There's no objective universe all is vibration

The question that needs to be asked is, if the universe is objectively real and physical, why does it behave like it's not?

The evidence is overwhelming and here's some of it.

The Hippies Were Right: It's All about Vibrations, Man!
A new theory of consciousness

Fast forward to the present era and we can ask ourselves now: Did the hippies actually solve this problem? My colleague Jonathan Schooler of the University of California, Santa Barbara, and I think they effectively did, with the radical intuition that it’s all about vibrations … man. Over the past decade, we have developed a “resonance theory of consciousness” that suggests that resonance—another word for synchronized vibrations—is at the heart of not only human consciousness but of physical reality more generally.

blogs.scientificamerican.com...

These things are truly amazing. Vibrations are converted into the reality we experience. Here's a quote from Tesla:

“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.”
― Nikola Tesla

“If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.”
― Nikola Tesla

The sense of smell comes down to vibrations and quantum tunneling. This means we smell food, we don't taste it. This is why when your nose is stuffy you can't experience food.



This video explains things beautifully.

Think about it, you don't taste Pizza, a Chicken Salad or that steak at Outback, you experience it through vibrations and quantum tunneling. That's just AMAZING!

There's no objective taste of these foods, just vibrations converted into experience. Where else do we see vibrations?

The Quantum Mind by Penrose and Hameroff originates with...you guessed it, quantum vibrations.

Discovery of quantum vibrations in 'microtubules' inside brain neurons supports controversial theory of consciousness

www.sciencedaily.com...

Bundles of Brain Microtubules Generate Electrical Oscillations

www.nature.com...

Here's a video from Vsauce about how you can't touch anything.



Again, why would the universe behave this way if there was an objective physical reality?

Why not when I touch a hard table or lay my head on a soft pillow, don't I just touch these things? Why does signals have to be converted to the thing I'm supposed to be experiencing?

What we call matter is mostly space.

99.9999999% of Your Body Is Empty Space

Some days, you might feel like a pretty substantial person. Maybe you have a lot of friends, or an important job, or a really big car.

But it might humble you to know that all of those things – your friends, your office, your really big car, you yourself, and even everything in this incredible, vast Universe – are almost entirely, 99.9999999 percent empty space.

Here’s the deal. As I previously wrote in a story for the particle physics publication Symmetry, the size of an atom is governed by the average location of its electrons: how much space there is between the nucleus and the atom’s amorphous outer shell.

Nuclei are around 100,000 times smaller than the atoms they’re housed in.

If the nucleus were the size of a peanut, the atom would be about the size of a baseball stadium. If we lost all the dead space inside our atoms, we would each be able to fit into a particle of dust, and the entire human species would fit into the volume of a sugar cube.

www.sciencealert.com...

If this is the case, why doesn't our hand just go through a table?

When your hand touched the table, the atoms within your hand became in close proximity to the electrons within the atoms of the table. As they come closer in togetherness, the patterns of dance change.

This is because an electron in a low energy level around one nucleus can’t seem to do the same around the other-- that “slot” is already occupied by one of its own electrons.

The hand must step into an unoccupied, higher-energy role, as explained by the Exclusion Principle. The energy must be supplied, not by light in this case, but from the force of your own hand.

Pushing just two atoms together takes energy-- all of their electrons need to go into unoccupied, high-energy states. To push all the atoms of the table and all the atoms of your hand together takes energy. Energy that is not found capable in your muscles. Therefore, you feel that as resistance to your finger.

Welcome to the science as to why and how the table looks and feels solid to you.

www.physics-astronomy.com...

Again, resonance being converted into experience. There's no objective physical universe out there, our perception creates what we experience. Here's more:



Here's Scientist talking about the Holographic Universe. At 4:09, Susskind says the 3rd dimension is an illusion.

Think about that! Why does the universe behave as though it isn't objectively real? Why does the evidence point to perception creating reality through vibrations?

Scientist think that space-time is an quantum error correcting code:

How Space and Time Could Be a Quantum Error-Correcting Code

The same codes needed to thwart errors in quantum computers may also give the fabric of space-time its intrinsic robustness.



Scientist recently talked about how quantum gates form around black holes.

Spacetime Geometry near Rotating Black Holes Acts Like Quantum Computer, Physicist Says

According to a theoretical paper published in the Annals of Physics, by Dr. Ovidiu Racorean from the General Direction of Information Technology in Bucharest, Romania, the geometry of spacetime around a rapidly spinning black hole (Kerr black hole) behaves like a quantum computer, and it can encode photons with quantum messages.

“The distorted geometry of spacetime near rotating black holes can create and manipulate quantum information encoded in beams of light that are emitted by, or that pass close to, these black holes.”

“This is similar to the process that happens in a theoretical quantum computer.”

“A quantum computation process consists of photons traveling throughout a setup of mirrors, beam splitters, and prisms that switch the polarization and twisted phase of photons to values that can be mapped onto 0 and 1,” he added.

Photons that are processed in this manner can encode quantum gates and quantum circuits that are more or less similar to those in a classical computer when they exit this setup.

“The geometry of spacetime near spinning black holes acts in an identical manner to this setup of prisms and mirrors,” Dr. Racorean said.

This means that a spinning black hole writes a quantum code that we may decode in the near future when we come to create quantum computers.

www.sci-news.com...

WOW, JUST WOW!!

I can go on and on, but I will stop here. Why would quantum gates form around black holes or space-time be an error correcting code if the universe was objectively real? PERCEPTION IS REALITY!!

I dig it. I do want to say that it seems awefully pretentious to state with such certainty what space will do or be like inside a black hole, can sciences possibly be that certain about something we know so little about? Not that I take serious issue or anything, it just strikes me as so naive.

a reply to: sputniksteve

Actually, Scientist have a pretty good understanding of a black hole. They don't understand everything, but they understand more than people realize. This is mostly do to math which lines up with observations.

Physicist Max Tegmark wrote about this in a book called Our Mathematical Universe. It's amazing how math describes what's eventually observed. Look at the recent image of a black hole and the way Scientist pictured black holes before the picture.

The picture of the black hole:



What Scientist pictured black holes would look like before the picture.





Here's a link to Tegmark's book if you're interested

Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality

Amazon

A very interesting read!

Star Treks Transporter converts everything to light frequencies and then reassembles them....Les Browns work and John Hutchisons works show is exactly how to do this and why it happens according to natures simple laws and others like David Hamel and Wilbert Smith show us how to energise and project it.

Resonant frequency amplifiers and dampeners or "fields".... projected with extreme precision and integrity.

Take a tumble down this Rabbit-Hole if you are bored .Lol.

a reply to: neoholographic

I read the idea that our minds are more like analog radio receivers than digital computers.

What I think is interesting is maybe the source of our thoughts are drawn into our brains from future experiences. Reality is a giant wave and we are having a sliver type surfing experience of reality. But the wave does not exist inside our brains. So then it begs the question if our memories are triggered by outside experiences then only way we experience the past is by experiencing the future.

You have reached the "Outer Limits" "Space Truckin" "Ina Gada Da Vida"
Yes , strings vibrating do give an object mass , therefore solid matter.
Simple.

universe is objectively real and physical, why does it behave like it's not?

Try being in a serious car accident, it all behaves objectively real and physical.

I get your point though with vibrations, frequency and wave functions contributing to a lot of our understanding on how the world works. This type of maths and understanding covers heaps of scientific fields like physics, chemistry, biology, meteorology, astronomy, electronics, economics and others. It can be a tough one to practically work with as things can quickly get choppy with so many interacting waves going on. With inventions like ultrasounds, Magnetic Image Resonating, 5G and others it can be done.

The black holes are an interesting one with the life cycle of stars. If a photon has no mass then how does the photon path get bent from a strong gravitational field? How the photon travels through the other material that is affected by the strong gravitational field looks to be what we are seeing.

a reply to: neoholographic




On a lighter note....many people have told me I'm full of crap, now I can prove to them I'm 99% full of nothing.

originally posted by: conspiracytheoristIAM
a reply to: neoholographic




On a lighter note....many people have told me I'm full of crap, now I can prove to them I'm 99% full of nothing.

If you are full of nothing then you are empty and if empty then there is no measure to value!

Personally, I think that the correct reality is so far from our reach we are snatching at straws.
The fact that we are not able to a) obtain any form of consensus b) do no more than speculate, tells me we aren't even close to the truth. Even basic complexity is not an easy think to unravel!

a reply to: neoholographic

www.damninteresting.com...

this is worth investigation. If the military was willing to give this guy a lab and money, there is a fairly good chance he was providing a bit more than smoke and mirrors.

Frequency and vibration seem to be the key, trick is, finding the right combination for the desired effect.

Does anyone know how this experiment can be explained?

"In the fall of 1901 J.B. Watson, Chief Engineer at the Tamarack copper mine (S. of Calumet, Mich.) suspended 4250 foot long plumb lines down mine shafts. Measurements showed that the plumb lines were farther apart at the bottom than at the top, contrary to expectations."

So much about gravity!

Honestly No Clue

a reply to: neoholographic

Interesting thread!

On black holes here is a new item that has scientists scratching their heads...

NASA’s Hubble telescope detects supermassive black hole that defies theoretical models

www.foxnews.com...

Perhaps one day it will be discovered that supermassive black holes are the key to the origin of galaxies?

Without them the universe as we know it wouldn't exist? It would be as you said "99.9999999%" empty space.

a reply to: neoholographic

Among others, the famous astronomer Johannes Kepler often talked about hearing the “music of the spheres.”

And so did Edgar Cayce:

440-4: “Then enter into meditation, in the wee hours of the morning, when the world at large is quiet—when the music of the spheres and the morning stars sing for the glory of the coming day…”

539-2: “Listen to the voice within, as it is awakened to the music of the spheres…”

www.edgarcayce.org...

The basic idea goes way back....

Ah, good old school ATS at its finest!

The quantum world is so freaky, it’s my favorite subject. I also think it’s where the greatest future advancements lie if only we could figure the spooky actions out.

So, what exactly is vibrating?

a reply to: neoholographic

Does objective reality exist?

Argument: Postmodernism is one of many philosophies that does not believe in any objective reality, and it has not been disproven.

Objection: Postmodernism has not been proven either, and it is rather absurd, either sheer nihilism or some form of relativism, disbelieving in things that are obvious facts.

The article you linked to saying everything has consciousness, even rocks, is one of the dumbest things I've ever read in my life. But even if people want to believe such a stupid thing that rocks have consciousness, that doesn't mean that objective reality doesn't exist. The fact that some things vibrate doesn't meant hat objective reality doesn't exist, though it depends on how you define objective reality.

The objective reality in quantum mechanics is based on statistical outcomes. You can't predict an exact outcome, but you can predict statistical outcomes and those can and have been verified in objective experiments. To me that's objective, some people might claim it's not so it could be a misunderstanding of what it means to be objective.

The video "You can't touch anything" is true enough, but that again doesn't mean there's no objective reality, it's just that the universe is more complicated than our simple senses interpret it to be. In fact we can describe why you can't touch anything in objective terms, based on the objective reality of your fingers and the objective reality of the object you can't touch.

originally posted by: NoClue
Does anyone know how this experiment can be explained?

"In the fall of 1901 J.B. Watson, Chief Engineer at the Tamarack copper mine (S. of Calumet, Mich.) suspended 4250 foot long plumb lines down mine shafts. Measurements showed that the plumb lines were farther apart at the bottom than at the top, contrary to expectations."

So much about gravity!

Honestly No Clue

Why did you cite only one measurement?

Review all the results, they were inconsistent. Some results showed convergence, some showed divergence, so there were some unaccounted for variables affecting their measurements to get such inconsistent results. One possibility suggested was circulating air in the shafts, but youtube is full of people making measurements and not accounting properly for variables in doing so, especially flat earthers. They didn't use bronze cables and lead balls for all the measurements either, which should have ruled out magnetic effects, so for the measurements using ferrous objects, magnetism is another possibility. I don't see what this question has to do with the topic of this thread though.

If it's supposed to question the shape of the earth, that might have been a more valid question back when the experiments were done, but it shouldn't be a question anymore when we can see the ISS zooming overhead which it wouldn't do if the earth was concave as some wanted to claim those experiments suggested, though I don't think they even suggested that when I look at all the results. When the results are that inconsistent, they suggest a measurement problem which includes unaccounted for variables.

originally posted by: Blue Shift
So, what exactly is vibrating?

Vibration implies the existence of something to experience the vibration. It's not the string that is moving but gravity around the strings is not constant. The dark energy is coming from some the action of something.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks for the input i didn't know about the inconsistent results. That's on me

It was not about the shape of the earth!

We still not fully understand where mass and therefore gravity comes from?

Or at least I don't...

NC

a reply to: Arbitrageur

You said:

The article you linked to saying everything has consciousness, even rocks, is one of the dumbest things I've ever read in my life. But even if people want to believe such a stupid thing that rocks have consciousness, that doesn't mean that objective reality doesn't exist. The fact that some things vibrate doesn't meant hat objective reality doesn't exist, though it depends on how you define objective reality.

Gibberish. Most of what you say doesn't refute anything, it's just long winded opinion. For instance, you say, "is one of the dumbest things I've ever read." You then go onto say, "If people want to believe such a stupid thing."

Again, what you're saying is meaningless opinion. Who cares if you think it's dumb, the Scientist making the claims don't think it's dumb. Many on ATS don't think it's dumb. Saying something is dumb is meaningless. Explain why scientifically it's dumb. Explain why the Scientist are idiots and you're the genius.

These vacuous statements mean nothing. Here's more evidence:

The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality

The cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman uses evolutionary game theory to show that our perceptions of an independent reality must be illusions.

Not so, says Donald D. Hoffman, a professor of cognitive science at the University of California, Irvine. Hoffman has spent the past three decades studying perception, artificial intelligence, evolutionary game theory and the brain, and his conclusion is a dramatic one: The world presented to us by our perceptions is nothing like reality. What’s more, he says, we have evolution itself to thank for this magnificent illusion, as it maximizes evolutionary fitness by driving truth to extinction.

I suspect they’re reacting to things like Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff’s model, where you still have a physical brain, it’s still sitting in space, but supposedly it’s performing some quantum feat. In contrast, you’re saying, “Look, quantum mechanics is telling us that we have to question the very notions of ‘physical things’ sitting in ‘space.’”

I think that’s absolutely true. The neuroscientists are saying, “We don’t need to invoke those kind of quantum processes, we don’t need quantum wave functions collapsing inside neurons, we can just use classical physics to describe processes in the brain.” I’m emphasizing the larger lesson of quantum mechanics: Neurons, brains, space … these are just symbols we use, they’re not real. It’s not that there’s a classical brain that does some quantum magic. It’s that there’s no brain! Quantum mechanics says that classical objects — including brains — don’t exist. So this is a far more radical claim about the nature of reality and does not involve the brain pulling off some tricky quantum computation. So even Penrose hasn’t taken it far enough. But most of us, you know, we’re born realists. We’re born physicalists. This is a really, really hard one to let go of.

www.quantamagazine.org...

Here's Hoffman going over the science behind his theory of conscious agents which show organism that evolve that know the truth don't survive vs. organisms that don't know any of the truth outside of consciousness. So he says it's conscious agents all the way down.



So, there's people looking into these things from all different angles and many of them separately are coming to the same conclusion or close to the same conclusion. I haven't seen any evidence that shows that the objective physical reality we experience has an objective existence.

The world of chairs, pillow, planes, trains and automobiles doesn't have an objective physical existence. We experience riding on a train or staying at a hotel, just like we experience eating a steak or eating pizza. Where's the evidence that any of these things has an existence outside of our perceptions?

This isn't just sophistry, this Hoffman's conscious agents or Susskind saying the 3rd dimension is an illusion. Einstein even said the distinctions between the past, present and future is a persistent illusion. Everything we do is based on those distinctions being "real." When we go to sleep, when we're born, when we celebrate holidays, when we go to work. All of these things are based on the distinctions between past, present and future being objectively real, but most of the evidence supports Einstein.

So, saying everything you can't refute or you don't agree with is dumb, is just.....dumb.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

i don't think you understand what we mean by consciousness.

I've been saying it for years. Our physical reality is composed of the consciousness of the nonphysical creator or creators in a deep mediation dreaming everything up.

When we go to sleep we create "realities" but on a much less dense level of existence, we call them dreams. The rock in your dream is composed of your "consciousness".

Same rules apply here