Subatomic Worlds

...Good looking out...

Br. John wrote:

EnergyGem is all over the Internet promoting this. Google "EnergyGem" and see for yourself. I won't bore you but there are www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-ro...un-turning-law-wheel and 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)

Yes I am sharing this book on different forums because I believe it has deep truths and insights on the human body, life and the universe. When I find something truly good ( and believe you me there's a lot of stuff out there that's bunk) I have a habit of sharing it with as many people as I can. I love sharing good things with people and know that this book is something really great.

In terms of my initial post in this thread. Doesn't it sound like Jediism? Doesn't it sound like what George Lucas had envisioned if he continued on with the Star Wars movies?:

George Lucas said that he would have taken Star Wars in a new direction if he had continued with the franchise, namely:

"One small detail we know about the story of the later Lucas trilogy is that it would have focused on diving into the “microbiotic world,” where viewers would learn more about the Force and the way it works. Lucas planned to dig deeper into the science of midi-chlorians, the biological explanation for the Force that was first mentioned (and contended with by fans) in The Phantom Menace."

and:

“Back in the day, I used to say ultimately what this means is we were just cars, vehicles for the Whills to travel around,” Lucas tells Cameron. “We’re vessels for them. And the conduct is the midi-chlorians. The midi-chlorians are the ones that communicate with the Whills. The Whills, in a general sense, they are the Force.”


- https://www.polygon.com/2019/12/10/21005059/george-lucas-star-wars-sequel-trilogy-plot-characters


And just to let you now I love star wars. I actually wrote something about what a Falun Dafa practitioner saw via a supernatural ability known as retro cognition (which is explained in detail in Zhuan Falun) that I think you would love to read if you are a Star Wars fan.


Star Wars: Faint Memory Of A Highly Advanced Prehistoric Civilization?:

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?107024-Star-Wars-Faint-Memory-Of-A-Highly-Advanced-Prehistoric-Civilization

Gisteron wrote:

Still not the smallest, seeing as they are as point-sized as the rest.

So are you refuting what the co founder of the Neutrino and Noble Prize winner Fredrick Reines said about Neutrino's? : "The neutrino is the smallest bit of material reality ever conceived of by man."

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.

Yes like I have told you, our current instruments can only reach that level and see them as points. Great Enlightened beings can see far deeper into the microcosm. If you read Zhuan Falun you will understand that there are many paths to the Truth. Our current scientific paradigm is one path but Inner Cultivation schools can pierce deeper into the mysteries of the universe.

Oh... Well, if that's what you meant... then you're still wrong on all counts.

I meant to say they split particles in an accelerator and study the resulting matter in isolation. Constituent just means a component part of something so I was referring to the the nucleus of the atom which was mentioned in the excerpt below when I made the comment:

"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

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.

Science will make so much progress if it studies all phenomena, intangible and tangible and doesn't lump such things into 'pseudoscience'. They should work together and compliment each other to help each other understand more about life and the universe. After all, science is just the pursuit of what is True.

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

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.

His scientific-technological inventions are still under the umbrella of scientific work to progress science forward.

The way he came to his inventions was also highly peculiar:

"Nikola Tesla needed no model to test his inventions; they appeared before his eyes as functioning realities that he could stop and start as though they were really there."

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.

My point he was open minded like all the great scientists and inventors who have actually achieved great things. The mavericks are the scientists and inventors who dare think outside the box and aren't confined by currently established scientific axioms:

"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.”

- Zhuan Falun Volume 2 : https://falundafa.org/eng/eng/html/zfl2/zfl2.htm#8

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:

Yes, I still remember our conversation back then. On a side note did you ever manage find that screenshot I asked of you that said my link to Zhuan Falun was unsafe according to your ISP?

I believe you said: "My ISP returned a warning about the link being possibly not safe."

I did a quick Norton check which showed that the link was safe: https://safeweb.norton.com/report/show?url=http%3A%2F%2Ffalundafa.org%2Feng%2Feng%2Fpdf%2FZhuan-Falun-2018.pdf

But you never got back to me. Strange that.

But back to the topic of those experiments. I think your main point of contention was that those scientific experiments were not peer reviewed. Many of the greatest scientific discoveries in history were not peer reviewed either. Did you know that?:

I was incredibly surprised to learn that Nature published some papers without peer review up until 1973. In fact, many of the most influential texts in the history of science were never put through the peer review process, including Isaac Newton’s 1687 Principia Mathematica, Albert Einstein’s 1905 paper on relativity, and James Watson and Francis Crick’s 1953 Nature paper on the structure of DNA.

- http://joannenova.com.au/2014/05/newton-einstein-watson-and-crick-were-not-peer-reviewed/

EnergyGem wrote:

Gisteron wrote: Still not the smallest, seeing as they are as point-sized as the rest.

So are you refuting what the co founder of the Neutrino and Noble Prize winner Fredrick Reines said about Neutrino's?

Neutrinos are not an organization. They were found/discovered, not founded. There is no founder of the Neutrino. As for the quote, feel free to provide the source for it so we can read it in context. In isolation, and at face value, it's false.

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.

Yes like I have told you, our current instruments can only reach that level and see them as points.

That is what you told me, but that is wrong, and I have explained why. If you refuse to learn how and why Fourier analysis works, then there is nothing more I can do for you on this subject. If you are not open to learn, then I have nothing to teach you. The facts care neither about your ignorance nor your incredulity, and as long as you insist on retaining both, there is no room to continue this.

Our current scientific paradigm is one path [to the Truth]...

No, it is not. Not in your opinion, and not in mine.

Oh... Well, if that's what you meant... then you're still wrong on all counts.

I meant to say they split particles in an accelerator and study the resulting matter in isolation.

It's funny how you say something only someone with zero knowledge of the subject would say, then I point out what's wrong about it, and then you go "No, no, no, that's not what I meant. What I really meant was this.", and when that turns out wrong, you again go "Oh, no, you misunderstand. You see, what I really really meant was this."
Consider the study I linked. In it they were colliding electrons with protons at high enough energies to resolve quarks. Nothing about fission there. Electrons can't be split because they are elementary - which also entails that they are point-like, by the way, whether your magic-science agrees with it or not - and protons cannot be split because that would violate baryon number conservation.
Moreover, what results does not have to be matter. It can be anti-matter or elementary bosons as well.
Lastly, very often the particles resulting do interact or decay further and cannot always be studied in isolation.
It's funny because between any of your "clarifications" you don't actually bother looking anything up. You just make up whatever is different enough to possibly evade the objection but similar enough to where you can pretend that it was what you meant all along. You could look it up, you could try and learn about it. But you choose not to, and it is absolutely transparent because... well, you're still wrong about almost everything.

After all, science is just the pursuit of what is True.

Well, I disagree. I think what is true is a philosophical question and what is capital-T True - an ideological one. Science is, in my opinion, the pursuit of useful models that allow us to live better lives through dependable expectations of future occurrences.

[Tesla's] scientific-technological inventions are still under the umbrella of scientific work to progress science forward.

If you had a scientific publication of his, this would have been the time to refer to it. Instead you make an excuse as to why what you said before about his "remarkable" scientific achievements wasn't just uninformed speculation but really totally compatible with the complete void of scientific achievements that are actually under Tesla's belt, by lumping engineering together with science. In sports this is the sort of thing one might well call "cheating".

My point [Tesla] was open minded like all the great scientists and inventors who have actually achieved great things.

He would nevertheless think that you are wrong about the subatomic world(s), because his "open" mind was closed to that whole idea altogether.

Many of the greatest scientific discoveries in history were not peer reviewed either. Did you know that?:

I was incredibly surprised to learn that Nature published some papers without peer review up until 1973. In fact, many of the most influential texts in the history of science were never put through the peer review process, including Isaac Newton’s 1687 Principia Mathematica, Albert Einstein’s 1905 paper on relativity, and James Watson and Francis Crick’s 1953 Nature paper on the structure of DNA.

- http://joannenova.com.au/2014/05/newton-einstein-watson-and-crick-were-not-peer-reviewed/

Yes, and Lord of The Rings was not reviewed by historians either. I think if you had something with peer review behind it, though, you would present it. Instead you seek to undermine that peer review is any sort of important when settling scientific matters between non-experts. However, the quote is mistaken. Einstein's 1905 paper on special relativity, "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper" was reviewed - by Max Planck and Wilhelm Wien. So naturally seeing a lie like that I had to look at where it came from... Imagine my shock to be seeing it on a climate science denialist's blog...

SMH...The science? The Heart! The Mind? The Spirit!

I lovE yUs ALL!

The link https://en.falundafa.org/ has been shared. We could use a quantum theory of gravity. I'd like to know if If quarks are made of preons

The Standard Model postulates no substructure to quarks, and - as seen in the reference from earlier - the experiments appear to strongly indicate that it is correct in doing so. There are open questions about it that are more or less pressing depending on how much symmetry and prettiness we insist nature has to have, and preon models can in principle satisfy some of those desires. However, experimental confirmation is lacking so far. Particularly the confirmation of novel predictions, like Higgs' prediction of the particle named after him (which some preon models either do not predict or deny outright), is stronger for the SM than for any competing models. From what I find, theoretical research into preon models seems also to be very thin these days. The most recent article Wikipedia references is already a decade old, which is very old considering the subject matter, and even at that published in a very low impact journal.
So for now it seems preon models have a steep hill to climb if they are to ever be accepted among qualified specialists on aesthetic or theoretical grounds. Unless (or perhaps until, if we want to be so optimistic) evidence favouring them surfaces I don't believe they stand much of a chance.

Neutrinos are not an organization. They were found/discovered, not founded. There is no founder of the Neutrino. As for the quote, feel free to provide the source for it so we can read it in context. In isolation, and at face value, it's false.

Haha yes, detected would have been a better word to use. But the statement stands on it's own, what context do you need?:

Frederick Reines, the physicist who co-discovered neutrinos in 1956, described them as “the most tiny quantity of reality ever imagined by a human being.”Jul 12, 2018

- https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/07/neutrino-discovery-blazar-icecube/564998/

That is what you told me, but that is wrong, and I have explained why. If you refuse to learn how and why Fourier analysis works, then there is nothing more I can do for you on this subject. If you are not open to learn, then I have nothing to teach you. The facts care neither about your ignorance nor your incredulity, and as long as you insist on retaining both, there is no room to continue this.

Until you read Zhuan Falun we can't make progress in our discussion. I am saying that Buddha Law Cultivators and Enlightened Beings can detect things that our current scientific instruments cannot. This is all explained in depth in the book. If you are an open minded and receptive to new ideas and possibilities you might want to give it a read.

Consider the study I linked. In it they were colliding electrons with protons at high enough energies to resolve quarks. Nothing about fission there.

Yes I know, when I made that statement I was referring to my own quote, not the study you provided. Particle accelerators also break apart atomic nuclei and that's what I was referring to:

"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

Science is, in my opinion, the pursuit of useful models that allow us to live better lives through dependable expectations of future occurrences.

Useful models (useful as the may be) might be superseded by better models and deeper insights into the mysteries of the universe. That's how science moves forward:

"Today man is merely able to view things in light of current knowledge, with the most noticeable result being that the many rules and axioms defined by the multitude of scientists practically stifle people. Darwin said that man evolved from the ape, and people everywhere believe man did evolve from the ape. Consequently, they have gone about deriving this and that from the theory. Right now, science has discovered certain things that reach far beyond the history of modern civilization, yet people dare not acknowledge such things and instead regard them as impossible, and keep advancing things haphazardly and speaking nonsense.

One day there will emerge a science of the human body. The physics, chemistry, and other scientific disciplines of the future might well be developed on a different basis, one not necessarily altogether that of the West. The axioms set forth by today’s empirical science are quite narrow, and acknowledge only that which is visible and tangible; anything indiscernible to the eye or touch is not acknowledged. Its scientific axioms are not scientific whatsoever, and have completely boxed man in. When a person discovers via scientific means things normally invisible and intangible, is that not science? Should it not be considered science?"

- from Zhuan Falun, Volume 2 : https://falundafa.org/eng/eng/html/zfl2/zfl2.htm

If you had a scientific publication of his, this would have been the time to refer to it. Instead you make an excuse as to why what you said before about his "remarkable" scientific achievements wasn't just uninformed speculation but really totally compatible with the complete void of scientific achievements that are actually under Tesla's belt, by lumping engineering together with science. In sports this is the sort of thing one might well call "cheating".

You're correct here. I do believe his inventions did allow science to progress quicker, the alternating current electricity supply system in particular helped further scientific discoveries.

He would nevertheless think that you are wrong about the subatomic world(s), because his "open" mind was closed to that whole idea altogether.

He was opened minded in some respects, and close minded in others. The point is that many great thinkers are like this. Einstein was a great scientist but he couldn't accept the discovery in quantum physics of non local interaction of objects and called it “spooky action at a distance." My point is that science will progress if scientists don't automatically reject findings because they don't conform to their models of reality.

Instead you seek to undermine that peer review is any sort of important when settling scientific matters between non-experts.

No, I don't wish to undermine anything. I'm just pointing out that something doesn't have to be peer reviewed to be a great scientific discovery.

Peer review was different in Einsteins day, scientists were far more open minded to new theories and the acceptance rate was close to 100% :

The first part of Einstein’s career was in the German-speaking world. The German physics journals, in which Einstein published his breakthrough work, didn’t have the same peer-review system we use today. For instance, the Annalen der Physik, in which Einstein published his four famous papers in 1905, did not subject those papers to the same review process. The journal had a remarkably high acceptance rate (of about 90-95%). - https://theconversation.com/hate-the-peer-review-process-einstein-did-too-27405

I don't wish to win some debate with you or win some contest. You sound like a highly intelligent chap with a firm grasp on today's scientific understandings, more so then myself. All I am saying is that there are spiritual cultivation practices that took a different path in understanding life, matter and the universe to the Western Scientific path.

Br. John wrote:

The link en.falundafa.org/ has been shared. We could use a quantum theory of gravity. I'd like to know if If quarks are made of preons

Master Li Hongzhi spoke about the Gravity in two of his Buddha Law Lectures. According to his view its completely different to what current science understands. Here are the excerpts in question:

Excerpt 1:

“You know, the theory of gravity science believes in nowadays is totally wrong. What's brought about this gravity phenomenon that people have described? It happens because all lives and all matter, including air and water, that are on Earth and within the Three Realms--all things that exist in the Three Realms--are composed of particles of all the different levels in the Three Realms, and different particles of different levels are interconnected. This interconnection can, when there's a pulling force, extend or move within the Three Realms. In other words, when you pull it, it can extend like a rubber band, and when you release it, it will go back. That is, there's a basic, stable form of existence among particles. This is why any object in this Earth's environment will come back to the ground after you move it.

Of course, I'm not talking about moving a piece of rock to some different location, in which case it wouldn't return to where it was. That's not the idea. The surface of Earth is the boundary of one level. Within this level things can move horizontally since they are all at the same level. But when something moves towards a level beyond its level, it will be pulled back, because the things on Earth are in the realm where particles at this level exist. Think about it, everyone: the greater cosmic body is extremely vast. Human beings and the Earth are tiny even when they're viewed from a high place within the Three Realms. A human seems to have travelled from New York City to Canada, when in fact, in their eyes it seems that you haven't moved, because the scope of your movement is really small. So when rockets and spaceships take off into the sky, they try to break away from this environment--which is composed of these different-level particles--that makes up the Earth.

So human beings use rockets to increase the thrusting force and to move it with great power. As you know, in the Three Realms there exists an atmospheric layer. It looks like an atmosphere, when in fact inside it is an environment composed of countless microcosmic beings whose role is to provide stability so that human beings can exist here. Once something breaks out of this atmosphere, the interconnections among many molecules are broken by the pulling of the strong force. This causes a situation, then: only particles at the periphery are still connected to it, and the pulling force isn't so strong anymore.

In other words, although it's no longer in Earth's environment, it is still connected to the realms of other particles in the Three Realms. Only this way can it be stable there. This is the reason why a satellite can stay there. Of course, the same interconnection exists in objects of the same weight but of different volumes. An object that has a small volume but a high density has the same amount of interconnection as an object that has a large volume, so it feels like they weigh the same. There are many other aspects of this if I'm to go into detail. What I was trying to tell you just now is that "gravity" doesn't exist. The real cause is that for the particles in this environment to exist here, they have to be interconnected."

- from Teaching the Fa at the 2001 Canada Fa Conference : http://en.minghui.org/html/articles/2001/5/22/10271.html

Excerpt 2:

"I also want to tell you something. I didn’t want to mention it before because human notions are so childish that they’re absurd in the eyes of high-level beings and gods. When you reach high levels you will discover that every theory this science has established for people is rather ridiculous. Science now believes that people who live on the earth are able to stand on the earth without falling into the air or falling away because of Earth’s gravitational force. Actually, we’ve found that things don’t work as the theory of “universal gravitation” states.

In this universe, surrounding Earth, there is an enormous, extremely microscopic material environment composed of material lives, layer after layer, which make up this environment in which humans can live. Also, the microscopic water of different levels that your eyes can’t see creates the numerous factors that enable the existence of plants, animals, and matter, and that enable humankind to have vitality here and to be able to live.There’s a type of matter that enables people to stand on the ground vertically and that prevents them from leaning laterally; and there’s a type of matter that acts as pressure and that presses down on people and objects to prevent them from floating up.

There’s another type of matter that ensures the overall stability of the human brain and other organs. If your brain and various organs weren’t stable, when you stood normally you’d feel as if you were lying down; or no matter how straight you stood there, you would feel as if you could never stand straight. This is in no way gravity generated by Earth’s rotation. Sand on a plate will fly off if you spin it. So that’s by no means how things are. But if a person transcends the living environment of Earth, when he reaches beyond this environment, he will have exited the boundary of the environment that’s maintained for humans by the high-level beings, and this person will have broken away from this state.

The present science has named this “zero gravity” or the “state of weightlessness.” You know that although an object as large as the moon has “zero gravity,” it is still driven by Earth even though it’s so far away. How could a human who hasn’t gone as far as the moon have “zero gravity”? Humans have their living environment. Every planet is in place, and they are placed there by the enormous lives in the universe. It’s just like the steel, iron, and gold we have today, whose patterns of molecule and atom arrangements on the inside don’t change. I say that there are no “natural phenomena.” Though all that science can’t explain is categorized as “natural,” it has nonetheless been successful in deceiving people. That term has somehow deceived everyone.”

- from Teaching the Fa at the Conference in Europe : https://falundafa.org/eng/eng/lectures/19980530L.html


Some scientists have also been looking at Gravity in a different manner:

"Many people have heard the story of when Newton sat under an apple tree to think, and suddenly an apple fell on his head and he conceived the theory of gravity. But after a long time, physicists knew gravity was a very strange physical law. Compared to other basic interaction forces, gravity was very difficult to deal with. Now the reasons for this peculiarity may have been explained: gravity is not a fundamental interaction force, but instead may be the derivative of another more fundamental power."

from: A Physicist Proposes a New Theory of Gravity—Gravity Does Not Exist - http://www.pureinsight.org/node/6004

Zero Gravity? Comparing the effects of spinning a dinner plate with the spinning of a planet? I can't wait to see what Gisteron posts