|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - LDV81
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 12
101
« on: June 16, 2023, 11:05 »
Unfortunately, this field is full of hoaxes, muppets and disinformation. And it is a shame, because it is one of the most important issues in the history of mankind. The hoaxes have contributed to the subject being stigmatized for a long time. I would take anything that Dr. Greer comes up with a bucket of salt. And there are lots of other "UFO performers" out there... But there are also many serious researchers who have very interesting things to say, for example: Garry Nolan, Avi Loeb, Lue Elizondo, Jacques Valle, Ross Coulthart. They are respected in their fields and have a solid track record. I try to ignore everything that comes from sensationalist sources and use serious sources as a "filter". Some people may experience an ontological shock thinking about such matters, though, and that is understandable. I can recommend meditation as a way to expand one's horizons. If you watch the videos about the nature of reality with Donald Hoffman and Bernardo Kastrup that I linked above, this new info from Ross Coulthart will not be very surprising: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/14azx9k/ross_coulthart_the_craft_is_driven_by_some_kind/https://youtu.be/R_ci--0RE7g?t=388Ross Coulthart is a respected and serious Australian journalist, and not some muppet or a "UFO performer". And I assume he has access to some serious sources with high clearance levels. What is interesting, is the switch from the term "extra-terrestrial" to "NHI" (non-human intelligence). This term is used, among others by Nolan, Grusch and Coulthart. And again, it doesn't surprise me... Ridicule is not a part of the scientific method and the public should not be taught that it is. J. Allen Hynek
102
« on: June 12, 2023, 16:09 »
I have been following the discussion over on reddit. Now getting really curious about the coming news.
I am sure alien life and more moderrn techmology exists somewhere. But what would they be doing here?
Maybe it's us coming back from the future to save us and our planet - to tell us to stop burning carbon, to learn how to live and let live, and to stop following leaders who incite anger, war, and division? 
Assuming that time is linear, changing or influencing the past could create the so-called 'grandfather paradox', split the timeline or destroy the timeline from which they came  Alternatively, there is the "many-worlds interpretation", where it all doesn't matter anyway, because everything happens.
103
« on: June 12, 2023, 09:57 »
If alien technology allows travel over light years of space and exhibits 'impossible' moves in our atmosphere, why are there so many crashes?
If the interdimensional hypothesis is true, or the visitors come from another universe in the multiverse, some physical constants may be different here than in their universe / reality. If that's the case, even very advanced craft will have a bumpy ride.
A Porsche, or a Ferrari are pretty advanced too and they were designed for roads, and yet they do crash on roads, right?
There are also hypotheses that some of the crashes are intentional, to give humans technology and influence the Earth's development, without that influence being widely known. The intentions may be benevolent or malevolent, and there may be various factions involved. If they have mastered time travel, stuff might get bats#it crazy... You could even imagine some humans from a distant future trying to manipulate the timeline or create a new one.
Other conceivable possibilities are basically what humans also do: 1. Human scientists watch animals use tools. Sometimes the scientists will suggest tools to the animals. Recently, I saw a video of a bird throwing pebbles into a bottle of water, to cause the water level to rise so that the bird could drink it. A smart bird. A popular experiment is the so-called mirror test. It tests which species are able to recognize their reflection in the mirror. Maybe the crashes are also some kind of experiment, testing what humans will do with such very advanced tools: perhaps whether the use will be positive or destructive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tool_use_by_non-human_animals2. Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 are space probes launched by NASA in 1977. They contain images and sounds of the Earth and scientific data on golden discs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyager_Golden_RecordPerhaps some of the crashes are simply probes or drones.
104
« on: June 11, 2023, 14:55 »
And yet, the building blocks of matter before observation / measurement / interaction have no "substance" and no properties.
That is at best very misleading and at worst completely wrong.
Oh, for crying out loud, let me quote a professor of quantum physics: "It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it," said Associate Professor Andrew Truscott from the ANU Research School of Physics and Engineering.https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150527103110.htmhttps://www.anu.edu.au/news/all-news/experiment-confirms-quantum-theory-weirdnessWe feel the consequences of the properties of the "buildings blocks" of matter, aka Protons, Neutrons and Electrons all the time.
For example they all subject to gravitation, so this is a property we feel all the time, unless we are astronauts currently in space.
For a large non-isolated system like the Earth, interactions with other systems prevent it from undergoing interference on a macroscopic scale. When you write "feel" it sounds almost like idealism... Please watch the long interviews with Professor Donald Hoffman and Bernardo Kastrup where they talk about perceptions and qualia. They might interest you, even if you come from the opposite direction.
105
« on: June 11, 2023, 11:39 »
And if he does not think he understands quantum mechanics, then that would raise the questions why he feels he can argue about them with a physicist who has worked in the area.
That physicist resorted to a lie to save her face in the debate... A paradigm shift can be painful. As a matter of fact, your statement that there is nothing "mysterious" about quantum physics is much closer to B. Kastrup's views than to those of S. Hossenfelder. It is materialists like S. Hossenfelder who pull out some mysterious "hidden variables" out of a hat to rescue their paradigm. "Hidden variables" are an appeal to magic. Zero proof, no idea what exactly they are supposed to be. According to materialism, matter is fundamental. And yet, the building blocks of matter before observation / measurement / interaction have no "substance" and no properties. They are just some probability wave, whatever it means, and are "rendered" only "on demand". Similar to objects in computer games that are not rendered unless there is a need. Idealism has no problem with quantum physics whatsoever. B. Kastrup is the Executive Director of Essentia Foundation. I counted 12 physicists (including quantum physicists) among their contributing authors: https://www.essentiafoundation.org/authors/The views of the contributing authors (including quantum physicists) are broadly compatible with those of Bernardo Kastrup. The aim of the foundation is " communicating, in an accurate yet accessible way, the latest analytic and scientific indications that metaphysical materialism is fundamentally flawed". ---- There is also a physicist who has somewhat similar views as B. Kastrup, and the name of his theory is actually similar to your username But TOE stands there for "theory of everything". https://www.my-big-toe.comhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iofqgV0XIlQ
106
« on: June 10, 2023, 13:08 »
If alien technology allows travel over light years of space and exhibits 'impossible' moves in our atmosphere, why are there so many crashes?
If the interdimensional hypothesis is true, or the visitors come from another universe in the multiverse, some physical constants may be different here than in their universe / reality. If that's the case, even very advanced craft will have a bumpy ride. A Porsche, or a Ferrari are pretty advanced too and they were designed for roads, and yet they do crash on roads, right? There are also hypotheses that some of the crashes are intentional, to give humans technology and influence the Earth's development, without that influence being widely known. The intentions may be benevolent or malevolent, and there may be various factions involved. If they have mastered time travel, stuff might get bats#it crazy... You could even imagine some humans from a distant future trying to manipulate the timeline or create a new one.
107
« on: June 08, 2023, 19:30 »
he seems to concentrate on whether or not she falsely claimed to have defined some variables and not really on the physics behind it.
"Hidden variables" are a materialist attempt to explain quantum phenomena by, basically, an appeal to magic. There is no proof for those hidden variables, nobody really knows what they are exactly supposed to be. If she had really defined them and had some evidence that would have been meaningful. From Wikipedia: " In physics, hidden-variable theories are proposals to provide explanations of quantum mechanical phenomena through the introduction of (possibly unobservable) hypothetical entities." - in other words: very close to an appeal to magic.
108
« on: June 08, 2023, 18:53 »
Bernado Kastrup is a philosopher and not a physicist and therefor cannot to be expected to really understand quantum mechanics.
For what it's worth, Bernardo Kastrup worked at CERN. He literally helped to build technology for the Large Hadron Collider. That was his first job. He built technology for the world's top physicists when he was fresh out of university. I would assume he knows a thing or two about quantum physics. At least, much more than a "regular" philosopher. He only turned to philosophy later in life.
109
« on: June 08, 2023, 17:45 »
The which-way detection can take place immediatley after the slit, but before the waves had a chance to interfere. After that it is too late to get the which-way information.
What you are suggesting is that generations of quantum physicists, including Nobel Prize winners, simply didn't set up their experiments properly and didn't have a clue what they were doing. Possible, but extremely unlikely.
110
« on: June 08, 2023, 17:26 »
111
« on: June 08, 2023, 16:31 »
There is really nothing all that mysterious about the double slit experiment.
[...]
You can also perform the double slit experiment with electrons or protons. It is a lot harder to do it with atoms, what is what the first of your videos talks about. The first time this succeeded was only in 1990. But in the end, it matters not, whether we use photons, electrons or atoms. The allegedly mysterious effect the video mentions turns up when performing so called "Which-way" experiments. If we modify the experiment in a way that we can tell, which of the slits a particle went through, the interference pattern vanishes (although it should be noted that there is still the interference pattern you get when a wave goes through a single slit, so the particles still show wave properties).
Now how can that be? The answer is really simple. In order to determine which slit a particle went through, you have to modify the experiment in a way that destroys the basis of the double slit experiment. In the experiment with the atoms in the video, using a detector to register all atoms that went through one slit, would consume the atoms and then the atoms (or part of the wave from one atom) going through the other slit have nothing to interfere with. The picture shown in the video where you can just detect an atom "flying by" without intefering with it is pure fantasy.
This is complete nonsense. The wave function collapses even when the detector is placed behind the slit, and which-way detection takes place after the particles have already passed through the slits. Also in complex setups, such as delayed-choice quantum eraser. There is nothing to "physically influence" the behavior of the particles before the slits. The which-way information can be obtained either by measurement (detection) after the fact or by logical deduction based on events which happen after the particle has gone through the slits. It just doesn't matter how you obtain the information about which way the particle went - if you have got that information - no matter how you got it, then the wave function already collapsed, in the past. https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a22280/double-slit-experiment-even-weirder/" If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you dont understand quantum mechanics." Richard P. Feynman, Nobel Prize in Physics If you really explain what is going on in the double-slit experiment, there is a Nobel Prize waiting.
112
« on: June 08, 2023, 12:31 »
I have been following the discussion over on reddit. Now getting really curious about the coming news.
I am sure alien life and more moderrn techmology exists somewhere. But what would they be doing here?
What are human scientists doing in the jungles of the Amazon or in Antarctica? Exploring, observing and cataloging stuff. I am not saying that extraterrestrial / inter-dimensional / extratemporal / ultraterrestrial entities are doing the same on Earth, but it is just one of possible motivations. Intelligent lifeforms probably tend to be curious. Or at least a certain percentage of them is very curious. Even cats are extremely curious of their surroundings and always want " to boldly go where no cat has gone before".
113
« on: June 02, 2023, 19:49 »
Faeries, ghosts, elves, and the like. Imaginary monsters, exobiology, mostly rubbish.
I'm afraid that your, and for that matter, our (mainstream) understanding of the wider reality is much closer to "mostly rubbish" than to the truth. Just try to understand, for example, the implications of the double-slit experiment and it should destroy your assumptions about the reality and what is really going on.
I'll have to find that experiment I haven't read or seen anything. Sounds interesting and I can't comment until I have more than a name of some experiment? I don't know what it's supposed to show or how it was run or who was behind it.
Do you mean the quantum eraser? I'll try to see what it's all about.
The double-slit experiment is probably the most famous experiment in quantum physics. And maybe the most puzzling one in the history of mankind so far. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9tKncAdlHQhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txlCvCSefYQIn a nutshell, the act of observation/measurement of the experiment changes the result. Whatever can happen, does happen - the particle is in multiple places at the same time. Until you try to observe it. Before observation, particles have no defined properties. They are kind of "rendered" only when observed or measured. In other words, the reality is super-weird and super-crazy, until you try to observe what exactly is going on - then it immediately changes and behaves as our intuition would tell us. Quantum Eraser is even weirder than the normal double-slit experiment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ORLN_KwAgsSome of the widely discussed implications of the double-slit experiment are the Multiverse Theory and Schrdinger's cat, which, theoretically, is both dead and alive at the same time. But the double-slit experiment is only the beginning. Watch the videos with Professor Donald Hoffman and they will make you question the nature of reality. And yes, he does provide solid mathematical and experimental evidence for his theory and he is a respected scientist at a well-known university. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYp5XuGYqqYhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reYdQYZ9Rj4https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIRHq3d7UuoSpace-time is not fundamental, it is just a "useful fiction", an interface, a VR headset, according to Hoffman. Whatever REALITY is, it is not what you thought it was. What you considered to be the REALITY is just a fiction in the grand scheme of things. You cannot trust your senses at all to understand the reality. Interstellar travel becomes a completely different subject, once you realize that space-time is not fundamental - and Hoffman sometimes mentions it in his interviews. And some top physicists, like Nima Arkani-Hamed, indeed already go beyond space-time with their theories. And for what it's worth, idealism has no issues with the double-slit experiment or quantum entanglement. It is only problematic within the materialist paradigm.
114
« on: June 01, 2023, 19:10 »
Faeries, ghosts, elves, and the like. Imaginary monsters, exobiology, mostly rubbish.
I'm afraid that your, and for that matter, our (mainstream) understanding of the wider reality is much closer to " mostly rubbish" than to the truth. Just try to understand, for example, the implications of the double-slit experiment and it should destroy your assumptions about the reality and what is really going on.
115
« on: June 01, 2023, 13:04 »
In fact there's more hard evidence that Santa Claus is real, based on belief and personal observations.
I'll just paraphrase a scene from a great movie:"What is real? How do you define real? If you're talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then "real" is just perceptions inside your consciousness. You've been living in Plato's Cave, Pete. The world that you know is just shadows on the walls of your cave. Welcome to the desert of the real." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYp5XuGYqqYhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reYdQYZ9Rj4https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIRHq3d7UuoNow, there is some hard evidence that the universe is not locally real (or maybe rather not local and not real): https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-universe-is-not-locally-real-and-the-physics-nobel-prize-winners-proved-it/https://medium.com/predict/nobel-prize-winning-scientists-findings-show-the-universe-isn-t-real-51cde7685600And yet, the universe is part of our existence, isn't it?
116
« on: May 25, 2023, 11:48 »
Remember he did suggest a collective neural connection.
Compare the reality to the Internet, and Hoffman's "conscious agents" to computers/devices connected to the Internet. As soon as you connect a new device to the Internet, it has (at least theoretically) access to the whole of Internet and can interact with other devices. There are various types of devices: servers, desktops, phones, etc. performing various functions. Each new connected device didn't, and doesn't contain the Internet within itself, and yet it is able to navigate and function within the Internet according to its role. And on a fundamental level, the Internet is not really a thing in itself, it is just a network of connected devices following certain communication protocols. Moreover, the Internet is generated entirely by the connected devices themselves. Maybe "conscious agents" are similar in that regard to devices connected to the Internet. But that is just a very simple metaphor, and the reality might be much, much more complex and weird. Bernardo Kastrup would say something a little different, though - his model uses the mind disassociation metaphor.
117
« on: May 25, 2023, 10:51 »
I did only watch the Ted talk admittedly but I understood the gist I thought but he lacked the bridge between only consciousness and our perceived reality. In fairness he asked what if ... but its hard to understand how he plans to complete that link without faith. Math? Acceptance? Because if he can for want of a better word prove that everything is a construct of a ... blind? Misstrained? concuousness then surely it spreads to each of us as a cascade. If he can't its a theory which requires faith until tye cascade reaches people. Remember he did suggest a collective neural connection.
Hoffman has math equations to support his theory that evolution doesn't promote organisms that see the world as it is, but those that are tuned to "fitness payouts". His team developed those equations with top mathematicians and game theorists. In some interviews he shows those equations. They performed computer simulations to test them. The result was always that organisms tuned to seeing the truth die out. And this is your "bridge" - the evolution gave us our own version of "perceived reality" a.k.a. spacetime so that we can survive. That's basically it. The purpose of evolution is not showing us the truth. We don't perceive much beyond what is required for survival, and things that we perceive are just like icons in a desktop interface, developed and distorted over millions of years of evolution. The same species shares the same interface, or headset, as he sometimes calls it. The relation of our "perceived reality" to the base reality is similar to the relationship between a Windows/Mac interface and things going on inside a computer on a molecular level. You would never be able to send an email if you had to deal with, or even understand, molecules inside a computer. Bernardo Kastrup represents a slightly different flavor of idealism with his disassociation model, but for the most part they agree with one another. Thomas Campbell has also a similar theory. They all use different metaphors to express similar ideas. All very interesting. There was a case of a boy who lived for years without a brain and somehow had his own personality, he smiled when he was happy, and had other facial expressions. https://www.fox13seattle.com/news/boy-born-without-a-brain-lives-to-be-12-years-old-dies-peacefullyThere is another guy in France who lost 90% of his brain and functions normally, he has some local government job. Therefore, consciousness cannot be a product of the brain. The brain is just an icon.
118
« on: May 25, 2023, 08:38 »
Do we see reality as it is hahahahahaha jesus. I watched that one and brilliant. He's missing that linking part isn't he between theory and I guess proof. Although there are indications that he is totally right, he can't get to ... andnthat proof or example is true for all experiences. There are a couple of experiences which don't fit with that and one is the experience of gravity because that isn't like most things a perception or experience viewed through the interface. Gravity happens and happens regardless of being witnessed by us through our as he explains it interface. And you can prove that because of planets with no known life or witness with an interface with which to view it. They still have mass which forms the planet. I guess he would argue that ... there is no planet potentially just a set of experiences that cause us to construct the planet using our interface (I'm just using his terminology). It's a very expanded version of if a tree falls in the woods and no one sees it, does it still fall. I've always said yes because something will witness it. A bug or a microbe anything. What he susggests is that if there were no things that possessed a consciousness there, then not only does the tree not fall, but there isn't even a wood. It needs consciousness to construct it in order to exist. But this brings us to his other problem ... if he is right then consciousness requires a witness to exist ... and that's what's missing from his theory. The identity of that witness.
You haven't understood idealism. Consciousness is fundamental and it doesn't require a witness to exist. It just is. It is what it is, and it contains everything. There are many various processes inside of it. Gravity is just a subroutine or a process inside the interface. Matter cannot be fundamental, because such an assumption leaves you with the so-called hard problem of consciousness, and it just can't explain the double-slit experiment and quantum entanglement. Materialism was useful in explaining certain phenomena, but at some point it collapses like a house of cards. Like Newton's theory was superseded by Einstein's relativity theory - materialism is an obsolete model. In idealism, there is no hard problem of consciousness, no problem with the double-slit experiment or quantum entanglement. Watch Bernardo Kastrup's interviews to grasp it. Plato knew it 2500 years ago, in Asia they have known it for thousands of years, in Europe German idealists like Kant knew it too - they just used different metaphors to describe it. Materialism confuses the map with the territory. https://www.google.com/search?q=spacetime+is+doomedhttps://youtu.be/FeuwQHfXyzY?t=124https://youtu.be/FeuwQHfXyzY?t=962
119
« on: May 24, 2023, 12:02 »
Slightly off on a tangent, but LOL, people who think that what they can see with their own eyes and photograph is the whole of reality are like the ones in Plato's cave. If you think the phenomenon is only about some alleged extraterrestrials coming in spaceships, you don't even realize how deep the rabbit hole goes. Guys, everything you know is wrong. Although, sometimes being wrong can be great and can be progress - it means we understand the question. But often, we are not even wrong - we don't even understand the question, like a dog asked if Australia is larger or smaller than Cuba. Watch this, as an introduction, especially if science is important to you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYp5XuGYqqYThen check this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAB21FAXCDEhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reYdQYZ9Rj4https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2m7BxlWlvzchttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhGYsUitgNkhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1BULYFf8qoMost of you/us have been living in Plato's cave, all our lives. Debunking UFOs is so 1985, it is like arguing about shadows on the walls of Plato's cave...
120
« on: May 19, 2023, 02:21 »
As an aside, UAP has itself been renamed.
It now stands for Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena. I'm not sure why. I liked 'aerial' better (but they didn't ask me ).
Because there have been many reports of the objects submerging in oceans - they were transmedium craft.
121
« on: September 27, 2022, 08:38 »
Reciprocal links are not good. Their value may be close to zero. If they were useful, everybody would be doing it like crazy. Google is not stupid. They may be seen as a "link scheme", which is against their Webmaster Guidelines.
Three-way swaps are better.
122
« on: June 09, 2017, 03:14 »
oh yes the fun ist starting.
MayDay, MayDay!
123
« on: June 05, 2017, 18:05 »
Very good post, ArenaCreative.
124
« on: June 04, 2017, 19:06 »
For hyperlapses, your showreel is incredibly smooth and simply amazing.
However, I am not sure whether it can be profitable (on a larger scale), taking into account the massive amount of work that is involved in the creation process.
On Pond5 you can set your own prices and receive 50%. They do have customers. You can set high prices and see what happens.
Motion Elements have good terms too, but they focus on Asia and seem to have fewer customers than P5.
Other than that, perhaps when your neigbors from Stocksy open for new applications, you might try applying there, but there is no editorial collection, so e.g. clips with logos cannot be uploaded.
125
« on: June 04, 2017, 15:29 »
Microstock is over. I've heard that knitting is the next big thing...
I am looking for a brutally honest guide to something that is sustainable in the long run...
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 12
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
