Science, Physics and Quantum Mechanics Vortex Energy Part 18 of 27

aqouby Says:

Sep 11, 2011 - Again, that's all hear-say. From the evidence I've received through your video, I understand that you are lying and DO NOT know more then I give you credit for. Prove you're more learned then I believe you are and maybe I'll consider something other than you being an amateur.

trupiil Says:

Oct 27, 2011 - I am no expert, but your claim no physicist would claim conciousness for base particles is not correct. Physicist Jean E. Charon claims it and wrote about it. I have not evaluated if true, but there is at least one. There are more, which I could search out, but you can look into. By the way many of germans first and best Quantum Physics discovery heros have serious investigation and affection to religious and philosophical concepts, which can be described as rather "transcendental".

trupiil Says:

Oct 27, 2011 - Physicists: Hans Peter Dürr, former head of Max Planck institute, Heisenberg, Planck and others consider transcendental philosophy and religion in serious ways. Just to mention, not saying this philosophy was right or wrong, but they certainly are very close to it. Peace.

aqouby Says:

Oct 27, 2011 - Newton believed in the Sorcerer's Stone and alchemy. So fucking what?

trupiil Says:

Oct 27, 2011 - No need to use sexual language here. Jean E. Charon is a physicist who has a system of quantum physics, in which he sees conciousness at quantum level. This is WHAT. Sorry to disprove your claim. Just accept it if you can.

aqouby Says:

Oct 27, 2011 - Jean E. Charon is a crack-pot and is about as scientific as Deepak Chopera. I read a little bit on some interviews with him and a bit about his book. He doesn't use any equations in his book....... This guy is pathetic. You don't need to use equations in a book, but when you're talking about quantum mechanics and cosmology and the big things in physics, than yes, you sure as hell need to use equations. Again, Jean Charon is a failure of science. I can shoot down any of his claims.

trupiil Says:

Oct 28, 2011 - Yet he is by profession a physicist and conducted nuclear research at a french institute. I did not say he was right, just wanted to disprove your claim that no physicist would dare to say this. You did not require equations then in your claim. One did. And Dr. Dieter Schuster has similar systems, he is a german quantum physicist. Just for you don't get me wrong, they might be wrong, but they are there. And to call Charon a crackpot is ridicolous, he is a professional research physicist.

aqouby Says:

Oct 28, 2011 - Find me a piece of work that he helped attribute to. Find me anything that shows that he is a scientist that knows quantum physics, because there is nothing in quantum mechanics that even remotely insists what he claims. He became interested with physics when he was younger but now seems to be too old for his own sanity.Again, show me any scientific papers of his that use physics to describe what he claims is fact in quantum mechanics. This man isn't a scientist anymore. He's a mystic

trupiil Says:

Nov 7, 2011 - "Théorie unitaire. Analyse numérique des équations" is french and the title is about equations. Again, you said no physicist would say what he says, that was my whole point. He is a professional physicist and your claim was wrong. Call him names, disprove him, all good. Peace.

aqouby Says:

Nov 7, 2011 - You put any person, who earns a PhD in physics, a physicist worthy of believing. There are people, like the people who endorse this kind of philosophical pseudoscience. They use what they have learnt about the Universe to bend it toward a philosophical liking. You're all pathetic for not studying particle physics yourselves. Like this RobMonty248 guy, here. "Everything in frequency" Fucking moron.

trupiil Says:

Nov 8, 2011 - I think your respect is lacking when you namecall people. Even if they are wrong, take it easy. And I have never defended Charons work, as I am not familiar with it. I have read much on particle physics for a non-university physics student. Feynman, articles etc. I have tried to study. By the way I do study philosophy and let me tell you, both physics and philosophy without each other are not much telling. For example Heysenberg and Dürr are going deep in Philosophy and it is captivating

aqouby Says:

Nov 8, 2011 - I don't care about if they had a philosophical view on things, that's not my problem. It's not commendable for someone to study the work of someone and then to also accept their beliefs without objection. Philosophy without physics is no different then philosophy with it because no philosopher bases his beliefs firstly on mechanics. Physics without philosophy is still physics. I don't know where you get to the idea where they do connect, but they don't. I'm willing to argue over it too.

trupiil Says:

Nov 8, 2011 - I think you are right in a way. The description of physical experiments can be very objective. I meant that to deduct from the physical concepts a worldview is better done in when one considers philosophical concepts. So to describe "the world" and not only the experiments and its equations is not objective per se in my view. Because it needs to merge physics findings with what we perceive. Physics can be physics without this but fail to address a theory of what is is what I meant.

aqouby Says:

Nov 8, 2011 - The physical laws that describe the Universe and EVERYTHING within it is called physics. When we take those laws and try to understand it in any other way than what it is, then it's called philosophy. I can see the need of philosophy when looking at a flower.. That looking at one as a philosopher seems more whole, as you now see it with beauty and elegance, something that isn't a law of nature. But that's exactly it, philosophy isn't in physics. Learn more physics and see what I mean.

trupiil Says:

Nov 8, 2011 - It seems you are a metaphysical materialist and I am not. Big volumes and centuries try on this, we will not clear it up here. I'll learn more physics as I love it. I hope you scrutinize some of the best physicists philosophical insights. Maybe I'll become a materialist and you an idealist, lol.

aqouby Says:

Nov 8, 2011 - So go ahead and apply your philosophy to physics. Apply anyones. Make that connection, you dope. You wont be able to find one because there isn't one. They are 2 different subjects. Not like chemistry and biology. Like fiction and non-fiction. Like reason and religion. Just propose your philosophy using facts of physical reality and I wont take you for a complete douche-bag. And Yes I'm being immature, just because I have the knowhow to back my insight up. So I'll be waiting.

trupiil Says:

Nov 9, 2011 - I never said I apply philosophy to physics. Dolt. You seem to be confused and deducting too much about what I do or not. My whole point was to disprove your false claim that no physicist exists, who promotes conciousness at quantum level. I did that and then you try to lecture about what there is and not in the universe. On ytube in this tiny space brackets here. Idiot. Go teach your friends and I am gone here.

aqouby Says:

Nov 9, 2011 - Then you and I differ from what we consider work worth listening to. Philosophy is subjective and open to interpretation. Physics is not. That's all. There is no consciousness at a quantum level. That's my goddamned point.

trupiil Says:

Nov 9, 2011 - "Goddamned" haha.

aqouby Says:

Nov 9, 2011 - Excellent rebuttal. : \

trupiil Says:

Nov 9, 2011 - I said I am gone as I am not interested to discuss sensitive matters with dolts. Dolts who use curses that they proclaim to be inexistant. Goodbye.

aqouby Says:

Nov 9, 2011 - lol

Friendskater101 Says:

Dec 22, 2011 - Omg, the whole echo after every other word is really obnoxious and stops me from paying attention. Anyone know if theres the dialouge video of this video WITHOUT the music and Techno bullshit?

cortez757 Says:

Feb 3, 2012 - i have felt and seen the white light when i was a kid...