posted June 30, 2016 06:53 AM            

People who think parallel universes or whole other universes stemming out of probabilities of our actions clearly have no brains.

I'm so connected to reality. There's only this ONE time happening right now. There's only this ONE set of atoms and electrons.

posted June 30, 2016 10:29 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by soren:
The image you showed me is basically what I thought was theorized to be true. I just dont think you need time for a dimension to exist. Time is movement inside of a dimension. 2D objects moving exist for a length of time.

The quote I put above just showed that the guy never mentions time. He says another direction that we can't really fathom.

---

posted July 13, 2016 03:10 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sulkyarcher:
Time exists because of movement, and a human need for organization. Oh, and distance.

---

Yes we are on the same page. Time is not some symbol that can breathe and go infinitely through out iself like a living organism representation of god, always ever present each time that will and can exist I don't think that's honestly so

If you really understand the laws of physics, there are atoms that are reacting to each other. They exist in the now. A set of ground slowly condensing a falling lower and getting more dense, this is the rule of time is things slowly but surely changing.

It's a pretty theory to say all time existing at one time. But it lacks any scientific proof. ALl the scientific true believable thing we can observe is how things work before us.

posted July 13, 2016 09:34 PM            

Maybe you were right. Maybe humans are better than aliens.

I tried staring at the moon to connect to the aliens hiding back there, because when I stare into mars and jupiter I can resonate with them and feel them, so I thought why not the aliens on the moon, they are about 1000x times closer then mars too, so easier to connect with.

It might just be my brain assuming or it might be the true feeling that I actually felt from them, they are hunched over calm, slightly obedient, to their disposition, like their stance to reality and the universe's physics, or that might just be their attitude they behave that way because they are on earth and have to be avoidant and humbled to human existence, to not do anything too weird, or it will be bad for them.

There life is full of love and meaning, they care so deeply for the greater mission of the universe, the force of love, the path of destiny,

But their lives arent as beautiful in nature as us.

After feeling that, I know in theory they can teach us the universe's quarks and how it behaves, but, after feeling that feeling that I felt from staring at the moon, I feel they can not truly help any human.

It's like saying a crippled person's philosophies to life would apply to a full athletic runner. A cripple person will say, you just gotta keep trying, keep believing, while the full body person is sprinting hardcore.

We must figure out life for ourselves

ETA: Haha

posted July 13, 2016 10:41 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by PixieJane:
It's a long story, but UFOs (and many "aliens") match the particles of quantum physics, and are recorded the same way (and with the same limitations). But I'm not up to explaining it today.

---

PixieJane:

I think the powerful pull of the simulated universe congesture is that we can “glitch” or “make our own way or use” of the glitches in the universe, as if there was any glitches,

You said the aliens follow the laws of particles? This isn’t new to me. EVERYTHING does.

I don’t view aliens as magical interdimensional fairies. They are in physical bodies like anything else.

This is why they are interesting- they live in physical bodies. They face the same stance to the universe as us. If we were simulated- they would likely have been able to find out. I personally don’t like the idea that all of our reality is kind of, not the real reality, as if I always thought I was a real human being, for a metaphor, then I find out I am actually a robot programmed. This is not the case-because the universe breathes in and out and your whole soul and body energy feel these vibrations. We are in a sense much not just our minds- we are a connection to all of what is.

This is why it can’t be simulated, I don’t think, I don’t want to believe anyhow, is because the laws of metaphysics, that we feel, that we get breathed into us, it would be very hard to program, using a technology that is obviously millions of times more advanced than this reality could ever think.

Just the simple fact that your intuition is connected to the whole reality, and you can actually feel it, well I can, it would be very hard to program such a thing. To feel all of reality in your soul and mind, each particle in the universe, would be challenging.

I think the pull on people that gets them hooked into this guy’s simulation idea is that we can figure out “secret hacks” and “glitches” to mess up reality, and its like figuring out that nothing is really what it seems, like a dark glitch and people are like >: ) “hahaha so this reality is messed up!!”

But it isn’t true that we are finding glitches or “things that shouldn’t exist therefore causing skepticism”

Simply because, we may think we can use and alter this “virtual simulation” to do things that are uncanny

But when the truth gets down to the bone, we aren’t discovering things and altering them,

When it gets down to the purest core of reality, the reality is just there, ever present

The glitches aren’t showing that its a flawed design

Just because we discover the glitches doesn’t say we created this universe

Just because we know something about reality, doesn’t mean we are responsible for this existence, and there fore it is limited and not true

When these people are able to overlook their discoveries, they’ll know,

the universe doesn’t exist because we think it does

It exists because it does

and we are just discovering new things about it’s nature

posted July 13, 2016 11:14 PM            

Nor did you understand what I (and others) mean by UFO manifestations (not really aliens, btw) are like subatomic particles. While tempted to explain the difference between ordinary reality that can be measured and recorded simultaneously, and quantum reality (like many paranormal manifestations) cannot (it's just one or the other at best), I feel it would be wasted on you as I don't think you're even half as smart (or "in tune") as you think you are.

And frankly, Soren, you annoy me with your pretentious "profound sense of reality" to keep you "in touch" with what's real, followed up by those who disagree with your opinions "clearly have no brains" as if your word is the final arbiter in anything said or promoted just because you say so and we're stupid if we don't recognize that (and this isn't your first thread to have done this). You want to be blunt about it, then allow me the same right as I'm blunt right back at you: I am not interested in learning at your feet, nor do I believe you when you say such things. If your last post hadn't started off with my name then I'd have skipped it.

posted July 14, 2016 12:01 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by PixieJane:
Nor did you understand what I (and others) mean by UFO manifestations (not really aliens, btw) are like subatomic particles.

---

I think you are saying that the UFO manifestations are like subatomic particles because they can just flash into reality, by pure hm probability of chance?

See that's where I realize, my whole life, I understood reality a certain way, focused narrowly on certain things that happen and only percieving them in that one light. And you obviously percieved and payed attention to different things.

Cause there are many videos of UFO's on cameras. And they behave in a very stable way, they never randomly disappear, they go slowly across the sky, like 8 of them.

So if you are saying they are as the first sentence I described, can randomly happen,

Which is more likely to believe: The image of a light moving across the sky?

OR

Understanding the laws of physics, one example for this being that for something to be seen in the night sky, it would have to be recieving light rays which travel a distance from the sun, hitting the craft which would obviously not be being blocked by the earth in distance to the sun, recieving the light rays and reflecting them back to earth. This all makes sense.

posted July 14, 2016 12:22 AM            

Anyway I feel the same there is no need to infer with each other's beliefs. If you read this and have no want to reply, I don't blame you. Don't reply if you don't feel like it, I won't call you out like I did above

"There are 2 different theories on it and even in the same page you showed me it clearly said that."

Sorry just to clarify, one theory was that the 4th dimension would be just like 3d, where each direction was equal and treated as the same as each other direction, having a new direction added to the same 3. The other one was where the 4th direction is time which is treated distinctively from the 3 other dimensions.

posted July 14, 2016 01:01 AM            

Why, would the second dimension, be the same as the first dimension, but it just has one more direction, and then the 3rd dimension is exactly like the second dimension, only it has ONE more direction, then all of a sudden, the 4th dimension, it gets incorporated with time?

We had an occurring pattern for each dimensional idea.. then all of a sudden BOOM, TIME is what they'll say they will use.

Time is just movement of atoms.

It's not a dimension. The guy just used all the tools he had, we live in 3 dimensions, what else can we call a direction? Time. It's not the 4th dimension. That's what I believe.

I question what the masses think. Just like astrology. People think an asteroid with a mass of 6x10^15 is relevent for their sex life, while the mass of one of the larger asteroids, Doris, has 1.7x10^19, which is still incredibly small compared to even Ceres. Eros is 3000x smaller then Doris (Doris- a reletavilty small body in space, in mass). But people will say it doesn't matter.

posted July 14, 2016 04:56 AM            

I decided PJ said i didn't understand the concept he was truly presenting, so i went back to the video to give it another try. I read the guy in the video's response to the first comment asking about the algae. Only to have my original suspicion REconfirmed that the guy is suggesting all of our reality is just like a complex computer simluation, created

For a sec I thought you had something interesting. Sorry don't mean to be mean. I was just right the first time. I don't see how i am misunderstanding anything. I don't know his observations which seem to suggest a simulated universe. but i just *KNOW* we aren't a simulated universe. There has to be ONE original universe.

posted July 14, 2016 09:37 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by PixieJane:
I also shared what I did because that's how some others see it but doesn't depress them, mire them in materialism, or make them think life is meaningless as you think it does, rather than convince you of anything about reality itself.

---

I saw what you ETA'd in there. Yes the belief does make me feel worse to believe. My friend also had a theory which I plainly wouldn't accept. That each person's perspective could be so vastly different that some person you see might actually feel like they are a fish swimming through coral. Or if we both see a bug, I might see what my perception of a fly was, but to him, he could have seen a wolf. He backs it up by saying that there is an objective reality, but each perspective may be completely different, but at the same time, in comparison to everything, we are seeing the exactly same thing, although it might look different, but in contrast to the world, it is the same meaning. Like he says if I saw a perfectly circular cloud, it's possible that he is seeing a square one, BUT, it would all equal out the contrasts of our reality that the comparison of a circle to everything else in my perspective would be the same as a square in comparison to everything in his knowing. But it just clearly doesn't seem like a believable theory to me, because the trait about a circle is it has no edges, it can't be compared to any other shape other than an oval. He says it is possible that each person's perspective is completely different, I said well I like to just, I guess, take a leap of faith and just believe what I see before my eyes is the reality.

From his theory it was making me think he was suggesting that nothing was as it seems.

It doesn't sit well with me. Especially when, I shouldn't have to be explaining this, I don't really think anyone else is feeling like a fish, or that they actually are a fish in their reality. He says, "you never know though"

Anyway. Virtual Simulated Universe? There's something weird about the feeling I get when I watch the guy's video. Like it's so profound that my mind can't disagree. I don't know.

Just because there's no evidence to refute him, doesn't mean that we live in a simulated universe.

posted July 14, 2016 02:23 PM            

That said, I'm surprised at your reaction to him since he says many of the things you say. With one possible exception, he doesn't say we made the universe or that it was made for us, and he believes the universe itself is evolving (and we're part of that process or possibly a byproduct of it). It's exotic as I thought you wanted, and he says materialism doesn't work anymore. And the one exception (that is, where he implies the universe was created for us, and this is where he veers into new age territory for me), and also the one part I'd personally challenge him on since I see his speculation veer off into baseless assumption that I'm sure is from his upbringing, is that he believes we're here to learn to love each other, growing past the rest until love is all that's left (which your first posts in this thread made me think is something you'd approve of). And in other threads you thought people into physics and the like couldn't think like that, but he does, and you gravitate to what makes you feel better which I thought he might. Ah well, I'll chalk it up to irony.

posted July 14, 2016 08:20 PM            

I am very interested in quantum physics.

I understood everything he was suggesting. Only he got into the woods with his idealogy and plain error the moment he suggested particles and waves are just probabilities. I sensed it right as he said it- particles and waves BEHAVE in probable ways perhaps, but they aren't MERELY a probability.

Which also ties into how he thinks the particles/waves don't exist until they are measured.

In the universe- why would the measuring of something be any more significant than the regular state?

Like he has the 2 right angles that each electron/particle/can behave as a wave bounces off of. And he thinks that they only really exist once they are measured. Otherwise they are in a state of non-existence. But the whole path they took and distance they travelled, they obviously existed for that amount of time. For example if it takes 0.0014 seconds for an electron to bounce off the mirrors to the measurement zone, if you moved the mirrors to be further along with the whole path of the electrons, and now it takes 0.005 (longer) to travel in distance to, it kinda says, well i can't prove it, you either get into a state of mind where you are looking for things, or you can be open and not assume anything.

To even go as far as to assume that none of existence is really there, is a major assumption that he is making off of his view that everything is just probability, which as I said above, was where he steered into error IMO. He's being too mental (tying in thoughts and theories but getting disconnected, he's pursuing an idea and losing the scope of all)

ETA: Oh maybe he didn't say none of existence is there, that's what someone in the comments was saying he was suggesting. I think he was really suggesting that the simulator is coded to "materialize" particles based off of probabilities.

It's just I can really sense some psychic things

And when I saw a giant meteor in the sky which was about half the size of the moon,

I don't think it was behaving like particles

I think there litterally was a giant ball of matter that was reacting to the dense atmosphere, burning up which is why I was able to see it. I believe it was actually there, and that it likely travelled millions of miles through space before entering our orbit.

Along with many other UFO's Ive seen (unidentified). They come into site in the middle of the sky often because that's when they are no longer in the earth's shadow. They slowly move across the sky and disappear over the horizon as it gets too dense for anything to be seen. I've seen satelites, shooting stars. I've seen rods and cones dashing across the sky, those are the real aliens. Haha. Not. Those were just the error of slow frame rate of cameras 15 years ago

Everything in our seen physical reality is not behaving as things behave on the sub atomic level. You may have already said this. But for some reason UFO's are different. I guess we'll never know until one comes down and we see it's metal exterior with our owns eyes. Then maybe we'll know it's not some paranormal phenomenom seen only in the skys and not at ground level haha.

And when I can sense things

You just know it's not able to be programmed. Programmed is a word. A word describing a thing.

posted July 15, 2016 01:15 PM            

No, you are staring at the particle, you can't look at something and say its not what it is.

posted July 16, 2016 02:42 PM            

This was a great assumption on their part.

In fact, many people are still believing this.

There's only 2 ways a particle can behave. As a wave, or as a particle.

Found this comment "This is a bit off. The quantum observer says we cannot observe without interfering, the universe does not require an intelligent observer and our sensors are not intelligent, they are influencing with their fields. Plus the double slit experiment was not done with electrons."