pmdirac

Nestingwave- This one line tells me that you lack understanding of what quantum entanglement really is. Quantum entangled pairs completely defy causation. That was the whole point of the Bell inequalities. Here is the wiki on it: Bell Inequalities. (Of course, anyone who edits wikipedia is probably so entrenched in the old 'standard model' that you don't care what they have to say.) In quantum mechanics there is no causation. Thats why Einstein didn't like quantum mechanics, and he and his friends came up with the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox which said that their must be some hidden variables in quantum mechanics that we don't know about that restore cause and effect. Then in 1964, Bell published his paper that showed that Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen had made a fundamental error in assuming all wavefunctions were separable. Bell's theory has been confirmed experimentally hundreds of times: heres one example. Does this mean that Bell proved that God plays dice with the universe? No, I never said that. I said it proved Einstein wrong. It most certainly did do that. And then we come to the whole crux of this thread: religion v. science. Here we have a person who has taken a bit of information from science, and used it to influence religion without truly understanding it. Nestingwave, you have this whole philosophy/life view about the universe that is great. Believing we are all interconnected, and that the tiniest bits of the universe contain the whole universe is radical and fun to think about. But using quantum mechanics to justify this world view just doesn't settle well with me. You've taken the science out of context. I think this is the fundamental problem. People take a bit of science, like entangled systems from quantum mechanics, and without trying to understand that bit of science they use it to explain a whole philosophy or religion. Christianity did the same thing in the dark ages when they used Aristotle's science to prove that Hell was at the center of the earth. It goes the other direction too. People take some science like "Hey, there's a whole heap of evidence that there was a big bang," and they use it to defy religion. "Ha ha, the big bang means there is no God." Or "Hey, there's a whole heap of evidence that species evolved into what they are now over billions of years. Ha ha, evolution means there is no God." It's completely ridiculous. Religion and science are like oil and water. You can't mix them.

Nestingwave- Hey, sorry I haven't been up to date in the forums lately. I kinda got swamped this past week. So let me just explain some things from my first post in this thread. The flawed assumption of the double slit experiment is that quantum particles can make decisions. The double slit experiment was the first experiment that showed the dal nature of any quantum particle. Basically two narrow slits are in a pice of paper or sufficiently thin material. A beam of particles (i.e. light) are shot on the slits. A screen is placed on the other side of the slits, and a scattered wave pattern appears on the screen. If you try and figure out which slit the light particles go through then a scattered particle pattern appears on the screen, and not a wave pattern. In effect, if you want to observe the particle nature of light (or all matter) you will see its particle nature, but if you want to observe its wave nature you will see its wave nature. You might think, well the particle chooses to be a wave or a particle depending on the observer, but this conclusion fails to take in the heisenberg uncertainty principle. So the assumption that quanta are choosing their path is an assumption made without understanding the heisenberg uncertainty principle or the wavefunction of matter. Furthermore, Bell absolutely proved Einstein wrong. If you ask any physicist if Einstein was right about hidden variables in quantum mechanics they will most certainly tell you, no he was not. Here is a good article about it: source. I don't think that Tesla, Bohm, Bearden, and Bordon are regarded as the founding fathers of a new foundation of quantum mechanics that is better than the work of Schrodinger, Dirac, Heisenberg, and Planck. When I took quantum mechanics we didn't study anything by Tesla, Bohm, Bearden, or Bordon. You can interpret quantum mechanics as quanta making decisions on their own if you would like, but perhaps you should actually understand it first.

I really liked your new links. I think I was hasty in my judgements of you Nestingwave. I got to hand it to you. You've hung in there and kept to your beliefs. I may not share the same conclusions as you, but I can't say you are absolutely wrong. I think this statement reminds me of you: You isolate the single event As something so dreadful that it couldn't have happened Because you could not bear it. So you must believe That I suffer from delusions. It is not my conscience Not my mind, that is diseased, but the world I have to live in. -T.S. Eliot

You know some scientists may "know" about everything you said. They may know that the solar system is not part of the milky way, and that we are heading toward the radial plane of the center of the milky way galaxy. They may know that the large flux of high energy particles from the black/white holes at the center of the galaxy will alter the DNA of every living creature on the face of the planet causing punctuated equilibrium. They may also know that the magnetic poles on our planet will flip causing wide spread devastation. But NOT ALL scientists know this. There is huge disagreement amongst scientist about these things. Just because they call they have title "scientist." Doesn't mean that they are right about everything. Einstein was wrong about hidden variables in quantum mechanics. Newton was wrong about how gravity works. Maxwell (and virtually all scientists at the end of the 19th century) was wrong about the aether. Progress in science doesn't happen without debate. Scientist don't just come out and say "This is absolute fact, and the evidence cannot be refuted," and then go on to make outrageous claims that they publish as reality altering discoveries. It takes time, weighing ALL the evidence, and then repeated studies for science to come to solid conclusions. Scientists aren't mega geniuses whose opinion we must respect at all times. Richard Dawkins is a brilliant biologists, but I don't ever want to adopt his views on God. Furthermore, it is not good to draw your own conclusions about something that the science doesn't even address in it's hypothesis. I am talking about concluding that solar flares and magnetic storms are evidence that the mayans knew what they were talking about, therefore there is going to be a huge cosmological paradigm shifting evolution punctuating mass chaos causing event in 2012. The scientists doing research on solar flares don't know anything about the mayans. All they care about is solar flares. Again, its fine if you want to believe all these "discoveries" add up to one single conclusion, but you really have no right to say that it is a scientific consensus that your conclusion is the only true one.

Hmmm... just did some research. It seems the BBC wants us to think that earthquake predictions of this variety are not as reliable as we had hoped: source.

That actually was a pretty good article Nestingwave. (No Sarcasm at all). I understand the government of the area not taking the scientist seriously because earthquake prediction has alway been believed to be quite spotty. Perhaps this guy may have gotten lucky in his prediction, but his science does seem solid from what I read in the article. I wonder if Giampaolo Giuliani has anything published.

It's true. Hopefully the beast that was discovered underneath the mantle of the earth during the 3 mile island meltdown will not be released causing general china syndrome amongst the populous. Even if it does though, I think it's possible that we could use the Large Hadron Collider at CERN to create a localized black hole to suck the demon back into the center of the earth. We just need to make sure that we create a magnetic monopole bubble around the beast and the black hole so that the event horizon doesn't expand to the radius of the earth. This shouldn't be too hard since black holes have no hair.

This post is in response to nestingwave's opinion that no one can refute his mountain of evidence. He has clearly thrown down the challenge for anyone to dispute him. I really have no problem with people believing that the end of the mayan long count could be a sign of disaster, but when people claim that legitimate science backs up or proves that we are headed for disaster then the hairs on the back of my neck stand up just a little bit. When words like "quantum vacuum," "quantum entanglement," "dark energy," and "sonoluminescent wavicles" get tossed around without regard to their actual meaning it perturbs me a little bit because I am actually studying these things. (Sonoluminescent waves are light waves created in tanks by focusing sound waves on a single point by the way: source not a potential cure for cancer or the constituent elements of matter. You may be confusing sonoluminescent waves with the Higgs Boson.) (Also dark energy is not scalar energy, it is completely unkown what dark energy is, but it is the term that is used to explain whatever force is causing the universe to expand at an accelerated pace.) Again, I must stress that pulling energy out of the quantum vacuum is virtually impossible with today's technology: source. I understand that science is awesome, but you can't just go around waving the magical "I have scientific proof" wand unless you actually do have scientific proof. I have gone through all of your links on your website, nestingwave. None of the links you posted are articles from actual peer-reviewed scientific journals. About half are news articles written by journalists, not scientists, and the other half are just websites created by other people who reference journalists and not scientists. You reference Tom Bearden for basically all of your ideas on zero point energy or "over-unity." This article directly refutes the claims of Tom Bearden: source. Really the best science you have linked on your website are articles about increased solar storms from the sun. It has been known for quite some time that solar storms are on an 11 year cycle. It just so happens that the next peak is around 2012 which is also when the mayan long count ends. Wow, neat coincidence. The claims of ultra high energy particles coming from blackholes in the center of our galaxy are quite erroneus. The reference you have for this on your website is a news article about some scientists who observed a few marginally larger energy cosmic rays from a black hole, but it should be noted that the radiation they are talking about is very low energy rays. They found some higher energy low energy rays. Also simple geometry suggests that being in the same plane as a black hole doesn't mean you would be getting more rays from the black hole, as cosmic radiation is emitted in sphereical waves. That means that we get exposed to the same amount of radiation from a distant source no matter where we are as far as angular dependence goes. The reason the mayan long count ends in 2012 is because it is based on the percession of the Earth's equinox, or wobble in our rotation.

Here is a good link with plenty of scientific data in contrast to nestingwave's hypothesis for anyone who is interested: The Good News.

It should also be noted that if the Earth's magnetic field were to break down, then all life on the planet would cease to exist, not because of high energy particles from white/black holes at the center of the galaxy, but from the normal high energy cosmic rays from our sun. If you are claiming the Earth's magnetic field will break down, then you are prophesying complete destruction of the human race from our own sun, not a rebirth of the planet. Much of what has been posted here seems to fly in the face of actual quantum mechanics. Tapping the quantum potential and the time domain? The entire universe being quantum entangled? Limitless worlds and timelines? These are very outlandish claims. I don't know if I even want to attempt to correct the flawed assumptions made, but here goes some of them. 1. The quantum potential or vacuum potential is not as easily tapped for energy as you might believe. It's true that matter anti-matter pairs are in constant flux of creation and annihilation within the vacuum, but to harness that energy means removing the anti-matter from the system which is only known to happen along the event horizon of a black hole. There is not differing ratios of space and time within the universe. The time domain does not hold infinite amounts of energy or timelines. 2. Making the assumption that all of us are quantum entangled with ETIs is completely illogical. A quantum entangled state means the state is in a superposition of states, or that it hasn't been measured yet. To say we are quantum entangled with ETIs would mean that our consciences would be mingled together. We would be hungry and full at the same time, or happy and sad at the same time. We would also be in an unmeasured state, but that is intuitively bizarre because I am constantly measuring myself. This whole notion is completely bizarre, and not based on actual quantum physics. I don't know what else to say, but the claims made in this thread have no basis in the realm of actual quantum mechanics as established by Heisenberg, Born, Schrodinger, Planck, Dirac, or Bell. Also, after reading several of the websites linked in this thread, I must say that most of what has been cited shows complete disregard for the scientific method, and the mountains of scientific evidence do not support the conclusion that Earth is heading for a catastrophic period of rebirth.

This is a classic flawed assumption of the double slit experiment. Quanta's of energy do not CHOSE anything based an ANY preordained patterns. This is what makes quantum mechanics so hard to grasp. It is so outside the norm of anything we relate to. Quantum mechanics says that the universe is entirely probablistic. That everything depends on chance. This is why Albert Einstein hated quantum mechanics and why he famously said, "God doesn't play dice with the universe." The problem with this statement is that it is wrong, which is why Bohr replied, "Don't tell God what he can or can't do." Bell proved Einstein wrong with his paper on entangled quantum states in 1964. I'm not familiar with any leading thinkers in our day who believe that quanta makes choices. Quanta are not predictable like common phenomena we experience everyday. i.e. if you drop something you can safely predict it will fall to the ground. Quanta behave according to their own rules which are based on chance. i.e. if you drop a quanta there is a %50 chance it will fall to the ground, and a %50 chance it will be someplace else. There are absolutely no laws that govern this chance, it's just chance. No one would suggest that the quanta decides which option according to its own conscious. Science should never be mixed with religion, and vice versa. If someone thinks they know all the laws of science and that all the facts are in, then they should check again. Likewise if someone thinks that religion will help them solve deep questions of science, then I think they should probably check again also.