Subatomic Worlds

...Good looking out...

Br. John wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

and:

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


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


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


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

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

Gisteron wrote:

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

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

Yes, they have. Yes, they can. We know exactly how a point-sized particle would show up on our instruments. And that is exactly what we see.

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

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

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

"The research done in modern particle physics merely studies particles in isolation by splitting them through fission, after which it looks to see what matter results from the breaking of the nucleus. If instead there were an instrument that could reveal to us all that exists at the plane of atoms or molecules, and give the entire picture, it would represent a breakthrough to another dimension, and we would be seeing the reality of that world. People’s bodies correspond to other dimensions, which are like I just described." - From Zhuan Falun, Talk 2, The Inner Eye

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You know... I'll just direct you to what I said about this article when you linked it last year, since I have nothing new to say about it now that I didn't then:

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

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

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

But you never got back to me. Strange that.

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

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

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

EnergyGem wrote:

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

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

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

Yes, they have. Yes, they can. We know exactly how a point-sized particle would show up on our instruments. And that is exactly what we see.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I lovE yUs ALL!

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