The Science Establishing the Existence of a Life Force

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: tetra50
Just a few thoughts about how much of a handle we really have on the physical environs/universe, cause and effect. etc, time , gravity and our total understanding of said things......
regards,
tetra50

Ignoring the fact that it's scientists that are researching and publishing data on things like this, did you even read the cite you posted? It turned out to be a measurement error. Not a mystic influence.

eta: Basically, it's a sort of paean to replication. You have to be able to measure, and others have to be able to do it also, in separate ways and different places with different personnel. It helps to get rid of things like this.

Yeah, I've read it many times, thanks, Bedlam.
You and I constantly INTERPRET things, knowledge, differently.
No, it isn't what you said, really, a
"paean to replication."

What it is, actually, is a certain history of what "could" potentially flip the standard model, and our ultimate method of time keeping (the half life of radioactive decay and its possibly differential results in certain seasons, certain times, of neutrino influx, as not explained by any other differential factoid, even though we've known about neutrinos, and still not found a repeatable and constant, reliable way of measuring them and therefore, their effect on what I mentioned above: half life decay, for one thing, which turns out is a really, really big thing........)

This is a good example, I think, of where if you become too enmired in the MATH of the thing, you can miss the whole friggin forest, because you're caught up in the expression and language of just that one tree.....which is kinda what math is.......

Math is a way of representing variables to achieve results which explain and predict, no more and no less.
You can actually, if you're a good mathemetician, get variable results to equate to what you wish, given the right rules for the math, which is just another language of representation.

So, that's where you and I, basically, I think, go wrong or sideways on how we interpret certain things. That doesn't make you more right and me more wrong; it's just we have entirely different perspectives and approaches vis a vis these facts and ways of looking at things and what they potentially do or do not represent.

But I respect your intellect and conclusions, even though I think you absolutely seek to prove yourself right in your view, and write the rest of us off, as woo practitioners or whatever, when it's really a matter of perspective: which really means: I'm not gonna be insulted that you implied I'm not smart enough to interpret what I posted really means, which is absolutely what you were saying. Well, we can all be d##cks, can't we, and that can absolutely get in the way of our accepting new information and continuing to grow, perhaps.......
regards,
tetra

In short, though, I have to say that's all about proving a scientifc argument against a soul being provable as wrong......
through showing science doesn't have as much nailed down, even vis a vis "the standard model" as it says and asserts it does.......

The argument for the soul is simple: we as beings, alive, heart beating, brain working, are a mass of electrical impulses fed through our brain to our muscles, nerves, body. What makes the heart beat? Why does restarting it, when it flatlines, with electrical pulses through paddles delivering that, work? What power makes a baby's heart beat through that child's cycle in the mother's wound, and his/her birth, to the cutting of the embilical chord, clearing of the sinuses, and suddenly taking in oxygen through a whole different route than the nine months that child's been growing/developing in vitro, suddenly......

What keeps that small life's heart beating through autonomic nervous system impulses delivered through the brain and its chemical soup of synapses and delivery of electrical impulse, with no consciousness involved, (that's what autonomic means, btw)?

That, to me, is the evidence of the soul. It cannot be captured, repeated, replicated, faked, given or taken, no matter what we do to simulate life, or how close we get to that in any other way.

If you've died on an operating table, had that ND experience of "choosing to come back or go somewhere else," whether that is a product of brain chemical cascading when death occurs throught the body's chemical and electrical systems, which it could be, it still doesn't explain what you experience and physically sense in your life after such a choice and knowing what that really meant and was......


That's a really good explanation of seeing things through a pure math framework, or through the WHOLE framework available to you, physics, physiology, biology, electronics, electromagnetic fields which naturally exist, etc........

It's like I'm a blow out prevention petroleum engineer, but not a geologist. So I understand how the rig works, and how it's blow out prevention system works if we hit a gas bubble while we're drilling, but I don't get what it means if I just drilled into a batholith, and the overwhelming pressure, gas, and odds are against me and my BOP system then, and how that batholith could effect land and ridges of underground shale coming against one another from Louisiana all the way to Arkansas or Missouri.

originally posted by: tetra50
What makes the heart beat? Why does restarting it, when it flatlines, with electrical pulses through paddles delivering that, work? What power makes a baby's heart beat through that child's cycle in the mother's wound, and his/her birth, to the cutting of the embilical chord, clearing of the sinuses, and suddenly taking in oxygen through a whole different route than the nine months that child's been growing/developing in vitro, suddenly......

What keeps that small life's heart beating through autonomic nervous system impulses delivered through the brain and its chemical soup of synapses and delivery of electrical impulse, with no consciousness involved, (that's what autonomic means, btw)?

Leaky sodium channels. It's how you get a pacer cell in the atrium.

The cell, which is sort of half nerve, half muscle in the way it works, has intentionally leaky sodium channels. When enough leaks out, the cell fires, repolarizes and starts leaking down again. It's a meat analog of an old analog multivibrator/relaxation oscillator.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: tetra50
What makes the heart beat? Why does restarting it, when it flatlines, with electrical pulses through paddles delivering that, work? What power makes a baby's heart beat through that child's cycle in the mother's wound, and his/her birth, to the cutting of the embilical chord, clearing of the sinuses, and suddenly taking in oxygen through a whole different route than the nine months that child's been growing/developing in vitro, suddenly......

What keeps that small life's heart beating through autonomic nervous system impulses delivered through the brain and its chemical soup of synapses and delivery of electrical impulse, with no consciousness involved, (that's what autonomic means, btw)?

Leaky sodium channels. It's how you get a pacer cell in the atrium.

The cell, which is sort of half nerve, half muscle in the way it works, has intentionally leaky sodium channels. When enough leaks out, the cell fires, repolarizes and starts leaking down again. It's a meat analog of an old analog multivibrator/relaxation oscillator.

LOL.. So how does sodium channels explain how the brain autonomically communicates the electrical impulse to the heart? You've just given a "meat bag" explanation of something that's really more of a miracle than that.

Let me ask you something: how many cows, horses, goats have you helped through the birth experience? Have you ever lived on a farm, helped various animals, perhaps even humans, give birth?

I am sad for you, really, that you think there is that concise of a "meat sack" explanation for the miracle of life.....
frankly.
The benefit of your knowledge and accomplishments and understandings hasn't paid you well in understanding the meaning of what it is to be alive, I think. It's far more than "meat sack" tech, my friend.
tetra

originally posted by: tetra50
LOL.. So how does sodium channels explain how the brain autonomically communicates the electrical impulse to the heart? You've just given a "meat bag" explanation of something that's really more of a miracle than that.

It doesn't have to, directly. The brain's not responsible for basic heart pacing. You've got a primary pacer site in the right atrium, others in the SA node, others in the junction, others in the ventricle, all with less and less leak. As your heart falls back from one pacer site to another, you'll get slower and slower beats. It's a really neat meat retriggerable monostable.

Your brain gets its innings in indirectly by influencing various endocrine outputs like adrenaline, and directly by slowing heart rate with the vagus nerve. But if you cut the vagus, the heart still beats. Heart transplant recipients don't have any connection to the brain.

Let me ask you something: how many cows, horses, goats have you helped through the birth experience? Have you ever lived on a farm, helped various animals, perhaps even humans, give birth?

Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm a farm kid. I did that all my young life.

The benefit of your knowledge and accomplishments and understandings hasn't paid you well in understanding the meaning of what it is to be alive, I think. It's far more than "meat sack" tech, my friend.
tetra

That's all it is. It's sad you have to go all mystic. It's unnecessary.

posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 01:12 AM link quote reply

originally posted by: tetra50
LOL.. So how does sodium channels explain how the brain autonomically communicates the electrical impulse to the heart? You've just given a "meat bag" explanation of something that's really more of a miracle than that.


It doesn't have to, directly. The brain's not responsible for basic heart pacing. You've got a primary pacer site in the right atrium, others in the SA node, others in the junction, others in the ventricle, all with less and less leak. As your heart falls back from one pacer site to another, you'll get slower and slower beats. It's a really neat meat retriggerable monostable.



Let me ask you something: how many cows, horses, goats have you helped through the birth experience? Have you ever lived on a farm, helped various animals, perhaps even humans, give birth?


Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm a farm kid. I did that all my young life.



The benefit of your knowledge and accomplishments and understandings hasn't paid you well in understanding the meaning of what it is to be alive, I think. It's far more than "meat sack" tech, my friend.
tetra


That's all it is. It's sad you have to go all mystic. It's unnecessary.

Sad I have to go all mystic, and that's unnecessary?

I'm not going "all mystic," my friend. And I've explained already the comparisons of why in the big picture it is necessary to discuss such with you. I don't think, however, we'll ever reach any conclusions together from how we interpret certain facts.

For you, it's a meat bag, exponential, kind of explainable life. For me, it's anything but. I can try to cite ways to reach you in that big picture way, but it's useless if you're primarily invested in that particular way of explaining and seeing things. I can't make you seem them differently, just as you cannot make me see it differently.

I absolutely respect your way of seeing things, but dont' have the feeling that is equalled, in how we deal with one another. Why does that matter? It's not about who is right, it's about people continuing to see the miracle in life, regardless of the many scientific and biologic ways we describe it, it's still a miracle. that we survive, that the body is prepared for certain cataclysms, that biologically, espeiclaly during certain processses like life and death, work themselves out.....

You can say that's a meat sack kinda thing, and I can provide proof all day that it's about something more than that.....
it doesn't really matter. I think you have that discussion to prove your egoistic mathmetic skills cataclysming mine....I really don't care about that.

I care that people to continue to see life as the true miracle it is, despite your explanations than drag it down to "meat sack" type of conclusions, that don't really address what I've typed to you, anyway. You have one channel, that I can find and tap into. In regards to channel in and channel out, you've got one channel in and one channel out, and that 's all you can wrap your mind around, while telling me I don't even know the meaning of what I'm posting.

I've been nice about this, while defending my position quite well, frankly. Have a good night, Bedlam. We see things differently. If you wish to continue to insult my view as uninformed, i'll frankly just continue to provide information, even though you'll predictably tell me i don't even know what I'm posting.

I'm glad i'm not you, bro. must be kind a hopeless......
Even if there is no realistic hope for my life given my physical disabilties that i have little control over, if I thought like you, there would be absolutely no hope for my life whatsover, given my meat sack disabilities......

Some of us fight. And some of us just go along with what we're told, via our meat sacks...
yours,
tetra

a reply to: tetra50

I see it as two approaches. I am purely (or as much as I can manage) objective, an empiricist of the first water. I believe everything can be explained, if you understand enough about the problem. And if it's within your capability of understanding. I don't believe in spirit, or soul, or reincarnation or whatever.

That said, it doesn't make things LESS marvelous, it makes them MORE so. Your cardiac regulatory system is very understandable. It's the sort of thing you can take apart and look at, and there are feedback loops within feedback loops, with sensors both chemical, mechanical and electrical. It's a GREAT system, and the cool part is that evolution was able to do it all with meat.

That doesn't make it less magical. It's a real wonder. I just don't need to invoke Gods or spirits to enjoy it.

originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: tetra50

I see it as two approaches. I am purely (or as much as I can manage) objective, an empiricist of the first water. I believe everything can be explained, if you understand enough about the problem. And if it's within your capability of understanding. I don't believe in spirit, or soul, or reincarnation or whatever.

That said, it doesn't make things LESS marvelous, it makes them MORE so. Your cardiac regulatory system is very understandable. It's the sort of thing you can take apart and look at, and there are feedback loops within feedback loops, with sensors both chemical, mechanical and electrical. It's a GREAT system, and the cool part is that evolution was able to do it all with meat.

That doesn't make it less magical. It's a real wonder. I just don't need to invoke Gods or spirits to enjoy it.

I get what you are saying totally, and appreciate it. They way i see what you are saying is, I can expalin that by this, but that doesn't negate what a miracle it is that it can save your life, just this way, In fact, that's even more a miracle.

but this is what I would say to you about that: it's even more a miracle because you can explain a part of it, why/how, but perhaps not WHEN and WHY it sometimes works, and sometimes doesn't.....

Btw, I think sparring with you intellectually is great, especially when we get to this point of the discussion.....LOL
No matter how much you may hate that.

But I still insist physics wise, I understand exacxtly what I posted in that article, and you interpretation was simple one interpretation of that. If you wanna go back to that, anytime, I'm happy to, as I've some more info about that, the developement and discussion of the "muon" in general," and in 1962, in general, what they built to try to trap and judge what neutrino flux influenced vis a vis the half life decay of radioactive particulate matter, which is how we still really judge time, not solar or lunar calendars, but this half life decay of naturally occurring radiocactive particulate matter decay,,,.....as I'm sure we are both aware.

originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: tetra50



That doesn't make it less magical. It's a real wonder. I just don't need to invoke Gods or spirits to enjoy it.

YES YES YES. Quoted for agreement

I am in as much awe of quantum mechanics as i would be of supernatural things. Except one is real and the other probably isn't

a reply to: Bedlam

I agree ... Intuition may give you a starting point for research but that is all

In my experience of Intuition it is not something you can call upon as a reliable tool
In that Intuition just occurs the thought/s insight just happen
It is only after the Intuition occurs and events unfold that you realise you were right
Intuition needs testing by reality

My example of knowing the answer before the maths question was fully asked showed me this
Only after the teacher said my answer was correct did I have proof it was correct

Like dreams I have had since young who's info came true in real life
I only knew I knew after the events

So yes Intuition is not a scientific tool ... it does not play ball to the whims or wants of any
It just is ... I have an idea of how and why it occurs but again no science to back up my claim
So I will not go there as it would distract from the main theme of the thread

I have been banging on about intuition because it was intimated posts back that there is no such thing
Intuition has played a part throughout my life as such I know it exists

Anyway I will shut my trap now about Intuition in this thread

originally posted by: ConnectDots
At 16:33, he begins speaking about the fifty years of progress that has been made in Russia regarding torsion, the scientific term they use for the life force, which has many names referring to the same thing.

At 21:26 he talks about the flood of papers that came out in 1991 with the advent of perestroika and glasnost in the former Soviet Union, but that in the West, there seems to be an effort to discourage people from looking into this.

I can relate to that. When I did a google search for "torsion fields," I got a message on one of the results warning me that it might damage my computer and I would click on it at my own risk.

There is a 55 page PDF on Claude Swanson's website entitled "The Science of Torsion, Gyroscopes, and Propulsion."

It includes a brief history of the Russian Torsion Program.

Here is a screenshot from page 10:

www.synchronizeduniverse.com...

a reply to: ConnectDots

At 21:26 he talks about the flood of papers that came out in 1991 with the advent of perestroika and glasnost in the former Soviet Union, but that in the West, there seems to be an effort to discourage people from looking into this. I can relate to that. When I did a google search for "torsion fields," I got a message on one of the results warning me that it might damage my computer and I would click on it at my own risk.

Do you use Google or Google Scholar? If you're doing scientific research, you should use Google Scholar. Otherwise you're getting a lot of garbage.

You really haven't given any evidence that some scientific discoveries have been "suppressed". I don't know how you come to that conclusion. At the very least, there are always companies looking for new ideas and technologies to exploit and make a profit.

In the end, you have to present credible evidence that there is a cabal out there suppressing these discoveries.

originally posted by: Phantom423
Do you use Google or Google Scholar? If you're doing scientific research, you should use Google Scholar. Otherwise you're getting a lot of garbage.

Information for the layman is not "garbage."

Scientists who make their living working for an employer are all limited in what they can say, think, or do.

That's the problem with mainstream science.

originally posted by: Phantom423
You really haven't given any evidence that some scientific discoveries have been "suppressed". I don't know how you come to that conclusion.

Here's how I came to that conclusion: Paying attention to alternative (not mainstream) sources of information on the internet.

It is another topic of its own, and anything I would post about it will be quickly "debunked" with links which will either be a smear or an attack by a disgruntled competitor of an inventor or researcher.

I'm not going to open that can of worms.

It comes down to doing the research and using one's intuition to judge the veracity of the person who is talking about his or her own personal experience. At least that's the way I have to approach it. I trust my gut when I can see a person's body language and hear their voice and put that together with what I am observing, generally, going on in the world.

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: Phantom423
Do you use Google or Google Scholar? If you're doing scientific research, you should use Google Scholar. Otherwise you're getting a lot of garbage.

Information for the layman is not "garbage."

Scientists who make their living working for an employer are all limited in what they can say, think, or do.

That's the problem with mainstream science.

originally posted by: Phantom423
You really haven't given any evidence that some scientific discoveries have been "suppressed". I don't know how you come to that conclusion.

Here's how I came to that conclusion: Paying attention to alternative (not mainstream) sources of information on the internet.

It is another topic of its own, and anything I would post about it will be quickly "debunked" with links which will either be a smear or an attack by a disgruntled competitor of an inventor or researcher.

I'm not going to open that can of worms.

It comes down to doing the research and using one's intuition to judge the veracity of the person who is talking about his or her own personal experience. At least that's the way I have to approach it. I trust my gut when I can see a person's body language and hear their voice and put that together with what I am observing, generally, going on in the world.

Except the largest portion of peer reviewed work comes from academic studies not private funding. Intuition is opinionated nonsense. If the paper/Study has any credibilty, it would be able to hold up objectively.

a reply to: ConnectDots

Here's how I came to that conclusion: Paying attention to alternative (not mainstream) sources of information on the internet. It is another topic of its own, and anything I would post about it will be quickly "debunked" with links which will either be a smear or an attack by a disgruntled competitor of an inventor or researcher. I'm not going to open that can of worms. It comes down to doing the research and using one's intuition to judge the veracity of the person who is talking about his or her own personal experience. At least that's the way I have to approach it. I trust my gut when I can see a person's body language and hear their voice and put that together with what I am observing, generally, going on in the world.

Fair Enough. But I'd like to present an example of static science - i.e. science that never moves on versus the flow of discovery which is real science:

On the front page of the synchronizeduniverse website, there is this statement:

The effect of solar flares on radioactive decay has been discovered by scientists at Stanford and Perdue: “It doesn’t make sense according to conventional ideas,” Fischbach said. Jenkins whimsically added, “What we’re suggesting is that something that doesn’t really interact with anything is changing something that can’t be changed...” “It’s an effect that no one yet understands,” agreed Prof. Sturrock. “Theorists are starting to say, ‘What’s going on?’ But that’s what the evidence points to. It’s a challenge for the physicists and a challenge for the solar people too.”

I have no idea what radioactive decay has to do with the "Life Force", but moving right along.....


In 2012 this article was published on the Phys.org website:

New system could predict solar flares, give advance warning
August 13, 2012 by Emil Venere

phys.org...

(Phys.org) -- Researchers may have discovered a
new method to predict solar flares more than a day
before they occur, providing advance warning to
help protect satellites, power grids and astronauts
from potentially dangerous radiation.
The system works by measuring differences in
gamma radiation emitted when atoms in
radioactive elements "decay," or lose energy. This
rate of decay is widely believed to be constant, but
recent findings challenge that long-accepted rule.
The new detection technique is based on a
hypothesis that radioactive decay rates are
influenced by solar activity, possibly streams of
subatomic particles called solar neutrinos. This
influence can wax and wane due to seasonal
changes in the Earth's distance from the sun and
also during solar flares, according to the
hypothesis, which is supported with data published
in a dozen research papers since it was proposed
in 2006, said Ephraim Fischbach, a Purdue
University professor of physics.


In 2014, researchers repeated the above experiment with newer instruments and this is what they found:

Old textbook knowledge reconfirmed: Decay rates of radioactive substances are constant
October 10, 2014





Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB)
researchers refute the assumption that the decay
rate of some radioactive nuclides depends on the
distance between the Earth and the Sun.
The distance between the Earth and the Sun has
no influence on the decay rate of radioactive
chlorine. You could ask: "And why should it
anyway?", because it is well known that the decay
of radionuclides is as reliable as a Swiss clock.
Recently, US-American scientists, however,
attracted attention when they postulated that the
decay rate depends on the flow of solar neutrinos
and, thus, also on the distance from the Earth to
the Sun. Their assumption was based, among
other things, on older measurement data of the
Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB).
PTB researchers have now definitively refuted the
assumption of the Americans.

Scientists of the Physikalisch-Technische
Bundesanstalt have now carried out new
measurements and have published their results in
the journal "Astroparticle Physics". For three years,
they checked the activity of samples with 36Cl in
order to detect possible seasonal dependencies.
Whereas the US-Americans had determined the
count rates with gas detectors, PTB used the socalled
TDCR liquid scintillation method which
largely compensates disturbing influences on the
measurements. The result: The measurement
results of PTB clearly show fewer variations and do
not indicate any seasonal dependence or the
influence of solar neutrinos. "We assume that other
influences are much more probable as the reason
for the observed variations", explains PTB physicist
Karsten Kossert. "It is known that changes in the air
humidity, in the air pressure and in the temperature
can definitively influence sensitive detectors."

____________________________________________________________________

I put together this post just to demonstrate that science moves right along - it's the only way progress is made. The article from 2014 may not be the last word on the subject either. Newer instrumentation and techniques may confirm or refute the findings. That's how science works - we move forward - we don't stand still or go backwards.

The fact that the "synchronizeduniverse" website has not caught up with the science says volumes about their thought process. They're really stuck in the mud.

And it's easy to extrapolate that attitude to their other proposals. They're advocating for beliefs, not advocating for real science.

I understand that you have a commitment to your "gut feelings", but just remember that constructing a wall internally will never allow you to move forward. The term "thinking out of the box" also means thinking beyond yourself.

originally posted by: Phantom423
I understand that you have a commitment to your "gut feelings", but just remember that constructing a wall internally will never allow you to move forward.

That applies to everyone, including you.

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: Phantom423
I understand that you have a commitment to your "gut feelings", but just remember that constructing a wall internally will never allow you to move forward.

That applies to everyone, including you.

Absolutely.

originally posted by: Cypress
Intuition is opinionated nonsense. If the paper/Study has any credibilty, it would be able to hold up objectively.

My use of the word "intuition" had nothing to do with how scientists operate.

It was about the layman doing research about what's going on in the world of science and technology.

My experience paying attention to whistleblowers tell their personal stories of what happens when people think for themselves instead of assuming mainstream science has the best answers has taught me a great deal. I use my intuition to evaluate the credibility of whistleblowers, who should be respected, not denigrated, as often happens on ATS.

originally posted by: Phantom423

The fact that the "synchronizeduniverse" website has not caught up with the science says volumes about their thought process. They're really stuck in the mud.

And it's easy to extrapolate that attitude to their other proposals. They're advocating for beliefs, not advocating for real science.

You're making the statement that Claude Swanson doesn't know what he's talking about and is not advocating for real science, but you are?