us get to have sometimes, and allowed your masters so much time on their hands that they can sit in the comfort of their ergonomic armchairs and speak of the primitivity of the very same science that enabled them spewing that message around the globe. If anything fits the famous picture of a man sitting in a tree, chipping at the very branch that supports him, this would be it.


No, our science is very limited. Science has made notable achievements in various fields, no doubt about that, but if it wants to go beyond it's current knowledge and understandings it will need to broaden it's horizons and not be so defensive and hold so stubbornly to it's current current formulated axioms:

"Things are no different for the science of recent times. Some people set forth a definition of science, and so something is considered “science” only if it conforms to that definition. And when you stay within its boundaries, everyone thinks that is science. When you go beyond its definition, you discover that it has served to limit mankind’s advancement. Nothing that is intangible or invisible is allowed there, so the limitations it imposes are significant. The Buddhas, Daoist deities, and Gods we speak of exist in other dimensions that man cannot touch or see. Then if those beings were to be discovered using the methods of today’s science, wouldn’t that make them scientifically proven? It would! But the West has set forth a definition of science, and anything that modern science is unable to explain gets categorized as theology or religion, without exception. It dares not acknowledge such things.

Western science has gone to an extreme. The Buddhist school holds that everything goes through the stages of formation, stasis, and degeneration. Formation means taking shape, while stasis means remaining in a certain phase. The science from Europe, confined by the framework it established, now finds itself unable to advance further. Were it to keep probing downward, what might be discovered would be something beyond the boundaries of its science. So it categorically lumps these things together as religion or theology. But if someone discovers things that don’t exist in the present body of scientific knowledge, and does so by way of man’s modern science and technology, or discovers things that are intangible and invisible and studies them with the scientific method of our day, isn’t that scientific? The problem is that the definition of science has long been set in stone, and anything beyond its boundaries is categorically denied. No room is thus left for further progress.

And there are some scientists, figures who are considered “accomplished” in certain fields, who have set forth a great many axioms. These scientists, such as Newton and Einstein, were very accomplished by the standards of ordinary people and could perceive far more than the average person. And the axioms they set forth, as with their scientific legacy, stands as a wealth of valuable knowledge. But that said, any research that takes place or understanding that’s arrived at via working within the boundaries of their thought is bound to observe certain patterns. If those who come after them work completely within the theoretical frameworks of these scientists, posterity will never surpass them nor experience new breakthroughs.

When someone’s discovery or invention surpasses the confines of previously held axioms, it will be realized that the axioms set forth had been restricting people. That’s because there are higher forms of knowledge, and higher truths, to be found at higher levels. A good example is our knowledge of matter. It used to be that the smallest particle of matter known to man was the atomic nucleus. That’s no longer the case, however, for now there are quarks and then neutrinos. The point is that human beings have continually learned more about such things. But a new axiom itself will, upon the discovery of something else, serve as yet another restriction. Such is the case. The fact is that such axioms usually serve to limit people.

Einstein was no ordinary person. He found what religion, and even theology, taught to be true. Man’s understanding of the physical world is limited to the knowledge of human beings, much like the scientific axioms that have been set forth. Were people’s research to truly probe deeper, and their endeavors to progress further, they would find what religion has taught to be true. The lives that exist on a plane one level higher than man thus represent a science and technology one level higher, and their understanding of the world via the science and technology at their command surpasses that of ordinary human beings. That is why Einstein, upon having reached the pinnacle of human science and technology and then probing deeper in his work, found what religion taught to be fully real. In recent times many scientists and philosophers have ultimately turned to religion—and these are persons of quite some accomplishment. By contrast, those who are currently paralyzed by the limitations set forth by contemporary science and their blind faith in it categorically brand those things [beyond the reach of science] “pseudoscience.”


- From Zhuan Falun Volume 2, The Confines of Modern Science and the Breadth and Profundity of Buddha Fa: falundafa.org/eng/eng/html/zfl2/zfl2.htm#8

So just like I said, then. None of the component structure. It'd do you well to read your own sources, sometimes. All the less reason for me to read them, I guess, if you can't even be bothered to.


It has photoreceptors like an eye. It is also wired into the visual cortex of the brain, interesting huh?

Why would an eye inside the skull have photo receptors? Ofcourse science thinks it's an vestigial eye. That's not how cultivators see it. They know that the pineal gland is actually the 3rd eye:

falundafa.org/eng/eng/zfl_2018_2.html#1 - The Inner Eye, Talk 2 of Zhuan Falun

Nothing.


So Tesla's quote (who had considerable scientific achievements, considered a genius by people to this day) was garbage because you said so? Could it be possible that he came to understand that the way forward for science is to actually study the non-physical phenomena?

I think he did.

Yes, it is. There is therefore absolutely no reason to be misrepresenting it. You could just as well try and support your spirituality through any of those other avenues, but instead you elected to base it on misunderstandings (if I'm feeling that charitable) of science.
*shrug*


We can't really continue to debate until you read Zhuan Falun.

You are still trying to understand Buddha Law with the limited concepts of today's science. Buddha Law is a higher science. It uses modern science (when it can) to explain a few things within this dimension but it goes far and beyond our current scientific paradigm. It's multidimensional in nature.

If you open your mind to new possibilities you will see this to be so:

"Some of the things we’ll be discussing provoke strong reactions from people, who quickly dismiss them. They think that anything that isn’t known to science, that they haven’t personally experienced, or that seems impossible to them must be nonsense and divorced from reality. But is that the right way to look at the world?—to write off anything not known to science, even if it’s because of science’s limitations? It seems to me that this line of thinking puts a little too much faith in science, and is itself divorced from reality. If everyone had this mindset it would utterly stifle any scientific progress or innovation. And you would see few developments in the world, more broadly.

Every technological development represents a step beyond what was formerly known. If the world’s innovators had treated the unknown as “nonsense,” we wouldn’t be where we are today. Many people simply don’t understand practices like chi-gong or tai-chi, and think they are nonsense. But that’s not the case. Consider that scientific instruments have detected that the bodies of true masters of these practices emit everything from infrasonic waves to ultrasonic and electromagnetic waves, to infrared rays, ultraviolet rays, gamma rays, neutrons, atoms, and trace metal elements. All of these are very much real and physically exist. There is a physical basis to everything. And the same would certainly hold true for the other dimensions and realms that we discuss. So there are no grounds for writing them off as nonsense. Since these practices are meant to make us divine, any discussion of them is naturally going to touch upon a lot of deep things, and we won’t shy away from them."


- From Zhuan Falun, The First Talk
Last edit: 01 May 2020 13:16 by EnergyGem.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
01 May 2020 17:07 #351576 by Gisteron
Replied by Gisteron on topic Subatomic Worlds

EnergyGem wrote: Science can't actually detect their size with their current understandings...

Yes it can. We call those scattering experiments and they have been around for well over a hundred years. Just because you haven't done your homework doesn't mean everybody else is as clueless as yourself.


... and yet has detected that their mass is lighter and from that inferred that they must be smaller then all other particles:

"Based on the model below, neutrinos (if that's the correct plural form) are smaller than even the smallest of quarks: the top quark." - www.quora.com/Which-one-is-smaller-a-neutrino-or-a-quark

"Neutrinos are the smallest massive particles that we have currently measured and catalogued." - www.quora.com/Is-there-any-particle-smal...e-of-a-neutrino-1-ym

Okay, so, setting aside that quora is not a reliable source of scientific information, I'll take this opportunity to expose the selectiveness of your "research":

The first quote is from a chap called Benjamin Piearson. On the same date he published the post you are quoting from - November 13th last year - Mr. Piearson made another response on Quora about black holes, wherein he said that he was at the time not yet finished with high school. According to Mr. Piearson's Quora profile, he also made a comment on a question in January, which looked like he doesn't quite understand what "free" means in the context of particle physics. As for the substance of what the young man said, he is basing his assertion on a literal flash app to explore sizes of things, with annotations written in a language suited to curious middle schoolers and with no references to where the data displayed was obtained. Meanwhile on the same thread wherefrom you grabbed the quote there were other responses:
One response was form David Allen McCutcheon, a gentleman alleging to have studied physics for four decades, yet with no noteworthy credentials or achievements of other kinds to show for it. He took the question as an opportunity to preach his very own alternative theory of everything called "ultrawave theory", which he blurts references to in pretty much any comment section he comes to visit, but never in peer-reviewed articles. His own website features two "papers", one of which is an Excel spreadsheet, and the other one a collection of plots rendered from an Office-type program with zero references, and a 130 or so pages long book with rasterized diagrams and inconsistent typesetting.
Another lengthy response came from one Mr. Tom De Hoop, who describes himself as a "Developing Director", and is a promoter of another proprietary physics which he references exclusively through documents of his own writing that were apparently hosted at "quantumuniverse.eu", a site that appears to be down at the time of writing. Among the first things Mr. De Hoop alleges in his reply is that quarks are - or at least have to be understood as - spin-3/2-particles, when in fact quarks have a spin of 1/2. He soon makes more mistakes in his reply, stating that mesons are particles made of two quarks, when in fact they are comprised of a quark and an anti-quark, and that quark-anti-quark pairings are called gluons, when in fact gluons are elementary particles in their own right and are not comprised of quarks at all. It should be noted that as of the time of writing Mr. De Hoop's account has also been banned from Quora.
With that out of the way, we can get to the respectable responses, which are noticeably shorter than any of their alt-science peddling counterparts. The shortest of them all came from one Mr. Brent Meeker, a 1974 physical and computer science graduate from the University of Texas at Austin with an undisclosed degree, and describes himself as a physicist. In Mr. Meeker's opinion, "In the standard model, all the elementary particles are point particles (if they weren’t points, we wouldn’t consider them elementary)." which matches up exactly with what I said.
The next shortest reply was posted by one Zachary Killian, a college student who expects to earn a bachelor's degree in mathematics and philosophy at the University of Central Florida in 2022. The 18-year-old Mr. Killian alleges to have studied particle physics for nine years, which raises the question as to why he did not choose to pursue higher education in that area. With at best minimal self-alleged relevant expertise, Mr. Killian speculates that "Neutrinos all have less physical size (assuming they have it at all) than quarks." which supports your Enlightened perspective only under an unwarranted assumption contradicted by current research into this topic.
The final reply in that thread came from the adjunct Prof. Dr. Leonard "Pete" Carter, PhD of Dixie State University. Dr. Carter believes that "The only sensible way to compare subatomic particles in terms of size is by comparing their rest masses. (emphasis added)", which implies to me that in his opinion aside from mass, and maybe - to be generous - some characteristic effective interaction radius, there is no meaningful way to speak of a quark's or a neutrino's "size" at all. This is consistent with my acknowledging the comparisons of mass whilst emphasizing that a comparison of "size" interpreted as spatial extension is unproductive.

On the next thread you linked, the responses line up with my position even more than in the first:
David A. Smith seems to be an older gentleman who did not publish the history of his education but seems to have been close to engineering throughout much of his life. In his opinion, photons, electrons, individual quarks, and neutrinos all "have NO size at all". He goes on to say that "Particles don’t have a regular size, unless they are composite, have some sort of c-moderated binding."
Marreta Do Zoio's reply seems to be a tangent saying nothing about the neutrino the question was asked about, so that reply is of no interest to us here.
The reply you chose to quote from comes from one Mr. David Goodman, a "science & history enthusiast". He goes on in his reply to elaborate what exactly he means by size and it is an electroweak characteristic size, i.e. a typical radius at which electroweak interactions become dominant enough to measure. This is not the radius of a neutrino's "surface" by any means. Closer proximities to the particle's location are perfectly possible and consistent with that interpretation of the term "size".
The last reply in the linked thread is from the former Standford professor Dr. Jay Wacker, PhD, sporting a high energy physics (i.e. the sort relevant to this topic) degree from UC Berkeley, a career that had him do research at CERN, and an h-index of 41 with a five year h-index of 29. For reference, Michio Kaku's h-index is a mere 22, and Lawrence Krauss boasts a total h-index of 67 with a five year h-index of 32. While Dr. Wacker goes into more detail as to how one might interpret the term "size", at the outset this yet again highly qualified expert appears to be in full agreement with me, both on the size of the neutrino, and how it compares to the size of other particles. In his words "The neutrino is as far as we know an elementary particle. That means it has no size - a true point. This is true of all the other known elementary particles..."

So even on seemingly unreliable forums you have to pick people with minimal to non-existent credentials to support your point, and half of those you picked don't even technically disagree with me, while every qualified or moderately educated responder mirrors exactly what I said.


A brain created computers but I am yet to see a computer create something as intricate and mysterious as the human brain. Remember too that our brains are multidimensional (possibly 11 dimensions) in nature as that previous article stated:

"What they discovered is that the brain is full of multi-dimensional geometrical structures operating in as many as 11 dimensions." - www.sciencealert.com/science-discovers-h...-up-to-11-dimensions

No computer can do that.

Hmm very interesting. So again, I don't really take popular science press seriously as a source, but I do wonder, do you? Because if you did, I'd imagine you would have read that article further than the passage you quoted. Here, let me show you the context:

"What they discovered is that the brain is full of multi-dimensional geometrical structures operating in as many as 11 dimensions.

We're used to thinking of the world from a 3-D perspective, so this may sound a bit tricky, but the results of this study could be the next major step in understanding the fabric of the human brain - the most complex structure we know of.

This brain model was produced by a team of researchers from the Blue Brain Project, a Swiss research initiative devoted to building a supercomputer-powered reconstruction of the human brain."


Soo... You say that computers can't produce brains because brains are many-dimensional (the meaning of which I'm absolutely certain you do not understand anyway), and then in the same breath you cite a source that explicitly references an effort to reconstruct the human brain using computer technology... Speak of a self-goal!


When scientists study atomic particles they usually just study one particle at a time...

Well, I'm not here to debate what your master meant, I can only read what you quote him saying. But even granting this interpretation, that's just plain incorrect. Have you seen what particle data look like? There's like a blast of hundreds if not thousands of particles in every single recording, and damn straight those recordings are used to look into more than a single particle, because producing the things is really, really bloody expensive, so they try to get as much use out of each frame as they can. Someone who spent any time learning about it would know better than to say something this ludicrous, too! You'd do well to quit taking your science education from people who have none.


No, our science is very limited. Science has made notable achievements in various fields, no doubt about that, but if it wants to go beyond it's current knowledge and understandings it will need to broaden it's horizons and not be so defensive and hold so stubbornly to it's current current formulated axioms:

Maybe your science is very limited, seeing as you seem to be taking it unquestioningly from decade old writings from people who didn't bother to learn any science whatsoever before going on to preach about/against it, nor to actually converse with anyone who did, to see how stubborn or axiomatic any of them were... kind of like you do. Being rigid and unmoving in the face of facts that contradict pre-conceived ideas is what you do, not any of us.

Better to leave questions unanswered than answers unquestioned
The following user(s) said Thank You: Rex

Please Log in to join the conversation.

Moderators: RexZeroDiana W