banner
You are not using a standards compliant browser. Because of this you may notice minor glitches in the rendering of this page. Please upgrade to a compliant browser for optimal viewing:
Firefox
Internet Explorer 7
Safari (Mac and PC)
Post Archive
2014 (0)2012 (1)2011 (2)2010 (13)
Rate This Post
Total votes: 25
Blogger Profile

Evie
The Bat Cave EAR

Evie is an aeorspace engineer and will blog about current events in various fields including but not limited to: Space, Astronomy, Genetics, Biology, Green Energy, Neuroscience, Physics, Quantum Physics, Evolution, Environmental issues, Engineering.. Pretty much anything and everything that catches her eye. Stay tuned! Thoughts, comments, requests – always welcomed!

My posts are presented as opinion and commentary and do not represent the views of LabSpaces Productions, LLC, my employer, or my educational institution.

Blog RSS Feed
RSS Add to My Yahoo Add to Google
Recent Comments

What a waist of time. Nothing new for curious people. I can tell the guy is into video gaming a lot. Good graphics and scientific language. Using just that, does not mean it is going to be a good m. . .Read More
Jan 11, 2014, 12:19am

Everyone keeps taking about it but no one does nothing. This mission to clear ll the space junk would cost billions but this should be something that needs to be undertaken by all the countries col. . .Read More
Jul 22, 2013, 5:41am

  Buddha had revealed in his teaching more than 2500 years ago that the sense of self is an illusion created by the mind. many buddhist suttas which recorded the teachings of the B. . .Read More
Jul 11, 2013, 12:14am

Just wanted to say "Great article!" even though nobody's been here for quite awhile. Got here by googling lagrange points upon reading of the deactivation of the Herschel space telescope. Interesti. . .Read More
Jun 18, 2013, 11:15am

Give them credit for putting ideas out there to ponder. This is a complex universe and it will not be explained and defined in a three-word sentence.  GROW UP ,LISTEN AND LEARN !!Read More
Mar 18, 2013, 11:47am
Awesome Stuff
Monday, January 24, 2011

Athene's Theory of EverythingEarlier this week I was fortunate enough to speak with Chiren Boumaaza, aka Athene, who you may know as the extravagant internet celebrity, and professional gamer.

If you haven't heard of him, he's a record holder in World of Warcraft and online poker, and plays the main character in a series of videos on a popular youtube channel with well over 340,000 subscribers.

'Athene' is known for crashing gaming servers, with the aid of his massive army of followers, who just love to be part of the controversy and trouble Athene is so well known for.

Over the past year, we haven't heard much from him, and it seemed as though he had fallen off the grid. Recently Chiren broke his silence, and announced that his disappearance was due to being very busy, conducting new research in the fields of quantum mechanics, general and special relativity, and neuroscience. He continued to say that this research is culminating in significant new discoveries that will be presented in a documentary named 'Athene's Theory of Everything'. This was definitely an unexpected turn, and caused quite a stir, and some confusion within his fan base.

While this could seem bizarre and hokey, the explanations Chiren gave about his research during a livestream event sounded solid, and I was intrigued. I wanted to hear more details about what he was working on.

Reese Leysen and Chiren BoumaazaLuckily for me, I was able to get in touch with Reese Leysen on twitter. Reese is part of the Athene crew and is a long-time viral video collaborator (and now documentary maker). I must say, it was surprisingly easy to get a hold of Chiren, though he has made it very clear that once the documentary is released, he will not be involved in any of the surrounding media coverage. (which just means more work for Reese!)

During my conversation with Chiren, I learned that for the past year, he had apparently been engaged in scientific research with the same dedication and out-of-the-box thinking that we've seen in his record-setting stunts in online gaming. He spent a lot of time gathering relevant scientific papers, and delving into them in depth.

Using his newly acquired information and understanding, he was able to come up with an incredible amount of new correlations that, as he puts it, "solve a huge list of current problems in physics". If proven correct, his findings would not only have practical, but also deeply philosophical implications.

The findings and correlations presented are just now hitting the world wide web, along with the documentary, and have not yet been peer reviewed. I am very much looking forward to seeing what experts in the fields have to say about this interesting new stuff.

Athene's 'Theory of Everything' doesn't only refer to the scientific concept of a unified field theory, but also to the scope of his research, which encompasses everything that has deep significance regarding the way science can affect our views on life, death and reality, ranging from neuroscience to particle physics.

Being an engineer, I was really happy to see no sensationalized or metaphysical claims in the documentary. On the contrary, it was great to see how he rigorously took the scientific method to heart in all aspects of his work, without making any of the esoteric correlations that modern quantum theorists sometimes resort to. Chiren's writing, which the documentary is based on, looks to science with respect for its roots in openness and skepticism, while bringing back the sense of wonder, that remarkable scientists such as Carl Sagan used to instill us with.

As with all new ideas, I imagine not everyone will agree with his views on things. Regardless, the documentary will undoubtedly quickly become popular, as it deals with the subjects of reality, quantum mechanics, neuroscience and human psychology. And who knows, perhaps it will even win the heart of the scientific community (in the event the findings are verified).

I would like to say congratulations to both Chiren and Reese on a job very well done. They both put huge amounts of effort into this, and it shows. It is so very well written, the graphics and music are fantastic, as is the narration.

I do encourage you to take a look at this documentary. It's very well made, and has very positive underlying messages on the significance of scientific thinking, the importance of the Internet's openness, and the importance of keeping an open mind, just to name a few.

 

Check out the documentary here -

 

Chiren went into more detail in a livestream talk -

--

This post has been viewed: 136142 time(s)

Tags:             

Blog Comments
Jordan

Guest Comment

It is amazing <3!


Evie
Rate Post:

Like 0 Dislike

It sure is! Thanks, Jordan :)

Missthecat

Guest Comment

5 Minutes in and I'm so bored, cliffs anyone.

Shimon

Guest Comment

pretentious much?

Someone comes along, does a whole 365 days of scientific research, and proposes a Theory of Everything?

I don't care if he's got the worlds largest IQ going to be quite skeptical.

To be fair, I have not yet finished watching the video (about halfway), but so far i'm not much impressed.

hurrdurrr

Guest Comment

The video offers nothing new in the field of science and furthermore makes an assumption that quantum systems play a role in consciousness which has no concrete scientific basis.

Joshua

Guest Comment

hurrdurrr said:

The video offers nothing new in the field of science and furthermore makes an assumption that quantum systems play a role in consciousness which has no concrete scientific basis

IF quantum mechanics governs the causal nature of the universe AND the conscious entity is within that universe THEN it seems to be a simple deduction that quantum systems play a role in consciousness.  Thanks for being open to new ideas.

 


Suzy
Rate Post:

Like 1 Dislike

Hi Evie, An interesting subject, thanks for posting about it. I've never heard of this guy before. Is he supposed to be a genius? Also, what kind of trouble has he caused on the internet with his followers?

 


Evie
Rate Post:

Like 0 Dislike

Thanks Jade, the Athene crew started out making racy vids to gain an audience, once that happened the crew used them to win epic WoW battles. Then they decided to start playing online poker and take that to the max by playing one million poker hands in a very short period of time, winning quite of few of them.

Yea, Chiren is a smart dude, he's got a lot of working memory so he can see a bigger picture than most with relative ease.

The whole idea behind the movement is to get people thinking, and to move humanity in a positive direction. They do a lot of work to help keep net neutrality alive, their massive following actually prevented some new EU legislation a while back from messing w net neutrality over there. It's pretty cool. Their main focus is self development and to that end they started a web community called IPower, which is all about letting go of ego, getting passed personal hang ups and differences, learning to cooperate, using factual science as a tool to move us forward.


Suzy
Rate Post:

Like 0 Dislike

What is "net neutrality" exactly?


Evie
Rate Post:

Like 0 Dislike

It's the idea that the internet ought to remain open and free for all, so that companies w money won't be allowed to pay internet providers to get more bandwidth, funneling more users toward their sites, effectively taking away the right to be heard from other smaller places. Once only the big corporations with money are heard.. there is no more free speech. You'll only ever gain access to sites that pay off the ISPs.

dman

Guest Comment

So what else is in there besides the message that free speech is good? He says that his "theory" should "solve a huge list of current problems in physics", but he doesn't contribute anything new, there are no new facts or revelations. Besides listing well known scientific facts and making a nice looking video out of it, he doesn't seem to have done anything.

I must say I'm very disappointed. I was hoping to a) be blown away by something new or b) to get a good laugh because his theory would be something like "me = pro, you = noob, stfu", but this is just such a waste of time. Sadly most of the people seeing this will be too young and/or undereducated and think he actually found out the stuff about the quantum world (where in fact it's mostly stuff from the 90's) and thus give him the attention what he wants.

retroii

Guest Comment

the worst and funniest thing about this well made video is that this guy pretends to have done the researvh while he merely made a poor ass synthesis of scientific studies of several wellknown and respected scientists. are you interested in this stuff read on Kip Thorn and Steven Hawking for instanse, who in their turn will lead you to other great minds. THEY ACTUALLY DID THE RESEARCH AND SPEND THERE WHOLE ADULT LIFE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE MIND AND THE UNIVERSEo.  one thing, discovering literature about some interesting and groundbreaking theories doesn't make you discovered something,  this merely shows he can read and i congratulate him. but he started by explaining the neurotransmitters so it probably means he would discribe this as narrowmindness caused by something i can't control. take some prozac and go play some poker and games.

 

retroii

Guest Comment

the pro in games is the noob in science. there is your international press release. ;)

Conscerned Skeptic

Guest Comment

Joshua said:

hurrdurrr said:

The video offers nothing new in the field of science and furthermore makes an assumption that quantum systems play a role in consciousness which has no concrete scientific basis

IF quantum mechanics governs the causal nature of the universe AND the conscious entity is within that universe THEN it seems to be a simple deduction that quantum systems play a role in consciousness.  Thanks for being open to new ideas.

 

 

IF, IF, IF, IF.


How about some hard evidence instead of useless IFs? I'm not even half way into the video and I'm already getting angered by it, you cannot start with assumptions and then draw conclusions directly from those.

 



Guest Comment

This is interesting, although I agree with the commenter that mentioned that these guys haven't "paid their dues" in QM research, but 49 minutes??  Do you know how many hands of poker I could play during that time??


Evie
Rate Post:

Like 0 Dislike

I agree w you guys, a lot of the stuff presented is background data that has been known for a while, but it's a nice review for those who are unfamiliar w the research. The new equation that Chiren believes represents the breakthrough is yet to be evaluated by experts and peer reviewed, so I'm going to wait and see what those people have to say about it, rather than make a snap judgment based on my very limited familiarity w the subject matter. I do think the documentary itself is high quality and that many people will learn a lot from it, and might attain new perspectives on things.


Genomic Repairman
Rate Post:

Like 0 Dislike

Evie said:

The new equation that Chiren believes represents the breakthrough is yet to be evaluated by experts and peer reviewed,

So I guess his documentary really is just serving as a press release for his preliminary and unverified findings.

 


Evie
Rate Post:

Like 0 Dislike

Yea, it's a report on work that's currently in progress, and the paper or papers will be released at a later stage.

I fear for the future

Guest Comment

Is this video a joke? Consciousness = energy? Right at the start of the video it says that it "keeps clear of metaphyiscal correlations" yet the whole documentary revels in confusing the metaphysical and physical.

I know exactly what's going to happen with this. Experts in the various fields will dismiss it straight away but the author and his inevitable "tin foil hat believers" will stubbornly claim that they aren't keeping an "open mind". I implore everyone that watches this to truly keep an open mind, don't believe this shoddily put together "theory" until some hard evidence that supports it is shown.

ScienceD00D

Guest Comment

Who needs peer-review when you've got techno & Adobe After Effects?

Chase

Guest Comment

The author of this article did not do any journalism, or ciritical thinking.

It is sad that this article is not intended to be satire.

"Extrodinary claims require extrodinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Where is the extrodinary evidence? Where is ANY evidence? The video is a bunch of nonsense that does not correspond to a scientific understanding of the universe. This is not merely an opinion; consult the scientific liturature.

"There is no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about." - John Von Neumann

 

For a rational discussion of these topics check out theskepticsguide.org

 

- Chase

Christopher Jacobsen

Guest Comment

Conscerned Skeptic said:

IF, IF, IF, IF.


How about some hard evidence instead of useless IFs? I'm not even half way into the video and I'm already getting angered by it, you cannot start with assumptions and then draw conclusions directly from those.

 

Without "if", there would be no "how"... And we would not be able to comprehend "why".

All beliefs, theories, hypothesis', scientific studies, perceptions and facts that you have gathered throughout your entire life, made by others, have always been discovered through the power of "if", "what if", "why not" and "but how".

 

What literally cracks me up, is the *fact* that your entire post proves the idea that emotional attachment to one's belief system does infact blind you from further conscious development and understanding of the universe and even yourself.

 

I accidently came up with a saying a few years ago, that funnily enough, correlates with the belief-system chapter of this scientific documentary: "Accepting is not believing... Believing is accepting".

 

I hope that you will depict my saying and try to percieve the message of this documentary from a less narrow point-of-view.

 

Anonymous

Guest Comment

Guys it's still a theory as said in the title why are you asking for evidence.

p'z out

 

dman

Guest Comment

What is the theory? Where is the actual theory? You cannot list known facts and call this a theory. The only unique thing he added is C=hf and as the others already said: there is no mathematical background for this. I'll just quote someone from the lower link regarding that:

Making that formula is like someone saying H=(m/s) where Happiness is equal to money divided by stress. It is a qualitative description but not an actual scientific description that explains happiness on a experimental level.

They added a link described as "First review/reaction from the scientific community" in the description of their youtube-video:
http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/f8021/biggest_troll_on_the_internet_solves_all/
Even there people laugh at it. It's exactly what I fear for the future predicted - and the fanbase reacts the same, predicted way.

shreddakj

Guest Comment

There seems to be a whole lot of confusion in the comments section. Some people are saying "He hasn't said anything new", while others are saying that "He's pulling this out of his ass and doesn't relate to science at all". How about you all actually watch the video again?

I found it interesting, but will probably have to watch it again before forming my opinion on it.

Carson Matthews

Guest Comment

Just go to physorg.com where you can read the latest scientific journal articles and you can be just like Athene.

Calhoun

Guest Comment
(This is what I said to Reese and to his team, I feel this is all that needs to be said, self explanatory) Congratulations, the video is astounding. It was every bit I expected out of you and the team. I look forward to seeing points of views & criticisms from other scientists. Keep us up to date with anything important happening to your team (: I don't watch TV, so if this goes to media outlets, or if scientists start to talk, let us know...!

Thank you for all of your time & hard work for innovative science & the cause against narrow-mindedness. It's more appreciated by some people than you could ever imagine.
MR_Beagle

Guest Comment

I'd just like to say that this documentary is supposed to be an introduction to a theory... This is not a paper. No one expects to be able to make a documentary and have the world blindly believe all the content to be true. Anyone with any respect for the scientific method would encourage skepticism, and from what I gather,  I believe this to be the case with Chiren and Reese's attitude toward their film.

I think the negative comments can largely be attributed to the fact that this is quite a strange way to present research... to work so long on a relatively polished documentary before submitting the research to peer review is a bit like getting the horse before the cart. I'm a litle concerned for Chiren and Reese in this regard, because it would be very dissappointing to have worked so hard on something for so long, only to find that a 15 minute conversation with a qualified scientist working in the appropriate field shoots it full of holes! But again, this is just a documentary... people are treating it like it's being presented as truth. It isn't. It's being presented as an introduction to a new interpretation of existing theories.

I personally found a fair bit of it quite interesting, other parts less so, but I'm a little confused as to why people seem to be so angry about it?! What's the big deal? A guy did some research, thinks he may have stumbled on a new interpretation of existing ideas, and decided to present those ideas in a film and put it on the internet. That's it. There is really no need to be angry about that... admitedly it had a lot of hype (arguably way too much!), and so I guess some people feel cheated in some way? But seriously guys, come on... it's just a film, and it was always going to be just a film.

I would assume that Chiren and Reese will release more information and detail on these ideas and hopefully submit a paper to be peer reviewed. Writing a paper that properly respects and adheres to the scientific method is not an easy task, and with a lack of experience I can see they may have trouble properly presenting their data in a way that the scientific community is used to, but let's give them a chance eh? And if it doesn't hold water, so what? It's just an idea shared... let's not make it into anything more than it's trying to be... at present, I have seen no data, and so to me it's nothing more than some ideas and a film, and that's fine. I enjoyed watching it, and I'm currently interested in hearing qualified scientists discuss it, even if they pull it to bits. Anything that asks the scientific community to be better science communicators is a good thing, even if it's only to debunk wild theories presented in films on the internet!

P.S. - FAO Chiren and Reese ... it's worth pointing out that people are far more likely to make themselves heard if they have a negative reaction to something than they are if they react positively... if you buy a product online, and it works perfectly, you are less likely to go back and leave a positive review on the site where you bought it than you are to leave a negative review should the product be faulty. In other words, try not to let the negative comments get you down! Ironically, I'm pretty sure you touched on this kind of behaviour during the neuroscience section of the documentary :-)

c = hf?

Guest Comment

Christopher Jacobsen said:

 

Without "if", there would be no "how"... And we would not be able to comprehend "why".

All beliefs, theories, hypothesis', scientific studies, perceptions and facts that you have gathered throughout your entire life, made by others, have always been discovered through the power of "if", "what if", "why not" and "but how".

 

What literally cracks me up, is the *fact* that your entire post proves the idea that emotional attachment to one's belief system does infact blind you from further conscious development and understanding of the universe and even yourself.

 

I accidently came up with a saying a few years ago, that funnily enough, correlates with the belief-system chapter of this scientific documentary: "Accepting is not believing... Believing is accepting".

 

I hope that you will depict my saying and try to percieve the message of this documentary from a less narrow point-of-view.

 

You're missing the point. There is no evidence for the claims made in the documentary, it is purely "if this is true, this is also true even though I can't prove that".

Are you genuinely saying that in order for me to further develop my conscious and understanding of the universe I have to stop looking for evidence and just believe whatever other people tell me? Because that's how religious dogma works. How is my point of view the "narrow" one when I open my mind to evidence and any concept or idea that it supports?

Conscious = energy huh?

Prove it.

 

Anon

Guest Comment

 

c = hf? said:

 

 

Conscious = energy huh?

Prove it.

 

 

You should try watching the video again, you obviously don't understand it. There's no need for evidence, it is a consequence of fundamental equations.

 

milos

Guest Comment

AMAZING!!! REALLY GOOD DOCUMENTARY

dman

Guest Comment

Anon said:

 

c = hf? said:

 

 

Conscious = energy huh?

Prove it.

 

 

You should try watching the video again, you obviously don't understand it. There's no need for evidence, it is a consequence of fundamental equations.

 

 

So basicly like, if you commit a sin you will burn in hell for eternity - a fact that doesn't need any prove because god the almighty lvl infinity gnome mage said it.

 

yeah lol

 

Anon

Guest Comment

dman said:

Anon said:

 

c = hf? said:

 

 

Conscious = energy huh?

Prove it.

 

 

You should try watching the video again, you obviously don't understand it. There's no need for evidence, it is a consequence of fundamental equations.

 

 

So basicly like, if you commit a sin you will burn in hell for eternity - a fact that doesn't need any prove because god the almighty lvl infinity gnome mage said it.

 

yeah lol

 

 

No, it is nothing like that. c = hf is based completely off currently accepted science.

By saying c =/= hf you are also saying the current accepted theory is wrong, even though it's been verfied with evidence, which obviously means a lot to you.

Really, have a think about it and watch the video again, you're thinking about it wrong.

 


Reese Leysen
Rate Post:

Like 0 Dislike

Whoa. So much awesome feedback. Some people on Athenism.net were just asking me how the hell 'C=hf' could make sense because they were looking at it from a more abstract conceptual angle of 'consciousness'. Thought I'd paste a short part of my response here cause it seems to be the primary misconception/objection some people have towards the science of the documentary. Here it is:

The question was: what is this 'C'? Is it some sort of magical 'quantum consciousness'? Is it human consciousness? What is implied by it?

But this is like asking "E=mc²? What does it mean by 'energy'? Kinetic energy of a dog taking a walk? Potential energy of fuel in a car?". Just as E=mc² and all other basic theoretic mathematical statements in science, C=hf refers to any possible minimum unit of spacetime that makes up your consciousness, just as E=mc² refers to any sort of unit of energy or mass. This just pertains to any quantized unit of spacetime, not to abstract concepts of what consciousness is on either neurological or spiritual levels. And the formula certainly doesn't imply that there is some magical quantized 'consciousness particle', it just creates an obvious starting point for a theory of everything: quantized particles behave in a certain way, the ones that make up our consciousness behave the same way, this has certain implications. That is all :).

Mario

Guest Comment

"But this is like asking "E=mc²? What does it mean by 'energy'? Kinetic energy of a dog taking a walk? Potential energy of fuel in a car?""

Yes, both of those ... energy is very specific concept in physics, but what is 'consciousness'? Energy, as any other physical symbol, has a mathematical definition. Do you have such a definition for your 'consciousness'? Why is 'consciousness' measured in Joules and what does that mean? Where would you use this equation?

If it's supposed to just represent some thought processes without any underlying mathemnatical foundation then we have a word for that - PSEUDOSCIENCE ;)

Science is communitaced with math, if you can not communicate what 'C' is in math then it's not science, simple as that.

Mario

Guest Comment

Also, if you have no other math for this 'C' except C = hf then you've just renamed energy to consciousness - nothing less, nothing more. But it's still energy and is measured in Joules no matter what fantasy name you make up for it, you can call it 'pink gummybear' if you wish so - that would make as much sense as calling it 'consciousness' (maybe more so because I like gummybears) but do not expect any respect from scientific community for calling well defined concepts in physics 'pink gummybears' nor 'consciousness' ... there is no reason to call it that except if you wanted to make some metaphysical mumbo jumbo correlations - which is supposedely not what you were aiming for so what' are your reasons for this 'consciusness' rebranding of energy?

void109

Guest Comment

Monster disappointment, but not suprising - the video, while entertaining for the first 15 minutes, fell to pieces by the end.

I'm afraid the mad skillz are limited to video games and have nothing more than what appears to be a very superficial grasp on logic, let alone the scientific method.  Its a smorgasborg of factoids that we (mankind) already knew thrown together in a haphazard manner with some grandiose claims without the support to sustain them.  It's a big opinion piece (with some flat out fictional aspects, and I wont even get started on this C = hf bullshit).

Looks like someone who's semi-intelligent with extra cash (poker?) to blow on a video production to celebrate his delusional success. :(

What was he saying about defending a false position at the beginning of the film?  Set aside your ego for a moment, and entertain the possibility that what you've just presented is hollow and without substance, misguided, and in places simply faulty.

Sorry.

mads

Guest Comment

Anon said:

dman said:

Anon said:

 

c = hf? said:

 

 

Conscious = energy huh?

Prove it.

 

 

You should try watching the video again, you obviously don't understand it. There's no need for evidence, it is a consequence of fundamental equations.

 

 

So basicly like, if you commit a sin you will burn in hell for eternity - a fact that doesn't need any prove because god the almighty lvl infinity gnome mage said it.

 

yeah lol

 

 

No, it is nothing like that. c = hf is based completely off currently accepted science.

By saying c =/= hf you are also saying the current accepted theory is wrong, even though it's been verfied with evidence, which obviously means a lot to you.

Really, have a think about it and watch the video again, you're thinking about it wrong.

 

if c=hf is correct and e=hf is correct(it  has been proven multiple times) and e=mc^2 is correct, then e=c=hf=mc^2 so conciouse=matter times the squared speed of light

dman

Guest Comment

Reese Leysen said:

The question was: what is this 'C'? Is it some sort of magical 'quantum consciousness'? Is it human consciousness? What is implied by it?

But this is like asking "E=mc²? What does it mean by 'energy'? Kinetic energy of a dog taking a walk? Potential energy of fuel in a car?". Just as E=mc² and all other basic theoretic mathematical statements in science, C=hf refers to any possible minimum unit of spacetime that makes up your consciousness, just as E=mc² refers to any sort of unit of energy or mass. This just pertains to any quantized unit of spacetime, not to abstract concepts of what consciousness is on either neurological or spiritual levels. And the formula certainly doesn't imply that there is some magical quantized 'consciousness particle', it just creates an obvious starting point for a theory of everything: quantized particles behave in a certain way, the ones that make up our consciousness behave the same way, this has certain implications. That is all :).

 

And here lies the problem: You say it's science, you say it's physics, you say it's math and in the end you just give people a tool to try and justify the magical world of spiritual believes and to block out any logical discussiun by responding with something like if E=hf and C=hr then my penis=hf so noone can deny it, it's proven physical fact.
Right now I don't see any difference in what you do and what for example scientology does - brainwashind people with b*shit.

Also, if some magial entity is =hf, what in the hell does this imply to science? Why is that important? Physics tries to understand the real fabric of existance and not the need of some unimportant race like us men to answer questions like the church does.

Guess we can welcome a new sect in our world.

 

MR_Beagle

Guest Comment

@dman I think you're getting a little carried away here... the word 'consciousness' is probably a poor choice on the creator's part. They are not refering to concsiousness from a psychological or spiritual perspective. I think you have misunderstood what they are trying to say. Admitedly it's not explained all that well, and the choice of language is not the best, but to say they are trying to start a sect is ridiculous. They aren't brain washing anyone. The first part of the documentary is about the importance of personal detachment from information, or avoidance of 'belief' per se. That wouldn't be a very good way to start a sect! I'm not making any judgments on this from a scientific perspective until I see actual data, maths, and have heard a response from qualified scientists. Until then, it's just a film... seriously, relax; it's just a film.

Calhoun

Guest Comment

dman said:

Reese Leysen said:

The question was: what is this 'C'? Is it some sort of magical 'quantum consciousness'? Is it human consciousness? What is implied by it?

But this is like asking "E=mc²? What does it mean by 'energy'? Kinetic energy of a dog taking a walk? Potential energy of fuel in a car?". Just as E=mc² and all other basic theoretic mathematical statements in science, C=hf refers to any possible minimum unit of spacetime that makes up your consciousness, just as E=mc² refers to any sort of unit of energy or mass. This just pertains to any quantized unit of spacetime, not to abstract concepts of what consciousness is on either neurological or spiritual levels. And the formula certainly doesn't imply that there is some magical quantized 'consciousness particle', it just creates an obvious starting point for a theory of everything: quantized particles behave in a certain way, the ones that make up our consciousness behave the same way, this has certain implications. That is all :).

 

And here lies the problem: You say it's science, you say it's physics, you say it's math and in the end you just give people a tool to try and justify the magical world of spiritual believes and to block out any logical discussiun by responding with something like if E=hf and C=hr then my penis=hf so noone can deny it, it's proven physical fact.
Right now I don't see any difference in what you do and what for example scientology does - brainwashind people with b*shit.

Also, if some magial entity is =hf, what in the hell does this imply to science? Why is that important? Physics tries to understand the real fabric of existance and not the need of some unimportant race like us men to answer questions like the church does.

Guess we can welcome a new sect in our world.

 

 

Brainwash?.. Wow calm down. You are immediately discredited when you start off attacking the author. He was very reasonable in his response and clearly stated the meanings of his video even more clearer than before. I don't think anymore critism is necessary from you or anyone else in that manner. You didn't post anything positive, just negative with smart ass comments about your penis being an equation.

 

"Here lies the problem" - I beleive WE should be the ones deciding if anything you say is valid in our world of credibility since you've stooped so low. Please go somewhere else and blast something of less importance. You clearly lack the ability to be "open minded" in this discussion. Coincidentally, exactly what the author was taking about in the final chapter of his video.

 

Anon

Guest Comment

mads said:

 

if c=hf is correct and e=hf is correct(it  has been proven multiple times) and e=mc^2 is correct, then e=c=hf=mc^2 so conciouse=matter times the squared speed of light

 

Which is correct? What's your point?

Your conscious isn't a magical thing that doesn't obey the laws of physics and is an exception, it follows it just like everything else, which is what his research is completely based off. It's just an overlooked consequence of current accepted theory which he is looking into.

 

Steve

Guest Comment

Reese Leysen said:

Whoa. So much awesome feedback. Some people on Athenism.net were just asking me how the hell 'C=hf' could make sense because they were looking at it from a more abstract conceptual angle of 'consciousness'. Thought I'd paste a short part of my response here cause it seems to be the primary misconception/objection some people have towards the science of the documentary. Here it is:

The question was: what is this 'C'? Is it some sort of magical 'quantum consciousness'? Is it human consciousness? What is implied by it?

But this is like asking "E=mc²? What does it mean by 'energy'? Kinetic energy of a dog taking a walk? Potential energy of fuel in a car?". Just as E=mc² and all other basic theoretic mathematical statements in science, C=hf refers to any possible minimum unit of spacetime that makes up your consciousness, just as E=mc² refers to any sort of unit of energy or mass. This just pertains to any quantized unit of spacetime, not to abstract concepts of what consciousness is on either neurological or spiritual levels. And the formula certainly doesn't imply that there is some magical quantized 'consciousness particle', it just creates an obvious starting point for a theory of everything: quantized particles behave in a certain way, the ones that make up our consciousness behave the same way, this has certain implications. That is all :).

 

In Stephen Hawkings new book, The Grand Design he explains the 4 criteria that makes a good scientific model which is as follows;

1) Is elegant

2) Contains few arbitrary or adjustable elements

3) Agrees with and explains all existing observations

4) Makes detailed predictions about future observations that can disprove or falsify the model if they are not borne out.

The difference between E=mc2 is that the formula satisfies all 4 criteria for a scientific model, where as your C=hf claim has yet to fulfill all 4 criteria. What detailed predictions has your model made and do you have the data to back it up? How can your model be falsified? These are the concerns people have with what you've presented thus far.

 

dman

Guest Comment

Calhoun said:

 

Brainwash?.. Wow calm down. You are immediately discredited when you start off attacking the author. He was very reasonable in his response and clearly stated the meanings of his video even more clearer than before. I don't think anymore critism is necessary from you or anyone else in that manner. You didn't post anything positive, just negative with smart ass comments about your penis being an equation.

 

"Here lies the problem" - I beleive WE should be the ones deciding if anything you say is valid in our world of credibility since you've stooped so low. Please go somewhere else and blast something of less importance. You clearly lack the ability to be "open minded" in this discussion. Coincidentally, exactly what the author was taking about in the final chapter of his video.

 

 

Just to clarify: The above is not the author, he's some kind of manager. The author did a Q&A on ustream and this was as reasonable as the video is groundbreaking. My tone also refers to this person, who has proven in the past that this is his language of choice.

"Please go somewhere else" is the exact thing I'm talking about and the exact way he presents his "theory". He didn't think it through and now that people who actually understood what he was talking about discredit his claims, he holds on to his fanbase who tries to justify it with spiritual reasoning and dismisses everyone who disagrees the above way.

Also everyone keeps saying consciousness may the wrong word and not what he meant, but I didn't see any clarification? Watch his ustream Q&A and you'll understand why I refer to it as sect-like.

So far there is no paper to his "theory", nor any mathematical equations but the silly C=hf statement. I doubt we'll get to see anything real and so it'll be not worth more then a few science interested guys watching some documentaries and drawing colclusions without having any scientific background themselves. And this is also the thing that bothers me the most - he has no credibility as a scientist. As far as I know his last 10 years consisted of being on the tv-show big brother, playing an online game, swearing alot on youtube and playing online poker. And now suddenly he solves hundert year old scientific questions without even proving his claims.
Don't get me wrong, I really looked forward to the release - I expected some silly and/or insultig message at the end, as he usually does things like that or, admittedly with a very low propability but still, something usefull. But no, it turned out to be nothing of both and I just see him trying to convince his fanbase of something that is not there instead of ignoring them and trying to focus to get credibility by going the "right" way and publishing his work and communicating with the scientific community.

Also I predict that his next move will be to detatch himself of any public coverage and take the martyr position - what will be what his followers totally dig.

MR_Beagle

Guest Comment

I may be wrong here, but again I think the use of the word 'consciousness' is causing the problem... I believe they are referring to C as the concept of 'now' in the truest possible sense. From what I can gather, they are saying that with each and every moment, right down to the smallest possible moment, the configuration of all particles and energy can be described as C.

You, me and everything else are part of that configuration... right down the state and configuration of the neurons in your brain. Therefore, your personal consciousness is basically defined by the configuration literally everything at that moment. So is mine. And everyone else's. Some of your neurons, at that moment, are in the state they are in due to the how they were effected by the conditions present in previous moments (the past), but the configuration is unique for each and every moment. In other words, what you might regard as 'you' is essentially completely redefined in each passing moment. Whether life exists or not, you can still describe the sum total of everything, in the smallest possible moment, as C.

If that is indeed what they are trying to say, the word 'consciousness' really has very little to do with you, or your brain, or 'life' in general. 'You' are just part of a global expression to describe the configuration of all the elements in a system (the universe?) in the smallest possible moment.

As to how this is truly expressed mathematically, I have no idea, and THAT is where the problem lies... How do you express C in a more practical sense? How do you attribute a value that can be used and tested in an equation? These are the things that need to be addressed in an actual paper.

This idea needs to be presented with working examples according to the scientific method, published, and peer reviewed. THEN we can have a discussion about it from a scientific perspective. In the meantime, lets not misinterpret what is actually being said (or trying to be said!) and start hurling abuse. Given the audience that the authors have, and the trust that audience places in them, they perhaps should have thought more carefully about whether it is responsible to present information in this way... however, it's equally irresponsible to hurl abuse at someone before you fully understand what they are at least TRYING to say!

Let's not jump to conclusions involving brainwashing and cults and consciousness as a magical entity, and then use all that to start fights, eh?

Calhoun

Guest Comment

MR_Beagle said:

I may be wrong here, but again I think the use of the word 'consciousness' is causing the problem... I believe they are referring to C as the concept of 'now' in the truest possible sense. From what I can gather, they are saying that with each and every moment, right down to the smallest possible moment, the configuration of all particles and energy can be described as C.

You, me and everything else are part of that configuration... right down the state and configuration of the neurons in your brain. Therefore, your personal consciousness is basically defined by the configuration literally everything at that moment. So is mine. And everyone else's. Some of your neurons, at that moment, are in the state they are in due to the how they were effected by the conditions present in previous moments (the past), but the configuration is unique for each and every moment. In other words, what you might regard as 'you' is essentially completely redefined in each passing moment. Whether life exists or not, you can still describe the sum total of everything, in the smallest possible moment, as C.

If that is indeed what they are trying to say, the word 'consciousness' really has very little to do with you, or your brain, or 'life' in general. 'You' are just part of a global expression to describe the configuration of all the elements in a system (the universe?) in the smallest possible moment.

As to how this is truly expressed mathematically, I have no idea, and THAT is where the problem lies... How do you express C in a more practical sense? How do you attribute a value that can be used and tested in an equation? These are the things that need to be addressed in an actual paper.

This idea needs to be presented with working examples according to the scientific method, published, and peer reviewed. THEN we can have a discussion about it from a scientific perspective. In the meantime, lets not misinterpret what is actually being said (or trying to be said!) and start hurling abuse. Given the audience that the authors have, and the trust that audience places in them, they perhaps should have thought more carefully about whether it is responsible to present information in this way... however, it's equally irresponsible to hurl abuse at someone before you fully understand what they are at least TRYING to say!

Let's not jump to conclusions involving brainwashing and cults and consciousness as a magical entity, and then use all that to start fights, eh?

]

 

haha... you're too far gone. You can't be helped. I'm not reading all that crap you posted after your first comment. Sorry :[

 

HardFact

Guest Comment

This guy went ahead of himself saying he actually is posting something new.

But on the other hand hes educating people that would otherwise sit around playing WoW and he might inspire some folks to get up and do something useful.

By this hand i say keep it up, good work Athene.

Greg

Guest Comment

Utter Garbage!

No scientific merit whatsoever!

dman

Guest Comment

HardFact said:

But on the other hand hes educating people that would otherwise sit around playing WoW and he might inspire some folks to get up and do something useful.

 

Ok, I could live with that, but I don't believe that his average follower understood a word he said in pt2 and 3. I am already interested in physics and knew many things he was talking about and had to really concentrate to keep up and get the connections (if there were any).

Just a few days ago I saw this documentary:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00fyl5z
This is the kind of program that educates, that inspires wrapping ones mind around something usefull - and it does it in a much more understandable way, also without claiming any new theories but rather stating the facts as they are and giving credit to those who actually did the work.

 

MR_Beagle

Guest Comment

@Calhoun - If you did read it you'd find that I'm actually not supporting their argument at all... just trying to clarify what they are actually trying to say; I think it's still rubbish of course! I'm just trying to clarify that the fact that they are just doing bad science, not trying to express a mystical representation of consciousness and start a sect!

That doesn't change the fact that they're trying to put what seems to be a constant on two sides of an equation which doesn't make any sense at all. I watched it again, and they seem to be saying that whatever 'C' is, it is a 'different constant' for each individual??? 'h' is also a constant and it's on the other side of the equation, which means it's rubbish.

Let's just say that 'h', planck's constant, is 10 just to make life easier. Then let's say that 'C' (whatever that is) is a constant, and it also equals 10. Frequency 'f' is the variable, and let's say it equals 30000... that means that C = hf would result 10 = 10*30000. Which is obviously not correct!

More to the point, if this has something to do with 'C' and not 'E', and 'C' is not a particle, why the hell is planck's constant in there?! If we're not measuring something to do with an actual particle and it's wave length I don't see how they came around to even using planck's constant ... Whatever 'C' is I can only assume they are trying to express it in Joules, which also doesn't seem to make sense because nobody seems to know what it is!

Trust me Calhoun... I'm not your enemy here! Just trying to make sure that they are only challenged on what they are actually saying!

 

Scientist

Guest Comment

Awesome stuff! Science will change!

 

MR AJ EAGLES

Guest Comment

Hmm... probably not if we're honest :-)

MR_Beagle

Guest Comment

Yeah, I wouldn't hold your breath...

dman

Guest Comment

To all who wondered why I responded the way I did and what I actually expected of Athene:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Zphxrr2A2w

MR_Beagle

Guest Comment

dman said:

To all who wondered why I responded the way I did and what I actually expected of Athene:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Zphxrr2A2w

Fair play! If they hadn't have put so much work into this documentary I'd still be half expecting them to pull a 'gotcha!' out of the bag... hell it could well be another publicity stunt. I hope so anyway, because there sure as hell isn't much in the way of science!

 

bodzio

Guest Comment

the reviewed video was a bit entertaining. There is a tiny bit of science involved, regarding facts well known to scientific world, which is nothing bad as long as we look at it as a documetary. This has to be said, at this level this popular-scientific movie is quite good. But all the statements on having discovered "theory of everything" is killing it all. The C=hf "formula" is the moment where whole video fails as anything "scientific". This is NOT the way science is performed.

But hey, I got an idea. If I create a video response and propose alternative "everything" formula, lets say:

C = hf + mc^2

and claim to having generalized his theory,

will I get so much positive feedback from amateurs? :)) probably yes, as long as I put enough good looking graphics (equations are boring!) and ask to stay "open minded", as if real scientists used not to be such...

jonathan

Guest Comment

I doubt that making a 3d-animated video about a new unreviewed "theory" (as long as one equation without any derivation and even explaining its elements might even be called one....) and putting it on Youtube is a proper way to present any scientific theory. Especially if it claims to explain "everything".

Oh well... people will forget about it as time will pass, since this "theory" does not defend itself even on most basic arithmetic level, as someone pointed out. Const = const*variable.. no further comments needed :)

There will be hundreds of similiar productions in the future. "False messiahs" is nothing new in history of science :) I could list at least 20 flawed "theories of everything" that I have heard about during only last year.

 

redfiftytwo

Guest Comment

im pretty sure u guys need to take the video at face value. it isnt his whole experiment, thus does NOT have it explained very well. this documentary is very simple compared to much of the research being done im sure. then again, everyone is a critic. everyone thinks they are a scientist because they took highschool level physics. im sure claims such as these are not without evidence in the research. in my opinion the video was only a small overview of the actual project.

jonathan

Guest Comment

@redfiftyth

redfiftytwo said:

im pretty sure u guys need to take the video at face value. it isnt his whole experiment, thus does NOT have it explained very well. this documentary is very simple compared to much of the research being done im sure. then again, everyone is a critic. everyone thinks they are a scientist because they took highschool level physics. im sure claims such as these are not without evidence in the research. in my opinion the video was only a small overview of the actual project.

1. Criticism is actually what makes natural sciences that powerful. People make up thousands of theories every single year, but only those, that survive strong criticism AND explain experimental results, survive as "accepted" theories. Whats more - the more popular the theory gets, the stronger criticism has to be faced. Blaming people interested in science that they are critical means you might not have any experience about scientific method and discussion...

2. ooh... so now all critics are "highschool level physics". What level are you then? And what is more interesting - what level is the glorious "Athene"? :)) who made up theory of everything after 1 year :D of study :)

Believe me or not, I was studying physics (Master level), no big deal, but I can assure you that within 1 year there is no chance to understand even the most basics of all theories, not to mention merging them into one theory. Getting physical intuition is quite not that easy as browsing Wikipedia links.

This whole Athene's theory is pathetic in its emptyness. But on the other hand, I find it very entertaining how a troll gets his attention and is actually followed by believers. Science will defend itself. Nobody serious will ever take a glimpse into a "theory" that is limited to one unexplained equation. Blame it on our "closed minds", i don't care :)

This video and everything around it, belongs more to comedy then science. Congratulations to Athene for proving that people are indeed more dumb then it is widely expected. I even tend to like him after that, despite from scientific point of view he is just making bullshit theories, which is no good.

 

dman

Guest Comment

And the chaos goes on and on and on... ^^ Although now it's suddenly no theory anymore but a documentary.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qr4lHAzzWuI&feature=feedu

All that stuttering, mumbling, ah, hum, mhh - he really should take a course in how to document and present work... :x
But love the part where he says "I as a scientist..."!

Your dman, quantum research scientist currently working on redefining physics by defining a formula for heartache

Anon

Guest Comment

C is not a constant you twats.

/thread


Reese Leysen
Rate Post:

Like 0 Dislike

Chiren did another live stream last night where he goes more in detail on C=hf, for those who are interested, here's the recording: http://athenism.net/video/chiren-live-about-chf

Cheerz!



Guest Comment

OK this guy Athene is very bold for calling all this his theory of everything. Firstly, all of the information he presented was already known to the scientific community, he was just giving a simplified, non-mathematical version of it to the general public. Secondly, a TOE attempts to unify the fundamental interactions in nature, which he doesn't really do except with pulling a qualitative equation out of a hat. I'll give you one thing, it is thought-provoking, and nicely presented. Basically, I could sit here and talk about any given subject for close to an hour, and call it my work. Wrong, wrong, wrong. It's title should be called: "Athene's Compendium of Scientific Theories." Just because you talk about a topic that is way over people's heads doesn't mean you can say it's yours. The beginning started off good, but you could tell by the end he just wanted to show off how much he "knows" without really knowing it. Nice try, but these self-proclaimed "Youtube Scientists" are starting to get old. You be the judge.

Mike

Guest Comment

I'm 3/4 through an undergrad degree in neuroscience and within the first 10 minutes there were some points made that were not entirely correct.

Especially in regards to the parts about emotion, notably emotions are one of the only things that completely bypass the reasoning areas of the brain and though it is possible to change neurons in the brain it is NOT possible to alter neurotransmitter pathways as a result it's only possible to regulate them not control them.

The video is well made and visually looks good however it's nothing more than an aggregate of works and has no real academic integrity, it would be very hard to have anyone in the scientific community to take you seriously without some kind of crudentials or formal education.

Rash

Guest Comment

My God! If you take his garbage this seriously you don't deserve to blog about science. To call his ramblings on physics very superficial is an understatement. Science doesn't work that way. IT depends on hypothesis that make mathematical predictions about phenomena which are then verified before the hypothesis can be called a theory.  To quote Isaac Newton:

"I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not feign hypotheses. For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction."

Now,

"I would like to say congratulations to both Chiren and Reese on a job very well done. They both put huge amounts of effort into this, and it shows. It is so very well written, the graphics and music are fantastic, as is the narration."

Sadly neither sincerity nor dilligence, nor yet impressive graphics and music, are any substitute for proper scientific methodology which is entirely absent from this wearisome confused jumble.

To understand special relativity one first needs to understand the mathematics of lorenz transformations and minkowski space-time, for example. And for general relativity one needs to be intimitately familiar with Reimannian (Differential) Geometry. I doubt the creators of that video can even solve an ordinary differential equation. If only you lot knew the number of physicists graduating each year who fail to achieve the mathematical standard required to properly understand general relativity... you'd be surprised. It is usually only the mathematics department that reliably produces the calibre of student with the tools necessary for research in GR.

These two have a very superficial appreciation of the field taken from your pop sci magazines and documentaries. YOU CAN't theoretical physics AT ALL without the maths background (Take a quick look here for the typical requirement: http://www.superstringtheory.com/math/index.html and if it seems surprisingly doable, then move on to page two and let the pants-crapping begin.)

This underscores a core problem with the 21st century 'youtube philsophers' -- there are too many idiots who watched too many documentaries or read a web page and think they understand everything. Even Einstein admitted that the mathematics of General Relativity was beyond him. In fact in formulating GR Einstein was helped and corrected all the way by a mathematician, and Einstein struggled with the maths. He also defered GR's most surprising results to those who exceeded him in mathematical ability -- i.e. the mathematicians. (N.B. Einstein was a physicist.)  For example the existence of Closed-Timelike Curves (CTCs) was derived by the mathematician Kurt Godel, from the General Relavitiy field equations, and it surprised Einstein himself.

All these guys have succeeded in doing is to mislead the ignorant. And in that, they have succeeded eminently.

 

 

 

 

Ivan Yanchev EU, Bulgari

Guest Comment

Indeed the video doesnt own that scientific look that it should have. However there are some moments that i feel some thoughts are... like unfinished, but he have ideas that must be looked over closely. If he is takling crap (yeh, i dont claim to have the knowledge to judge him, may you believe), then it would in the worst case inspire someone to look closely to the problems he attack, and probably "waste" some time of yours. But if he is right, then ill get some popcorn and read yer comments all night long, laughting on the floor, for you being so ignorant, when history taught u that lesson 100 times.

david simmons

Guest Comment

I've no qualms with people being inspired by documentaries and popular science but this is not something to be inspired by or recreated and I feel is as misleading if not more so to people as zietgiest, the secret, what the bleep, etc....

And what is this nonsense "But, if he is right, then I'll be mocking you in the future" that is written in so many comments above.  Science is not about making crazy hypothesis absent any evidence for them.  Any person can come up with 1,000's of crazy baseless hypothesis a day write them down and put them in a file cabinet and guess what, one of them may actually be shown to be correct, but to give that person credit for it is idiotic and not what science is in any sense.

What the makers of this documentary lack is an actual background and understanding in the science fields that they are using to back up there crazy and I mean crazy hypothesis.  I am currently a PhD student working on neuroscience and evolution and I will give you my opinion on that part of the documentary because that is what I know. (you don't have to take my word for it, you can study the subject if you want in anyway download text books, take a class, watch online lectures, whatever).

I have read many comments claiming that this part of the documentary was based on sound science, I am sorry but it is not.  I will only list a small amount of things I found to be inaccurate or a baseless statement.

The part touching on evolution was complete nonsense; directional evolution is not something that is accepted in evolutionary biology outside of creationists or intelligent design advocates ( which are also things that are not science).

Neuroplasticity is not infinite plasticity; we know this, head injury patients do not heal if the damage is beyond their ability to cope with the damage. Think about it this way, some terminally ill cancer patients get better absent medicine on average this is not so.  This isn't evidence for black magic cures or wishful if I fight hard I can beat cancer. What we think this is due to (because of evidence) is the variability of the illness on a variable genetic background of an organism which has developed within a certain environmental background, along with at least in humans and other intelligent animals the ability to control our actions such as eat, sleep, stress control, positive thinking etc. Also, there are limits to what we can become, not everyone can be Michael Jordan, Einstein, Joe Montana, etc.  you can practice all your life or study, but some people are just better than others at certain tasks and some people are horrible on average at things, because of the variability in how organisms develop and how we evolved.  This doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t try hard to get things accomplished or do things or a defeatist attitude, this is just being realistic.

Mirror neurons are not what the authors think they are, they do not connect us to the environment making a giant network of human brain resonance (we have no evidence for this).  What the evidence shows is that they help us with the emotion empathy and act similar to what our senses do, touch, feel, see, smell, are approximation of what goes on in our environment to help us survive.  Guess what people who lack empathy are called, psychopaths and sociopaths.  We are all the same species and have similar genetic backgrounds leading to an organism developed similarly, what mirror neurons do is help us approximate what others are feeling so we can better interact with others because that is how we evolved to survive.  As of yet there is no evidence that this is some sort of telepathic crazy “we are all connected by our neurons” nonsense.

Now, I could spend the rest of my day writing about this but, I have the super bowl to watch.

So I will end this with some final comments. I also found major inaccuracies with their definition of consciousness, how they described how the brain works in general (neurotrans and brainwaves), and I am sure there was more on the biology aspect of the documentary but I don’t remember anything else atm.  For the physics part with my elementary understanding of physics as I have only taken undergraduate requirements which covered Newtonian and Electromagnetism and General Relativity  during my undergraduate years, I found it grossly oversimplified and highly inaccurate.  This is not science, this is not philosophy, this is not sociology, learn what those fields actually are and study a lot if you really want to contribute to science.

 

Rash

Guest Comment

"And what is this nonsense "But, if he is right, then I'll be mocking you in the future" that is written in so many comments above.  Science is not about making crazy hypothesis absent any evidence for them.  Any person can come up with 1,000's of crazy baseless hypothesis a day write them down and put them in a file cabinet and guess what, one of them may actually be shown to be correct, but to give that person credit for it is idiotic and not what science is in any sense."

 

Excellent point, David.

An idiot can pull ideas out of his ass. But science is about generating ideas from the evidence. Nobody is laughing at Ramanujan for example. Untutored though he may have been, his mathematical leaps were stupendous in their originality, and tehy followed rigorously from proofs. This is the type of "imagination" and "creativity" that is present in, and required of, the natural philosophies. Not any random idiot who makes up some ideas without proper methodology.

 

Absent methodology your ideas are just uninformed conjecture, and that has no basis in science.

On the other hand take the Church-Turing Thesis. It may have never been proven, but as it came out of rigorous investigation of mathematics, it remains universally accepted among mathematicians and theoretical computer scientists today.

 

Naturally, idiots  and other ignorants will follow this like a religion.

As David said:

"This is not science, this is not philosophy, this is not sociology, learn what those fields actually are and study a lot if you really want to contribute to science."

 

 

Wut

Guest Comment

Ahhhh the stupids getting trolled by an selfloved moron who think hes smart.

 

lawl.

Lucyan

Guest Comment

Ok the video brings nothing new to the table, is not bad till the point when he calls the big bang theory is a misconception.

And Athene calls himself smarter than Einstein and Stephen Hawking after 1 year of study says it all, he is The World Biggest troll


XiNeutrino
A3 Research Associates
Rate Post:

Like 1 Dislike

WOW! The documentary is incredible. Yes there is a lot of sound and solid neuroscience that is well expressed with appealing clarity, but there is , in my mind, the breakthrough effort to achieve a clear understanding of the interrelationship between the biological brain and MIND. Athene uses consciousness as the expressor for MIND, at least that is how I see it. I find that a little restrictive, but again Athene anticipates by showing the versatility of the brain and its neuro network as the mechanism of the MIND.  I got so excited listening and viewing this, that I had to stop and just diddle awhile while my MIND/Brain digested what I had consumed so far.

MIND is nothing without brain, but brain is, so-to-speak, speechless or ineffective without MIND. The exeception here is the autonomic environment where brain and its connections keep us alert, erect and receptive to stimulli. I am getting excited again, because this system is so powerful, so versatile and able to modify the MIND while keeping us Homo sapiens operational physiologically. This combined operative environment can never, despite our genius, be duplicated competely by machines. Even AI Neural Networks fail if we attempt to have them replicate what a human brain.MIND interaction does in an instant.

The Quantum Brain is, in my happy opinion, a reality and exposes more about the amazing resilience of the brain/MIND operation. Yes, there is incredible energy within this system and relating it to quantum dynamics just explodes the revelations all over the place.

I will be reading this again, and again. I feel my brain excitingly dashing about upgrading my MIND at this very moment.

Well Done, Athene.

Bob

Guest Comment

Joshua said:

hurrdurrr said:

The video offers nothing new in the field of science and furthermore makes an assumption that quantum systems play a role in consciousness which has no concrete scientific basis

IF quantum mechanics governs the causal nature of the universe AND the conscious entity is within that universe THEN it seems to be a simple deduction that quantum systems play a role in consciousness.  Thanks for being open to new ideas.

We don't do science based on speculation, that's not the scientific method.

 


Brian Krueger, PhD
Duke University
Rate Post:

Like 0 Dislike

Bob said:

We don't do science based on speculation, that's not the scientific method.

No? Then what's a hypothesis?

 

xsistor

Guest Comment
Brian Krueger, PhD said:
Bob said:We don't do science based on speculation, that's not the scientific method.
No? Then what's a hypothesis?

Hypothesis non fingo, as they say in Latin. Newton answers that best:
"I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not feign hypotheses. For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction." -- Isaac Newton, Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia MathematicaA hypothesis is not idle speculation. It is an undemonstrated "theory". i.e. one that has been inferred (deduction) from natural phenomena and then generalised to predict unobserved phenomena/datasets (induction). These generalisations are then tested experimentally to verify that they hold. The two step deduction and induction are the cornerstone of the scientific method since its original publication in the "Book of Optics" in the 1000s by Ibn Al Haytham.
I am aware that in some sciences, such as the social sciences, and especially the less rigorous sciences like biology, there tends to be hypotheses that are highly speculative and not necessarily deduced from phenomena and then induced -- and these are commonplace. But the man here is making a fool of himself with his very superficial grasp of, and wild assertions on, the most rigorous science, i.e. Physics. (Computer Science and Mathematics which are the only fields more rigorous than Physics aren't technically "sciences"... At best they are formal sciences.)
greendabre

Guest Comment

I wonder whether anyone has noticed the 'peculiar' tone used by the Narrator. Please note that, the tone he is using is mostly used for brainwashing and Subliminal messaging. To all those who watched the video, i suggest watching it again. This time, be careful to guard your brain.

 

Blouin Stéphane

Guest Comment

Reading the comments I feel like watching the Trial of Galileo, or Socrates, or anyman that ever tries to bring contribution to the world, confronted in a court of clowns.

 


''When a true genius appears in this world, you may know him by this sign,

that the dunces are all in confederacy agaisnt him.''

 

-Jonathan Swift

Nick

Guest Comment

Shimon said:

pretentious much?

Someone comes along, does a whole 365 days of scientific research, and proposes a Theory of Everything?

I don't care if he's got the worlds largest IQ going to be quite skeptical.

To be fair, I have not yet finished watching the video (about halfway), but so far i'm not much impressed.

Oh come now, he has an educated viewpoint. Listen to it and think. If you are to imply that 365 days is nothing I would like to hear your opinions, as they must be more than 365 days of consideration's worth. And if you are willing to comment on someones's thoughts before he has fully explained them, then surely you are both impatient and foolish. The intro in these type of dialogs usually has to cover common thoghts first so that the audience can, as a greater whole, understand the latter parts. Please, be reasonable.

 

In any event, thought should always be promoted, not insulted. There has been serious effort put into this and that in itself should be applauded.

 

Nick

Guest Comment

xsistor said:
Brian Krueger, PhD said:
Bob said:We don't do science based on speculation, that's not the scientific method.
No? Then what's a hypothesis?

Hypothesis non fingo, as they say in Latin. Newton answers that best:
"I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not feign hypotheses. For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction." -- Isaac Newton, Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia MathematicaA hypothesis is not idle speculation. It is an undemonstrated "theory". i.e. one that has been inferred (deduction) from natural phenomena and then generalised to predict unobserved phenomena/datasets (induction). These generalisations are then tested experimentally to verify that they hold. The two step deduction and induction are the cornerstone of the scientific method since its original publication in the "Book of Optics" in the 1000s by Ibn Al Haytham.
I am aware that in some sciences, such as the social sciences, and especially the less rigorous sciences like biology, there tends to be hypotheses that are highly speculative and not necessarily deduced from phenomena and then induced -- and these are commonplace. But the man here is making a fool of himself with his very superficial grasp of, and wild assertions on, the most rigorous science, i.e. Physics. (Computer Science and Mathematics which are the only fields more rigorous than Physics aren't technically "sciences"... At best they are formal sciences.)

 

He has taken scientific data and made a good old fashioned guess. He still deduced his thoughts from proven fact, though his thoughts are highly speculative. What has historically been a "rigorous science" does not by "tradition" have to remain so. "Tradition" has had a bad influence on scientic progress, in my catholic opinion. I'm not saying I agree with you in your interpretation of "rigorous science". Most big changes in our scientific viewpoints would be seen as "wild assertations" if viewed in there earlier days. That doesn't mean he is right, but for fucks sake he has an interesting viewpoint. It should be considered, and remembered, in case it holds any merit in our future discoveries\experiements. Leaps of speculation are neccasary to make guesses, and recognize patterns, when considering the unknown.

David

Guest Comment

This guy is a few quanta short of the full C as he would put it.

xsistor

Guest Comment

David said:

This guy is a few quanta short of the full C as he would put it.

 

Hahahahahaha! First sensible comment I've heard in a while.

 

To all you morons comparing this idiot Athene to Galileo, you really are idiots. Copernicus and Galileo offered empirical evidence and mathematical models, and testable things of taht sort which could make useful predictions. Athene has done none of these things. You morons don't know the first thing about science and neither does the idiot who wrote this article and calls herself a "rocket scientist". She's probably a technician at best. A real engineer would have enough of an understanding of the scientific method and the mathematical method to see his tripe for what it is.

Where Athene is right he is not original. Where he is original he is most certainly wrong. And in all "his" observations and deductions, he is superficial at, making very obvious statements that are direct corollaries of the basic axioms rather than true propositions.

Anyway, it is impossible to educate someone with a highschool knowledge of science to the level required of a working scientist in a blog comment post. So I will not try to and will wash my hands of this. Idiots will be idiots, at the end of the day. I may as well go listen to Kent Hovind over this crap. At least he did not make claims to being original.

 

 

 

John Stenson

Guest Comment

This is possibly the biggest load of rubbish in the public sphere at the moment, and to anyone that has studies physics and neurology, it is easily identifiable as crap.  It ignores mainstream neuroscience, logic and metaphysics.  It says exactly zero.  Dont fall for it.

But the graphics are nice.........and the music

 

Jim

Guest Comment

I'd just like to point out that as it is titled "ATHENE'S THEORY of everything", it's not even worth arguing about its use of facts or lack thereof. It is simply one person's guess. The title states no more.

Do I believe he's right or he's earned himself a name in the scientific community? Not at all. But that doesn't mean I will bother figthing over whether something clearly labeled as nothing more than an educated guess is fact or not.

Nothing he says is impossible. Nor is anything he says proven. Leave it at that and draw your own conclusions.

Jim

Guest Comment

Also worth mentioning though, is that he (Athene/Chiren) generally devotes all of his time to getting a rise out of everyone watching. Might wanna include that knowledge in drawing your conclusions :p

jmmm

Guest Comment

Conscerned Skepticsaid:

Joshua said:

hurrdurrr said:

The video offers nothing new in the field of science and furthermore makes an assumption that quantum systems play a role in consciousness which has no concrete scientific basis

IF quantum mechanics governs the causal nature of the universe AND the conscious entity is within that universe THEN it seems to be a simple deduction that quantum systems play a role in consciousness.  Thanks for being open to new ideas.

 

 

IF, IF, IF, IF.


How about some hard evidence instead of useless IFs? I'm not even half way into the video and I'm already getting angered by it, you cannot start with assumptions and then draw conclusions directly from those.

 

 

dont be an ass, of course its full of ifs, thats why its called a theory and not a law. Science has always worked that way, find a theory, see if it works, work with it as a basis if it does, rollback if it does not. Its a dijkstra's algorithm search to the truth and its always been that way, stop ranting and get some education and open mind-ness before messing with people that are actually smart

bob

Guest Comment

dmansaid:

Reese Leysen said:

The question was: what is this 'C'? Is it some sort of magical 'quantum consciousness'? Is it human consciousness? What is implied by it?

But this is like asking "E=mc²? What does it mean by 'energy'? Kinetic energy of a dog taking a walk? Potential energy of fuel in a car?". Just as E=mc² and all other basic theoretic mathematical statements in science, C=hf refers to any possible minimum unit of spacetime that makes up your consciousness, just as E=mc² refers to any sort of unit of energy or mass. This just pertains to any quantized unit of spacetime, not to abstract concepts of what consciousness is on either neurological or spiritual levels. And the formula certainly doesn't imply that there is some magical quantized 'consciousness particle', it just creates an obvious starting point for a theory of everything: quantized particles behave in a certain way, the ones that make up our consciousness behave the same way, this has certain implications. That is all :).

 

And here lies the problem: You say it's science, you say it's physics, you say it's math and in the end you just give people a tool to try and justify the magical world of spiritual believes and to block out any logical discussiun by responding with something like if E=hf and C=hr then my penis=hf so noone can deny it, it's proven physical fact.
Right now I don't see any difference in what you do and what for example scientology does - brainwashind people with b*shit.

Also, if some magial entity is =hf, what in the hell does this imply to science? Why is that important? Physics tries to understand the real fabric of existance and not the need of some unimportant race like us men to answer questions like the church does.

Guess we can welcome a new sect in our world.

 

magical *
existence*

D

Guest Comment

Just a thought. About 90% of all posted comments scrutinize the video creators. At least this person or team is trying to understand and share with the public the fundamental idea of new age science. Weather the team is right or wrong in their attempt to explain everything makes no difference. the idea is to show you what can be a possivility, if you ask me. At least there doing something. Most of you so called scientists argue amongst each other more than politicians. Thank you.

xsistor

Guest Comment

No you moron. We're arguing against the spreading of misinformation as science, as that is a dangerous thing.

 

 

Dsaid:

Just a thought. About 90% of all posted comments scrutinize the video creators. At least this person or team is trying to understand and share with the public the fundamental idea of new age science. Weather the team is right or wrong in their attempt to explain everything makes no difference. the idea is to show you what can be a possivility, if you ask me. At least there doing something. Most of you so called scientists argue amongst each other more than politicians. Thank you.

D

Guest Comment

But what misinformation was given? Thank you for the title by the way, apparently your the intellect.

Sparte

Guest Comment

You complete bunch of numpties - its a SPOOF. He's fooled believers and sceptics alike. Its actually a really clever bit of viral art and self-promotion.

The fact that forums all over cyberspace are squabbling about the signficance of this is witness to his genius as a viral artist/performer.

Athene, sir, I salute your indefategability!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRH8McTn2r8&feature=relmfu

Dov Henis

Guest Comment

An Embarrassingly Obvious Theory Of Everything

EOTOE, Some Implications (I)

A.
EOTOE is an Embarrassingly Obvious Theory Of Everything.

In essence it states that all things in the universe, nouns and verbs objects and processes, originate and derive from the energy-mass dualism.

Origin and essence of this derivation are expressed mathematically by

E=Total[m(1+ D)] (D = distance travelled by mass since singularity)

Which suggests that the universe cycles between two poles: singularity/all-mass , and maximum-expanded/nearly-all-energy.
The “nearly” all-energy leaves behind some mass formats that begin consolidating by gravity, when it eventually overcomes expansion as the mass fueling the expansion is nearly depleted, becoming very small m multiplied by very large D = E .

B.
Thus the essence/definition of gravitation is:
“Gravitation Is the propensity of energy reconversion to mass”.

Gravitation is the “monotheism” and the “ genesis” of the universe. Singularity, at D = 0, is the very brief all-mass pole of the universe. The Big-Bang-inflation did not produce matter or anti-matter. It was the beginning of mass reconversion into energy, of increasing D fueled by decreasing m.

The conjectured gravitons, smallest basic particles, most probably do exist, but must be with mass, and gravitons microclusters must “big-bang” during the on-going expansion at a resolution of their energy-mass superposition.

This is rationally commonsensical, therefore it is scientifically probable.
Inflation started with the whole universe m shattering into fragments that evolved into, became, the galaxy clusters. The clusters expansion is fed at a constant rate by m-fuel. Since expansion accelerates, since the clusters depart from each other at an ever increasing velocity, we learn that the rate of m-to-E reconversion in the universe is constant. The accelerated expansion derives from the ever decreasing m of each cluster.

C.
Thus the essence/definition of evolution, natural selection is:
Mass formats attaining temporary augmented energy constraint in their successive generations, with energy drained from other mass formats, to temporarily postpone, survive, the reversion of their own constitutional mass to the pool of cosmic energy fueling the galactic clusters expansion.

This explains why black holes and humans, in fact all mass formats, must feed themselves in order to survive.
This explains that the essence of quantum mechanics of all processes is the detailed procession steps, the evolution details, between physical states ordained for natural selection.

D.
Thus comes to light the universe inspected progressively in greater detail.
Science reveals the universe’s nature-scope and directing drive, followed by technology studying its evolution details-aspects, followed by engineering exploitation of the attained information. This suggests the specific weight, importance, of science, technology and engineering in considering of research or enterprise plans and implementation.

Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)
http://universe-life.com/

PS1:
Definitely: Dark energy and dark matter YOK! Universe's m reconverts to E at a constant rate…
Universe accelerated expansion is per Newton's motion laws, obviously…
Also, universe physics constants should vary, probably slightly, between galaxies clusters due to different clusters sizes...
Also, the clusters formed by dispersion at inflation…

PS2:
The singularity constituents must have been the smallest elementary particles. They may be designated gravitons, but they MUST HAVE MASS. They were born at the energy-mass superposition resolution, together with the fragments that became galaxies clusters.
At expansion D increases, therefore m decreases, which per Newton mandates mass and matter acceleration. This goes on, most probably, at a constant rate of mass-to-energy reconversion, at an energy-mass resolution, mandated by the equality of both sides of the top equation.. And this resolution is, for each graviton, most probably in a format of a minuscule big-bang.

This is a lesser fantasy than the dark matter and energy fantasy. Such mass-energy gravitons may be omnipresent within each galaxies cluster, maintaining each cluster as a primordial Newtonian body and being the fuel-driver of expansion.
DH
http://universe-life.com/2011/10/14/eot ... cations-2/
==============================

EOTOE, Some Implications (II)

This equation describes the presently expanding universe:

E=Total[m(1 + D)] D = distance travelled by mass since singularity

This equation describes the future contracting universe:

E=Total[m(1 - D)] D = distance travelled by mass since end expansion

Implications:

The base units of mass - may be designated gravitons but MUST have mass - are not temporal, they never disappear.

In the present expanding universe they are in motion as mD away from the singularity point.
Those of them that hit a whatever mass format and move it become inert. This will go on until all or nearly all of them cease moving forward, i.e. until D ceases growing.

When D ceases growing gravitation will overcome the inertial motion away from the singularity point and will start pulling them back towards it. It is then that -D will replace +D, to maintain the equation’s equality…

And MORE, MUCH MORE:

The rational commonsensical, and therefore scientifically probable, implication is that Space is imbued with these massed gravitons that are continuously left behind during Expansion… also as micro clusters sized between gravitons and neutrinos…

Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)
http://universe-life.com/
http://universe-life.com/2011/10/07/eot ... cations-i/

=========================

EOTOE, Some Implications (III)

Classically:

Energy = dynamic quality, the capacity of acting or being active, a fundamental entity of nature that is transferred between componentsts of a system in the production of physical change within the system and usually regarded as the capacity for doing work.

Mass = Mass is the quantity of inertia possessed by an object or the proportion between force and acceleration referred to in Newton’s Second Law of Motion.

Per EOTOE :

E=Total[m(1 + D)] D = distance travelled by mass since singularity

Energy is mass in motion.

The mass of the universe is either in motion or in the form of inert massed gravitons, with which the universe is imbued.

m of the EOTOE equation is only the energetic m, the m which is in motion.

The inert gravitons do not play a role in the E,m,D relationship. At the (present) universe expansion phase mass reconverts to energy at a constant rate, leaving behind inert gravitons. Inert gravitons become energetically active when they are reset in motion, i.e. when acted upon by energy, such as by gravity during the universe re-contraction phase.

Dov Henis (comments from the 22nd century)

http://universe-life.com

Automedon

Guest Comment

I dont think that there is much of a theory here, just an explanation of what we have found out so far in the studies of neurology and theoretical physics. The vast complexities of the brain and the quantum world leaves much room for speculation. This is where truth seekers let their imaginations run wild. A blind man may know that there are objects in front of him, he can imagine what is out there but without the ability to verify his suspicions without the sense of touch then maybe its pointless to speculate in his world of darkness. In this case the maker of this video tries to use both but misses the point that whether or not there is an established order of any sorts beyond the five physical senses then speculation is of little use. All we can do is try to explore new areas of studies. These kinds of videos are just as useless as religion because it may  lead some to believe that we have the answers to the universe, which in reality we dont! We probably are as close to understanding the universe as a roach is aware of the milky way galaxy! Our little roach friend out in the country may have seen with its little eyes the milky way in the sky but has the slightest clue of what that blur of light is and maybe doesnt really catch its attention. The search of truth is such a monumental task that unless we are all commited as a species we probably compete with each other to oblivion. I am a truth seeker myself, I spend almost every minute of my life contemplating my existence and what i am doing here, but that is of little use as well because all I end up is with my usual conclusion of: I DONT KNOW!

But that will not deter me because I think this curiousity is written in my GENES MAN!

Anyway I liked the video but I see the ways in which it could have been a much better documentary. 

Willfull ignorance should not be tolerated in our time. Its modern enough to start a movement towards enlightenment of our reality, no matter how limited we are in understanding, we should know enough to tell one another to stop believing on the many established doctrines that are in question because God only appeared to people that have died Thousands of years ago! God spoke to moses through a burning bush... maybe the bush was some good ol OG kush and he just tripped the fuck out and heard shit. My boss once told me one day while high on Coke and weed, chilling in his car with his dog, the dog turned to him and asked him "what are you doing with our life" which of course from that point on he stopped using drugs and never touched coke or marijuana ever again. He now runs a successful small business. The dog never stated it was God or anything. It was just a simple question "what are you doing with our life?".

Someone who cares.

Guest Comment

retroiisaid:

the worst and funniest thing about this well made video is that this guy pretends to have done the researvh while he merely made a poor ass synthesis of scientific studies of several wellknown and respected scientists. are you interested in this stuff read on Kip Thorn and Steven Hawking for instanse, who in their turn will lead you to other great minds. THEY ACTUALLY DID THE RESEARCH AND SPEND THERE WHOLE ADULT LIFE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE MIND AND THE UNIVERSEo.  one thing, discovering literature about some interesting and groundbreaking theories doesn't make you discovered something,  this merely shows he can read and i congratulate him. but he started by explaining the neurotransmitters so it probably means he would discribe this as narrowmindness caused by something i can't control. take some prozac and go play some poker and games.

 

If you're going to try to get a point across, use proper grammar.  You just sound stupid.  The fact that the program even comes with a spellcheck just makes you seem stupid and lazy.  If people think that about you, your comments will hold no ground.

 

softblabb

Guest Comment

It's almost a little scary to see his following defend him. It's very close to a cult I'd say. The information he offers that could be concidered original is conjecture and just plain wrong, it cannot even be considered a hypothesis at this time. It's clear he only has a year of experience. His understanding is extremely superficial. There's a reason why people that are way smarter than "Athene" that have also spent their entire lives in the field has yet to come up with a theory of everything. A year is not even close to enough time to even get through the immensly complicated math behind the science he's trying to use to forward his .. opinion. If scientists reasoned in the same manner Athene did then we could soon infer that there must be pink elephants skipping around the surface of the moon.

I would just like to say that it's perfectly ok for you to believe what he says but it's no different from the belief in any religious dogma. Neither offers any evidence, it's just blind faith.

Dov Henis

Guest Comment

EOTOE, Some Implications (IV)

This equation describes the future contracting universe:

E=Total[m(1 + D)]

D = reduced expansion distance travelled by mass in the preceding expansion phase

Elaboration and conjectured implications:

D is the distance travelled by mass in all spatial directions emanating from the Big-Bang singularity point. During contraction it decreases, accompanied with increasing m effected by the constant E.

A commonsensible conjecture is that contraction is initiated following the Big-Bang event, steadily re-forming the Universe Singularity simultaneously with the inflation and expansion, i.e. that universal expansion and contraction are going on simultaneously.

Additional conjectured implications are that the Universe is a product of A Universal Black Hole with a Singularity consisting of mass gravitons, and that gravitation is a weak force due to the graviton’s size.

EOTOE, Some Implications (v)

 The Gravitons Nature-Origin Puzzle

 My model for the EOTOE has been evolutionary biology. Since life must be just another mass format, and due to the oneness of the universe, it is commonsensical that natural selection is ubiquitous and that life, self-replication, is its extension. And it is commonsensical, too, that evolutions, broken symmetry scenarios, are ubiquitous in all processes in all disciplines and that these evolutions are the “quantum mechanics” of the processes.

 However, there is yet an origin of origins puzzle.

 Whereas the genesis of genes, life’s primal organisms, is rationally commonsensical, thus highly probably, the “naturally-selected” RNA nucleotides - the existence, origin and nature of the rationally commonsensical conjectured massed graviton are yet much farther from probable than the nucleotides life’s genesis. The gravitons are more enigmatic because science has not yet accumulated the extent and variegated considerations and examinations required to approach the comprehension of the origin of origins of the universe.

 PS: From

http://universe-life.com/2011/12/13/21st-century-science-whence-and-whither/

notwithstanding…

“The origin-reason and the purpose-fate of life are mechanistic, ethically and practically valueless. Life is the cheapest commodity on Earth. Human life is just one of many nature’s routes for the natural survival of RNAs, the base primal Earth organisms.

It is up to humans themselves to elect the purpose and format of their life as individuals and as group-members.”

 

EOTOE, Some Implications (VI)

Yet something about the gravitons

Yet one possible conjecture about the gravitons is that they, too, must have a dual mass-energy nature…

From singularity it is a rationally commonsensical conjecture that they are a mass format, the smallest elementary mass particles.

Nevertheless from the Big-Bang it is a rationally commonsensical conjecture that they must also be energy, i.e.  mass in motion, even at singularity.  This is  rationally commonsensical since otherwise the Big would not Bang…

This raises the origin of origins puzzle to an unknown power…

Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)

http://universe-life.com/

PS:  Wondering what/why black-hole scientists think/conjecture re this…

 

Michael

Guest Comment

Conscerned Skepticsaid:

Joshua said:

hurrdurrr said:

The video offers nothing new in the field of science and furthermore makes an assumption that quantum systems play a role in consciousness which has no concrete scientific basis

IF quantum mechanics governs the causal nature of the universe AND the conscious entity is within that universe THEN it seems to be a simple deduction that quantum systems play a role in consciousness.  Thanks for being open to new ideas.

 

 

IF, IF, IF, IF.


How about some hard evidence instead of useless IFs? I'm not even half way into the video and I'm already getting angered by it, you cannot start with assumptions and then draw conclusions directly from those.

 

 

Measurement measurement measurement....What is measurement?  A bunch of fancy terms that we (man) created...to measure, cause it's a man made system.  to measure and understand, we had to create a system...  You people need to get in a plane, and back up about 500, trillion "feet" from the picture, (if I can play on words there)  You are trying to compare or base (by a man created measurement) something that is NOT man or even from man.  That's an impossible task my dear brother.  That's pretty much it, the fact that you speculate that it's wrong, is you denying something new, there's no moventment forward, which is not the idea of "life" my friend.  Open up your mind.  May it be well with you!

Soloman

Guest Comment

Missthecatsaid:

5 Minutes in and I'm so bored, cliffs anyone.

 

You need a brain and a mind of your own to get anything from it.
Go watch some cartoons or something.

John

Guest Comment

Someone who cares.said:

retroiisaid:

the worst and funniest thing about this well made video is that this guy pretends to have done the researvh while he merely made a poor ass synthesis of scientific studies of several wellknown and respected scientists. are you interested in this stuff read on Kip Thorn and Steven Hawking for instanse, who in their turn will lead you to other great minds. THEY ACTUALLY DID THE RESEARCH AND SPEND THERE WHOLE ADULT LIFE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE MIND AND THE UNIVERSEo.  one thing, discovering literature about some interesting and groundbreaking theories doesn't make you discovered something,  this merely shows he can read and i congratulate him. but he started by explaining the neurotransmitters so it probably means he would discribe this as narrowmindness caused by something i can't control. take some prozac and go play some poker and games.

 

If you're going to try to get a point across, use proper grammar.  You just sound stupid.  The fact that the program even comes with a spellcheck just makes you seem stupid and lazy.  If people think that about you, your comments will hold no ground.

 

You can't figure out what he's tryign to say because of the spelling errors?! Why are cult followers such sticklers about semantics/formality?

 

Oh, more excuses not to listen to reason.

Barbara Carolina

Guest Comment

The video was interesting to me, and I couldnt get it at first, also due toI am not a native speaker of English, but whether we agree or not with all that theories, propositions and assumptions, THE MUSIC WAS F... AWESOME. It reminds me a lot of NIN!!!!!

Tokamak

Guest Comment

I didn't see anything in the video about what he was smoking. That would be the biggest breakthrough here.

Dov Henis

Guest Comment

New Era For Science Including Genomics ???

 From: Dov Henis
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 10:43 PM
To: genome biologists
Subject: A new era for science including genomics ??? Please examine carefully…

Yesterday, SN , after many years of refusing my similar postings, SN posted my following statement-comment:

http://www.sciencenews.org/index/generic/activity/view/id/339659/title/Fruit_fly_biorhythms_differ_indoors_and_out

Biorhythms Schmiorythms

Circadian Schmircadian sleep origin?

Life sleeps because RNAs genesized, evolved from inanimate nucleotides into self-replicating nucleotides, organisms, of course long before metabolism evolved. They were then active ONLY during sunlight hours. Thus sleep is inherent for RNAs, even though, being ORGANISMS, they later adapted to when/extent sleep times are feasible just as we adapt to jetlag or night work time.

Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)

Apr. 12, 2012 at 9:10am

===========================

From: Dov Henis
Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2012 9:05 AM
To: genome biologists
Subject: FW: A new era for science including genomics ??? Please examine carefully…

Unbelievable?!   Here’s another one…

From: Dov Henis

Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2012 9:06 PM

To: ‘editors@sciencenews.org’

Subject: On Pavlov and genes…

Fatty Diet Leads To Fat-Loving Brain Cells

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/339458/title/Fatty_diet_leads_to_fat-loving_brain_cells

Learn from Pavlov:

Fatty diet lead to fat-loving RNA-nucleotides genes, Earthlife base primal ORGANISMS.

Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)

http://universe-life.com/2011/12/22/rnas-are-earths-primal-organisms/

===================

Since the above two statements are basis for the following statement,  may it also soon pass the SN “peer review”… ?!

USA Science? Re-Comprehend Origins And Essence

Higgs Particle? Dark Energy/Matter? Epigenetics? All YOK!

Earth-life is just another, self-replicating, mass format.All mass formats follow natural selection, i.e. intake of energy or      their energy taken in by other mass formats.Evolution Is The Quantum Mechanics Of Natural Selection.Quantum mechanics are mechanisms, possible or probable or actual      mechanisms of natural selection.Life’s Evolution is the quantum mechanics of biology.Every evolution, of all disciplines, is the quantum mechanics of the      discipline’s natural selection.

See:

Update Concepts-Comprehension…
http://universe-life.com/2011/12/13/21st-century-science-whence-and-whither/

Earth life genesis from aromaticity-H bonding

http://universe-life.com/2011/09/30/earthlife-genesis-from-aromaticityh-bonding/

Universe-Energy-Mass-Life Compilation

http://universe-life.com/2012/02/03/universe-energy-mass-life-compilation/

Seed of human-chimp genome diversity

http://universe-life.com/2011/07/10/seed-of-human-chimp-genomes-diversity/

============

Respectfully,

Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)

 

thomas

Guest Comment

hi!

I've just seen the video... My knowledge is very very poor in all those fields, but what i understand in my little brain, is that the guy has just an intuition. You don't really need a super diploma to understand that... i'm not speaking about all the theories mentioned in the video wich are quite vulgarly, basically explained. 

For me, that guy has this intuition, wich consists saying that our mind or consciousness has (only) a physical ground. That there is no dissociation between our mind and our brain. Or that the soul doesn't exist like something appart from our body.

This letter C, is nothing more than putting a name on something we can not really show or see. Like the atom is a model and not a photography of what we could observe, or to call "gravity" a force we actually don't really understand. Physics is made by concepts, i mean "words"... wich define things we can not properly touch or see, but only their effects... no? (oh yes?! show me your mass, would like to see how it looks like... )

If i represent gravity by letter G, even if i don't understand it, i can quantify it, at least, because i can measure its effects. We represent things by letters, numbers wich allow us to make theories, equations. But those equations are just like an atom, some kind of representation of reality, a conceptualisation, because without concept there is no possible thinking. It's totally abstract!! It's an attempt to simplify the "stuff" we are talking about, without that, we would be lost because reality is too complex.

"Hello! I just invented a new symbol: "C"! I'm a genious!"

This C actualy doesn't disturb me so much, he's just saying that we can measure our mind because it has only a physical aspect (and nothing that can be dissociated from the body like a soul would be). And he's watching this physical aspect threw an energetic point of view; wich i guess, is maybe not the only one point of view we can have watching a brain. If you take an object (the brain here) you can measure it's energy, but it doesn't mean that you can tell with this number that this object is in metal or wood, or what shape has this object...etc.

Actualy, he just can not be wrong, because puting a letter on what he can not really define. So... what's the point here??? And it's quite logic for somebody who pretend to do "science" to believe that there is nothing more than chemistry and physics inside a brain.

No need to be a genius here, no need to make all this video. He just could say "hey guys! i have intimate intuition than consciousness is nothing more than physics (and all the scientist fields it can expend to) that has measurable effects." I don't really understand why he thinks he brings something new to us except advertising.

... or maybe i'm just saying bullshits?! :)

(i'm sorry if my english is quite bad, i hope i make myself understandable)

 

Labstank

Guest Comment

All great thinkers are challenged and treated with prejudice by most people (who can't think outside their little boxes). WTG Athene.

Labstank

Guest Comment
What's missing in many researchers today is analytical logic. Many don't see the larger picture. They know their books, but don't relate the different theories to a broader FOV. For instance, string theory is a step in the right direction but fundamentally wrong in its assumptions and conclusions. People tend to either overlook space-time fabric or take it too literally. "Fabrics and strings.. seriously??". Ah well, but I am getting ahead of myself here.  "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell Think free.
loya

Guest Comment

                              Athenstheory of everything

 

Athens’s "theory of everything" starts predictably, repeating the materialistic dogma of neurophysiology that no central "self" or "soul" exists to hold together the random firing of neurons in the brain so as to create a lower order of reality. Indeed,

 

 Everything still belongs to the physical universe - there is no higher order of reality, according to science (and, therefore according to any "theory of everything" that Athene or any scientist could propose).Athens starts with and never leaves the presupposition that there is only one level of reality

 

 IN THE CHAPTER The physical universe of particles.the last 20 minutes of the video, his discussion ceases to be coherent but degenerates into scientific gobblygook, in which he creates the illusion of presenting a new understanding of matter and consciousness by distorting concepts of theoretical physics and making totally meaningless Statement.

 

          Planck's Quantization equation E = hf gets turned for some reason into C = hf, where C is "consciousness" (whatever that is), h is Planck's constant and f is frequency. In his desperate attempt to introduce new mathematics so as to simulate what we expect "theories of everything" to look like, Athene falls into the mistake of misusing the very scientific concepts he wants to replace. A theory of everything has to explain - well, everything. Creating the mere appearance of bridging matter and consciousness simply does not cut it, whilst any such attempt that fails to get to grips with religion because its underlying philosophy dismisses it as a pseudo-problem from the very start must be necessarily incomplete. But then, what should one expect from someone who seems to be an academic.

 

 Scientist whose epistemology throws the spiritual dimension out of the universe as a superstitious fantasy? When your discipline artificially defines what "everything" is in materialistic terms, it is hardly surprising that the resulting theory will be short-sighted, narrow and - well - still materialistic. But then such conceits of the academic mind must, inevitably, be such because they always have to fit the prevailing scientific paradigm that everything is but particles and their forces. True "theories of everything" transcend

grillosgrom@aol.com

Guest Comment

ok the so called theory in this is video  is bs but he dose give a good masg about a good way 2 live ur life with an under lineing basses of how ur bren works wich is alredy knowsorry i dont have time so this sounds like shit but this is kinda what i think ha

 

sequoiah

Guest Comment

dont say this is bad becoz it is so dont start saying shit grillosgrom is me

 

Dov Henis

Guest Comment

Spirituality Is A Brainchild

======================

Natural Selection Is Ubiquitous

 Higgs Particle?  Dark Energy/Matter? Epigenetics?

These Are YOK!

Update Concepts-Comprehension…

http://universe-life.com/2011/12/13/21st-century-science-whence-and-whither/

Evolution Is The Quantum Mechanics Of Natural Selection.

The quantum mechanics of every process is its evolution.

Quantum mechanics are mechanisms, possible or probable or actual mechanisms of natural selection.

=================

 

Universe-Energy-Mass-Life Compilation

http://universe-life.com/2012/02/03/universe-energy-mass-life-compilation/

 

A. The Universe

From the Big-Bang it is a rationally commonsensical conjecture that the gravitons, the smallest base primal particles of the universe, must be both mass and energy, i.e. inert mass yet in motion even at the briefest fraction of a second of the pre Big Bang singularity. This is rationally commonsensical since otherwise the Big would not have Banged, the superposition of mass and energy would not have been resolved.

The universe originates, derives and evolves from this energy-mass dualism which is possible and probable due to the small size of the gravitons.

Since gravitation Is the propensity of energy reconversion to mass and energy is mass in motion, gravity is the force exerted between mass formats.

All the matter of the universe is a progeny of the gravitons evolutions, of the natural selection of mass, of some of the mass formats attaining temporary augmented energy constraint in their successive generations, with energy drained from other mass formats, to temporarily postpone, survive, the reversion of their own constitutional mass to the pool of cosmic energy fueling the galactic clusters expansion set in motion by the Big Bang.

B. Earth Life

Earth Life is just another mass format. A self-replicating mass format. Self-replication is its mode of evolution, natural selection. Its smallest base primal units are the RNAs genes.

The genesis of RNAs genes, life’s primal organisms, is rationally commonsensical thus highly probable, the “naturally-selected” RNA nucleotides.

Life began/evolved on Earth with the natural selection of inanimate RNA, then of some RNA nucleotides, then arriving at the ultimate mode of natural selection, self-replication.

C. Know Thyself. Life Is Simpler Than We Are Told, Including Origin And Nature Of Brain And Of “Spirituality”***

The origin-reason and the purpose-fate of life are mechanistic, ethically and practically valueless. Life is the cheapest commodity on Earth.

As Life is just another mass format, due to the oneness of the universe it is commonsensical that natural selection is ubiquitous for ALL mass formats and that life, self-replication, is its extension. And it is commonsensical, too, that evolutions, broken symmetry scenarios, are ubiquitous in all processes in all disciplines and that these evolutions are the “quantum mechanics” of the processes.

Human life is just one of many nature’s routes for the natural survival of RNAs, the base primal Earth organisms.

Life’s evolution, self-replication:

Genes (organisms) to genomes (organisms) to mono-cellular to multicellular organisms:

Individual mono-cells to cooperative mono-cells communities, “cultures”.

Mono-cells cultures evolve their communication, neural systems, then further evolving nerved multicellular organisms.

Human life is just one of many nature’s routes for the natural survival of RNAs, the base Earth organism.

It is up to humans themselves to elect the purpose and format of their life as individuals and as group-members.

 

Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)

***המקור והמהות של  "רוח יויות", כולן וירטואליות,

הרוח יויות  ובעות מהמאמי ים, לסיפוק ולשימוש  שלהם

An Embarrassingly Obvious Theory Of Everything

http://universe-life.com/2011/12/10/eotoe-embarrassingly-obvious-theory-of-everything/

 

Tags:

brain origin, gravitation, gravitons,  lifeevolution, nerved organisms, RNAlifehood, spirituality, universeevolution

Common Sense

Guest Comment

Joshuasaid:

IF quantum mechanics governs the causal nature of the universe AND the conscious entity is within that universe THEN it seems to be a simple deduction that quantum systems play a role in consciousness.  Thanks for being open to new ideas.



That's like saying "well shopping carts exists, and general relativity accurately describes the nature of the universe, so therefore general relativity plays a role in the use of shopping carts." This is nonsense.

Andrew Redican

Guest Comment

So was Einstein undoubtably wrong to some English back then, you know what they said; Newton is ALWAYS correct - which in time, was not proved wrong, but that hold just one small part of the understanding of the working of the universe.

Regardless of what it is said in the video, no one undoubtably holds an 'absolute truth' otherwise we'd be arrogant or too stupid to think we a small tiny occurrence in the universe has experienced everything -and that video makes it clear it is just a limited interpretation not an absolute truth just as many of our 'mathematical laws' have changed over time.

 

 

xsistor

Guest Comment

Andrew Redicansaid:

So was Einstein undoubtably wrong to some English back then, you know what they said; Newton is ALWAYS correct - which in time, was not proved wrong, but that hold just one small part of the understanding of the working of the universe.

Regardless of what it is said in the video, no one undoubtably holds an 'absolute truth' otherwise we'd be arrogant or too stupid to think we a small tiny occurrence in the universe has experienced everything -and that video makes it clear it is just a limited interpretation not an absolute truth just as many of our 'mathematical laws' have changed over time.

 

 

Another clueless idiot... Sigh. Mathematical laws don't change. They've never changed. You're  confusing physics (which is a science and is therefore empirical and inductive) with mathematics (which is axiomatic, rigorous and deductive). The two fields are world's apart with wildly different ontology and epistemology. Mathematics is timeless and is only added to, rather than changed. Physics, in contrast, is shifting and everchanging.

 

Even back then everyone knew full-well that Newton's theory of gravitation was incomplete (it could not be reconciled with Maxwell's electrodynamics, for example). Great ideas may have been doubted in the past, but science begins with skepticism and forces the new idea to be demonstrated, overwhelmingly, through evidence. That doesn't mean experts need to listen to every unqualified idiot with an opinion. To an actual working scientist the drivel in his video is obvious crap. 

communist scientist

Guest Comment

the beginning sounded sound, but then... when he started stuffing every idea possible into the narrative, i realized it's just a chaotic pile of superficial knowledge to show people how much he has learned. hipster science heh

the beginning was kind of thought-provoking though. i mean in the end neurons in our brains are subjects of the crazy quantum physics, such a vast field for intriguing sci-fi ideas. i thought about this before his video though

communist scientist

Guest Comment

Labstanksaid:

All great thinkers are challenged and treated with prejudice by most people (who can't think outside their little boxes). WTG Athene.

 

common, that's the #1 defense trick of pseudoscientists and charlatans. all over the world, all kinds of crookers has been comparing themselves to Kopernick/Galileo/Einstein when faced with criticism -- for decades... and despite their greateness no one can remember their names after some time... history shows who's right.

tom

Guest Comment

True value of this documentary is in its great visual graphics, sound and well put together independent research which allows a viewer to grasp more of the big picture.

Aaron

Guest Comment

Why are we assuming that C takes on the same properties as mesons?  Even if we manage to quantify C as the intersection bewteen the now and the contiguous experience, we must still deal with the fact that mesons only exist for a fraction of a millisecond in very high energy interactions.  The energies needed are much higher than the exchanges taking place in the brain...  I think he intends to show that C-now (which some people are misunderstanding) is a necessary part of a theory of everything beacuse all interactions are viewed from C's frame of reference at all times.  We can never take a measurement outside of that frame.  Again, the part where I get lost is when C is granted the same exotic property as a meson.  Anti-matter is not something we find just lying around in any old particle. 

Bonnair Tony Lara

Guest Comment

Great Job Thanks

Michael Francis

Guest Comment

I see lots of people complaining that he "added nothing new" to the science already laid out on the table. And thank God he didn't! This guy's not a scientist. At best, he is a researcher. He utilized what is (in my opinion) a heretofore largely wasted intellect and commendable memory, in order to pool a massive amount of information and find the ways in which much of it fits together. Then he described those fitting links--or, he described the image that was created by connecting those pathways/methodologies/paradigms. He took information that was already known, fit it all on the huge drawing table that is his mind/memory, painted an image of what he saw, and did his best to describe it back to you. (I say "painted an image" rather than "took a snapshot" because one suggests objectivity, and as with all things in the universe, there is really no such thing as true objectivity. Here, especially.)

 

Like any human being living via the ego (which is most people, nowadays), he thinks he's "hot shit" for having done this. I'm skeptical of some (not all) of his reasons for producing this video. Not because I think he's a bad person or that he's lying, but because it saddens me when people think they've stumbled upon the reality of the universe (in that all things are connected), but still draw great ego enjoyment from it and seek to boost themselves as a result. He comapres himself to actual scientists in another video, and that's just ridiculous. But, again, his life up to this point has been all ego and video games, so I'm not surprised. I'm glad he has done what he's done, and I hope he continues to grow as a person for it.

(Lastly, I am a video gamer. Most people are, now. I don't think playing video games is a stupid waste of time. I think dedicating ones entire life to just gaming [not even gaming for the exprience of a story, but just to BE THE BEST GAMER and at the expense of others] is a waste of the mind and of the body.)

Michael Francis

Guest Comment

Common Sensesaid:

Joshuasaid:

IF quantum mechanics governs the causal nature of the universe AND the conscious entity is within that universe THEN it seems to be a simple deduction that quantum systems play a role in consciousness.  Thanks for being open to new ideas.



That's like saying "well shopping carts exists, and general relativity accurately describes the nature of the universe, so therefore general relativity plays a role in the use of shopping carts." This is nonsense.

Actually, it's correct. So is your analogy. It's stretched out and it leaves out a WHOLE LOT of explanation in-between. But technically, it's true. (Also, new to this place, hope I quoted things correctly. If not, my bad.)

Safer with the Wolves

Guest Comment

hey guys check out the song 'Universelessness' inspired by athene's theory of everything
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjW89cLgSKg&feature=relmfu 

Dov Henis

Guest Comment

Bare plain facts beyond academenglish verbiage:

The neural system, including the brain, was evolved by unicells communities (cultures) to react to-exploit the environments for survival-natural selection.

Update Comprehension Of Culture-Genetics

I.

Legacy: A Genetic History of the Jewish People by Harry Ostrer

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/342238/title/Legacy_A_Genetic_History_of_the_Jewish_People_by_Harry_Ostrer

A genetic history of a cultural phenotype is the progeny of its cultural history.

Genetics is the progeny of culture. Culture, the reaction to and exploitation of circumstances, shapes the genetic expressions and profile. Genes are organisms, life’s primal organisms.

See Darwin, Pavlov and cause and cure of addictions…

II.

Eating tiny amounts of eggs helps some children overcome their egg allergy

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/342999/title/FOR_KIDS_Bye-bye%2C_egg_allergy

Our RNA genes are our primal base organisms. Now see Darwin, Pavlov , and cause/cure of addictions and of allergies…

III.

On Brain And Natural Selection

A.

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/07/bad-news-for-big-brains.html?ref=em  

 “experimentally manipulate brain size, you get cleverer fish".

“Experimentally manipulate” is Pavlov. Pavlov experimentally  manipulated dogs’ genes.

Manipulating creatures is manipulating their genes by manipulating their culture, which modifies their genes’ expressions since genetics is the progeny of culture. Genes themselves are organisms, life’s primal organisms, evolved from modified RNA nucleotides in a cultural-natural selection-reaction to energetic circumstances.  THIS IS DARWINIAN EVOLUTION. NATURAL SELECTION IS UBIQUITOUS TO ALL MASS FORMATS. LIFE IS JUST ANOTHER  MASS FORMAT.

B.

I grow various fruits. Fruit trees are brainless, mindless, of low intelligence i.e. low capacity to learn from experience.

A fruit tree sprouts, starts  producing, a great number of fruits, of which only a small fraction complete their growth, of which in nature only few if any at all  evolve into a fruit tree to reproduce the fruit-tree genes. This is the genes reproduction mode of the mindless creatures…

Look around you at other creatures including humans and draw your own conclusion…

Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)

http://universe-life.com/  

Dov Henis

Guest Comment

More On Brain-Mind Origin-Nature

 

Just to add that IMO plants do indeed have “brains-mind”

 but they are not as developed as in mobile organisms simply because

 stationary organisms face much fewer survival-natural-selection

 challenges than mobile organisms.

 

 This is further to

 Seed of Human-Chimp Genomes Diversity

 http://universe-life.com/2011/07/10/seed-of-human-chimp-genomes-diversity/

 

Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)

http://universe-life.com/

Kaleb

Guest Comment

Id just like to know if all the information callated to distribute this mans theory is all correct, and is it possible for someone to attain and post the thoughts of the Scientists from which this information was received?

Dov Henis

Guest Comment

A.

Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)

http://universe-life.com/

Hod-HaSharon, Israel. Born (1925) and raised in Israel. WWII vet N.Africa & Europe. 1956 BioChem PhD Univ of Pgh, Pgh, PA. Industrial R&D, consultant, retired 2006. Interests: universe/life/humans evolutions. 

B.

WHO, WHAT are SCIENTISTS ??? AAAS trade-union members???

Don't you have own judgement for YOUR life including ideas and concepts???

 

Dov

 



Guest Comment

A.

Kaleb Mcleod

Born 1989, Australia. Graduated High School 06'. No degrees held. No specific professional direction thus far DUE to the fact I have a mind that is in a CONSTANT state of seeking, exploring, asking. And although I feel burdened by this at times, looking around at the worlds conception of intelligence I, with complete humility, feel I am more useful to our world than most others.

 

B.

scientist [ˈsaɪəntɪst]

na person who studies or practises any of the sciences or who uses scientific methods I dont know any AAAS trade-union members but I assume you dont like them Dov. If they give scientists a bad name the last thing you should be doing is labelling them with the title of which contains the identities of people who spend their lives researching their questions, their passions. Ive just shared one thought, one idea, one concept. Individualism
Dov Henis

Guest Comment

Kaleb,

1. The origin of yr name is KALEV, hebrew, OT, means DOG (in hebrew Kelev = all heart...), just as my name Dov = bear.

2. I wish you successful and heart-rewarding life of learning. Look around, read, think, judge with common sense, which is the best scientific approach...don't be blinded with impressions...

Dov

 

Dov Henis

Guest Comment

Within the Everything/Universe this is what the barely Anything Speck Life is:

 

Why RNA genes are the heart of medicine…

Life underneath the academEnglish verbiage…

Intelliget Life

 

Life:

mass format of evolving naturally selected RNA nucleotide(s), which is life’s primal organism.

Natural selection:

ubiquitous phenomenon of material that augments its energy constraint.

Mass-Energy:

inert-moving graviton(s), the fundamental particle of the universe, inert extremely briefly at the pre-big-bang singularity .

Intelligence:

learning from experience.

 

Intelligent Life

Life is an evolving system continuously undergoing natural selection i.e. continuously selecting, intelligently, opportunities to augment its energy constraint in order to survive i.e. in order to avoid its own mass format being re-converted to energy.

 

Dov Henis

(comments from 22nd century)

http://universe-life.com/

 

 

 

 

Kevin

Guest Comment

WOW, I'm 4 minutes in and I'm thoroughly impressed. To those people who are skeptics. This is the whole point of the first 4 minutes. Those ideas you have about general relativity or just how things work in this world in general are ingrained within you. Throughout your life you defended those ideas because you wanted to stabilize yourself and be able to make quick decisions as to not sound like an idiot. That caused you to make strong neural connections in your brain everytime you are hit with a difference of opinion. So now everytime you you are hit with an opinion that doesn't fit your idea of what it should be you automatically try to rationalize it so it fits your own perspective of what it should be so you don't feel lost within yourself. It happens all the time and some people aren't even aware of the fact that it happens. You have to train yourself to stop doing that. The first step would be trying to put yourself in someone elses shoes. Which means considering something you think is completely retarded as a potential truth until you figure out if its true or not. It's extremely difficult to keep your core values open to change and still keep a sense of who you are, so i think most people just opt to find a core value that fits most things when really your values should be radically inappropriable. (not a real word but i can't think of one) Just take the meaning of 'appropriable' and the meaning of the prefix 'in' and use your brain.

Dov Henis

Guest Comment

Further Rethinking...

Origin And Nature Of Earth Life, An Update…

Liberate your mind from concepts dictated by religious trade-union AAAS.

1) Life is just another mass format. 2) re-comprehend natural selection. 3) natural selection is ubiquitous, for all mass formats.

Life Evolved by Naturally Selected Organic Matter

http://universe-life.com/2011/06/10/update-comprehension-of-universelife-evolution/

 EarthLife Genesis From Aromaticity/H-Bonding

http://universe-life.com/2011/09/30/earthlife-genesis-from-aromaticityh-bonding/

September 30, 2011

 A.

Purines and pyrimidines are two of the building blocks of nucleic acids. Only two purines and three pyrimidines occur widely in nucleic acids.

 B.

Pyrimidine is a heterocyclic aromatic organic compound similar to benzene and pyridine, containing two nitrogen atoms at positions 1 and 3 of the six-member ring.

A purine is a heterocyclic aromatic organic compound, consisting of a pyrimidine ring fused to an imidazole ring. Purines, including substituted purines and their tautomers, are the most widely distributed kind of nitrogen-containing heterocycle in nature.

Aromaticity ( Kekule, Loschmidt, Thiele) is essential for the Krebs Cycle for energy production.

 C.

Natural selection is E (energy) temporarily constrained in an m (mass) format.

 Natural selection is a universal ubiquitous trait of ALL mass spin formats, inanimate and animate.

 Life began/evolved on Earth with the natural selection of inanimate RNA, then of some RNA nucleotides, then arriving at the ultimate mode of natural selection – self replication.

Aromaticity enables good constraining of energy and good propensity to hydrogen bonding. The address of Earth Life Genesis, of phasing from inanimate to animate natural selection, is Aromaticity.Hydrogen Bonding.

Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)

http://universe-life.com/2011/07/10/seed-of-human-chimp-genomes-diversity/

http://universe-life.com/2012/02/03/universe-energy-mass-life-compilation/ 

tags: life genesis, natural selection, life mass format

========================

Earth Life

In plain English, not in academEnglish verbiage.

- Earth life, self-replicating mass format, is just another naturally selected mass format.

- The primal base organisms of Earth life are the genes, i.e. the RNA nucleotides.

- All Earth life formats are progenies of genes evolution.

- Genomes are organisms evolved, and continuously modified, by the genes as their functional templates.

- Genetics is a progeny of culture, which is reaction to circumstances.

- The drive and goal of evolution of ALL mass formats is to enhance their energy constraint, to postpone their reconversion to energy, which goes on at constant rate since the Big Bang.

Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)

http://universe-life.com/

http://universe-life.com/2011/09/30/earthlife-genesis-from-aromaticityh-bonding/

Antonio

Guest Comment

Don't be upset with this guy "Athene". As someone said above, he's only a dude who believes he has solved important problems and uploaded a video trying to explain his ideas, that's it.

Although he's entitled to an opinion, apparently he has no solid background or credentials so obviously this is the first reason researchers don't even bother to check out the video. He says he has spent 1 year working on his research, but people involved in science (Mathematics, Physics, etc) know you don't solve important problems in one year (Andrew Wiles solved Fermat last Theorem in 8 years after getting his bachelor and phD degree, so we could say he required 16 years to solve it. Terence Tao (a child prodigy) required 20 years to win his Fields Medal, he won IMO gold medal when he was 12 or 13, at age 20 he got his phD degree). Even PhD students are still beginners compared to real high-level research.

There has been many scientists with credentials claiming they've solved important problems such as the Goldbach conjecture or the Riemann Hypothesis but after a while important flaws have been found in their arguments, so that's why this unkown dude (I mean, unknown for scientists, apparently very well-known on internet) needs to work a lot if wants to be taken seriously (he should probably try to write a paper step by step and explain his ideas to the appropriate people, not answering questions on a stream to random people with zero knowledge).

Well, I'm not sure if someone here is interested but there is a professor (Shinichi Mochizuki) claiming he has solved the ABC conjecture, if you want to check top researchers talking about his work here's the link

http://mathoverflow.net/questions/106560/philosophy-behind-mochizukis-work-on-the-abc-conjecture

(don't discouraged if you don't understand anything, at least you'll understand why the video posted by "Athene" is not taken seriously by any researcher, assuming there's some researcher out there spending his/her leisure time on youtube).

Sharon Cothran

Guest Comment

However, these are very long documentaries but simply amazing. I read a few of the feedbacks, people are treating it like it's being presented as truth. It isn't. It is just a documentary that is being presented as an introduction to a new explanation of existing theories. A number of theories have been proposed, including quantum mechanical theories, spiritual theories, biophysical mechanisms, philosophical. But, none of these completely explain the relationship between mind and brain. I have just read a book that was recommended me on a psychology degree course I am studying that gives a brief introduction on Consciousness.  I come to know about that how subjective experience arises from objective brains and how millions of interconnected neurons produce perception, learning, motor control, reasoning, speech, and finally consciousness. They are connected to each other but aren't under control of one's processor to produce consciousness. For example, pain is visible to a certain extent, but one cannot fully realize another person's pain unless one experience that pain oneself.



 

Dov Henis

Guest Comment

Origin And Nature Of Brain, Of “Spirituality"

 You Owe Your Life To Natural Selection Of RNA. Period.

Consciousness-spirituality are brainchildren, and the brain is a progeny of mono-cells communities evolution: Plain and Simple…

From

Universe-Energy-Mass-Life Compilation

http://universe-life.com/2012/02/03/universe-energy-mass-life-compilation/

C. Know Thyself. Life Is Simpler Than We Are Told Including Origin-Nature Of Brain-Consciousness-“Spirituality”***

The origin-reason and the purpose-fate of life are mechanistic, ethically and practically valueless. Life is the cheapest commodity on Earth.

As Life is just another mass format, due to the oneness of the universe it is commonsensical that natural selection is ubiquitous for ALL mass formats and that life, self-replication, is its extension. And it is commonsensical, too, that evolutions, broken symmetry scenarios, are ubiquitous in all processes in all disciplines and that these evolutions are the “quantum mechanics” of the processes.

Human life is just one of many nature’s routes for the natural survival of RNAs, the base primal Earth organisms.

Life’s evolution, self-replication:

Genes (organisms) to genomes (organisms) to mono-cellular to multicellular organisms:

Individual mono-cells to cooperative mono-cells communities, “cultures”.

Mono-cells cultures evolve their communication, neural systems, then further evolving nerved multicellular organisms.

Human life is just one of many nature’s routes for the natural survival of RNAs, the base Earth organism.

It is up to humans themselves to elect the purpose and format of their life as individuals and as group-members.

 

Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)

http://universe-life.com/

***המקור והמהות של  "רוח יויות", כולן וירטואליות.

הרוח יויות  ובעות מהמאמי ים, לסיפוק ולשימוש  שלהם.

.

Duey Duck

Guest Comment

About to watch the vid, reading some comments first. The Quantum Universe by Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw is a fun read, btw. However, in reading arguments by commentators, some show ignorance to how cutting edge science works. These are the same people that still 'know' that gravity pulls, instead of space pushing, but that's besides the point. Currently, the technology to properly test all theories in the quantum is lacking. The discovery of all the elements in the periodic table occured years after their presence was required to make the table of elements work. Know your place in history. Always keep an open mind.

Einstein said physics is scalar. At the individual level, the strange world of quantum thrives. Same as an individual can be unpredictable. In larger groups, both atoms and people behave differently. To believe that the quantum cannot have an impact on one's conscioussness is to believe that you control ALL thoughts. Must have never had a random idea...

"The motion of particles follows probability laws but the probability itself propagates according to the law of causality." Born, 1926

Dov Henis

Guest Comment

Randomness Is Impossible In The Universe

 

A. From

http://phys.org/news/2013-01-curious-cosmic-choreography-small-galaxies.html

 

- Phys.org)—A newly discovered form of circle dancing is perplexing astronomers; not due to its complex choreography, but because it's unclear why the dancers – dwarf galaxies – are dancing in a ring around the much larger Andromeda Galaxy.

- "When we looked at the dwarf galaxies surrounding Andromeda, we expected to find them buzzing around randomly, like angry bees around a hive.

-For several decades, astronomers have used computer models to predict how dwarf galaxies should orbit large galaxies, and every time they found that dwarfs should be scattered randomly over the sky. Never, in these synthetic universes, did they see dwarfs arranged in a plane like that observed around Andromeda. "Now that we've found that the majority of these dwarf galaxies orbit in a disc around the giant galaxy Andromeda, it looks like there must be something about how these galaxies formed or subsequently evolved that has led them to trace out this peculiar coherent structure," said Professor Lewis. "Dwarf galaxies are the most numerous galaxy type in the universe, so understanding why and how they form this disc around the giant galaxy is expected to shed new light on the formation of galaxies of all masses."

B. Randomness In The Evolving Universe?

The universe is a two-poles entity, all-mass and all-energy poles.

It evolves from the pre-Big-Bang all-mass gravitons singularity towards the max-expanded all-energy pole and returns to the all-mass pole to recycle its evolution.

In such an evolving system it is simply commonsensible that randomness is IMPOSSIBLE. Plain and simple. EVERYTHING must derive from the mass-energy duality, inertia-motion of the base particle of the universe, and everything must proceed per the natural selection route.

 

The natural selection route is E (energy) temporarily constrained in an m (mass) format. Natural selection is a universal ubiquitous trait of ALL mass spin formats, inanimate and animate. The drive and goal of evolution of ALL mass formats is to enhance their energy constraint, to postpone their own reconversion to energy, which goes on at constant rate since the Big Bang.

 

Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)

http://universe-life.com/

http://universe-life.com/2012/02/03/universe-energy-mass-life-compilation/

John Duns Scotus

Guest Comment
Guys .. You are just kids.
Science will never be able to explain anything as complex as the human brain.

Science is only beginning to understand the other cells in the brain (glia) that manage the neurons .
Some at the forefront of this postulate that ...
neurons are where consciousness resides .
And Glia are where unconscious resides.

Science is only a tool to help us understand our world .

But it is a tool that exists within this world , and therefore cannot hold a detached view of this world from outside it.
Science is too small to be an unbiased observer .

Theory of everything ?

Not even close.

Call this film art, it's powerful drama and intriguing art .
But don't call this science.
Our understanding from science continues to evolve .
Understanding from science is views during a journey ,
Not a destination .

Lastly , be careful .. Read the story of Icarus .

Please don't become David Koresh and mislead the uninformed through the power of your charisma .
Be responsible .
translyvania

Guest Comment

Give them credit for putting ideas out there to ponder.

This is a complex universe and it will not be explained and defined in a three-word sentence. 

GROW UP ,LISTEN AND LEARN !!

Then constructively give feedback of what is right and wrong with this theory.

 



Guest Comment

 

Buddha had revealed in his teaching more than 2500 years ago that the sense of self is an illusion created by the mind.

many buddhist suttas which recorded the teachings of the Buddha reveals the illusion of self,

one of such buddhist sutta is the Anattalakkhaṇa Sutta ( THE GREAT DISCOURSE ON NO-SELF ).

worth read about this sutta with explanation by Venerable MAHASI SAYADAW, the link is : budsas.org/ebud/mahasi-anat/an­at00.htm,

 

 

Neuron

Guest Comment

What a waist of time. Nothing new for curious people. I can tell the guy is into video gaming a lot. Good graphics and scientific language. Using just that, does not mean it is going to be a good movie nor it is going to be a good theory. More of a good idea for the new quest game.

Add Comment?
Comments are closed 2 weeks after initial post.
Friends