Sixty Symbols
The Mail Online article: http://bit.ly/quantumwoo — Obviously Dr Lanza did not write the article. Read Dr Lanza’s own words on Biocentrism here: http://theamericanscholar.org/a-new-theory-of-the-universe/
This video features Professor Phil Moriarty, a physicist at the University of Nottingham.
Visit our website at http://www.sixtysymbols.com/
We’re on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/sixtysymbols
And Twitter at http://twitter.com/#!/periodicvideos
Source
Can we have an uncensored episode where Phil can really just let loose
Is your work available in open journals? Much scientific work is locked away in journals while the general public are exposed to just the popular media version of science.
>First of all, it's the Daily Mail
I can relate.
4:59 But that's just it, isn't it? It doesn't "respond", it just "corresponds" when quantum randomness should make that impossible, right?
Quit shooting sparrows with buckshot. We'll all find out.
Instantaneous = the Inertial plane/Counterspace.
Longitudinal pulses of the Inertial plane tunnel through the door. Leaving its transverse waves on the original side of the door. The instantaneous longitudinal pulse/Inertial plane exits the door (No Evanescent wave) and like the beginning of the Universe. The first to leave the Inertial plane is Dielectric and then, there's Dielectric voidence field/Magnetism on the other side of the door.
This is pure catharsis for every scientifically literate person who's seen one of these BS articles shared by a friend/family member
People don't want to accept that they are nothing but a superposition of eigenstates.
He's trying SO HARD not to swear in the video.
Probably just aliens
I going to be bold here, because I'm watching this video immediately after reading the Capra book he holds up. Now, I don't know anything about the Lanza article, it does sound like BS to me, but the Capra book I found useful. I suppose I have a philosopher's mindset rather than a scientist's (though my response to reading about the supernatural was to do a lot of empirical research, but that's another story), so I want to know what things mean. What is energy? Even why is energy? I get that these questions are unanswerable in scientific – and probably any other – terms, but I think it's an important and very human thing to ask such them. Capra makes the point that he's not suggesting physicists should take up meditation; it's just that there are two disciplines of the human endeavour to understand existence, both empirical, and there are possible parallels between them which are worth thinking about. I like books that make you think. It's the relations between things that are often most fertile for producing intuitive leaps.
I enjoyed the video by the way. It's a useful corrective. But it's just one perspective.
Talking about misinterpretation , quark is german for curd.
"Quark is kind of an otherworldly word."
Well, in German it means curd.
EVERYTHING IS YOU!!!!!!! YOU ARE THE CONSCIOUSNESS CREATING ALL OF IT!!! IF OBJECTS BREAK, IT IS PRECISELY BECAUSE THEY ARE LESS REAL THAN CONSCIOUSNESS!!!!!!
Love this guy
Phil: You can't just say invisible pixies that we can't detect are just popping in and out of existence affecting the forces between particles.
Higgs Boson: Am I a joke to you?
uhm, isnt the thing he mentions at 3:50 literally the virtual particle theory? Kinda funny to look back at this. edit: after some quick googling I vastly underestimated how old that theory is. oops.
5:10 wouldn’t that be the energy of nothing? cuz did Einstein finish is theory with what light is relèvent to? I assumed that was just the energy of that nothing 0.0
The bridges we cross are fine bridges! They got us across? Whats to misinterpret?
If Pop Smoke were a Physicist
I've seen women walking through doorways who had measureable wave characteristics.
Dude, you are just confirming your materialistic world-view. Science has no explanation for the ordinary mystery of consciousness at all. Read Penrose's The Emperor's New Mind, Sheldrake's The Science Delusion and Hoffman's The Case Against Reality. Educate yourself. These ideas are not "just completely wrong" because you are unwilling to re-examen your obvious materialistic word-view bias.
I knew it was the invisible pixies.
I don’t know, I don’t agree there IS an objective colour there. There is an objective wavelength there, yes, but not an objective colour. Colour is a subjective mental construction. And what we see from the biological literature is the convolution of red cones with changes in fruiting trees that about the same time start producing fruit that go red when ripe.
That does seem like an organism-environment interaction of the kind that isn’t observer independent.
Can I ask a qu? About the point you made about the conscious observer. Why doesn’t it matter if you have a conscious observer or not?
Somebody need to tell this "physicist" to be careful about them shelves…….
The emperor’s quantum particles
Poor conceited leftist buffoon
One-electron.