86 replies to this topic

[Old Guy]

Entity, on May 4 2010, 12:33 PM, said:

So the term "bad vibe" was coined just about 40 years ago? Wow! Thanks for the insightful information!

Actually, that's just about right. I was there.

[Old Guy]

MoonChild, on May 4 2010, 12:38 PM, said:

... how can science measure something which it believes doesn't exist?

A properly trained scientist will never do that. The protocol of good science is to document your findings and publish them for peer review. Even without positive proof, if your peers find your data to have sufficient merit, your findings become theory. At such time as there becomes concrete, repeatable evidence, your theory now becomes law. These are the fundamentals of science that people like myself feel the field of paranormal research is sorely lacking. There are no bonafide authorities. Only us amateurs grasping in the hope that we may latch on to something more tangible than unsubstantiated feelings.

Remember the cold fusion fiasco? That was a perfect example of how *NOT* to do science.

[ohreally?]

MoonChild, on May 4 2010, 02:38 PM, said:

ohreally?, on May 5 2010, 12:00 AM, said:

Those are qualities that are attributed to people by other people. They are not to my knowledge quantifiable properties by themselves.

Those are NOT qualities attributed to peoeple by other people, but those are the basic nature of things as it exists in nature.
There seems to be a difference of thought on the subject.
http://rajanvenkates...o-tamassic.html

ohreally?, on May 5 2010, 12:00 AM, said:

Back to negative energy. This term was coined by the New Age community even though this concept of negative energy has been around for a long time. Another way the New Ager might say it is this or that person gives off bad vibes

I am quite ignorant when it comes to "new age" so maybe you are right. Or perhaps you are trying to make it looks right.
Never take my word for it. Do some fact checking. like old guy I was there too.

Old Guy, on May 4 2010, 11:28 PM, said:

(Removed condescending remark.)

For *anything* to be considered as having a "positive" or "negative" property is to imply that it has polarity. In order to determine a polar property, that would imply the property is quantifiable by some means. It can be theorized, but ultimately must be measurable. I have a call in to a physicist friend to confirm my understanding...

In the meantime, I'd still like to hear someone's explanation for how spirits are measured...

I guess you have a point there OldGuy, but what I am asking is, how can science measure something which it believes doesn't exist? If this phenomenon is beyond explanation today, it means it is not measurable with the existing tools. That is all what I was saying too, that to measure such things, perhaps we need to go beyond "logic" and discover some instruments that can.

To answer science can't measure something for which there is no theoretical basis.
What's better and beyond logic ? And how would one discover those tools and use them if not resorting back to logic ? By the way, going beyond 'logic' is yet another argument often resorted to by New Agers. It's another way of saying this ' open your mind and imagine the possibilities'

Let's assume for one moment that these three things satvic rajassic tamassic are real things, meaning they exist independently sans any belief system. After 8000 years why is there not an explanation that sounds more like physics instead of a spiritual idea ? The same question can be applied to both positive and negative energy. Keep this in mind before you answer: In this universe no matter where you live or what you believe is true there is only one set of physics for everyone.

[Robot]

ohreally?, on May 5 2010, 12:09 AM, said:

MoonChild, on May 4 2010, 02:38 PM, said:

ohreally?, on May 5 2010, 12:00 AM, said:

Those are qualities that are attributed to people by other people. They are not to my knowledge quantifiable properties by themselves.

Those are NOT qualities attributed to peoeple by other people, but those are the basic nature of things as it exists in nature.
There seems to be a difference of thought on the subject.
http://rajanvenkates...o-tamassic.html

ohreally?, on May 5 2010, 12:00 AM, said:

Back to negative energy. This term was coined by the New Age community even though this concept of negative energy has been around for a long time. Another way the New Ager might say it is this or that person gives off bad vibes

I am quite ignorant when it comes to "new age" so maybe you are right. Or perhaps you are trying to make it looks right.
Never take my word for it. Do some fact checking. like old guy I was there too.

Old Guy, on May 4 2010, 11:28 PM, said:

(Removed condescending remark.)

For *anything* to be considered as having a "positive" or "negative" property is to imply that it has polarity. In order to determine a polar property, that would imply the property is quantifiable by some means. It can be theorized, but ultimately must be measurable. I have a call in to a physicist friend to confirm my understanding...

In the meantime, I'd still like to hear someone's explanation for how spirits are measured...

I guess you have a point there OldGuy, but what I am asking is, how can science measure something which it believes doesn't exist? If this phenomenon is beyond explanation today, it means it is not measurable with the existing tools. That is all what I was saying too, that to measure such things, perhaps we need to go beyond "logic" and discover some instruments that can.

To answer science can't measure something for which there is no theoretical basis.
What's better and beyond logic ? And how would one discover those tools and use them if not resorting back to logic ? By the way, going beyond 'logic' is yet another argument often resorted to by New Agers. It's another way of saying this ' open your mind and imagine the possibilities'

Let's assume for one moment that these three things satvic rajassic tamassic are real things, meaning they exist independently sans any belief system. After 8000 years why is there not an explanation that sounds more like physics instead of a spiritual idea ? The same question can be applied to both positive and negative energy. Keep this in mind before you answer: In this universe no matter where you live or what you believe is true there is only one set of physics for everyone.

I would have to disagree, and so would the Physicist's I coordinate with.

There is NOT one set of Physics for the Universe, something as simple as Pi, is NOT a universal constant, neither are many other things.

Every Physicist I have ever talked with accepts small scale Psi(PK) interaction with Random Number Generators. There is currently no Physics explanation for this, not even quantum based.

I mean REALLY, what amount of PHYSICS education do YOU have to talk about these PHYSICS "ABSOLUTES"?

My above examples will be discussed with Many Physicists at the SSE Conferance in Boulder, this June. I would suggest you attend and "run with the big dogs" and quit being an "Armchair Physicist"

Edited by Robot, 05 May 2010 - 07:19 AM.

[ohreally?]

Robot, on May 5 2010, 08:15 AM, said:

I would have to disagree, and so would the Physicist's I coordinate with.

There is NOT one set of Physics for the Universe, something as simple as Pi, is NOT a universal constant, neither are many other things.

Every Physicist I have ever talked with accepts small scale Psi(PK) interaction with Random Number Generators. There is currently no Physics explanation for this, not even quantum based.

I mean REALLY, what amount of PHYSICS education do YOU have to talk about these PHYSICS "ABSOLUTES"?

My above examples will be discussed with Many Physicists at the SSE Conferance in Boulder, this June. I would suggest you attend and "run with the big dogs" and quit being an "Armchair Physicist"

Quote

There is NOT one set of Physics for the Universe, something as simple as Pi, is NOT a universal constant, neither are many other things.

Ok, name the other laws of physics which are not the same as the known laws of physics. And you are confused about physical constant and mathematical constants. Pi is not physics it's mathematics. Universal constants are too name a few.
a. the speed of C [ in a vacuum].
b. the gravitational constant G
c. Planck's constant h
There are many other constants.

Physicists are people too and are allowed to believe anything they want. However what a few physicists believe does not lend any weight to what is true. Facts not beliefs determine what is true.

Edited by ohreally?, 05 May 2010 - 08:10 AM.

[Robot]

ohreally?, on May 5 2010, 09:08 AM, said:

Robot, on May 5 2010, 08:15 AM, said:

I would have to disagree, and so would the Physicist's I coordinate with.

There is NOT one set of Physics for the Universe, something as simple as Pi, is NOT a universal constant, neither are many other things.

Every Physicist I have ever talked with accepts small scale Psi(PK) interaction with Random Number Generators. There is currently no Physics explanation for this, not even quantum based.

I mean REALLY, what amount of PHYSICS education do YOU have to talk about these PHYSICS "ABSOLUTES"?

My above examples will be discussed with Many Physicists at the SSE Conferance in Boulder, this June. I would suggest you attend and "run with the big dogs" and quit being an "Armchair Physicist"

Quote

There is NOT one set of Physics for the Universe, something as simple as Pi, is NOT a universal constant, neither are many other things.

Ok, name the other laws of physics which are not the same as the known laws of physics. And you are confused about physical constant and mathematical constants. Pi is not physics it's mathematics. Universal constants are too name a few.
a. the speed of C [ in a vacuum].
b. the gravitational constant G
c. Planck's constant h
There are many other constants.

Physicists are people too and are allowed to believe anything they want. However what a few physicists believe does not lend any weight to what is true. Facts not beliefs determine what is true.

There have been NO "laws" in Physics for 100 years. They are "models and theories" which change.

Pi IS PHYSICS, it is a physical geometric relationship, it "can" be represented by mathematics. The Physical Geometric Relationship changes throughout the Universe, indeed, even here on earth, depending on where you are.

The speed of light in a vacuum IS "relative" by definition, your constant represents only one reference frame. Other "constants" listed in my 1981 CRC handbook have changed over the years as better information was available. Add the word "variation" after each of your "constants" with a google search, see what you get. Variation of constants? who would have thought?

With regard to "Quantum" facts and truths are Subjective. The state of Photon Spin is "undeternimed" it is NOT spin up OR spin down, it is undetermined or BOTH until forced into a state of "reality".

Reality itself it subjective, here is an example, Quantum based, but Macroscopic:

http://www.ia.ucsb.e....aspx?pkey=2200


Which Physicists do you correspond with? What do they believe?

[Old Guy]

This is a very interesting read.

Robot and ohreally?: I may be wrong (And it wouldn't sruprise me if I am.), but it's starting to sound like you're arguing from the same side of the fence.

Perhaps it's just my ignorance...

"Facts not beliefs determine what is true."

I agree with that up to my earlier point. It doesn't matter how much a scientist believes something to be fact. What matters is what the scientific community can demonstrate to be factual. However, as one who embraces the Christian "faith", I'd prefer to state, "Facts not feelings determine what is true."

[Robot]

Old Guy, on May 5 2010, 09:46 AM, said:

This is a very interesting read.

Robot and ohreally?: I may be wrong (And it wouldn't sruprise me if I am.), but it's starting to sound like you're arguing from the same side of the fence.

Perhaps it's just my ignorance...

"Facts not beliefs determine what is true."

I agree with that up to my earlier point. It doesn't matter how much a scientist believes something to be fact. What matters is what the scientific community can demonstrate to be factual. However, as one who embraces the Christian "faith", I'd prefer to state, "Facts not feelings determine what is true."

Perhaps, with regard to Science, "Facts and Beliefs" are fuzzy, at least on some levels.

With regard to my Psi(PK) Random Number Generator reference, What you believe, can alter the "facts", including "apparent" retro-causality. Here is an interesting PDF:

http://www.scientifi...1_2_schmidt.pdf

The source for this is here:

http://www.scientifi...l/articles.html

As I mentioned, I believe most Phd. Physicists "believe" the "evidence" for PK influence, especially with Random Number Generators. All the Physicists I correspond with believe in the PK link.

PK currently seems to get NO answers from Physics, logic is currently not applicable. Perhaps a "quantum-psi" based mechanism will eventually be discovered.

I spent an hour on the phone last night with Physicist Bobby Bracewell discussing this exact thing, my brain in currently immersed in it. I am looking forward to more viewpoints at the SSE conference.

[Robot]

Variation found in a dimensionless constant!

“Physicists have long speculated that the fundamental constants might not, in fact, be constant, but instead might vary with time. Dirac was the first to suggest this possibility [1], and time variation of the fundamental constants has been investigated numerous times since then. Among the various possibilities, the fine structure constant and the gravitational constant have received the greatest attention, but work has also been done, for example, on constants related to the weak and strong interactions, the electron-proton mass ratio, and several others.”

http://dorigo.wordpr...nless-constant/

[ohreally?]

Robot, on May 5 2010, 09:37 AM, said:

ohreally?, on May 5 2010, 09:08 AM, said:

Robot, on May 5 2010, 08:15 AM, said:

I would have to disagree, and so would the Physicist's I coordinate with.

There is NOT one set of Physics for the Universe, something as simple as Pi, is NOT a universal constant, neither are many other things.

Every Physicist I have ever talked with accepts small scale Psi(PK) interaction with Random Number Generators. There is currently no Physics explanation for this, not even quantum based.

I mean REALLY, what amount of PHYSICS education do YOU have to talk about these PHYSICS "ABSOLUTES"?

My above examples will be discussed with Many Physicists at the SSE Conferance in Boulder, this June. I would suggest you attend and "run with the big dogs" and quit being an "Armchair Physicist"

Quote

There is NOT one set of Physics for the Universe, something as simple as Pi, is NOT a universal constant, neither are many other things.

Ok, name the other laws of physics which are not the same as the known laws of physics. And you are confused about physical constant and mathematical constants. Pi is not physics it's mathematics. Universal constants are too name a few.
a. the speed of C [ in a vacuum].
b. the gravitational constant G
c. Planck's constant h
There are many other constants.

Physicists are people too and are allowed to believe anything they want. However what a few physicists believe does not lend any weight to what is true. Facts not beliefs determine what is true.

There have been NO "laws" in Physics for 100 years. They are "models and theories" which change.

Pi IS PHYSICS, it is a physical geometric relationship, it "can" be represented by mathematics. The Physical Geometric Relationship changes throughout the Universe, indeed, even here on earth, depending on where you are.

The speed of light in a vacuum IS "relative" by definition, your constant represents only one reference frame. Other "constants" listed in my 1981 CRC handbook have changed over the years as better information was available. Add the word "variation" after each of your "constants" with a google search, see what you get. Variation of constants? who would have thought?

With regard to "Quantum" facts and truths are Subjective. The state of Photon Spin is "undeternimed" it is NOT spin up OR spin down, it is undetermined or BOTH until forced into a state of "reality".

Reality itself it subjective, here is an example, Quantum based, but Macroscopic:

http://www.ia.ucsb.e....aspx?pkey=2200


Which Physicists do you correspond with? What do they believe?

First off do I have to explain what a theory is in the scientific sense. Do I have to explain what a physical Law is. I hope not. Secondly Pi is not physics. It's a mathematical relationship. Pi is not involved in any physical process in order for that process to work. If Pi did not exist the universe would work just as well.
Thirdly the speed of light in a vacuum is constant. It is also constant no matter what your frame of reference is or the speed at which you the observer are moving. As for the rest of the stuff in your rebuttal it is irrelevant to the main question I ask and which you claim is not true. I'll state again: There's only one set of physics for everyone.

Quote

There have been NO "laws" in Physics for 100 years. They are "models and theories" which change.

They do not change they are refined. I think you miss the subtle difference between change and refined[ ment].

Edited by ohreally?, 05 May 2010 - 01:53 PM.

[ohreally?]

Old Guy, on May 5 2010, 09:46 AM, said:

This is a very interesting read.

Robot and ohreally?: I may be wrong (And it wouldn't sruprise me if I am.), but it's starting to sound like you're arguing from the same side of the fence.

Perhaps it's just my ignorance...

"Facts not beliefs determine what is true."

I agree with that up to my earlier point. It doesn't matter how much a scientist believes something to be fact. What matters is what the scientific community can demonstrate to be factual. However, as one who embraces the Christian "faith", I'd prefer to state, "Facts not feelings determine what is true."

Quote

It doesn't matter how much a scientist believes something to be fact.

There's a subtle difference between believes something is true and a science fact. That difference lays within the body of evidence that overwhelmingly points this is at this time the correct interpretation of the evidence, hence it is not a matter of faith, but trust that this evidence is correct and all the hard work associated with that conclusion is also correct. This realization escapes many people. Science facts and science in general is always provisional however.
You have a fundamentally good grasp of science. :-)

[wipsi]

You can't prove a negative..

Aesalon, on Jan 14 2010, 03:16 PM, said:

Reality 101, on Jan 14 2010, 04:04 PM, said:

If Ghost exist how come nobody can prove it?
Millions of people believe ghost exist but nobody can prove it.
There is not even enough evidence to win n a court of law.

If ghost don't exist, why can't anyone prove it?
Millions of people believe that ghosts do not exist, but none of them can prove it.
There is not enough evidence to disprove it in a court of law.

someone once said "the argument from lack of evidence is a lack of argument."

[GHOR]

Reality 101, on Jan 14 2010, 04:04 PM, said:

If Ghost exist how come nobody can prove it?
Millions of people believe ghost exist but nobody can prove it.
There is not even enough evidence to win n a court of law.

Skepticism is a healthy thing to go into paranormal investigations with. Lets get something straight though, skepticism also can be looked upon as ignorance or a unwillingness to believe even when there is some evidence out there that this phenomena may be around.

[duncan36]

Old Guy, on May 2 2010, 11:35 AM, said:

duncan36, on Apr 28 2010, 09:38 PM, said:

The answer to this that spirits dwell in areas with negative energy and require this kind of energy to manifest.

According to whom? How was it measured? Where's the data/report/documentation?

I love it when people make statements like this!

According to almost every culture since the dawn of time. Almost every culture had myths about hades or the underworld. If you will notice in Roman myths people could travel into and out of the underworld without dying. Its obviously an ancient peoples way of telling stories about a certain kind of energy. The stories were flowered up and embellished to try to tell serious observations about life to children.

Edited by duncan36, 22 May 2010 - 10:27 PM.

[Old Guy]

duncan36, on May 22 2010, 09:27 PM, said:

According to almost every culture since the dawn of time. Almost every culture had myths about hades or the underworld. If you will notice in Roman myths people could travel into and out of the underworld without dying. Its obviously an ancient peoples way of telling stories about a certain kind of energy. The stories were flowered up and embellished to try to tell serious observations about life to children.

I'm a Christian, so I know the point you're making. But I'm also a technologist, so I know "ancient peoples" also believed this planet was flat and that everything revolved around it.

Are we still stuck in "dawn of time" thinking?

We can demonstrate conclusively that planet is NOT flat and that the universe does NOT revolve around it. Yet as far as an afterlife goes, with very minor exceptions, we can demonstrate - NOTHING.