I like how you actually have to pay attention to what she is saying to understand what she is saying.

Lots of good videos, quantum physics, flat earth, herd immunity...

Quantum physics makes extraordinary claims and at the same time asks us to lower our standards of scientific rigour by accepting unprovable assumptions. You can have one or the other but never both.

The best way to reduce risk from taking, or getting caught with DMT is to not do it.

I'm glad to hear him at least mention negative effects, but he just glossed over them. In a video like this, I think the negative possibilities, physical and mental, need FAR more time and attention.

I do agree with him in that, if you are not certain this type of experience is for you, just don't do it. The mental/psychological damage can be severe and permanent. I also think it's a good idea to start with a tiny dose and build up if you MUST do it...but still not "safe".
That said, as a black market drug, you never know how pure what you have is, or what it's mixed with, and also the method you use changes the amount needed for effect. Simply saying '5mg is a good start dose' ignores all these facts.

Smoking steel wool, even course steel wool, can destroy your lungs. First, it's not pure, clean steel. Second, even the course steel wool partially vaporizes (fine steel wool will just burn, completely vaporizing). Steel vapor and lungs don't mix. Use glass.

His suggestions to use the drug in public (in the woods or at the beach) are TERRIBLE. I understand his thought process in suggesting peaceful environments, but if you're doing schedule 1 drugs, do them at home. This drug is IMPOSSIBLE to pretend you aren't on, or to act 'sober' while tripping, and if people see you on it and don't know what's happening (or maybe even if they do know), they'll almost certainly call the police. Getting caught with DMT is likely to ruin your life.

The quantum physics double slit experiment describes how light behaves under certain conditions, not how normal matter behaves...and also, atoms aren't made up of electrons, they're almost entirely protons and neutrons by weight. He should have stopped at 14 min. in my opinion. The rest made him look slightly insane and like he speaks with authority about things he doesn't understand very well.

I'm still waiting for the insightful invention someone comes up with after one of these amazing 'conversations' with non-human beings. If this drug really did what those into it claim, you would expect most users to be incredible 'outside the box' inventors advancing science in ways normal people would never consider...but I have not heard of even a single instance of that kind of useful insight coming from DMT.

Your video, The Secrets of Quantum Physics - Let There Be Life, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

The Secrets of Quantum Physics - Let There Be Life has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579 on that post.

The Secrets of Quantum Physics - Einstein's Nightmare has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

Here's part 1:
http://videosift.com/video/The-Secrets-of-Quantum-Physics-Einsteins-Nightmare

Your video, The Secrets of Quantum Physics - Einstein's Nightmare, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I learned most of it from my mother, who was a well respected dissident of the quantum physics world until she died in 2006. I'm not nearly clever enough to follow in her footsteps, but I learned enough to know that the reality of science is full of human failings. Often egos, headlines and research grants get in the way of real science. Nothing like a claim to allow the possibility of time travel to get yourself in the papers and help get the funding in.

Unfortunately the maths has assumptions built in that cannot yet be tested and that has made it become totally detached from reality, the maths becoming proof in of itself, even if it makes no logical sense. In any reasonable time, the idea would have been dropped and we'd just have to say we don't know yet. They need to take step back, go back to the real fundamentals and nail those first, otherwise they go sprinting off in all sorts of directions not knowing if the basis on which they are working is sound.

It sells books and makes good headlines but it isn't good science.

scientism is really like truthieness. It's a made up word, with a made up definition, that has no bearing on, or connection to reality.
Science is not about belief.
If data 'proves' that science can't ever answer any question about reality (not about human insanity, although it already goes a long way towards explaining that too), scientists would concede instantly. If it were a belief, they could never change it based on evidence, but science does change.

No one is asking you to 'bow' to any 'theory'. They are simply the 'rules' that 'science' has produced to explain how the world/universe works. They work just fine without your 'belief' in them or knowledge of them. That's just one thing they have over the supernatural.

Please give an example or two of scientific 'truths' that were half baked ideas. I think if you look throughout history, carefully, you will see the scientific method was developed mostly around the 12th century as explained here:

Amongst the array of great scholars, al-Haytham is regarded as the architect of the scientific method. His scientific method involved the following stages:1.Observation of the natural world
2.Stating a definite problem
3.Formulating a robust hypothesis
4.Test the hypothesis through experimentation
5.Assess and analyze the results
6.Interpret the data and draw conclusions
7.Publish the findings

but it's widely held that it was not solidified to the modern scientific method (eliminating guessing and 'induction' and requiring repeatable experimentation) until Newton. That means any example you might give should come after 1660 or so at the earliest, or you aren't talking about the same "science" that the rest of us are.

I think most scientist would say it is 'possible' that supernatural events happen, but incredibly unlikely, and constantly less so the more we know about the world and it's rules. It's just as likely that if I only eat the right color yellow foods I'll eventually 'magically' crap gold. I can't prove it won't happen (because I'll never know if I ate the 'right' color foods, if I ever tried), but I can use science to show it's absolutely unlikely to a NEAR certainty (no matter how one misunderstands quantum physics).
The supernatural is right there with my golden poops....and I can't tell which smells worse.

You know what I like the most about these idiots? How, nowadays, to try to come up with some bullshit made-up theory about how homeopathy works throw around words like nano-this and quantum-that, as if the tremendous piece-of-shit quack who invented this entire idiocy 200 years ago, had any idea what nano-particles or quantum physics were.

Ahhhh...I see now. You misunderstood your own quote...AND it's wrong...I'm now wondering where you got it from.

Quantum theory is not the theoretical basis of modern physics, it is a mostly theoretical part of sub-atomic physics, and could be called a 'base' for understanding much of that subject, but is not a catch all explanation for even all sub atomic physics, certainly not physics in total.
Modern physics explains the nature and behaviors of matter and energy on the atomic and sub-atomic level, not quantum theory. Quantum theory does NOT explain atomic physics at all, it's only about sub atomic physics. Quantum theory is a sub set of physics, not the other way around as you implied.
Sub atomic physics and 'atomic' physics don't seem to jibe with each other... yet, and the rules of one do not work in the other. It's all counter intuitive and difficult for scientists to understand, the lay person has a snowball's chance in hell of understanding what we even think we know, even less if they get bad info to start with.
That means your understanding is completely wrong. Even sub atomic particles can't really be in two places at once in the way you understand it...it's all insanely difficult math that suggest something that, in lay man's terms, is close to being in two places, but is not actually that, because it's also in neither place (and in some equations, everywhere at once, and nowhere)! It's impossible to state fully in normal English, it's math...and screwy math at that.
Matter simply can't really be in 2 places at once, not even sub atomic parts of it. Certainly not a person. Some experiments may SEEM to show that certain particles/waves may be, but they aren't really...it's wierd. No actual quantum physics scientist has made such an insane claim (that YOU are in 2 places at once) that I know of....it's just plain wrong and displays a complete lack of understanding of the basic principles involved and the difference between sub atomic and non-sub atomic. If someone said that, you can be certain they were either not a physicist, or were trying to over simplify and explain through a poor, un-explained analogy as poor teachers have a tendency to do when explaining difficult subjects to those with no grasp of the basics.
And I don't own any scientists, gawd believing or no. ;-)
...and none of that has a thing to do with evolution beyond being the basic 'rules' for matter.
...and none of that has a thing to do with moral superiority or morality at all.
...and it all has nothing to do with religion based homophobia/bigotry....the topic of this video....so now that another thread has been hijacked, I'm taking this thread to Cuba!

I think your quote may be wrong, quantum physics deals only with the sub-atomic level.
Atoms and/or molecules do not behave like some particles do. Particles also can't be in 2 places at once, but appear to be able to move from one place to another without traveling between. It's an incredibly difficult science to understand, more so when it's basic principles are misunderstood.
This has nothing whatsoever (or barely anything, nothing directly) to do with evolution. It is an attempt at explaining the sub atomic world, not the atomic one. Evolution happens in the macro/atomic level and larger. It MAY happen in some unknown way in the sub atomic level, but hasn't been noted or studied there that I know of.
Did I state or imply that 'there's no way gawd did it'? I don't think so, you are projecting. While I don't 'believe' in gawd(s), I do leave open the miniscule possibility it exists, or that one did before the big bang....one problem is there's no real set definition for gawd, so if something outside our universe created this one, is that "gawd"? Must it be super-natural, or simply a creator? Must it exist in our universe to count? How about in our perceptible dimensions? Could it just be alien to our universe, but not a supernatural omniscient direct human creator? There's far too many points of view on that to have consensus of what constitutes a 'gawd'.
I will state that there's no proof, or even evidence, of a (or many) gawd(s). That said...Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, (thanks Mr Jackson), so there's also no 'proof' it doesn't exist (it's hard or impossible to prove a negative).
Jumping to the conclusion that, because there's no proof of no gawd, it must exist, is also close minded against the high probability (likelihood) that it doesn't, and never did, exist outside human minds.
Science and gawd don't go together or explain each other any more than addition explains a words spelling. They're totally different arenas of thought. Thinking that science 'proves' the existence of 'gawd' either greatly overstates the 'proof' or completely misunderstands science. At best, science doesn't disprove the existence of 'gawd(s)', but then again that was never the mission of science or real scientists...they don't deal with/in theology at all.
I would point out that, most Christians (or any religious people really) have repeatedly 'proven' the non-existence of 'gawd(s)' to themselves...all gawds except the one they think exists....but for some reason the one they believe in is exempt from all the proofs (math term, not bad English).

EDIT: What science has done is disprove most, if not all 'proofs' put forward alleging to prove the existence of gawd(s), and also removed all requirements for ones existence to explain the universe and existence.

Along with @VoodooV you both blindly miss the point. Voodooh is not worth even answering anymore. He is carrying around too many personal issues that the chip on his shoulder is weighing him down.

You believe that everything evolved and t there is no room for Quantum physics in evolution. You say these 2 ideas are exclusively different and not connected

I say Yes Quantum physics is part of evolution "Quantum theory is the theoretical basis of modern physics that explains the nature and behavior of matter and energy on the atomic and subatomic level." But from that understanding it is theorized that you are in multiple places at once. That point of thought has been well stated by your non god believing scientist.

In theory you are in many places at once. So what part of evolution does that serve? From an evolution point of view quantum physics should not be needed and should not exist.


And you indicate that before the big bang and up to that point its anybody's guess.

Your best guess is, well we don't know, but no fucking way GOD did it. Now that's being closed minded.


If science proves GOD to be a pipe dream then so be it. But every day I see science proving the case that there is a GOD.

Bobknight33...not to be rude, but did you go to school? Did they teach science there? You seem to not understand the terms you are using in the least....
Evolution is a biology term, describing the changes in biology over time due to environmental pressures.
Multiple dimensions is theoretical physics, attempting to describe how reality works....not biology, no evolution here.
Quantum physics is a different, somewhat theoretical, physics, attempting to describe how reality works at the mico level (which oddly is completely different from how it works on the macro level)....again, not biology, no evolution.
There are no clear, accepted theories about what happened before the big bang...yet. Normal physics breaks down at the beginning/bang, so anything said about what happened before is a guess, an educated guess at best. This is also a physics issue, not biology, so evolution doesn't enter into it.
Do you truly not understand this? If so, I blame your education, and suggest you go to night school and learn some science, especially if you intend to comment publicly about it and don't want to look a fool.

EDIT: Your questions are analogous to a person asking why the Old Testament doesn't explain the works of Muhammad, or really closer to asking why Shinto doesn't explain the life of Jebus. They aren't related except loosely in the 'religion' category, just like your post mixed up ideas from the 'science' category to imply it's all the same and related directly and one should describe and explain the other...that's just not right.