Subatomic Worlds

Any unsatisfactory behaviour is unwelcome and disciplinary action will be taken to address the situation. The rules listed below should cover the most obvious actions but unruly behaviour, whether it be threatening, carrying out some form of online attack or behaviour deemed grossly innapropriate, is a breach of the moral conduct we expect of all people here. We are a Church and you should treat us as such.

Disciplinary action is not something we like enforcing but if necessary we will implement it. This can range from a temporary or permanent account suspension, IP banning and, in the utmost extreme cases where the safety of our site or members is at serious risk, legal action.

When interacting with others always bear in mind RESPECT:

R - take Responsibility for what you say and feel without blaming others
E - use Empathetic listening
S - be Sensitive to differences in communication styles
P - Ponder what you read and feel before you speak
E - Examine your own assumptions and perceptions
C - be Civil in your interactions with others
T - Trust ambiguity, because it can be difficult to communicate meaning


This is just a copy and paste - it’s not intended for threat but reminder. That’s all.

I’m not a fan of telling others they are ...clueless or limited but that may only be in conversation or in the context. Any how -Pastor Carlos here - were a church. All are welcome. All sides all cases all - inherently welcome.
Some have limited science some have limited grammar ... some are here.

Levels

We are all at different levels - don’t forget that.

Carlos.Martinez3 wrote: Any unsatisfactory behaviour is unwelcome and disciplinary action will be taken to address the situation.

... it’s not intended for threat but reminder. That’s all.

Is that so? Sure sounds like a threat to me. Not an explicit one, of course, more like the sort of "would be a shame if something bad happened" kind of veiled threat.

Well, come on then. Bring it on. I can take it. Won't be "losing" much, if this is the tone of voice those who "win" are stuck submitting to.

Is the goal to "win"?
If so, one is likely to encounter defenses and raised hackles.
It's as I said yesterday, we may be right, but what we have to say may not be received because the frame of mind is off.

The best way to teach, especially when dealing with ideas that do not conform to logic had to ask questions

To be fair, if I asserted that say gravity is caused reverberations of the soul dimension by Quetzalcoatl, which science has proved because someone on Yahoo answers said so, is it really unreasonable to break down my claim and point out the many flaws addressed?
There hasn't been any breaches of ToS and this convo is pretty tamely sticking to the substantive issues. No one's been compared to Nazis or called a "poopoo head"
Are there any specific examples of something being significantly incorrectly handled in this thread on which you'd like to give feedback?

The only thing I am suggesting, especially if we are to persuade anyone over to a different point of view is that we use a different method. One that is more question based. You might have a better outcome.

But then if the goal is to "win" this debate, I suppose the method works

I cannot/do not speak for Carlos

Gisteron wrote:

Carlos.Martinez3 wrote: Any unsatisfactory behaviour is unwelcome and disciplinary action will be taken to address the situation.

... it’s not intended for threat but reminder. That’s all.

Is that so? Sure sounds like a threat to me. Not an explicit one, of course, more like the sort of "would be a shame if something bad happened" kind of veiled threat.

Well, come on then. Bring it on. I can take it. Won't be "losing" much, if this is the tone of voice those who "win" are stuck submitting to.

“This is just a copy and paste - it’s not intended for threat but reminder. That’s all.”

No need to get upset I promise.

Every post you’ve given so far - I’ve learned something. I appreciate you - trust me I do.


Just think of me as the guy who pops out every now and then and post reminders....



Sorry to de rail .

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"

F. Reines quote on neutrinos: "...the most tiny quantity of reality ever imagined by a human being". - Frederick Reines was an American physicist. He was awarded the 1995 Nobel Prize in Physics for his co-detection of the neutrino with Clyde Cowan in the neutrino experiment.


But let's quickly review something: "The mass of the neutrino is much smaller than that of the other known elementary particles." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino

Checking the source we find: Mertens, Susanne (2016). "Direct neutrino mass experiments". Journal of Physics: Conference Series.

A little more information on Professor Mertens: https://www.ph.tum.de/research/groups/group/TUPHEDM/?language=en

"With a mass at least six orders of magnitudes smaller than the mass of an electron
– but non-zero – neutrinos are a clear misfit in the Standard Model of Particle Physics." - Direct Neutrino Mass Experiments: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/718/2/022013/pdf

"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..."

They haven't reached that level with science yet, meaning they can't detect it's size with our current scientific instruments but know that it's mass is smaller then the mass of an electron. However Buddha Masters see far deeper into the microcosm and can tangibly see far beyond these elementary particles. To reiterate:

"Contemporary physics is engaged in research on the composition of matter, and it has progressed from molecules to atoms, electrons, protons, and quarks, reaching all the way to neutrinos. At these levels microscopy doesn’t have the power to see what exists or know what sizes of particles lie yet further below; researchers don’t know what exists at even more micro of planes. Physics today is still nowhere near reaching the tiniest particles of the universe. Nevertheless, the invisible, miniature realms of those particles might be perceptible to someone who has gone beyond normal physical form, for he would see, with magnified vision, subatomic worlds that are still greater, in keeping with his level of spiritual attainment."

- from Zhaun Falun, Talk 8, The Cosmic Orbit

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

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!

Trying to model the brain in a computer doesn't make it a real brain. The researchers just discovered that the brain is far more complex then they ever previously imagined, multidimensional.

Can that model inside the computer program imagine things, does it have inspiration, emotions or dreams? Does that model of a human brain think and contain the elements that constitute consciousness?

"Current science has no explanation for subjective experience. There isn’t even an adequate definition of consciousness."

- Dr Brian Lieff http://jonlieffmd.com/blog/subjective-experience-brain

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.

What I meant was that they take individual particles and smash them in a particle accelerator and then study the constituent particles. I guess you didn't read the excerpt below what I wrote from Zhuan Falun that clarified that point:

"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

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.

I'm not against science. I think it has made many commendable achievements. I just wish science was a little open minded and not discount things outright. Why did Telsa say that studying non-physical phenomena is the way forward for science? This was a genius who had remarkable scientific accomplishments and yet was willing to push the boundaries of scientific discovery, he wasn't constrained by currently formulated scientific axioms.

"So what does it mean to surpass the five elements of this material world? The physics of ancient China, much as with physics today, believed that the theory of five elements was valid. And it is indeed the case that the five elements of metal, wood, water, fire, and earth give rise to all of creation, so we subscribe to the theory. For someone to surpass the five elements means, in contemporary terms, to transcend the physical world that we know. I realize it might sound a bit hard to believe.

But bear in mind that true spiritual teachers carry a higher energy, known as gong. I have undergone testing to assess my energy, as have many teachers of chi-gong. There are many instruments now that can detect the material elements of higher energy, which these teachers emit; all it takes is the right instruments. Instruments can now detect radiation including infrared, ultraviolet, ultrasound, infrasound, electricity, magnetism, and gamma rays, as well as atoms and neutrons.

True chi-gong teachers emit all of these, and more—only they are things that instruments can’t yet detect. So all it takes is the right instruments, and it’s now established that these teachers emit many types of matter. True spiritual teachers exude a powerful and beautiful aura, which can be seen with the right kind of electromagnetic field. The stronger someone’s energy is, the larger the aura that he emanates. Ordinary people have auras as well, only they’re really quite small. From research in high-energy physics we know that energy is in fact things like neutrons or atoms.

Many chi-gong teachers have had their energy assessed, and that’s the case for most of those who are renowned. I too have been assessed, and it was found that the amount of gamma rays and thermal neutrons I released was eighty to one hundred and seventy times greater than what matter normally emits. And that was only what the equipment could measure, as the indicator had reached its limit. The researchers found it hard to believe—neutrons that powerful. It shouldn’t be humanly possible. So we can say that it has been scientifically affirmed that masters of energy practices do have higher energy."

- From Zhuan Falun, The Second Talk, Surpassing This Material and Mortal Realm

A few scientific tests have been performed on Falun Dafa practitioners with interesting results:

http://www.pureinsight.org/node/189

http://www.pureinsight.org/node/2573

EnergyGem wrote: But let's quickly review something: "The mass of the neutrino is much smaller than that of the other known elementary particles." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino

Checking the source we find: Mertens, Susanne (2016). "Direct neutrino mass experiments". Journal of Physics: Conference Series.

A little more information on Professor Mertens: https://www.ph.tum.de/research/groups/group/TUPHEDM/?language=en

"With a mass at least six orders of magnitudes smaller than the mass of an electron
– but non-zero – neutrinos are a clear misfit in the Standard Model of Particle Physics." - Direct Neutrino Mass Experiments: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/718/2/022013/pdf

Yes. Still not the lightest elementary particles, seeing as there are massless ones. Still not the smallest, seeing as they are as point-sized as the rest.

"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..."

They haven't reached that level with science yet, meaning they can't detect it's size with our current scientific instruments...

Yes, they have. Yes, they can. We know exactly how a point-sized particle would show up on our instruments. And that is exactly what we see, for the electron even more clearly than for the much lighter neutrino. What do we see? Well, we see that the form function |F(Q²)| is almost (i.e. barring higher order effects at the fringes of reasonably testable parameter space regions) independent of the squared momentum transfer Q². Because the form function is the Fourier transform of the density, this means that the particles involved in the "collisions" - quarks and electrons, in this case - each are point-shaped, as a constant distribution in momentum space corresponds to a point-like distribution in location space.
As I said, you having no clue how these things are known does in no way affect that they are. No ruler is fine enough to measure some 10^-22m of distance, but there are more sensitive ways to deduce such things than from sticking a literal ruler against subatomic particles, and you being completely oblivious to them does not make them go away.

Here is the reference:
https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3710-4

The results relevant to our discussion are plotted in Figures 75, 76, and 79 through 82.

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.

What I meant was that they take individual particles and smash them in a particle accelerator and then study the constituent particles.

Oh... Well, if that's what you meant... then you're still wrong on all counts. They do not smash individual particles together in an accelerator, but entire beams of them. That's just a technical reality about how these experiments are set up, I have nothing more to say about this. And what they come to see is far, far more than the "constituent particles" as well. First of all, electrons, for instance, do not have constituent particles, neither do quarks, or neutrinos, or any other elementary particles. Secondly, what comes out is not always a constituent part of what comes in either. A neutron is made of two down-quarks and one up-quark, yet when it decays, it decays into a proton, made of two up-quarks and one down-quark, an electron, and an anti-electron-neutrino. You might argue that one up- and one down-quark were constituents of the neutron, but the other up-quark is not a constituent part of the down-quark from before, and the electron and its anti-neutrino were no part of anything from before at all. And this is just the simplest example of a spontaneous decay event involving only matter particles... Except I guess the anti-neutrino, which is an antimatter particle. The sort of deep inelastic scattering you'll find in a particle accelerator, as I said, produces a myriad of different and exotic particles and anti-particles that are by no means just broken off chunks of the particles that went in.

I'm not against science. I think it has made many commendable achievements. I just wish science was a little open minded and not discount things outright.

Yes you are against science. Not because it is closed-minded, but because it doesn't support your religious perspective in particular. You are the one who knows in your heart that your wisdom is of the kind that can't be wrong, so you discount anything that contradicts you outright. Science doesn't discount things outright, it discounts things after rigorous testing. Science doesn't have a problem with open-mindedness. You do.

Why did Telsa say that studying non-physical phenomena is the way forward for science?

If he did. And if indeed he did, I don't know. I'm sure he would have had his reasons. Maybe if you provided the source of that quote we could see the context and perhaps understand more what he meant or why he said it.

This was a genius who had remarkable scientific accomplishments and yet was willing to push the boundaries of scientific discovery, he wasn't constrained by currently formulated scientific axioms.

He left higher education without any degrees and proceeded to patent technologies. His accomplishments are comprised entirely of inventions. I gave him credit for being an important figure in the history of electrical engineering. I'm not aware of any of his scientific work, but I'll stand corrected if you can link me a paper of his.


It should be noted, incidentally, that the same Nikola Tesla whose praises you seem to be singing also didn't believe that there was any sort of subatomic particles, and admitted for only very remote possibilities of electrons that he wouldn't accept to have anything to do with electricity. He also rejected general relativity for no better reason than personal incredulity (tell me more about open-mindedness, I guess), and held that if there be any kind of soul, then it be nothing more than a sum of bodily functions.

As I said, being smart doesn't protect one from believing stupid things.

A few scientific tests have been performed on Falun Dafa practitioners with interesting results:

http://www.pureinsight.org/node/189

You know... I'll just direct you to what I said about this article when you linked it last year, since I have nothing new to say about it now that I didn't then:
https://www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/meditation/122389-zhuan-falun-turning-the-law-wheel#336975

I think assessing somethings level of analysis is useful to sort out if its meant to be a metaphor. I always guessed/hoped it was why the Vatican had a scientific research interest :silly:

The more it conflicts with other data the more I give the author the benefit of the doubt to that end, until they explicitly state otherwise. To a point

EnergyGem is all over the Internet promoting this. Google "EnergyGem" and see for yourself. I won't bore you but there are https://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/zhuan-falun-turning-law-wheel and https://www.actualized.org/forum/profile/10266-energygem/ and it goes on and on. Since this is the only subject and only topic EnergyGem has posted about here, I believe it's safe to assume they have no interest in Jediism but are here only to validate and promote their own agenda.

I'm not going to lock this thread (at least not yet)