The fire department had to put out a fire in my garage before. I just realized that the fire started because I kept to looking at my fire alarms every day. So, I threw them out. Thanks for making "the secret" you guys;I have a good feeling about this.
@meloveanna quantum entanglement is not BS, although no one understand how or why it happens. These people are giving theories of how, and consequences of this new found phenomena. It has been proven, tested and observed that when two electrons are entangled, then separated, you can separate the two electrons by an infinite amount of space, and a state change in one instantly effects the other. distance is not a factor.
Quantum Entanglement = LoVE, for love transcend time, space and matter. Love will always find a way to reach its partner ..... and then they get on the bed and take their clothes off and urghhhhhh, disgusting.
This is an invitation to see an artist theory on the physics of light and time!
This theory is based on two postulates
1. Is that the quantum wave particle function Ψ represents the forward passage of time ∆E ∆t ≥ h/2π itself
2. Is that Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle ∆×∆p×≥h/4π that is formed by the w- function is the same uncertainty we have with any future event that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual!
To all viewers: don't take in literally every sentence in this video clip that I have uploaded 3 yrs ago. I realize there are some statements that have been taken out of their original context. Don't jump to conclusions like "Children in Africa are in poverty because they have victim mentality" or try to approach the expressed views in the frame of conventional (dogmatic) science. I do hold that the principles in these views (mentality, intention, etc.) are just as real events as reality we know
An actual STARGATE/PORTAL-THING was captured on film. The footage can be found within the short-film entitled "SUDDEN PORTHOLE", which is currently parked at the PROJECT CAMELOT YouTube page (it's under the George Noory video).
I'm not selling anything...I'm just trying to spread the word about the unseen-dimensions we find ourselves embedded in.
My BLOG contains the peripheral data regarding the movie and is where I reply to the "debunkers" (use search words "Sam Zurick" & "BLOG"). THANKS!!
This film is nothing but moonbats. If you actually did some research on quantum entanglement you would know it's bullshit. Yes, they were right that everything we have observed around us is an illusion, because our eyes can only sense light. It's possible for animals that can detect other forms of electromagnetic radiation such as radio waves to navigate. However, quantum entanglement simply explains wave functions and spin states.
Let’s talk basics in order to give us a platform from which we can extend ideas about how we relate to things:
For all matter we have described as being in a solid state, there is a melting point, and for matter in a liquid state, there is a boiling point. Although the point of state transformation may vary, what does not vary is the range in which matter may stabilize, which is solid, liquid, and gas.
What we then have is: if something equals the definition of matter then it will always come with the range in which matter interacts, stabilizes, and operates.
I suggest we view ourselves in the same way, so that all things made-up of the same materials as us or that share the same materials as us are our range. For us, our solid, liquid, and gas states would ultimately include all reality about us.
In basic, this means that if we are the product of a nature that is shared or present for the whole universe, such as the constant of Hydrogen and Nitrogen found throughout the universe, then the whole universe is within our range.
So yeah the question definitely remains: How do we as humans (particular matter) extend to greater positions in that range?
Many have known: we do so by getting together. We have to come together.
Would this mean that consciousness in the human mind can exist in two places exactly at the same time. I see it as an extension of human consciousness rather than a so called "sixth sense"".
I don't see why not, and it is likely that we can have a consciousness that exists in numerous places, although our current brain operation seems to order things in terms of a distinctive "present" state, which seems to support the distinction of "individualism".
Let's say we define a space as some kind of location that we can distinguish by 2 states, so that both states describe a unique amount of interaction while at the same time both states are still just that 1 location.
Conventionally we represent each state of the location by a measurement of time, so that although possibly completely unique for each state's duration, some position about it is completely identical.
The investigation focuses on the idea that the location never changes regardless of the distinction, such as any amount or intervals divided from it, nor does any range or conservation of energy from interaction change the location although any amount of interaction can be represented as a unique state of the location.
Furthermore, if the location can be said to change, then we may think of its position as a constant frequency and its location varies in or by magnitude.
@GaunletofDestruction I am an amateur, physics theory enthusiast, for the reason that I am trying to explain my own experiences with "reality" .. and some of them are pretty unreal. My theory for all of those "mind-matter interactions" is a bit complex .. It begins from the very fact, that if the Universe began from quantum singularity, it is still "in there". And this situation explains the "quantum entanglement effects" and since everything is frequencies .. they interact .. Reality is
@prozrachno I think it would be realistic to assume that the human mind is able to interact with the Quantum Singularity. where the body and the physical universe represents the Classical Mechanical Universe and the mind is only able to intereact with the Quantum Mechanical realm only in little increments.
All real scientists who saw and realized that this didn't tell you anything on quantum entanglement but also degraded the subject to some mystical bull... Sure could use some thumbs....
@aqouby As far as I am aware, no one really understands quantum entanglement. Beyond the complex mathematics in theory, it can hardly be explained in practice. The problem with mathematical conclusions is that people tend to mistake them with reality, which is one of the greatest examples of the intrinsic human subjectivity. Einstein described this phenomena as "spooky effects at a distance"
@prozrachno What? I'm sorry but you aren't making much sense... OK, people who study quantum mechanics understand what they're studying. All the mathematics that is involved with particle physics has a direct correlation to the way we understand reality. We don't understand quantum mechanics in the way that when dealing with particles of such little mass, it's fundamental that we cannot know the classical mechanics of the macroscopic. This is why we can't understand it. But math doesn't lie.
@prozrachno sorry, "cannot know the classical mechanics mechanics of the macroscopic"<< I meant, we cannot know the mechanics of the particle in the classical sense any longer.
@prozrachno You are wrong. Scientists do understand quantum entanglemente very well. They use it in the developing of new technologies (teleportation, quantum Cryptography, etc) and on the everyday life of many laboratories across the world! Einstein described it as "spooky" because he thought this violated the postulate of Relativity, which we now know is not true. It is still not possible to convey information faster than the speed of light. This video is pure bull crap! Believe me.
The double slit experiments prove that our consciousness is linked, in some manner, to the physical world. Why is it such a big leap to believe that we have an influence on random number generators?
We keep looking "beyond" for some ultimate answer or perspective that will put all the pieces in their right place. We keep looking beyond a limit, beyond infinity, beyond the beginning, etc, beyond ourselves, beyond the stars, beyond the furthest distance we can see, beyond the beyond, etc.
My friends, we fell victim to a classic: "the grass is always greener on the other side".
Just a quick reminder when it comes to examples that can take some of the concepts of this video out of proportion:
For anyone thinking they can just snap their fingers or impose their will with a single moment's thought and have instant desired result, we need to remember that an entire planet is snapping their fingers and imposing their thoughts, not just you or me.
An entire planet is wishing for this and that, or operating for such and such, etc.
So, using conventional observed scientific observation and description, usually what we get when billions of desires and intentions interact is an average, so to speak, or an equilibrium of dynamic interaction, coinciding with the conventional observed influence we describe for us and our reality. In basic terms, what we get is a cancelling-out or balancing of any one particular desire or intent.
This average does not disprove the mechanic/nature!
What it means is what many great minds have known since the beginning of human kind, which is:
Strength In Numbers!
In cooperation, unison, harmony, we can be unstoppable, but when divided we tend to become alienated and too focused on singular/individual achievement.
Singular achievement is not automatically bad, but like I said, that means you and a billion other singulars make a rite of passage the long and hard way if we're lucky.
To live a life, and to be aware of it, that is the basic Human rite of passage. Of course we can elaborate this basic rite of passage and reveal amazing possibilities, such as every male and female is King and Queen, masters of a universe, and so is every creature/animal, and so is every atom and particle in interaction.
This is a glorious place (in spite of any horror and undesirable)! and it's down-right frightening that people don't catch on.
Wait wait wait, you guys are buying THIS crap but tossing religion to the side? Ignorant masses willing to go with the flow. It's in vogue to challenge modern religion, and science is the new era and yet garbage like this with no fundamental evidence is believed. What the hell is this world coming to?
@vezzanator Define "proof". What we consider to be the truth we take on account from others. These "scientists" are saying one thing, and Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, etc... are saying another. Unless you've done the research yourself, you're taking his word for it, as am I taking the word of those who wrote the bible.
people are scared to accept the responsibilty that are minds can achieve. many religions have already known this and now science is just now starting to catch up. we are all amazing creatures and the second we stop worrying about material things and relize that we are pure love in the universe we can truly be free.
We’ve lived in a dominated reality/science of the “identity of Energy”. The identity of energy has many popular/familiar descriptions, 2 legendary ones are: E=mc^2 and E=hv
But often overlooked is the “chemistry” involved.
Why is the chemistry so important? because it represents that unknown factor or facilitates or acts as the catalyst for dynamic interaction.
In a simplified sense: life takes energy/interaction and makes a chemistry of it.
So if we’re going to sit here and probe the crap out of particles only in terms of one proportion of energy, we will continue to get short changed. We need to include the chemistry of the proportion/preservation if we want to deal with a “reality” of things, or if we want to have the more accurate state of the relationship.
this is wrong, just wrong. quantum electro dynamics, the best tested theory atm says nothing about how it gives rise to reality, and nothing about how quantum entanglement is projected in the macro world, this is pure speculation, and probably wrong
This explains the reason why religion and The Bible(or other religion books) have an effect, if you actually get into a positive mindset and you don't just say you belive and follow but you use faith and your brain one may have the strength to overcome the stress and obstacles caused by reality. I have always truly belived that science and God coexist. God created the big bang and he is the reason for evolution, we scientist study his physical creation and make tools of it. Brains are Blessings.
these pseudo scientists start with a truth then extrapolate it in a manner that is completely unjustified. Quantum size particles behave in a much different manner than gross particles and objects. The probability of even a dust particle behaving as a wave or being entangle to another dust particle or so astronomically small as to be zero.
Umm this is saying that quantum is dictated by the macro world, which is not the case whatsoever in fact you could say the reverse. Fermions have 2 possible spins Bosons don't, those spins are one or the other, someone wanting fermions to have more of cases of one spin then the other won't make that happen.
@grahamgeons but according to quantum theory, a particle moving from point to point apparently follows every possible path to its destination, unless it is observed, in which case it follows a distinct path. Don't get me wrong, I'm just as skeptical as you are about this, but apparently it's not complete bullshit :/
@ZSedlacek It really is complete bullshit, whoever taught you that physics needs to have their head checked. If you found it on your own I suggest you look it up again from a credible source, your not that far off but far off enough to not get the gist of the quantum universe. Electrons don't actually exist in the classical sense we use a unit of energy to represent something that must be somewhere and that is what we call an electron.
@ZSedlacek I don't know why you would stop reading halfway through a sentence, the energy an electron carries does exist yes, but that's all an electron is a unit of energy. It isn't a particle or wave but just energy which classical physics cant account for. Please don't try and argue physics if you know nothing about it.
@grahamgeons Jesus man, statements like the one at the end make you lose all of your credibility. I'm actually doing a physics major at university at the moment, so I'm pretty sure I know something about it. Of course electrons exist in the classical sense, if anything is observable or its effects are observable it exists, that's the definition of existence. Furthermore what it "is" or "isn't" is irrelevant, it's how it behaves that matters, and the behaviour of single electrons can be described
@ZSedlacek A physics major who said things on the quantum scale act like a particle and simultaneously not a wave? Please. Honesty are you on crack? Your saying you can specifically follow the pattern of a single electron, do you know what Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is? How bout Classical physics can not in any way be applied to quantum? Go back to your arts degree or complete lack of a degree.
@ZSedlacek "a particle moving from point to point apparently follows every possible path to its destination" wrong, "Of course electrons exist in the classical sense" wrong, classical physics doesn't allow for a particle to behave like a wave. "it's how it behaves that matters, and the behaviour of single electrons can be described" wrong, behavior of a single electron implies you know its velocity and location, otherwise how would you know its its the same electron or its speed/spin.
@grahamgeons Okay, you're right, that first sentence sounds wrong, I didn't mean path in the normal sense though... Electrons do exist in the classical sense, just because they exhibit complementarity or can move from point to point in space without crossing the distance between, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If it didn't exist there wouldn't be any such thing as an electron. God is something which doesn't exist :P and I'm talking about Schrodinger's equation, surely you know what that is :P
They gloss over the bit about the random number generator being influenced by intent without showing any proof of that. If any such study was actually done and shown to be repeatable in any way, then trust me, we'd have heard of it. It would have turned the world of science upside down instantly. The rest of the claims of the video are based on that false assertion. This video is bunch of BS.
@lenowin : A comment of an utter ignorant, who demands "scientific proof", and yet is unable to research in his own mind. A one-sided intellect this is, very subjective and shallow one too
@prozrachno When does demanding proof make someone ignorant? It is the basis of the scientific method, and the reason we achieve everything we see today - highrises, computers, automobiles, planes, etc. To turn away from the scientific method is the ignorant choice.
Also, I studied quantum mechanics, and I regret to say that the makers of this movie hijacked the mystery behind quantum physics to churn out this balderdash.
@prozrachno ...you're an idiot. Do you even know what entanglement is? Have you done more than read the simple english wiki on Quantum Mechanics? If you had ever studied any sort of physics whatsoever, you'd realise how ridiculous you sound.
@000DarkNite000 Idiot or not, I have experienced aspects of "reality" that have no explanation in our current understanding of the nature of reality. And in the end, what we know today scientifically, especially in those elusive fields of quantum physics, will be the laughing stock of humanity's knowledge 1000 years from now. So, all I say is, that there is too much subjectivity in science and what cannot be explained is deemed as phantasy
@prozrachno Just because science changes doesn't mean it's subjective, and just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's subjective. People didn't use to understand the laws of motion, does that mean that if they jumped out a window and 'intended' to fly then they would?
@prozrachno you're a brain-washed, narrow-minded moron. If you can't think outside of what you have been force-fed by religion you may as well just end it now. The unexamined life is not worth living.
Observable energy seems to be the bi-product of true energy, visible energy like light is the after effect of true energy, because true energy it limited to observation in a dimension of space and time. Entanglement is the process where information is infinite and can travel infinite speeds. Light or c is a limit and a boundary that maintains the dimensional state. Observation at c limits our understanding of energy, we look deeper and experiment, we find and get faster than c results.
Shit! This fucking sounds like the secret all over again. The law of attraction, I can believe ppl are been fool into this, not only common ppl but ppl who should know better.
@gino07770 : Have you heard of the Synchronicity effect? You seem to have no experience of it either. In this clip there is some wisdom to obtain. For instance, that your mentallity does affect those random "by chance" events that shape your destiny. However, if you close your eyes to it, you will never see nor experience this side of Reality. It's a choice, I guess, or a self-limitation
@prozrachno I believe Reality is more deeper than we experience it, I believe than an individual can drastically change HIMSELF, and on a personal level I also believe in GOD. What I don't believe is that anyone has the power to control what's beyond his control and that we can be rewarded just by toughs alone. Basically I don't belief we can affect the outcome of something (at least entirely) but I can 100% control how does an outcome affects me.
@prozrachno e.g. I can roll the dice and pick a number (I choose), but what number rolls I cant. If you could, that would be call cheating. To me life is not a Destination is a Journey, is not about avoiding loss or hurt is about overcoming them, is not about knowing everything is about learning truths, is not about having a lot is about making enough and be able to share it. The secret and stuff like this give the wrong impression that change and success comes with little effort, this is false.
@gino07770 : True, Gino. I agree. Though, as far as The Truth is concerned .. nothing is true. It is a higher level of wisdom this. There are levels of truth, just as there are levels of understanding.
I think everything exist only when observed. If none is there to observe then it doesn't matter....So the observer creates perspective n hence he/she observes the matter.
so OBSERVER,PERSPECTIVE,OBSERVING, N only then the OBJECT matters.
It is totally fair to use this approach you state. The extra interesting and intriguing result is that when we do observe something, we have enough recognition and understanding to see that some of these observations are of things that have been around for an unbelievable amount of time "before" us, or at least before the actual act of observing it.
And even if we have no definitive definition for what “time” is, relatively speaking we can still be accurate about this relationship between “us/the act of observation” and “that which is being observed” or simply the result of the act of observation.
Complex elaborations involve further defining:
Observation that significantly affects the relationship and observation that has minimal or no noticeable effect.
@crawlFace : Imagine that the only reality you can experience is the reality you are attuned to, as an observer. Imagine then how naive it would be to say that you "understand Reality" ... when you aren't even aware of your own perceptual limitations
It's a very trick thing indeed, but even your very comment that I am replying to shows that we can have some decent understanding.
Then what I notice is that in spite of actually being "limited", it is a huge deal for any species to even be able to recognize and state or declare that it is limited. Know what I mean?
Meaning: we are at least "aware" that we aren't aware of our own perceptual limitations.
That's a huge deal! I would call such an ability quite fascinating.
Another hopeful recognition is that: as we approach the heart of the matter or the essence of things or fundamentally, we get a state or condition where things can only be just a few kinds of ways, and if we were to reach the core of existence in its entirety we would get a condition where it could only be one kind of way.
This core best resembles what we mean be the term "absolute".
The nature of this absolute condition is infinite, but not as the usual unlimited quantity amount; instead it is because it is every quantity (Quantities are distinctions of it).
There is one and only one condition, and it must be a condition which always allows for there to be conditions in the first place.
It is a condition which must make sure that there is always a condition.
If we thought of all existence known and unknown as having an origin, then I believe that such an origin is a condition which must make sure that there is always a condition. It doesn’t matter what the specifics are: in order to have any possibility at all there must be some kind of nature which makes or allows possibilities to be possible at all or in the first place.
Quite simply, it’s as if the “on” switch was/is always on.
I personally lean toward the indefinite or infinity for things. I highly doubt that something came from nothing.
Whichever might be the case, or if its a case of both, each is quite a condition.
I share this because it's more examples of us being able to fathom amazing possibilities. And even if there are no such things as any of the stuff we talk about, it only further proves that the real infinity is "us" and life.
@crawlFace : Thus, everything that we cannot perceive (with our senses or technology) is energy at frequencies beyond our abilities to perceive. Which naturally makes you wonder "How much of Reality is there that we are completely unaware of ?". On your question - particles don't start "Big bangs", this was the result of something else.. well, I have a theory that is rather esoteric, so I will keep it for myself :)
lol. Well said. I've noticed, using your very fair recognition that there is "energy at freq beyond our ability to perceive",
that when we get together, cooperate, and operate additionally to just the individual single unit/observer, etc, we can increase our range of interaction with freq.
For ex: collectively, we operate just like a universe. This makes sense because individually our bodies also act like universes for each of us.
As for esoteric, we would have to define whether it is a condition/situation that has been "obtained or developed into" or is it a condition that is "first" and the rest is handed-down.
In any case, I say that even one person's higher harmony with things can have great influence on those with lower or conflicting harmony.
Today's day and age suffers from ineffective conversion, mostly from the belief that subjects or schools of thought are separate from each other.
@crawlFace : It is quite fascinating, on the least. As for your thoughts on that you "highly doubt that something came from nothing", it is again a question of perception .. and from there a question of definition. What is Nothing, if not the absolute limit of your perceptions ?
@crawlFace : Yes, well put as well "If something shares something with something else, then all those "somethings" can know each other." from which we can deduct that we share something with everything that we can perceive and thus observe in "our" Universe (whether with our senses or with our tech). But, what is a "particle" isn't it energy at a very specific frequency? Then the whole perceivable reality is made of different frequencies that create matter's properties in our perception
Wishing is one thing. The letter of the law is another. What happens when you wish for something that is in opposition to the letter of the law? Does mass conciousness have any effect of potentiality? How does representative democracy effect weights and measures in the field of potentiality? How is the intention of more than one individual channeled into what is real? Get real.
I noticed the following when playing an “aiming-skill” game, like bowling. I’m a decent bowler and generally I’ll have my comfortable spots on the lane, such as the distance I’ll step/travel before releasing the ball, plus the spots on the lane where I like to release the ball, all mixed in with “looking” at the pins and the “foul line” not to overstep, etc. So my bowl consists of kind of paying attention to all of these things.
We’re not always aiming at 10 pins, so when a few are standing there’s a lot of aiming/lining-up skill.
When I was having a bad game or just horsing around, instead of going through all the usual things to pay attention to, I would just look at the pin(s) I needed to strike, and then I would bowl the ball as if my arm/wrist/hand would just aim and release exactly where I was looking, which was still only just at the pin(s).
It was a strange feeling. Perhaps I was used to the information that comes with paying attention to the mechanics and stuff for the shot. It was also a unique feeling; the singular-like variable of just looking/releasing as if the ball will go exactly where I was looking felt more “one”, whole or enduring... yes, a bit difficult to explain but we hear common examples of it such as “he’s in the zone; he’s in his flow, a rhythm”, etc.
What is this zone, this rhythm? And yet most of us have experienced it. We say extremes of it causes “tunnel vision”.
Excitement can put us in the zone, and so can a challenge even if undesirable.
When you have 1 pin standing, and instead of traditionally aiming, you just look at the pin and you bowl the bowl at it, while continuing to look at the pin, and you strike that pin, it’s a noticeable difference in relationship.
Doing 5 or so aiming adjustments before releasing the ball doesn’t quite feel the same, although I imagine the feeling can come for any style you do so long as you are in some kind of “flow” with it.
The extra interesting stuff comes from recognizing the similarities in relationships such as the way things behave because the earth is rotating, etc.
Meaning quite simply, that there is probably a “zone” or “flow” for all things relative to the systems in operation.
The relationship is there, the problem is when we expect it to work like magic so that all of a sudden “poof” we get what we want.
Another way to look at it is in terms of the potential to overcome in order to influence possibilities. This is often overlooked and in return we disregard any relation or significant relationship.
In a simplified sense, the “waving” is the potential between us.
You and a basketball in your hand are in a very definable relationship, which means we can represent your position in terms of potential just as much as we could for all outcomes of your position/relationship, etc.
Generally speaking, the further the ball is from you, the less control you have over the ball. The potential of this relationship will be proportional to the distance, as well as other things, etc.
The fun stuff comes in describing the range of the ball when it leaves your hand and returns, such as in “dribbling” the ball. Because we like to believe the ball has this nice free travel for a moment and that we just helped it on a particular trajectory that will eventually send it back to us. And this is true, but it is equally fair to describe our influence for the range of that trajectory.
Don't get me wrong, how this may be extended to describe our possible control over a number-generator remains to be seen.
But the doubt certainly won't be coming from the electromagnetic relationship, since we as humans orchestrate/make-up a circuitry of interaction just as much as any external grid supplying a city.
So does this mean that "spatial" relationships play much more of a role than entanglement suggests?
Makes gd sens afta rapped round mind abit,once hav worked it out,get opposit view,can now,but can't imagine how ever understood reality prior,or weirder,how unconsious was/am,hav been,blinder than blind,unda belief can see!Realise how deep an far fetched things can go if don't keep self clearly incheck,wizely..Things are never what they seem...or seem they what are never..Xlent opptunity..see(if that's poss this time)world awakening slowly out all the foggy slumbers it was dozing in!)
Yeah quantum bs.. You know this stuff cant be proven. And by can't be proven, I mean CAN'T be proven. So where does that leave us? With a riddle that has no answer, a huge blank area for the mind to create its own solutions. This is a thinkers playground, and to choose one side vs another is pointless.The only good thing that can be taken from this video is at 2:58. Your focus can determine the quality of life you live, but thats got nothing to do with quantum mechanics.
Logical flaw: 02:25, also if you wished for more zeros, "somehow" you will get more zeros. The probability of success either case is 50%. Even if you get one billion people to do it, you will still have one outcome more than the other.
@rfengr You but it's whether that difference is 'statistically significant', there are equations to work out whether the difference is due to the chance or either result, or if there is another factor actually causing the change
there is not as much mystery as they think about upto now - just dare to use mathematics a bit further on e.g. D.H.Lawden and Klaus Huber (Cauer Filters) on relativistic orbits...go on beyond the dogmas...and everything is a wonder nevertheless..
LMFAO. I like how they jumped from quantum mechanics to unproven hippie jibberish. Quantum entanglement is one thing. We can prove that. Saying that "your life sucks because you're not thinking positively" is a big jump. Please don't drink the cool aid. Quantum Machanics is a young science that we need to START learning more about, not drawing conclusions at this moment. Then again, most humans will believe just about anything, especially if they have a hunch that it makes sense.
Yes, it is fair to state it is a "big jump", but what complicates the issue is that it is not an unreasonable jump.
A good example is the traditional differences between Eastern and Western medicine.
It is now common practice for cancer patients to be "prepped/informed/taught" the benefits of positive thinking, and it is considered/included as part of the treatment.
"We need to learn more"... you nailed it right on the head.
Time is the measurement of movement through space relative to known objects. Space is the measurement of distance in relation to known objects over time or in quantum physics the probability of an instance of a wave function. Both are defined by each other. In fact one definition of space is "a duration of time". It's like all physics really tells us is space-time is itself.
@bunny153649 : Not quite this way, yes. Though here is a good place to ask ourselves "Does time really exists or is it simply an effect of perception?"
@juliecarson100 You see Julie... the trouble with this is, you have a million OTHER people, rubbing their lucky rabbit's foot or shamrock key chain, saying to themselves, "I will win the lottery... I will win the lottery." It would be great if only YOU had the power to affect things on a quantum level, but the truth is, we all do and we are all selfish creatures.
We can at least say that we have recognized a “cause and effect” relationship between us and the things we interact with.
We can confirm this by looking at the results of interaction.
For ex: I stick my hand in fire, it starts to hurt, my skin starts to bubble and boil, my skin starts to turn black, a terrible smell may be in the air, I have passed out.
But along comes someone who has gained skill or developed an ability to have a greater range of response to the same action (yeah they can also just be born with it). This person sticks their hand in fire and they may feel a lot less pain, perhaps no pain at all, and yet their skin burns, lol.
But still, it makes us question the extent of reality.
In this sense I suppose the power of intention is really the age old: Mind over matter issue.
We know people can defy nature to a pretty interesting extent, but is there really a scientific basis for it, enough for it to define a nature for things?
so that we could reason that these people don’t actually defy nature, but rather this nature is there for all of us to embrace or continue to develop with?
i watched that film, what the bleep do i know, and it was fucking awful, the worst garbage I have ever heard. i thought it was a joke but it seems very much to me like its a serious documentary.
I did a quick search for the answer to: What is a universe?
The following 2 definitions are pretty basic:
All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.
The sphere or realm in which something exists or takes place.
So, the way I see it, disagreeing with the video is like focusing more on the 1st definition, and those who support the video tend to focus more on the 2nd definition.
Obviously, support tries to suggest that the "sphere or realm" of what takes place is significantly connected or affected by the human system/human experience.
I could sincerely understand this, but at the same time I can not write-off the value or possibility of a nature that is present or in operation regardless of human experience.
Plus, I have to simply consider the nature that must be present/in operation/or possible in the first place in order for there to be anything (such as humans or universes, etc.) in the first place.
@UrukEngineer Well, how about this: What if the developments and discoveries of science are really "reinventions of the wheel?" In other words, what if all this so-called new knowledge that science provides us with is really just rediscoveries of things that ancient peoples knew under different terms; maybe terms that they took for granted or considered "spiritual." So, all this modern technology may just be a replacement for what past civilizations performed with their mind. Just a thought.
@matran47 "What if the developments and discoveries of science are ... really just rediscoveries of things that ancient peoples knew under different terms" - Nah, sorry mate, just don't see it.
This series of videos conflates the wierd world of string theory probabilities with the hokum that is the "power of intent" ie "the thought that propels actions". Of course positive thinking often helps, but when this guy says that "consciousness creates universes", he lost all rational credibility.
Where does this “developing” nature come from? How fundamental can I describe it?
Why in the world is there a gravity effect in the first place?
What universal code or law defined that if there is a big-bang or some kind of condition like “our” universe, that it will be a place where things can be under pressure, and react under pressure, resulting in tremendous energy?
I have no choice but to assume that these natures somehow benefit everything and not just us.
This is kind of garbage. It veers to closely into spirituality. I mean, what do mentally ill, or severe disabled babies have to do? Can they change their 'victim mentality'? No the world is more complicated than what is presented.
@crawlFace The system is very complex indeed, which is why I refute this video. If you think about a video game being it's own universe, the game must be solid. It can't ever glitch out or freeze given the tremendous amounts of variables it contains. So far, we have no evidence the universe ever glitched out since we observe a steady timeline from the big bang up until now. This means that for any reality to exist, the system must have strict rules otherwise it crashes.
For a glitch on this scale, we don’t know how long it takes to crash the system, unless we consider something instantaneous, but still, we see evidence for massive time-frames for things, so why wouldn’t a glitch behave the same way.
Another we have to consider is that the existence we know of is actually the glitch or the crash of the system! We could think of this glitch or crash as “breaking” the symmetry.
This makes a lot of sense if the terms “perfect/perfection” comes into play when we are describing some kind of absolute state of it all, right?
If the potential for everything can be described as an infinite oneness (and I’m not quite sure if infinite and oneness phrased together is redundant?),
And how does it get to make a distinction, because to make a distinction is to fundamentally insinuate that there are aspects of it that are operating uniquely from the whole!!?
Then I would have to consider that this unique operation is what “breaks” the symmetry.
For those who enjoy referencing possible support for such ideas, or anything that behaves similarly so that we can better understand the nature of identity when applied to mechanics:
We study bacteria that behave a certain way relative to their amount/quantity, so that when they reach a certain amount they form a unique network, but before reaching this amount all the chemicals and stuff that go into making the network remain dormant; it only kicks-in once the threshold is crossed.
This is ugly shit! The guys who made this film do a nice job of cloaking pseudoscience in a dressing of what appears to be real science being explained by what appear to be real scientists. But it's pure garbage.
That random number shit is total nonsense! (100's of studies?? OK, cite some references!!!)
Yes, boys & girls, quantum physics is indeed very "weird" by our notions of reality. And these guys take full advantage of that fact to con impressionable minds into believing their bullshit.
@TroyOi John Hagelin is a real scientist. Not sure about the rest.
I'd like to know how much you actually know of quantum physics. It's become really popular these days to bash the idea of consciousness and reality being connected. I don't understand why you think they are trying to "con" anyone. It's an idea, and science has neither proven nor disproven these ideas. So it's just speculation just like hundreds of other theories that haven't been proven yet.
@Gluumer Yes, very true: Dr. Hagelin is indeed a real scientist. He is also president of the "US Peace Government", (whatever that is), was appointed "Raja of Invincible America" by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, and ran for President of the United States three times, on the "Natural Law Party" ticket. None of which should be held against him, of course. But you'll have to agree he is not your typical scientist.
I'm not saying QE is BS, it's the last line in this video that scares me.
meloveanna 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The fire department had to put out a fire in my garage before. I just realized that the fire started because I kept to looking at my fire alarms every day. So, I threw them out. Thanks for making "the secret" you guys;I have a good feeling about this.
kenny8331 5 days ago
Comment removed
kenny8331 5 days ago
this sounds like intelligent design BS
meloveanna 1 week ago
@meloveanna quantum entanglement is not BS, although no one understand how or why it happens. These people are giving theories of how, and consequences of this new found phenomena. It has been proven, tested and observed that when two electrons are entangled, then separated, you can separate the two electrons by an infinite amount of space, and a state change in one instantly effects the other. distance is not a factor.
rich1051414 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Quantum Entanglement = LoVE, for love transcend time, space and matter. Love will always find a way to reach its partner ..... and then they get on the bed and take their clothes off and urghhhhhh, disgusting.
TheLamelyNamed 1 week ago
1:40 - 2:30: citation needed
Elbownian 1 month ago
@Elbownian PEAR study
rich1051414 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nice video!
This is an invitation to see an artist theory on the physics of light and time!
This theory is based on two postulates
1. Is that the quantum wave particle function Ψ represents the forward passage of time ∆E ∆t ≥ h/2π itself
2. Is that Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle ∆×∆p×≥h/4π that is formed by the w- function is the same uncertainty we have with any future event that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual!
nickharvey7 1 month ago
To all viewers: don't take in literally every sentence in this video clip that I have uploaded 3 yrs ago. I realize there are some statements that have been taken out of their original context. Don't jump to conclusions like "Children in Africa are in poverty because they have victim mentality" or try to approach the expressed views in the frame of conventional (dogmatic) science. I do hold that the principles in these views (mentality, intention, etc.) are just as real events as reality we know
prozrachno 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
An actual STARGATE/PORTAL-THING was captured on film. The footage can be found within the short-film entitled "SUDDEN PORTHOLE", which is currently parked at the PROJECT CAMELOT YouTube page (it's under the George Noory video).
I'm not selling anything...I'm just trying to spread the word about the unseen-dimensions we find ourselves embedded in.
My BLOG contains the peripheral data regarding the movie and is where I reply to the "debunkers" (use search words "Sam Zurick" & "BLOG"). THANKS!!
peopledick 3 months ago
This film is nothing but moonbats. If you actually did some research on quantum entanglement you would know it's bullshit. Yes, they were right that everything we have observed around us is an illusion, because our eyes can only sense light. It's possible for animals that can detect other forms of electromagnetic radiation such as radio waves to navigate. However, quantum entanglement simply explains wave functions and spin states.
HORRORTV1 3 months ago
Let’s talk basics in order to give us a platform from which we can extend ideas about how we relate to things:
For all matter we have described as being in a solid state, there is a melting point, and for matter in a liquid state, there is a boiling point. Although the point of state transformation may vary, what does not vary is the range in which matter may stabilize, which is solid, liquid, and gas.
crawlFace 3 months ago
@crawlFace
What we then have is: if something equals the definition of matter then it will always come with the range in which matter interacts, stabilizes, and operates.
I suggest we view ourselves in the same way, so that all things made-up of the same materials as us or that share the same materials as us are our range. For us, our solid, liquid, and gas states would ultimately include all reality about us.
crawlFace 3 months ago
@crawlFace
In basic, this means that if we are the product of a nature that is shared or present for the whole universe, such as the constant of Hydrogen and Nitrogen found throughout the universe, then the whole universe is within our range.
So yeah the question definitely remains: How do we as humans (particular matter) extend to greater positions in that range?
Many have known: we do so by getting together. We have to come together.
crawlFace 3 months ago
Would this mean that consciousness in the human mind can exist in two places exactly at the same time. I see it as an extension of human consciousness rather than a so called "sixth sense"".
GaunletofDestruction 4 months ago
@GaunletofDestruction
I don't see why not, and it is likely that we can have a consciousness that exists in numerous places, although our current brain operation seems to order things in terms of a distinctive "present" state, which seems to support the distinction of "individualism".
crawlFace 3 months ago
So...based on Dave Chapelle's interpretation, the starving children in Africa are victims because they have a victim mentality? wow...
piano501 4 months ago
So, can 2 particles occupy the same space?
Let's say we define a space as some kind of location that we can distinguish by 2 states, so that both states describe a unique amount of interaction while at the same time both states are still just that 1 location.
Conventionally we represent each state of the location by a measurement of time, so that although possibly completely unique for each state's duration, some position about it is completely identical.
crawlFace 4 months ago
@crawlFace
The investigation focuses on the idea that the location never changes regardless of the distinction, such as any amount or intervals divided from it, nor does any range or conservation of energy from interaction change the location although any amount of interaction can be represented as a unique state of the location.
Furthermore, if the location can be said to change, then we may think of its position as a constant frequency and its location varies in or by magnitude.
crawlFace 4 months ago
I wonder if Beta Decay emitted by the brain is responsible for effecting a random number generator?? I would like to believe its possible.
GaunletofDestruction 4 months ago
@GaunletofDestruction I am an amateur, physics theory enthusiast, for the reason that I am trying to explain my own experiences with "reality" .. and some of them are pretty unreal. My theory for all of those "mind-matter interactions" is a bit complex .. It begins from the very fact, that if the Universe began from quantum singularity, it is still "in there". And this situation explains the "quantum entanglement effects" and since everything is frequencies .. they interact .. Reality is
prozrachno 4 months ago
@prozrachno I think it would be realistic to assume that the human mind is able to interact with the Quantum Singularity. where the body and the physical universe represents the Classical Mechanical Universe and the mind is only able to intereact with the Quantum Mechanical realm only in little increments.
GaunletofDestruction 4 months ago
@prozrachno In a word, Yeah. You got it. imho
MrPiperian 1 week ago
All real scientists who saw and realized that this didn't tell you anything on quantum entanglement but also degraded the subject to some mystical bull... Sure could use some thumbs....
aqouby 4 months ago 6
@aqouby As far as I am aware, no one really understands quantum entanglement. Beyond the complex mathematics in theory, it can hardly be explained in practice. The problem with mathematical conclusions is that people tend to mistake them with reality, which is one of the greatest examples of the intrinsic human subjectivity. Einstein described this phenomena as "spooky effects at a distance"
prozrachno 4 months ago
@prozrachno What? I'm sorry but you aren't making much sense... OK, people who study quantum mechanics understand what they're studying. All the mathematics that is involved with particle physics has a direct correlation to the way we understand reality. We don't understand quantum mechanics in the way that when dealing with particles of such little mass, it's fundamental that we cannot know the classical mechanics of the macroscopic. This is why we can't understand it. But math doesn't lie.
aqouby 4 months ago
@prozrachno sorry, "cannot know the classical mechanics mechanics of the macroscopic"<< I meant, we cannot know the mechanics of the particle in the classical sense any longer.
aqouby 4 months ago
@prozrachno You are wrong. Scientists do understand quantum entanglemente very well. They use it in the developing of new technologies (teleportation, quantum Cryptography, etc) and on the everyday life of many laboratories across the world! Einstein described it as "spooky" because he thought this violated the postulate of Relativity, which we now know is not true. It is still not possible to convey information faster than the speed of light. This video is pure bull crap! Believe me.
rfn900 3 months ago
@rfn900 Believe him! This is the internet! He has to be right!
ninjastalker92 1 month ago
@prozrachno
chk ur facts...quantum entanglement was experimentally proved by jon clauser in 1972.. i
coolshibs88 2 months ago
The double slit experiments prove that our consciousness is linked, in some manner, to the physical world. Why is it such a big leap to believe that we have an influence on random number generators?
zadeh79 4 months ago
We keep looking "beyond" for some ultimate answer or perspective that will put all the pieces in their right place. We keep looking beyond a limit, beyond infinity, beyond the beginning, etc, beyond ourselves, beyond the stars, beyond the furthest distance we can see, beyond the beyond, etc.
My friends, we fell victim to a classic: "the grass is always greener on the other side".
crawlFace 5 months ago
"Waves of what?" Waves pf probability. This guy needs to take some physics classes.
csmcmillion 5 months ago
Just a quick reminder when it comes to examples that can take some of the concepts of this video out of proportion:
For anyone thinking they can just snap their fingers or impose their will with a single moment's thought and have instant desired result, we need to remember that an entire planet is snapping their fingers and imposing their thoughts, not just you or me.
An entire planet is wishing for this and that, or operating for such and such, etc.
That means billions of intention interacting!
crawlFace 6 months ago
@crawlFace
So, using conventional observed scientific observation and description, usually what we get when billions of desires and intentions interact is an average, so to speak, or an equilibrium of dynamic interaction, coinciding with the conventional observed influence we describe for us and our reality. In basic terms, what we get is a cancelling-out or balancing of any one particular desire or intent.
This average does not disprove the mechanic/nature!
crawlFace 6 months ago
@crawlFace
What it means is what many great minds have known since the beginning of human kind, which is:
Strength In Numbers!
In cooperation, unison, harmony, we can be unstoppable, but when divided we tend to become alienated and too focused on singular/individual achievement.
Singular achievement is not automatically bad, but like I said, that means you and a billion other singulars make a rite of passage the long and hard way if we're lucky.
When we're not lucky, we just kill each other.
crawlFace 6 months ago
@crawlFace : What is the "rite of passage" ? Apart from being an esoteric concept
prozrachno 6 months ago
@prozrachno
To live a life, and to be aware of it, that is the basic Human rite of passage. Of course we can elaborate this basic rite of passage and reveal amazing possibilities, such as every male and female is King and Queen, masters of a universe, and so is every creature/animal, and so is every atom and particle in interaction.
This is a glorious place (in spite of any horror and undesirable)! and it's down-right frightening that people don't catch on.
crawlFace 5 months ago
If reality really is a feedback of our consciousness....then I will get very rich by thinking about it all the time! :D
HORRORTV1 6 months ago
What the fuck is this shit?
WalnutterProductions 6 months ago
Wait wait wait, you guys are buying THIS crap but tossing religion to the side? Ignorant masses willing to go with the flow. It's in vogue to challenge modern religion, and science is the new era and yet garbage like this with no fundamental evidence is believed. What the hell is this world coming to?
souprcheff 6 months ago
@souprcheff religion has less proof than any of these, so really this is much more plausible
vezzanator 5 months ago
@vezzanator Define "proof". What we consider to be the truth we take on account from others. These "scientists" are saying one thing, and Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, etc... are saying another. Unless you've done the research yourself, you're taking his word for it, as am I taking the word of those who wrote the bible.
souprcheff 5 months ago
people are scared to accept the responsibilty that are minds can achieve. many religions have already known this and now science is just now starting to catch up. we are all amazing creatures and the second we stop worrying about material things and relize that we are pure love in the universe we can truly be free.
tubester92 6 months ago
i hate rhetoric......
BeAsTm0aD 6 months ago
I'm gonna go try moving a grain of salt with my mind, brb..
Dismal7x 7 months ago
We’ve lived in a dominated reality/science of the “identity of Energy”. The identity of energy has many popular/familiar descriptions, 2 legendary ones are: E=mc^2 and E=hv
But often overlooked is the “chemistry” involved.
Why is the chemistry so important? because it represents that unknown factor or facilitates or acts as the catalyst for dynamic interaction.
In a simplified sense: life takes energy/interaction and makes a chemistry of it.
crawlFace 7 months ago
@crawlFace
So if we’re going to sit here and probe the crap out of particles only in terms of one proportion of energy, we will continue to get short changed. We need to include the chemistry of the proportion/preservation if we want to deal with a “reality” of things, or if we want to have the more accurate state of the relationship.
crawlFace 7 months ago
this is wrong, just wrong. quantum electro dynamics, the best tested theory atm says nothing about how it gives rise to reality, and nothing about how quantum entanglement is projected in the macro world, this is pure speculation, and probably wrong
bkjbs762 7 months ago
I want to be the very best
like no one ever was
To catch them is my real test
To train them is my cause
PoweredButchZ 7 months ago
This explains the reason why religion and The Bible(or other religion books) have an effect, if you actually get into a positive mindset and you don't just say you belive and follow but you use faith and your brain one may have the strength to overcome the stress and obstacles caused by reality. I have always truly belived that science and God coexist. God created the big bang and he is the reason for evolution, we scientist study his physical creation and make tools of it. Brains are Blessings.
infinatycount1 7 months ago
I lol´d
pseudo-science alert
k3dEUS 8 months ago
these pseudo scientists start with a truth then extrapolate it in a manner that is completely unjustified. Quantum size particles behave in a much different manner than gross particles and objects. The probability of even a dust particle behaving as a wave or being entangle to another dust particle or so astronomically small as to be zero.
cunnidvd 8 months ago
do you have any proof of what is said on the vid??
jcandreug 8 months ago
Try this guy for real quantum physics /user/cassiopeiaproject#grid/user/E52A0E31EAF43668
grahamgeons 8 months ago
Umm this is saying that quantum is dictated by the macro world, which is not the case whatsoever in fact you could say the reverse. Fermions have 2 possible spins Bosons don't, those spins are one or the other, someone wanting fermions to have more of cases of one spin then the other won't make that happen.
grahamgeons 8 months ago
@grahamgeons but according to quantum theory, a particle moving from point to point apparently follows every possible path to its destination, unless it is observed, in which case it follows a distinct path. Don't get me wrong, I'm just as skeptical as you are about this, but apparently it's not complete bullshit :/
ZSedlacek 8 months ago
@ZSedlacek It really is complete bullshit, whoever taught you that physics needs to have their head checked. If you found it on your own I suggest you look it up again from a credible source, your not that far off but far off enough to not get the gist of the quantum universe. Electrons don't actually exist in the classical sense we use a unit of energy to represent something that must be somewhere and that is what we call an electron.
grahamgeons 8 months ago
@grahamgeons Hmm, no, electrons definitely exist.
ZSedlacek 8 months ago
@ZSedlacek I don't know why you would stop reading halfway through a sentence, the energy an electron carries does exist yes, but that's all an electron is a unit of energy. It isn't a particle or wave but just energy which classical physics cant account for. Please don't try and argue physics if you know nothing about it.
grahamgeons 8 months ago
@grahamgeons Jesus man, statements like the one at the end make you lose all of your credibility. I'm actually doing a physics major at university at the moment, so I'm pretty sure I know something about it. Of course electrons exist in the classical sense, if anything is observable or its effects are observable it exists, that's the definition of existence. Furthermore what it "is" or "isn't" is irrelevant, it's how it behaves that matters, and the behaviour of single electrons can be described
ZSedlacek 8 months ago
@ZSedlacek A physics major who said things on the quantum scale act like a particle and simultaneously not a wave? Please. Honesty are you on crack? Your saying you can specifically follow the pattern of a single electron, do you know what Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is? How bout Classical physics can not in any way be applied to quantum? Go back to your arts degree or complete lack of a degree.
grahamgeons 8 months ago
@grahamgeons I never said any of those things :P I said the effects of electrons were observable, and they are.
ZSedlacek 8 months ago
@ZSedlacek "a particle moving from point to point apparently follows every possible path to its destination" wrong, "Of course electrons exist in the classical sense" wrong, classical physics doesn't allow for a particle to behave like a wave. "it's how it behaves that matters, and the behaviour of single electrons can be described" wrong, behavior of a single electron implies you know its velocity and location, otherwise how would you know its its the same electron or its speed/spin.
grahamgeons 8 months ago
@grahamgeons Okay, you're right, that first sentence sounds wrong, I didn't mean path in the normal sense though... Electrons do exist in the classical sense, just because they exhibit complementarity or can move from point to point in space without crossing the distance between, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If it didn't exist there wouldn't be any such thing as an electron. God is something which doesn't exist :P and I'm talking about Schrodinger's equation, surely you know what that is :P
ZSedlacek 8 months ago
They gloss over the bit about the random number generator being influenced by intent without showing any proof of that. If any such study was actually done and shown to be repeatable in any way, then trust me, we'd have heard of it. It would have turned the world of science upside down instantly. The rest of the claims of the video are based on that false assertion. This video is bunch of BS.
headybrew 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
New age pseudo-science bullshit wrapped in a science cocoon. Take it with a grain of salt, or less.
lenowin 8 months ago 12
@lenowin : A comment of an utter ignorant, who demands "scientific proof", and yet is unable to research in his own mind. A one-sided intellect this is, very subjective and shallow one too
prozrachno 8 months ago
@prozrachno When does demanding proof make someone ignorant? It is the basis of the scientific method, and the reason we achieve everything we see today - highrises, computers, automobiles, planes, etc. To turn away from the scientific method is the ignorant choice.
Also, I studied quantum mechanics, and I regret to say that the makers of this movie hijacked the mystery behind quantum physics to churn out this balderdash.
Narcissist86 8 months ago 4
@prozrachno ...you're an idiot. Do you even know what entanglement is? Have you done more than read the simple english wiki on Quantum Mechanics? If you had ever studied any sort of physics whatsoever, you'd realise how ridiculous you sound.
000DarkNite000 8 months ago 7
@000DarkNite000 Idiot or not, I have experienced aspects of "reality" that have no explanation in our current understanding of the nature of reality. And in the end, what we know today scientifically, especially in those elusive fields of quantum physics, will be the laughing stock of humanity's knowledge 1000 years from now. So, all I say is, that there is too much subjectivity in science and what cannot be explained is deemed as phantasy
prozrachno 4 months ago
@prozrachno Just because science changes doesn't mean it's subjective, and just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's subjective. People didn't use to understand the laws of motion, does that mean that if they jumped out a window and 'intended' to fly then they would?
000DarkNite000 4 months ago
@prozrachno you're a brain-washed, narrow-minded moron. If you can't think outside of what you have been force-fed by religion you may as well just end it now. The unexamined life is not worth living.
billybobs309 8 months ago
@prozrachno "Unable to research in his own mind"?? Because that wouldn't be subjective at all would it...
diffusiventity 7 months ago
@diffusiventity Sit down, close your eyes, and look for that "subject" that you speak of...
jackrowet1234 6 months ago
@prozrachno The scientific method hasn't failed us so far. I vote we stick to it.
Tingrassia804 6 months ago
@prozrachno, I agree with your comment to lenowin...you are exactly right.
peacefulSojourner 5 months ago
@lenowin quantum mechanics is bullshit where you are from?
chinderr 8 months ago
Observable energy seems to be the bi-product of true energy, visible energy like light is the after effect of true energy, because true energy it limited to observation in a dimension of space and time. Entanglement is the process where information is infinite and can travel infinite speeds. Light or c is a limit and a boundary that maintains the dimensional state. Observation at c limits our understanding of energy, we look deeper and experiment, we find and get faster than c results.
SASNIGHTCRAWLER 9 months ago
Shit! This fucking sounds like the secret all over again. The law of attraction, I can believe ppl are been fool into this, not only common ppl but ppl who should know better.
gino07770 9 months ago
@gino07770 : Have you heard of the Synchronicity effect? You seem to have no experience of it either. In this clip there is some wisdom to obtain. For instance, that your mentallity does affect those random "by chance" events that shape your destiny. However, if you close your eyes to it, you will never see nor experience this side of Reality. It's a choice, I guess, or a self-limitation
prozrachno 9 months ago
@prozrachno I believe Reality is more deeper than we experience it, I believe than an individual can drastically change HIMSELF, and on a personal level I also believe in GOD. What I don't believe is that anyone has the power to control what's beyond his control and that we can be rewarded just by toughs alone. Basically I don't belief we can affect the outcome of something (at least entirely) but I can 100% control how does an outcome affects me.
gino07770 9 months ago
@prozrachno e.g. I can roll the dice and pick a number (I choose), but what number rolls I cant. If you could, that would be call cheating. To me life is not a Destination is a Journey, is not about avoiding loss or hurt is about overcoming them, is not about knowing everything is about learning truths, is not about having a lot is about making enough and be able to share it. The secret and stuff like this give the wrong impression that change and success comes with little effort, this is false.
gino07770 9 months ago
@gino07770 : True, Gino. I agree. Though, as far as The Truth is concerned .. nothing is true. It is a higher level of wisdom this. There are levels of truth, just as there are levels of understanding.
prozrachno 9 months ago
guy at 3:02 reminds me of batman's butler
JeffBrownThe10th 9 months ago
I think everything exist only when observed. If none is there to observe then it doesn't matter....So the observer creates perspective n hence he/she observes the matter.
so OBSERVER,PERSPECTIVE,OBSERVING, N only then the OBJECT matters.
ashokbabuasp 10 months ago
@ashokbabuasp
It is totally fair to use this approach you state. The extra interesting and intriguing result is that when we do observe something, we have enough recognition and understanding to see that some of these observations are of things that have been around for an unbelievable amount of time "before" us, or at least before the actual act of observing it.
crawlFace 9 months ago
@crawlFace
And even if we have no definitive definition for what “time” is, relatively speaking we can still be accurate about this relationship between “us/the act of observation” and “that which is being observed” or simply the result of the act of observation.
Complex elaborations involve further defining:
Observation that significantly affects the relationship and observation that has minimal or no noticeable effect.
crawlFace 9 months ago
@crawlFace : Imagine that the only reality you can experience is the reality you are attuned to, as an observer. Imagine then how naive it would be to say that you "understand Reality" ... when you aren't even aware of your own perceptual limitations
prozrachno 9 months ago
@prozrachno
It's a very trick thing indeed, but even your very comment that I am replying to shows that we can have some decent understanding.
Then what I notice is that in spite of actually being "limited", it is a huge deal for any species to even be able to recognize and state or declare that it is limited. Know what I mean?
Meaning: we are at least "aware" that we aren't aware of our own perceptual limitations.
That's a huge deal! I would call such an ability quite fascinating.
crawlFace 9 months ago
@crawlFace
Another hopeful recognition is that: as we approach the heart of the matter or the essence of things or fundamentally, we get a state or condition where things can only be just a few kinds of ways, and if we were to reach the core of existence in its entirety we would get a condition where it could only be one kind of way.
crawlFace 9 months ago
@crawlFace
This core best resembles what we mean be the term "absolute".
The nature of this absolute condition is infinite, but not as the usual unlimited quantity amount; instead it is because it is every quantity (Quantities are distinctions of it).
There is one and only one condition, and it must be a condition which always allows for there to be conditions in the first place.
It is a condition which must make sure that there is always a condition.
crawlFace 9 months ago
@crawlFace
If we thought of all existence known and unknown as having an origin, then I believe that such an origin is a condition which must make sure that there is always a condition. It doesn’t matter what the specifics are: in order to have any possibility at all there must be some kind of nature which makes or allows possibilities to be possible at all or in the first place.
Quite simply, it’s as if the “on” switch was/is always on.
crawlFace 9 months ago
@crawlFace
I personally lean toward the indefinite or infinity for things. I highly doubt that something came from nothing.
Whichever might be the case, or if its a case of both, each is quite a condition.
I share this because it's more examples of us being able to fathom amazing possibilities. And even if there are no such things as any of the stuff we talk about, it only further proves that the real infinity is "us" and life.
crawlFace 9 months ago
@crawlFace : Thus, everything that we cannot perceive (with our senses or technology) is energy at frequencies beyond our abilities to perceive. Which naturally makes you wonder "How much of Reality is there that we are completely unaware of ?". On your question - particles don't start "Big bangs", this was the result of something else.. well, I have a theory that is rather esoteric, so I will keep it for myself :)
prozrachno 9 months ago
@prozrachno
lol. Well said. I've noticed, using your very fair recognition that there is "energy at freq beyond our ability to perceive",
that when we get together, cooperate, and operate additionally to just the individual single unit/observer, etc, we can increase our range of interaction with freq.
For ex: collectively, we operate just like a universe. This makes sense because individually our bodies also act like universes for each of us.
Our behavior is the same behavior as a universe.
crawlFace 9 months ago
@crawlFace
As for esoteric, we would have to define whether it is a condition/situation that has been "obtained or developed into" or is it a condition that is "first" and the rest is handed-down.
In any case, I say that even one person's higher harmony with things can have great influence on those with lower or conflicting harmony.
Today's day and age suffers from ineffective conversion, mostly from the belief that subjects or schools of thought are separate from each other.
crawlFace 9 months ago
@crawlFace : It is quite fascinating, on the least. As for your thoughts on that you "highly doubt that something came from nothing", it is again a question of perception .. and from there a question of definition. What is Nothing, if not the absolute limit of your perceptions ?
prozrachno 9 months ago
@prozrachno
Well said. Also a great way of describing nothing: 'the absolute limit of our perception'.
I've always seen it like this (and I'll state it blunt):
If something shares something with something else, then all those "somethings" can know each other.
All our job has ever been is to find out exactly how much recognition is shared. (what is the extent?)
Yes, the definition of "know each other" can have a few meanings, but each meaning is specifying the same thing.
crawlFace 9 months ago
@crawlFace
Let’s take a closer look at what it means to “share” something.
If there is such a thing as a universe, what maintains the laws of that universe?
If we were to say that our universe is the way it is because of the nature of particles that make-up our universe,
then what maintains the laws of a particle, so that the particle remains a particle and gets to start-up some big-bang or eventual universe?
crawlFace 9 months ago
@crawlFace : Yes, well put as well "If something shares something with something else, then all those "somethings" can know each other." from which we can deduct that we share something with everything that we can perceive and thus observe in "our" Universe (whether with our senses or with our tech). But, what is a "particle" isn't it energy at a very specific frequency? Then the whole perceivable reality is made of different frequencies that create matter's properties in our perception
prozrachno 9 months ago
Wishing is one thing. The letter of the law is another. What happens when you wish for something that is in opposition to the letter of the law? Does mass conciousness have any effect of potentiality? How does representative democracy effect weights and measures in the field of potentiality? How is the intention of more than one individual channeled into what is real? Get real.
Period0fTime 10 months ago
Interesting relationships:
I noticed the following when playing an “aiming-skill” game, like bowling. I’m a decent bowler and generally I’ll have my comfortable spots on the lane, such as the distance I’ll step/travel before releasing the ball, plus the spots on the lane where I like to release the ball, all mixed in with “looking” at the pins and the “foul line” not to overstep, etc. So my bowl consists of kind of paying attention to all of these things.
crawlFace 10 months ago
@crawlFace
We’re not always aiming at 10 pins, so when a few are standing there’s a lot of aiming/lining-up skill.
When I was having a bad game or just horsing around, instead of going through all the usual things to pay attention to, I would just look at the pin(s) I needed to strike, and then I would bowl the ball as if my arm/wrist/hand would just aim and release exactly where I was looking, which was still only just at the pin(s).
crawlFace 10 months ago
@crawlFace
It was a strange feeling. Perhaps I was used to the information that comes with paying attention to the mechanics and stuff for the shot. It was also a unique feeling; the singular-like variable of just looking/releasing as if the ball will go exactly where I was looking felt more “one”, whole or enduring... yes, a bit difficult to explain but we hear common examples of it such as “he’s in the zone; he’s in his flow, a rhythm”, etc.
crawlFace 10 months ago
@crawlFace
What is this zone, this rhythm? And yet most of us have experienced it. We say extremes of it causes “tunnel vision”.
Excitement can put us in the zone, and so can a challenge even if undesirable.
When you have 1 pin standing, and instead of traditionally aiming, you just look at the pin and you bowl the bowl at it, while continuing to look at the pin, and you strike that pin, it’s a noticeable difference in relationship.
crawlFace 10 months ago
@crawlFace
Doing 5 or so aiming adjustments before releasing the ball doesn’t quite feel the same, although I imagine the feeling can come for any style you do so long as you are in some kind of “flow” with it.
The extra interesting stuff comes from recognizing the similarities in relationships such as the way things behave because the earth is rotating, etc.
Meaning quite simply, that there is probably a “zone” or “flow” for all things relative to the systems in operation.
crawlFace 10 months ago
Buddha was right all along.
teslic100 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The relationship is there, the problem is when we expect it to work like magic so that all of a sudden “poof” we get what we want.
Another way to look at it is in terms of the potential to overcome in order to influence possibilities. This is often overlooked and in return we disregard any relation or significant relationship.
crawlFace 10 months ago
"You have to ask the question, waves of what really? What is the field that is waving? Is it the ocean...noooo."lol Classic! Love this guy!
MiracleManifestor 11 months ago
@MiracleManifestor
In a simplified sense, the “waving” is the potential between us.
You and a basketball in your hand are in a very definable relationship, which means we can represent your position in terms of potential just as much as we could for all outcomes of your position/relationship, etc.
Generally speaking, the further the ball is from you, the less control you have over the ball. The potential of this relationship will be proportional to the distance, as well as other things, etc.
crawlFace 10 months ago
@crawlFace
The fun stuff comes in describing the range of the ball when it leaves your hand and returns, such as in “dribbling” the ball. Because we like to believe the ball has this nice free travel for a moment and that we just helped it on a particular trajectory that will eventually send it back to us. And this is true, but it is equally fair to describe our influence for the range of that trajectory.
crawlFace 10 months ago
@crawlFace
Don't get me wrong, how this may be extended to describe our possible control over a number-generator remains to be seen.
But the doubt certainly won't be coming from the electromagnetic relationship, since we as humans orchestrate/make-up a circuitry of interaction just as much as any external grid supplying a city.
So does this mean that "spatial" relationships play much more of a role than entanglement suggests?
crawlFace 10 months ago
Makes gd sens afta rapped round mind abit,once hav worked it out,get opposit view,can now,but can't imagine how ever understood reality prior,or weirder,how unconsious was/am,hav been,blinder than blind,unda belief can see!Realise how deep an far fetched things can go if don't keep self clearly incheck,wizely..Things are never what they seem...or seem they what are never..Xlent opptunity..see(if that's poss this time)world awakening slowly out all the foggy slumbers it was dozing in!)
ICTruful 11 months ago
Yeah quantum bs.. You know this stuff cant be proven. And by can't be proven, I mean CAN'T be proven. So where does that leave us? With a riddle that has no answer, a huge blank area for the mind to create its own solutions. This is a thinkers playground, and to choose one side vs another is pointless.The only good thing that can be taken from this video is at 2:58. Your focus can determine the quality of life you live, but thats got nothing to do with quantum mechanics.
ricktbdgc 11 months ago
In quantum physics this is called the observer effect.
GateMessenger 11 months ago
Why is god one of the tags and why does quantum mechanics turn into telekinesis and cheesy stuff by the end?
LambdaQuarks 11 months ago
My god, I love quantum mechanics!
hmmmmusic 11 months ago
Logical flaw: 02:25, also if you wished for more zeros, "somehow" you will get more zeros. The probability of success either case is 50%. Even if you get one billion people to do it, you will still have one outcome more than the other.
rfengr 11 months ago
@rfengr You but it's whether that difference is 'statistically significant', there are equations to work out whether the difference is due to the chance or either result, or if there is another factor actually causing the change
TheModCon 11 months ago
sorry, it is D.F. Lawden (former professor at Birmingham) - lecture for experts - I am no expert myself just heard of the end of uncertainty
khi590 11 months ago
there is not as much mystery as they think about upto now - just dare to use mathematics a bit further on e.g. D.H.Lawden and Klaus Huber (Cauer Filters) on relativistic orbits...go on beyond the dogmas...and everything is a wonder nevertheless..
khi590 11 months ago
The guy at the end almost sounded like Yoda.
Bargadiel 11 months ago
LMFAO. I like how they jumped from quantum mechanics to unproven hippie jibberish. Quantum entanglement is one thing. We can prove that. Saying that "your life sucks because you're not thinking positively" is a big jump. Please don't drink the cool aid. Quantum Machanics is a young science that we need to START learning more about, not drawing conclusions at this moment. Then again, most humans will believe just about anything, especially if they have a hunch that it makes sense.
proconsulaugustus 1 year ago 2
@proconsulaugustus
Yes, it is fair to state it is a "big jump", but what complicates the issue is that it is not an unreasonable jump.
A good example is the traditional differences between Eastern and Western medicine.
It is now common practice for cancer patients to be "prepped/informed/taught" the benefits of positive thinking, and it is considered/included as part of the treatment.
"We need to learn more"... you nailed it right on the head.
crawlFace 11 months ago
yes and this is how spells work
ukrainman20 1 year ago
Time is the measurement of movement through space relative to known objects. Space is the measurement of distance in relation to known objects over time or in quantum physics the probability of an instance of a wave function. Both are defined by each other. In fact one definition of space is "a duration of time". It's like all physics really tells us is space-time is itself.
JaysThoughts 1 year ago
@JaysThoughts
I agree there is that issue of something being defined by itself, and I know it is traditionally taboo to state "X" is the reason why there is "X",
but I also consider that since we keep running into this issue, it must mean something, as if it's a hint that we need to better understand.
crawlFace 11 months ago
so does that mean people can stop time if ALL OF US believe that we can??? i dont think it works that way doesn't it?
bunny153649 1 year ago
@bunny153649 : Not quite this way, yes. Though here is a good place to ask ourselves "Does time really exists or is it simply an effect of perception?"
prozrachno 1 year ago
@bunny153649 There is no such thing as time. So how can you stop something that don't exist.
cooldog60 10 months ago
I will win the lottery...I will win the lottery...I will win the lottery!
juliecarson100 1 year ago 13
@juliecarson100 : don't forget to buy a ticket ;)
prozrachno 1 year ago 14
@prozrachno she might win a copy of Shirely Jackson's "The Lottery" :)
lesorciercalifornien 1 year ago
@juliecarson100 You see Julie... the trouble with this is, you have a million OTHER people, rubbing their lucky rabbit's foot or shamrock key chain, saying to themselves, "I will win the lottery... I will win the lottery." It would be great if only YOU had the power to affect things on a quantum level, but the truth is, we all do and we are all selfish creatures.
RevJohn 11 months ago
@juliecarson100 I'm buying a ticket today. IT IS THE WINNING TICKET. (but, just in case it doesn't win, i'll look for this guy.)
Mannheim67 10 months ago
@juliecarson100 FOR SOME REASON THIS LOTTERY THING ONLY WORKS FOR MY WIFE !
kn9ioutom 9 months ago
@juliecarson100
i've been winning lotteries for years... millions. they sent me emails. but there is more in life than a little money you know!
dziis6s 7 months ago
We can at least say that we have recognized a “cause and effect” relationship between us and the things we interact with.
We can confirm this by looking at the results of interaction.
For ex: I stick my hand in fire, it starts to hurt, my skin starts to bubble and boil, my skin starts to turn black, a terrible smell may be in the air, I have passed out.
crawlFace 1 year ago
@crawlFace
But along comes someone who has gained skill or developed an ability to have a greater range of response to the same action (yeah they can also just be born with it). This person sticks their hand in fire and they may feel a lot less pain, perhaps no pain at all, and yet their skin burns, lol.
But still, it makes us question the extent of reality.
crawlFace 1 year ago
@crawlFace
In this sense I suppose the power of intention is really the age old: Mind over matter issue.
We know people can defy nature to a pretty interesting extent, but is there really a scientific basis for it, enough for it to define a nature for things?
so that we could reason that these people don’t actually defy nature, but rather this nature is there for all of us to embrace or continue to develop with?
crawlFace 1 year ago
i watched that film, what the bleep do i know, and it was fucking awful, the worst garbage I have ever heard. i thought it was a joke but it seems very much to me like its a serious documentary.
jimmyshitbags 1 year ago
tell this stupidity to the palestinian childs about "your lack of focus"
idiots who believe they decide what the universe is
it is not true
we are here to learn and to ADJUST to the harmonic forces
otherwise we get what ? the rotten rothschild system noone asked for and that wanted since 4000 years to KILL humanity
will you be their victims by not wanting to see it and think yourselves gods allmighty ? Or will you DCEFEND LIFE AND YOUR CHILDREN ?
dombadil 1 year ago
I did a quick search for the answer to: What is a universe?
The following 2 definitions are pretty basic:
All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.
The sphere or realm in which something exists or takes place.
So, the way I see it, disagreeing with the video is like focusing more on the 1st definition, and those who support the video tend to focus more on the 2nd definition.
crawlFace 1 year ago
@crawlFace
Obviously, support tries to suggest that the "sphere or realm" of what takes place is significantly connected or affected by the human system/human experience.
I could sincerely understand this, but at the same time I can not write-off the value or possibility of a nature that is present or in operation regardless of human experience.
crawlFace 1 year ago
@crawlFace
Plus, I have to simply consider the nature that must be present/in operation/or possible in the first place in order for there to be anything (such as humans or universes, etc.) in the first place.
crawlFace 1 year ago
Is this about science or yoga? Focus people!
UrukEngineer 1 year ago
@UrukEngineer Well, how about this: What if the developments and discoveries of science are really "reinventions of the wheel?" In other words, what if all this so-called new knowledge that science provides us with is really just rediscoveries of things that ancient peoples knew under different terms; maybe terms that they took for granted or considered "spiritual." So, all this modern technology may just be a replacement for what past civilizations performed with their mind. Just a thought.
matran47 1 year ago
@matran47 "What if the developments and discoveries of science are ... really just rediscoveries of things that ancient peoples knew under different terms" - Nah, sorry mate, just don't see it.
This series of videos conflates the wierd world of string theory probabilities with the hokum that is the "power of intent" ie "the thought that propels actions". Of course positive thinking often helps, but when this guy says that "consciousness creates universes", he lost all rational credibility.
UrukEngineer 1 year ago
Well....I mean the first guy they show lol
AyKay47 1 year ago
This guy acts just like Michio Kaku when he talks and interacts, anyone else notice this?
AyKay47 1 year ago
Where does this “developing” nature come from? How fundamental can I describe it?
Why in the world is there a gravity effect in the first place?
What universal code or law defined that if there is a big-bang or some kind of condition like “our” universe, that it will be a place where things can be under pressure, and react under pressure, resulting in tremendous energy?
I have no choice but to assume that these natures somehow benefit everything and not just us.
crawlFace 1 year ago
@crawlFace
Even randomness or accidents can be thought of as somehow benefiting existence.
Maybe it’s simply the case where the possibility must always be there, even if the results can be counterintuitive or downright horrifying.
crawlFace 1 year ago
This is kind of garbage. It veers to closely into spirituality. I mean, what do mentally ill, or severe disabled babies have to do? Can they change their 'victim mentality'? No the world is more complicated than what is presented.
suckbar69 1 year ago
@suckbar69
I certainly agree that the “world” can be very complicated, in every stretch of the imagination, in every aspect.
Trying to stay as realistic as possible, I wonder exactly how complicated the world really is?
I have no choice but assume, that the ability for things to develop from what we describe as a simple to complex system, is no accident at all.
Although it appears to us that such development is for the benefit of the organism, such as survival and adaptation, etc.
crawlFace 1 year ago
@crawlFace The system is very complex indeed, which is why I refute this video. If you think about a video game being it's own universe, the game must be solid. It can't ever glitch out or freeze given the tremendous amounts of variables it contains. So far, we have no evidence the universe ever glitched out since we observe a steady timeline from the big bang up until now. This means that for any reality to exist, the system must have strict rules otherwise it crashes.
suckbar69 1 year ago
@suckbar69
That’s an awesome example, and it most certainly explains a condition that has to be met/considered.
Imagine this condition is not only the case on a universal scale but also on the network scale between systems.
It would make sense that things that operate or exist would support a system for themselves that behave s like the “strict rules” needed.
In this sense, the human body is a version of strict rules needed.
crawlFace 1 year ago
@crawlFace
Let’s look at some possibilities:
For a glitch on this scale, we don’t know how long it takes to crash the system, unless we consider something instantaneous, but still, we see evidence for massive time-frames for things, so why wouldn’t a glitch behave the same way.
crawlFace 1 year ago
@crawlFace
Another we have to consider is that the existence we know of is actually the glitch or the crash of the system! We could think of this glitch or crash as “breaking” the symmetry.
This makes a lot of sense if the terms “perfect/perfection” comes into play when we are describing some kind of absolute state of it all, right?
crawlFace 1 year ago
@crawlFace
If the potential for everything can be described as an infinite oneness (and I’m not quite sure if infinite and oneness phrased together is redundant?),
then what would a distinction of it mean?
crawlFace 1 year ago
@crawlFace
And how does it get to make a distinction, because to make a distinction is to fundamentally insinuate that there are aspects of it that are operating uniquely from the whole!!?
Then I would have to consider that this unique operation is what “breaks” the symmetry.
crawlFace 1 year ago
This is all newage bullcrap for middle aged pompous brie eating intellectuals to talk about at their coctail parties.
Zurround100 1 year ago
So here's some great food for thought:
So far, it took roughly 2 million years for the development of a biological system to support an intelligence we all are familiar with for ourselves.
What kind of intelligence might the collective universe have, being roughly 14 billion years old,
*Note, this is not the same as wondering what other kind of intelligence is out there.
What we're doing is treating a sum value as having an identity in addition to its parts.
crawlFace 1 year ago
@crawlFace
For those who enjoy referencing possible support for such ideas, or anything that behaves similarly so that we can better understand the nature of identity when applied to mechanics:
We study bacteria that behave a certain way relative to their amount/quantity, so that when they reach a certain amount they form a unique network, but before reaching this amount all the chemicals and stuff that go into making the network remain dormant; it only kicks-in once the threshold is crossed.
crawlFace 1 year ago
This is ugly shit! The guys who made this film do a nice job of cloaking pseudoscience in a dressing of what appears to be real science being explained by what appear to be real scientists. But it's pure garbage.
That random number shit is total nonsense! (100's of studies?? OK, cite some references!!!)
Yes, boys & girls, quantum physics is indeed very "weird" by our notions of reality. And these guys take full advantage of that fact to con impressionable minds into believing their bullshit.
TroyOi 1 year ago
@TroyOi John Hagelin is a real scientist. Not sure about the rest.
I'd like to know how much you actually know of quantum physics. It's become really popular these days to bash the idea of consciousness and reality being connected. I don't understand why you think they are trying to "con" anyone. It's an idea, and science has neither proven nor disproven these ideas. So it's just speculation just like hundreds of other theories that haven't been proven yet.
Gluumer 1 year ago
@Gluumer Yes, very true: Dr. Hagelin is indeed a real scientist. He is also president of the "US Peace Government", (whatever that is), was appointed "Raja of Invincible America" by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, and ran for President of the United States three times, on the "Natural Law Party" ticket. None of which should be held against him, of course. But you'll have to agree he is not your typical scientist.
But all that is really beside the point...
TroyOi 1 year ago