Rapid limestone petrification: Yorkshire teddy bears “turned to stone” in three to five months

Stalactites form in a lot less then 1000s of years.

I worked in a gold mine in Calif that had mine timbers wrapped in stalactites that were 2 inches thick

originally posted by: PickledOnion
Rapid limestone petrification: Yorkshire teddy bears “turned to stone” in three to five months
page: 1

Ah, the disingenuous and insincere endless lies of the Faithless 'believer'!

"Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true." - Demosthenes

a reply to: namelesss

"Amongst the Interpreters of the last age
there is scarce one of note who hath not made some
discovery worth knowing; and thence seem to gather
that God is about opening these mysteries.
The success of others put me upon considering it; and
if I have done anything which may be useful to following
writers, I have my design." - Sir Isaac Newton

a reply to: PickledOnion

Flippin heck that's a bit deep isn't it?

Off topic but I see you're into pyramids. The great pyramid is a sonic chamber. When you sing the right notes it transports you into different dimensions. Except they blocked it all up, that's what the granite plugs and wooden doors are about.

On topic. If one of the teddies squeals I know how to deal with the little swine. Thanks for the info.

originally posted by: PickledOnion
a reply to: namelesss

"Amongst the Interpreters of the last age
there is scarce one of note who hath not made some
discovery worth knowing; and thence seem to gather
that God is about opening these mysteries.
The success of others put me upon considering it; and
if I have done anything which may be useful to following
writers, I have my design." - Sir Isaac Newton

I see no relevance in the quote to what I said.
(And a lot of Newton's thoughts has been refuted, since.)

originally posted by: namelesss
I see no relevance in the quote to what I said.
(And a lot of Newton's thoughts has been refuted, since.)

Newton's thoughts have been refuted? Which ones?

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: namelesss
I see no relevance in the quote to what I said.
(And a lot of Newton's thoughts has been refuted, since.)

Newton's thoughts have been refuted? Which ones?

Quantum mechanics has pretty much eviscerated the whole 'clockwork/causal' theory/model of the Universe/Reality.

a reply to: namelesss

Sir Isaac Newton one of the greatest scientists who ever lived and an ardent Bible scholar . Made fundamental contributions to every major area of scientific and mathematical concern in his generation. Revolutionary advances in mathematics, optics, physics, and astronomy. He pretty much invented the mathematics discipline known as calculus. Have those thoughts of a 'Faithless 'believer'!' been refuted? The answer is no.

a reply to: PickledOnion

He also used to stick needles in his eye.

Expertise in one field does not make your opinions in other fields any more valid.

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: namelesss
I see no relevance in the quote to what I said.
(And a lot of Newton's thoughts has been refuted, since.)

Newton's thoughts have been refuted? Which ones?

Quantum mechanics has pretty much eviscerated the whole 'clockwork/causal' theory/model of the Universe/Reality.

Nope. They expand on it, they don't disprove it. Newton's laws all still apply to this day.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: namelesss
I see no relevance in the quote to what I said.
(And a lot of Newton's thoughts has been refuted, since.)

Newton's thoughts have been refuted? Which ones?

Quantum mechanics has pretty much eviscerated the whole 'clockwork/causal' theory/model of the Universe/Reality.

Nope. They expand on it, they don't disprove it. Newton's laws all still apply to this day.

I'm sorry, but if you wish to refute something that I said, we are going to need more than your mere say so!
Quantum put the skids on Newtons mechanical Universe which can all be predicted by the use of 'causality'!
It is all shown to be crap!
If you are just going to offer me another "Is not!", don't bother, because I can take you by the hand and show you clearly, scientifically, philosophically, why Newton was incorrect.
I mean no disrespect to an 'idol', but philosophers are mind sharks!

originally posted by: PickledOnion
a reply to: namelesss

Sir Isaac Newton one of the greatest scientists who ever lived and an ardent Bible scholar . Made fundamental contributions to every major area of scientific and mathematical concern in his generation. Revolutionary advances in mathematics, optics, physics, and astronomy. He pretty much invented the mathematics discipline known as calculus. Have those thoughts of a 'Faithless 'believer'!' been refuted? The answer is no.

I'm glad that you have a hero.
Believe in Santa if you like.
It makes no difference to me.
I know better, and have nothing to prove.
Had you been intellectually genuine and honest, rather than emotionally defensive, you would have simply asked me to support my assertions!
I would have been happy to, but, you are really not interested in tarnishing your idol.
Whatever...
You don't seem to be his only ignorant fan! *__-

originally posted by: namelesss
I'm sorry, but if you wish to refute something that I said, we are going to need more than your mere say so!

LOL! But I'm supposed to just sit here and accept what you said on faith? Aren't we going to need more than your mere say so? Show me exactly which laws from Newton have been disproved and show how and why with physical evidence.

Quantum put the skids on Newtons mechanical Universe which can all be predicted by the use of 'causality'!
It is all shown to be crap!
If you are just going to offer me another "Is not!", don't bother, because I can take you by the hand and show you clearly, scientifically, philosophically, why Newton was incorrect.
I mean no disrespect to an 'idol', but philosophers are mind sharks!

I love how people romanticize quantum mechanics. It's the latest buzz word for the new age movement. Quantum mechanics works on a completely different level and is not fully understood yet, but somehow it overrides Relativity and Newton's laws. By all means, show me which of Newton's laws are incorrect with evidence that proves they do not function as Newton has demonstrated. Good luck. I already sense some major backtracking, but this should be entertaining watching you try to rectify that viewpoint. Please stick to science, not the philosophy. I'm not interested in "what ifs".

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: namelesss
I'm sorry, but if you wish to refute something that I said, we are going to need more than your mere say so!

LOL! But I'm supposed to just sit here and accept what you said on faith? Aren't we going to need more than your mere say so? Show me exactly which laws from Newton have been disproved and show how and why with physical evidence.

Sure, I'll do a bit of your legwork for you.
Here are a couple of reads that might help you catch up to the 20th century (and they aren't too difficult)! *__-

A New Theory
of the Universe

www.global-mindshift.com...< br />
~~~~~~~~~

A fun read;

Scientists Refute Newton’s Third Law Of Motion
Light can break Newton’s third law – by cheating

www.newscientist.com...-jCCTAg6-

~~~~~~~~~

Even a quick trip to wiki finds this;
"All of classical physics, including Newtonian physics, (is)superseded by relativistic physics and quantum physics. However, classical physics is a limiting case of the latter two theories, and it is often a very good approximation."
en.wikipedia.org...

~~~~~~~~

"Newton's views on space, time, and motion dominated physics from the 17th Century until the advent of the theory of relativity in the 20th Century."

plato.stanford.edu...

~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Newton’s law had a flaw: It did not explain how one thing could act on another instantly, across any distance, with nothing in between. Nobody liked this “action at a distance,” including Newton. “It sounded occult,” says Kaiser, “like alchemy.”"

www.pbs.org...

If you knew ANYTHING of quantum, you wouldn't be stomping your feet like this.
Tell you what, you read the above and just ask, I'll be happy to find you more to read.
Lets see how sincere your request for an 'education' is?
Perhaps there will be a quiz... *__-

a reply to: namelesss

Let's not get too cocky just yet. The law has not actually been refuted, it's merely been shown that light can "cheat" it. Newtonian physics is basically a limited version of relativity. Einstein's relativity described Newton's laws in much more detail.

In regards to the article about light "cheating" to break the 3rd law of motion:

Here's the big problem. Light isn't an object. Newton's law clearly states that 2 objects (indicating mass) that act upon one another will have an opposite but equal reaction. Photons do not have mass, so technically light does not have mass. Therefor it makes sense that light could "cheat" the system. It even says right at the beginning that it only "sort of" breaks the law. They even had to put the "mass" part in quotes. This is the problem with quoting articles rather than research papers. They look for catchy headlines and controversy rather than legitimate "boring" research and are usually dumbed down.

Either way, the law hasn't been refuted. I'm still looking for a full version of the research paper, but most sites make you pay to view it. I'd like to read their conclusion. If the conclusion states that the 3rd law is wrong, then I will go along with it, but I highly doubt it.

Newtons laws are about the conservation of momentum, and this still holds true, regardless of the Optical diametric drive accelerator. This is miles different from "It is all shown to be crap!" No it hasn't. It still holds true for the most part and is still used today at most velocities.

From your wiki link on superseded scientific theories:

In other cases an existing theory is replaced by a new theory that retains significant elements of the earlier theory; in these cases, the older theory is often still useful for many purposes, and may be more easily understood than the complete theory and lead to simpler calculations. An example of this is the use of Newtonian physics, which differs from the currently accepted relativistic physics by a factor that is negligibly small at velocities much lower than that of light. All of Newtonian physics is satisfactory for most purposes that it is more widely used except at velocities that are a significant fraction of the speed of light, and simpler Newtonian but not relativistic mechanics is usually taught in schools.

All of classical physics, including Newtonian physics, superseded by relativistic physics and quantum physics. However, classical physics is a limiting case of the latter two theories, and it is often a very good approximation.

Relativity is a more "complete" description of classic physics. That doesn't mean classic physics has been refuted. It was expanded upon, like I originally said.

Anyways, I appreciate you giving me some food for thought. I'll definitely be on the hunt for more information regarding this. If I'm wrong I'll eat crow, but it seems like I was correct in saying that classic physics was expanded upon rather than flat out refuted, because they DO still apply to objects with mass at MOST velocities.

Also the global mindshift link did not work.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: namelesssI was correct in saying that classic physics was expanded upon rather than flat out refuted, because they DO still apply to objects with mass at MOST velocities.

A 'local make do theory', at best.
Superseded in a larger context.
Newton hypothesized that the Universe worked like clockwork.

In the history of science, the clockwork universe compares the universe to a mechanical clock. It continues ticking along, as a perfect machine, with its gears governed by the laws of physics, making every aspect of the machine predictable.

Best Answer: The Clockwork Universe Theory is a theory, established by Isaac Newton, as to the origins of the universe.
answers.yahoo.com...

A "clockwork universe" can be thought of as being a clock wound up by God and ticking along, as a perfect machine, with its gears governed by the laws of physics.

What sets this theory apart from others is the idea that God's only contribution to the universe was to set everything in motion, and from there the laws of science took hold and have governed every sequence of events since that time. This idea was very popular in the Enlightenment, when scientists realized that Newton's laws of motion, including the law of universal gravitation, could explain the behavior of the solar system.

A notable exclusion from this theory though is free will, since all things have already been set in motion and are just parts of a predictable machine. Newton feared that this notion of "everything is predetermined" would lead to atheism.

This theory was undermined by the second law of thermodynamics ( the total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value) and quantum physics with its unpredictable random behavior.
Source(s): encyclopedia
Jungle Resource

The unpredictability of the 'future' refutes his 'clockwork theory'.

And a photon is as much a 'thing' as a rock!

I happen to have a copy here;



A New Theory
of the Universe

Biocentrism builds on quantum physics
by putting life into the equation

By Robert Lanza

While I was sitting one night with a poet friend watching a great opera performed in a tent under arc lights , the poet took my arm and pointed silently. Far up, blundering out of the night, a huge Cecropia moth swept past from light to light over the posturings of the actors. “He doesn’t know,” my friend whispered excitedly. “He’s passing through an alien universe brightly lit but invisible to him. He’s in another play; he doesn’t see us. He doesn’t know. Maybe it ’s happening right now to us. ” -—Loren Eiseley

The world is not, on the whole, the place we have learned about in our school
books. This point was hammered home one recent night as I crossed the
causeway of the small island where I live. The pond was dark and still . Several
strange glowing objects caught my attention on the side of the road, and I
squatted down to observe one of them with my flashlight. The creature turned
out to be a glowworm, the luminous larva of the European beetle Lampyris noctiluca.
Its segmented little oval body was primitive—like some trilobite that had just crawled
out of the Cambrian Sea 500 million years ago. There we were, the beetle and I , two
living objects that had entered into each others’ world. It ceased emitting it's greenish
light, and I, for my part , turned off my flashlight.

I wondered if our interaction was different from that of any other two objects in the
universe. Was this primitive little grub just another collection of atoms—proteins and
molecules spinning away like the planets round the sun? Had science reduced life to
the level of a mechanist’s logic, or was this wingless beetle, by virtue of being a living
creature, creating it's own physical reality?

The laws of physics and chemistry can explain the biology of living systems, and I can
recite in detail the chemical foundations and c ellular organization of animal cells :
oxidation, biophysical metabolism, all the carbohydrates and amino acid patterns. But
there was more to this luminous little bug than the sum of it's biochemical functions. A
full understanding of life cannot be found by looking at cells and molecules through a
microscope. We have yet to learn that physical existence cannot be divorced from the
animal life and structures that coordinate sense perception and experience. Indeed, it
seems likely that this creature was the center of it's own sphere of reality just as I was the
center of mine.

Although the beetle did not move, it had sensory cells that transmitted messages to the
cells in it's brain. Perhaps the creature was too primitive to collect data and pinpoint my
location in space. Or maybe my existence in it's universe was limited to the perception
of some huge and hairy shadow stabilizing a flashlight in the air. I don’ t know. But as I
stood up and left, I am sure that I dispersed into the haze of probability surrounding the
glowworm’s little world.

Our science fails to recognize those special properties of life that make it fundamental
to material reality . This view of the world—biocentrism—revolves around the way a
subjective experience, which we call consciousness , relates to a physical process . It is a
vast mystery and one that I have pursued my entire life . The conclusions I have drawn
place biology above the other sciences in the attempt to solve one of nature’s biggest
puzzles, the theory of everything that other disciplines have been pursuing for the last
century. Such a theory would unite all known phenomena under one umbrella,
furnishing science with an all-encompassing explanation of nature or reality .

We need a revolution in our understanding of science and of the world. Living in an age
dominated by science, we have come more and more to believe in an objective,
empirical reality and in the goal of reaching a complete unders tanding of that reality .
Part of the thrill that came with the announcement that the human genome had been
mapped or with the idea that we are close to understanding the big bang rests in our
desire for completeness.

But we’re fooling ourselves.

Most of these comprehensive theories are no more than stories that fail to take into
account one crucial factor: we are creating them. It is the biological creature that makes
observations, names what it observes, and creates stories. Science has not succeeded in
confronting the element of existence that is at once most familiar and most
mysterious—conscious experience. As Emerson wrote in “Experience,” an essay that
confronted the facile positivism of his age: “We have learned that we do not see directly,
but mediately, and that we have no means of correcting these colored and distorting
lenses which we are or of computing the amount of their errors. Perhaps these
subjectlenses have a creative power; perhaps there are no objects .”

Biology is at first glance an unlikely source for a new theory of the universe. But at a
time when biologists believe they have discovered the “universal cell” in the form of
embryonic stem cells , and when cosmologists like Stephen Hawking predict that a
unifying theory of the universe may be discovered in the next two decades, shouldn’ t
biology seek to unify existing theories of the physical world and the living world? What
other discipline can approach it? Biology should be the

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: namelesss

What other discipline can approach it? Biology should be the first and last study of science. It
is our own nature that is unlocked by means of the humanly created natural sciences used to understand the universe. Ever since the remotest of times philosophers have
acknowledged the primacy of consciousness—that all truths and principles of being
must begin with the individual mind and self . Thus Descartes’s adage: “Cogito , ergo
sum.” (I think, therefore I am.) In addition to Descartes, who brought philosophy into
its modern era, there were many other philosophers who argued along these lines: Kant,
Leibniz , Bishop Berkeley, Schopenhauer, and Henri Bergson, to name a few.

We have failed to protect science against speculative extensions of nature, continuing
to assign physical and mathematical properties to hypothetical entities beyond what is
observable in nature. The ether of the 19th century, the “spacetime” of Einstein, and
the string theory of recent decades, which posits new dimensions showing up in
different realms, and not only in strings but in bubbles shimmering down the byways of
the universe—all these are examples of this speculation. Indeed, unseen dimensions
(up to a hundred in some theories) are now envisioned everywhere, some curled up l ike
soda straws at every point in space.

Today’s preoccupation wit h physical theories of everything takes a wrong turn from the
purpose of science—to question all things relentlessly. Modern physics has become like
Swift’s kingdom of Laputa, flying absurdly on an island above the earth and indif ferent
to what is beneath. When science tries to resolve it's conflicts by adding and subtracting
dimensions to the universe like houses on a Monopoly board, we need to look at our
dogmas and recognize that the cracks in the system are just the points that let the light
shine more directly on the mystery of life.

The urgent and primary questions of the universe have been undertaken by those
physicists who are trying to explain the origins of everything with grand unified
theories. But as exciting and glamorous as these theories are, they are an evasion, if not
a reversal, of the central mystery of knowledge: that the laws of the world were somehow
created to produce the observer. And more important than this, that the observer in a
significant sense creates reality and not the other way around. Recognition of this
insight leads to a single theory that unifies our understanding of the world.

Modern science cannot explain why the laws of physics are exactly balanced for animal
life to exist . For example, if the big bang had been one-part-in-a billion more powerful,
it would have rushed out too fast for the galaxies to form and for life to begin. If the
strong nuclear force were decreased by two percent, atomic nuclei wouldn’t hold
together. Hydrogen would be the only atom in the universe. If the gravitational force
were decreased, stars (including the sun) would not ignite. These are just three of more
than 200 physical parameters within the solar system and universe so exact that they
cannot be random. Indeed, the lack of a scientific explanation has allowed these facts to
be hijacked as a defense of intelligent design.

Without perception, there is in effect no reality . Nothing has existence unless you, I, or
some living creature perceives it , and how it is perceived further influences that
reality . Even time itself is not exempted from biocentrism. Our sense of the forward
motion of time is really the result of a n infinite number of decisions that only seem to be
a smooth continuous path. At each moment we are at the edge of a paradox known as
The Arrow, first described 2 ,500 years ago b y the philosopher Zeno of Elea. Starting
logically with the premise that nothing can be in two places at once, he reasoned that an
arrow is only in one place during any given instance of it's flight. But if it is in only one
place, it must be at rest. The arrow must then be at rest at every moment of it's flight.
Logically, motion is impossible. But is motion impossible? Or rather, is this analogy
proof that the forward motion of time is not a feature of the external world but a
projection of something within us? Time is not an absolute reality but an aspect of our
consciousness.

This paradox lies at the heart of one of the great revolutions of 20th-century physics, a
revolution that has yet to take hold of our understanding of the world and of the decisive
role that consciousness plays in determining the nature of reality . The uncertainty principle in quantum physics is more profound than its name suggests. It means that
we make choices at every moment in what we can determine about the world. We
cannot know with complete accuracy a quantum particle’s motion and it's position at the
same time—we have to choose one or the other. Thus the consciousness of the observer
is decisive in determining what a particle does at any given moment.

Einstein was frustrated by the threat of quantum uncertainty to the hypothesis he called
spacetime, and spacetime turns out to be incompatible with the world discovered b y
quantum physics. When Einstein showed that there is no universal now, it followed that
observers could slice up reality into past, present, and, future, in different ways, all
with equal reality . But what, exactly, is being sliced up?

Space and time are not stuff that can be brought back to the laboratory in a marmalade
jar for analysis . In fact, space and time fall into the province of biology—of animal
sense perception—not of physics. They are properties of the mind, of the language by
which we human beings and animals represent things to ourselves. Physicists venture
beyond the scope of their science—beyond the limits of material phenomena and
law—when they try to assign physical, mathematical, or other qualities to space and
time.

Return to the revelation that we are thinking animals and that the material world is the
elusive substratum of our conscious activity continually defining and redefining the
real. We must become skeptical of the hard reality of our most cherished conceptions of
space and time, and of the very notion of an external reality , in order to recognize that it
is the activity of consciousness itself, born of our biological selves, which in some sense
creates the world.

Despite such things as the development of superconducting supercolliders containing
enough niobium-titanium wire to circle the earth 16 times, we understand the universe
no better than the first humans with sufficient consciousness to think. Where did it all
come from? Why does the universe exist? Why are we here? In one age, we believe that
the world is a great ball resting on the back of a turtle; in the next, that a f airy universe
appeared out of nowhere and is expanding into nothingness. In one age, angels push
and pummel the planets about; in another age, everything is a meaningless accident.
We exchange a world-bearing turtle for a big bang.

We are like Loren Eiseley’s moth, blundering from light to light, unable to discern the
great play that blazes under the opera tent. Turn now to the experimental findings of
modern science, which require us to recognize—at last—our role in the creation of
reality from moment to moment.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: namelesss

Consciousness cannot exist without a living, biological
creature to embody it's perceptive powers of creation. Therefore we must turn to the
logic of life, to biologic, if we are to understand the world around us.

Space and time are the two concepts we take most for granted in our lives. We have
been taught that they are measurable. They exist. They’re real. And that reality has
been reinforced every day of our lives.

Most of us live without thinking abstractly about time and space. They are such an
integral part of our lives that examination of them is as unnatural as an examination of
walking or breathing. In fact, many people feel silly talking about time and space in an
abstract, analytical way. The question “Does time exist?” can seem like so much
philosophical babble. After all, the clock ticks, the years pass, we age and die. Isn’t
time the only thing we can be certain of? Equally inconsonant is the question of
whether or not space exists. “Obviously space exists, ” we might answer, “because we
live in it. We move through it, drive through it, build in it, measure it.”

Time and space are easy to talk and think about. Find yourself short of either or
both—late for work, standing in a stalled subway car packed with riders—and issues of
time and space are obvious: “It’s crowded and I’m uncomfortable and my boss is going to kill me for being late .” But time and space as our source of comprehension and
consciousness is an abstraction. Our day-to-day experiences indicate nothing of this
reality to us. Rather, life has taught us that time and space are external and eternal
realities. They bound all experiences and are more fundamental than life itself. They
are above and beyond human experience.

As animals, we are organized, wired, to think this way. We use dates and places to
define our experiences to ourselves and to others . History describes the past by placing
people and events in time and space. Scientific theories of the big bang, geology, and
evolution are steeped in the logic of time and space. They are essential to our every
movement and moment. To place ourselves as the creators of time and space, not as the
subject s of it, goes against our common sense, life experience, and education. It takes a
radical shift of perspective for any of us to entertain the idea that space and time are
animal sense perceptions, because the implications are so startling.

Yet we all know that space and time are not things—objects that you can see, feel, taste ,
touch, or smell. They are intangible, like gravity . In fact they are modes of
interpretation and understanding, part of the animal logic that molds sensations into
multidimensional objects.

We live on the edge of time, where tomorrow hasn’t happened yet. Everything before
this moment is part of the history of the universe, gone forever. Or so we believe.
Think for a minute about time flowing forward into the future and how extraordinary it
is that we are here, alive on the edge of all time. Imagine all the days and hours that
have passed since the beginning of time. Now stack them like chairs on top of each
other, and seat yourself on the very top. Science has no real explanation for why we’re
here, for why we exist now. According to the current physiocentric worldview, it’ s just
an accident, a one-in-a-gazillion chance that I am here and that you are there. The
statistical probability of being on top of time or infinity is so small as to be meaningless .
Yet this is generally how the human mind conceives time.

In classical science, humans place all things in time and space on a continuum. The
universe is 15 to 20 billion years old; the earth five or six. Homo erectus appeared four
million years ago, but he took three-and-a-half million years to discover fire, and
another 490,000 to invent agriculture. And so forth. Time in a mechanistic universe
(as described by Newton and Einstein and Darwin) is an arrow upon which events are
notched. But imagine, instead, that reality is like a sound recording. Listening to an old
phonograph doesn’t alter the record itself, and depending on where the needle is
placed, you hear a certain piece of music. This is what we call the present. The music
before and after the song you are hearing is what we call the past and the future.
Imagine, in like manner, that every moment and day endures in nature always. The
record does not go away. All nows (all the songs on the record) exist simultaneously,
although we can only experience the world (or the record) piece by piece. If we could
access all life—the whole record—we could experience it non-sequentially. We could
know our children as toddlers, as teenagers, as senior citizens—all now. In the end,
even Einstein admitted, “Now [Besso—one o f his oldest friends] has departed from this
strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us . . . know that the
distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.”
That there is an irreversible, on-flowing continuum of events linked to galaxies and
suns and the earth is a fantasy.

It’ s important here to address a fundamental question. We have clocks that can
measure time. If we can measure time, doesn’t that prove it exists ? Einstein
sidestepped the question by simply defining time as “what we measure with a clock.”
The emphasis for physicists is on the measuring. However, the emphasis should be on
the we, the observers. Measuring time doesn’ t prove its physical existence. Clocks are
rhythmic things. Humans use the rhythms of some events (like the ticking of clocks) to
time other events (like the rotation of the earth). This is not time, but rather, a comparison of events. Specifically, over the ages, humans have observed rhythmic
events in nature: the periodicities of the moon, the sun, the flooding of the Nile. We
then created other rhythmic things to measure nature’s rhythms: a pendulum, a
mechanical spring, an electronic device. We called these manmade rhythmic devices
“clocks.” We use the rhythms of specific events to time other specific events. But these
are just events, not to be confused with time.

Quantum mechanics describes the tiny world of the atom and it s constituents with
stunning accuracy. It is used to design and build much of the technology that drives
modern society—transistors, lasers, and even wireless communication. But quantum
mechanics in many ways threatens not only our essential and absolute notions of space
and time, but indeed, all Newtonian-Darwinian conceptions of order and secure
prediction.

“I think it is safe to say that no one understands quantum mechanics,” said Nobel
physicist Richard Feynman. “Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid
it, ‘But how can it be like that? ’ because you will go ‘down the drain’ into a blind alley
from which nobody has yet escaped.” The reason scientists go down the drain is that
they refuse to accept the immediate and obvious implications of the experimental
findings of quantum theory. Biocentrism is the only humanly comprehensible
explanation for how the world can b e the way it is . But, as the Nobel laureate physicist
Steven Weinberg admits , “It’s an unpleasant thing to bring people into the basic laws of
physics.”

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: namelesss

In order to account for why space and time were relative to the observer, Einstein
assigned tortuous mathematical properties to an invisible, intangible entity that cannot
be seen or touched. This folly continues with the advent of quantum mechanics.
Despite the central role of the observer in this theory—extending it from space and time
to the very properties of matter itself—scientists still dismiss the observer as an
inconvenience to their theories. It has been proven experimentally that when studying
subatomic particles, the observer actually alters and determines what is perceived. The
work of the observer is hopelessly entangled in that which he is at tempting to observe.
An electron turns out to be both a particle and a wave. But how and where such a
particle will be located remains entirely dependent upon the very act of observation.
Pre-quantum physicist s thought that they could determine the trajectory of individual
particles with complete certainty . They assumed that the behavior of particles would be
predictable if everything were known at the outset—that there was no limit to the
accuracy with which they could measure the physical properties of a particle. But
Werner Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle showed that this is not the case. You can
know either the velocity of a particle or its location but not both. If you know one, you
cannot know the other. Heisenberg compared this to the little man and woman in a
weather house, an old folk art device that functions as a hygrometer, indicating the air’s
humidity. The two figures ride opposite each other on a balance bar. “If one comes out,”
Heisenberg said, “the other goes in.”

Consider for a moment that you are watching a film of an archery tournament, with the
Zeno’s arrow paradox in mind. An archer shoots, and the arrow flies. The camera
follows the arrow’s trajectory from the archer’s bow toward the target. Suddenly the
projector stops on a single frame of a stilled arrow. You stare at the image of an arrow in midflight. The pause in the film enables you to know the position of the arrow—it ’s just
beyond the grandstand, about 20 feet above the ground. But you have lost all
information about it s momentum. It is going nowhere; its velocity is zero. Its path is no
longer known. It is uncertain.

To measure the position precisely at any given instant is to lock in on one static frame,
to put the movie on pause, so to speak. Conversely, as soon as you observe momentum
you can’t isolate a frame, because momentum is the summation of many frames. You
can’t know one and the other with complete accuracy. There is uncertainty as you hone in, whether on motion or position.

All of this makes sense from a biocentric perspective: time is the inner form of animal
sense that animates events—the still frames—of the spatial world. The mind animates
the world like the motor and gears of a projector. Each weaves a series of still pictures
into an order, into the “current” of life. Motion is created in our minds by running “film
cells ” together. Remember that everything you perceive, even this page, is being
reconstructed inside your head. It’s happening to you right now. All of experience is an
organized whirl of information in your brain.

Heisenberg’ s uncertainty principle has its root here: position (location in space)
belongs to the outer world, and momentum (which involves the temporal) belongs to
the inner world. By penetrating to the bottom of matter, scientists have reduced the
universe to its most basic logic. Time is not a feature of the external spatial world.
“Contemporary science,” said Heisenberg, “today more than at any previous time, has
been forced by nature herself to pose again the old question of the possibility of
comprehending reality by mental processes, and to answer it in a slightly different
way.”

Twenty-five hundred years later, the Zeno arrow paradox finally makes sense. The
Eleatic school of philosophy, which Zeno brilliantly defended, was right. So was
Heisenberg when he said, “A path comes into existence only when you observe it.”
There is neither time nor motion without life . Reality is not “there” with definite
properties waiting to be discovered but actually comes into being depending upon the
actions of the observer.

Another aspect of modern physics, in addition to quantum uncertainty, also strikes at
the core of Einstein’s concept of discrete entities and spacetime. Einstein held that the
speed of light is constant and that events in one place cannot influence events in
another place simultaneously. In the relativity theory, the speed of light has to be taken
into account for information to travel from one particle to another. However,
experiment after experiment has shown that this is not the case. In 1965, Irish physicist
John Bell created an experiment that showed that separate particles can influence each
other instantaneously over great distances. The experiment has been performed
numerous times and confirms that the properties of polarized light are correlated, or
linked, no matter how far apart the particles are. There is some kind of
instantaneous—faster than light—communication between them. All of this implies that
Einstein's concept of spacetime, neatly divided into separate regions by light velocity,
is untenable. Instead, the entities we observe are floating in a field of mind that is not
limited by an external spacetime.

The experiments of Heisenberg and Bell call us back to experience itself , the
immediacy of the infinite here and now, and shake our unexamined trust in objective
reality . But another support for biocentrism is the famous two hole experiment, which
demands that we go one step further: Zeno’s arrow doesn’t exist, much less fly, without
an observer. The two-hole experiment goes straight to the core of quantum physics.
Scientists have discovered that if they “watch” a subatomic particle pass through holes
on a barrier, it behaves like a particle: like a tiny bullet , it passes through one or the
other holes. But if the scientists do not observe the particle, then it exhibits the
behavior of a wave. The two-hole experiment has many versions, but in short: If
observed, particles behave like objects; if unobserved, they behave like waves and can
go through more than one hole at the same time.

Dubbed quantum weirdness, this wave-particle duality has befuddled scientists for
decades. Some of the greatest physicists have described it as impossible to intuit and
impossible to formulate into words, and as invalidating common sense and ordinary
perception. Science has essentially conceded that quantum physics is
incomprehensible outside of complete mathematics. How can quantum physics be so
impervious to metaphor, visualization, and language?

If we accept a life-created reality at face value, it b comes simple to understand. The
key question is waves of what ? Back in 1926, the Nobel laureate physicist Max Born
demonstrated that quantum waves are waves of probability, not waves of material as
the Austria n physicist Erwin Schrödinger had theorized. They are statistical
predictions. Thus a wave of probability is nothing but a likely outcome. In fact, outside
of that idea, the wave is not there. It’ s nothing. As John Wheeler, the eminent
theoretical physicist, once said, “No phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an
observed phenomenon

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: namelesss

“No phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an
observed phenomenon.”

A particle cannot be thought of as having any definite existence—either duration or a
position in space—unti l we observe it. Until the mind sets the scaffolding of an object in
place, an object cannot be thought of as being either here or there. Thus, quantum
waves merely define the potential location a particle can occupy. A wave of probability
isn’t an event or a phenomenon, it is a description of the likelihood of an event or
phenomenon occurring. Nothing happens until the event is actually observed. If you
watch it go through the barrier, then the wave function collapses and the particle goes
through one hole or the other. If you don’t watch it, then the particle detectors will show that it can go through more than one hole at the same time.

Science has been grappling with the implications of the wave-particle duality ever
since its discovery in the first half of the 20th century. But few people accept this
principle at face value. The Copenhagen interpretation, put in place by Heisenberg,
Niels Bohr, and Born in the 1920s, set out to do just that. But it was too unsettling a shift
in worldview to accept in full . At present, the implications of these experiments are
conveniently ignored by limiting the notion of quantum behavior to the microscopic
world. But doing this has no basis in reason, and it is being challenged in laboratories
around the world. New experiments carried out with huge molecules called buckyballs
show that quantum reality extends into the macroscopic world as well . Experiments
make it clear that another weird quantum phenomenon known as entanglement, which
is usually associated with the micro world, is also relevant on macro scales. An exciting
experiment, recently proposed (so-called scaled-up superposition), would furnish the
most powerful evidence to date that the biocentric view of the world is correct at the
level of living organisms.

One of the main reasons most people reject the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum
theory is that it leads to the dreaded doctrine of solipsism. The late Heinz Pagels once
commented: “If you deny the objectivity of the world unless you observe it and are
conscious of it , then you end up with solipsism—the belief that your consciousness is
the only one.” Indeed, I once had one of my articles challenged by a reader who took
this exact position. “I would like to ask Robert Lanza,” he wrote, “whether he feels the
world will continue to exist after the death of his consciousness. If not, it’ll be hard luck for all of us should we outlive him” (New Scientist, 1991).

What I would question, with respect to solipsism, is the assumption that our individual
separateness is an absolute reality . Bell’s experiment implies the existence of linkages
that transcend our ordinary way of thinking. An old Hindu poem says, “Know in thyself
and all one self-same soul; banish the dream that sunders part from whole.” If time is
only a stubbornly persistent illusion, as we have seen, then the same can be said about
space. The distinction between here and there is also not an absolute reality. Without
consciousness, we can take any person as our new frame of reference. It is not my
consciousness or yours alone, but ours. That ’s the new solipsism the experiments
mandate . The theorist Bernard d’Espagnat, a collaborator of Niels Bohr and Enrico
Fermi, has said that “non-separability is now one of the most certain general concepts
in physics.” This is not to say that our minds, like the particles in Bell ’s experiment, are
linked in any way that can violate the laws of causality. In this same sense, there is a
part of us connected to the glowworm by the pond near my house. It is the part that
experiences consciousness, not in our external embodiments but in our inner being.
We can only imagine and recollect things while in the body; this is for sure, because sensations and memories are molded into thought and knowledge in the brain. And
although we identify ourselves with our thoughts and affections, it is an essential
feature of reality that we experience the world piece by piece.

The sphere of physical reality for a glowworm and a human are decidedly different.
However, the genome itself is carbon-based. Carbon is formed at the heart of stars and
supernova explosions, formative processes of the universe. Life as we know it is limited
by our spatio-temporal logic—that is, the genome traps us in the universe with which
we are familiar. Animals (including those that evolved in the past) span part of the
spectrum of that possibility. There are surely other information systems that correspond
to other physical realities, universes based on logic completely different from ours and
not based on space and time. The universe of space and time belong uniquely to us
genome-based animals .

Eugene Wigner, one of the 20th century’s greatest physicists, called it impossible “to
formulate the laws of [physics] in a fully consistent way without reference to the
consciousness [of the observer]. ” Indeed, quantum theory implies that consciousness
must exist and that the content of the mind is the ultimate reality . If we do not look at it,
the moon does not exist in a definite state. In this world, only an act of observation can
confer shape and form to reality—to a dandelion in a meadow or a seed pod.

As we have seen, the world appears to be designed for life not just at the microscopic
scale of the atom, but at the level of the universe itself. In cosmology, scientists have
discovered that the universe has a long list of traits that make it appear as if everything
it contains—from atoms to stars—was tailor-made for us. Many are calling this
revelation the Goldilocks principle, because the cosmos is not too this or too that, but
just right for life . Others are calling it the anthropic principle, because the universe
appears to be human centered. And still others are calling it intelligent design, because
they believe its no accident that the heavens are so ideally suited for us. By any name,
the discovery is causing a huge commotion within the astrophysics community and
beyond.

At the moment, the only attempt at an explanation holds that God made the universe.
But there is another explanation based on science. To understand the mystery, we need
to reexamine the everyday world we live in. As unimaginable as it may seem to us, the
logic of quantum physics is inescapable. Every morning we open our front door to bring
in the paper or to go to work. We open the door to rain, snow, or trees swaying in the
breeze. We think the world churns along whether we happen to open the door or not .
Quantum mechanics tells us it doesn’t.

The trees and snow evaporate when we’re sleeping. The kitchen disappears when we’re
in the bathroom. When you turn from one room to the next, when your animal senses no
longer perceive the sounds of the dishwasher, the ticking clock, the smell of a chicken
roasting—the kitchen and all its seemingly discrete bit s dissolve into nothingness—or
into waves of probability. The universe bursts into existence from life, not the other way
around as we have been taught. For each life there is a universe, its own universe. We
generate spheres of reality, individual bubbles of existence. Our planet is comprised of
billions of spheres of realit