Subatomic Worlds

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No computer can do that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nothing.

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

I think he did.

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

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

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

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

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

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

- From Zhuan Falun, The First Talk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No computer can do that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When interacting with others always bear in mind RESPECT:

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


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

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

Levels

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I cannot/do not speak for Carlos

Gisteron wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

No need to get upset I promise.

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


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



Sorry to de rail .

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

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


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

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

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

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

"The neutrino is as far as we know an elementary particle. That means it has no size - a true point. This is true of all the other known elementary particles..."

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

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

- from Zhaun Falun, Talk 8, The Cosmic Orbit

and:

"The smallest particles include—that is, those that can be known through the use of instruments—molecules, atoms, nuclei, neutrons, electrons, quarks, and neutrinos. What’s smaller down the line is unknown. But [what is known] is so very far away from human beings’ original matter and from the original matter that forms living beings. Even [what is known] is reduced in size by countless hundreds of millions of times, by countless and countless hundreds of millions of times, but it’s still not the ultimate end."

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have you seen what particle data look like? There's like a blast of hundreds if not thousands of particles in every single recording, and damn straight those recordings are used to look into more than a single particle, because producing the things is really, really bloody expensive, so they try to get as much use out of each frame as they can.

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

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

- from Zhuan Falun, Talk 2, The Inner Eye

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"The neutrino is as far as we know an elementary particle. That means it has no size - a true point. This is true of all the other known elementary particles..."

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

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

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

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

Have you seen what particle data look like? There's like a blast of hundreds if not thousands of particles in every single recording, and damn straight those recordings are used to look into more than a single particle, because producing the things is really, really bloody expensive, so they try to get as much use out of each frame as they can.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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