Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 2 votes

The Science Delusion


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#16    sepulchrave

sepulchrave

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,823 posts
  • Joined:19 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 30 September 2013 - 12:47 PM

View PostBig Bad Voodoo, on 29 September 2013 - 08:51 PM, said:

I guess we will have to wait Sepulchrave to show up about that speed of light thing.
Sorry, I have never heard of it.

If I had to guess, I would say it was due to the standards of what comprised a ``precision measurement'' changing in 1928 and again in 1945.

The error bars in lots of measurements are from the instrumental error - it is quite possible (although not often explicitly acknowledged) that there might be a large systemic error just based on the way the experiment is conducted.

Remember that the fields of quantum electrodynamics and general relativity were being very actively developed during those years, so it is plausible (in my opinion, anyway) that in 1945 a large systemic error was discovered with the way the speed of light had been previously measured, so a new experimental technique was devised to correct for that error.

I don't know for sure though; it is hard to find documentation on relatively boring things like metrology from that long ago.

---------

I don't have a huge problem with most of Sheldrake's ``dogmas''. I will actually go as far as to agree that they are ``dogmas'', and limit the scope of science.

However I think they are often more reasonable than the alternative... ditch too many of them and you start to go down his silly ``morphic resonance'' path (a giraffe fetus can tap into some universal memory field to figure out how to grow into something as complicated as a giraffe, but individual photons can't remember which slit they passed through? And a new crystal gets easier to grow because of the ``collective memory'' of that crystal, not because of the ``collective experience'' of the scientists and engineers? But it is still very hard to make large high quality diamonds by artificial methods?), where ``everything connects to everything''.

These ``dogmas'' are limiting, but at least they provide a clear path to learning more about a subject.

I do agree with his proposal to make raw metrology data public, though.


#17    StarMountainKid

StarMountainKid

    Cheese

  • Member
  • 4,624 posts
  • Joined:17 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Star Mountain, Corporate States of America

  • We have problems because we stray from what is innocent and pure.

Posted 30 September 2013 - 02:17 PM

Two interesting short criticisms or morphic resonance can be found here:

The Skeptic's Dictionary: http://www.skepdic.com/morphicres.html

Scientific American: http://www.scientifi...perts-resonance

The acceptance of authority does not lead to intelligence.
A mind untouched by thought...the end of knowledge.
To see reality loose your opinions.

#18    Big Bad Voodoo

Big Bad Voodoo

    High priest of Darwinism

  • Member
  • 9,582 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 September 2013 - 02:32 PM

View PostFrank Merton, on 30 September 2013 - 09:56 AM, said:

You'd be amazed the things Newton believed.

That makes his point even weaker! :tu:
But he is not aware of it since he liked your post! He didnt realize your sarcasm!

Sepul, I will post answer ASAP! Duty calls!

Edited by Big Bad Voodoo, 30 September 2013 - 02:39 PM.

JFK: "And we are as a people, inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy..."

#19    Rlyeh

Rlyeh

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,572 posts
  • Joined:01 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Australia

  • Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 30 September 2013 - 06:27 PM

View PostBig Bad Voodoo, on 30 September 2013 - 02:32 PM, said:

That makes his point even weaker! :tu:
But he is not aware of it since he liked your post! He didnt realize your sarcasm!
I fully understood what he said, you on the other hand didn't read or comprehend my response

http://www.unexplain...0


#20    Almagest

Almagest

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 838 posts
  • Joined:16 Mar 2013

Posted 01 October 2013 - 06:23 AM

He's a meta-physicist, not a scientist. I find his ideas somewhat intriguing, but you need more than just intrigue to make a scientific theory.

Heaven and hell suppose two distinct species of men, the good and the bad. But the greatest part of mankind float betwixt vice and virtue. - David Hume

#21    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 14,829 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 01 October 2013 - 06:27 AM

View PostRlyeh, on 30 September 2013 - 06:27 PM, said:

I fully understood what he said, you on the other hand didn't read or comprehend my response

http://www.unexplain...0
Actually I was rather naive and didn't see that I was in effect attacking his point.  It's just that Newton was kinda his own man.


#22    sepulchrave

sepulchrave

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,823 posts
  • Joined:19 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 02 October 2013 - 03:50 AM

View PostFrank Merton, on 01 October 2013 - 06:27 AM, said:

Actually I was rather naive and didn't see that I was in effect attacking his point.  It's just that Newton was kinda his own man.
As an aside, I think it is fair to bring up Newton's... eccentricities... as long as appropriate context is provided.

In my opinion, Newton was crazy.

Einstein was fairly crazy too. As was Schrodinger, and Boltzmann, and Tesla, and Feynman... Many great scientists were somewhat crazy.

However there are two important points that need to be stressed:
  • All of these scientists kept a lid on their craziness until after their theories became accepted, and they became famous. When they started out, nobody knew who they were, and their theories were judged on their own merits. After they became famous, and people started to ask their opinions on this, that, and the other... then their craziness started to show.
  • Just because many genius scientists were crazy doesn't mean that most crazy people are genius scientists.

Prof. Sheldrake seems to be a capable biochemist, but he has not become famous by publishing a revolutionary theory that was judged to be true on its own merits; he has become famous by writing books with attention-grabbing titles and controversial and provocative content.

I personally don't think that Prof. Sheldrake is crazy, but I do think he is following a very calculated approach to maximize his personal fame and notoriety with minimal effort. For example he has been ``working'' on Morphic Resonance since 1981 (or so), but it doesn't seem like he has done much to improve or advance the theory since then - his ``research'' seems to be limited to searching for more anecdotal evidence supporting his vague hypotheses.


#23    Big Bad Voodoo

Big Bad Voodoo

    High priest of Darwinism

  • Member
  • 9,582 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 October 2013 - 07:15 PM

Sepul its har to keep up with your insights. I respect them. But on one thing I dont agree. That Einstein was crazy. Neither Tesla. Sure he have had problems with sleep, insomnia, he have had problems with head. Like when someone say one word he vizualize it. You say apple then he saw apple. But thats just  say how human brain is amazing.
This was result of his father games. From young age in Smiljanovo, reginoal part of Lika, todays Croatia, he would give sons riddles. Or mind games. For example, he would have to guess what his father think off. His brain excercised what other children didnt. Einstein was dreamer. He didnt have ADHD since ADHD doesnt exist at all.

Anyway, what do you say on Sheldrake idea that physical laws also goes trough evolution?
Also I think that in his book about Telepatic pets provide good evidence. Also he provide evidence that person can feel someone stare and about telepathy.
Imho, telepathy is already prooven! Just scientists wont admit it for unknown reasons to me!

JFK: "And we are as a people, inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy..."

#24    Skep B

Skep B

    Savant of Depravity

  • Member
  • 5,471 posts
  • Joined:02 Aug 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Duuuuuuuuuuuude

Posted 02 October 2013 - 11:14 PM

No, Einstein and Tesla were pretty crazy.

Most great men are,

When you know what a man loves, you know what can kill him


#25    sepulchrave

sepulchrave

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,823 posts
  • Joined:19 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 03 October 2013 - 02:52 PM

View PostBig Bad Voodoo, on 02 October 2013 - 07:15 PM, said:

Anyway, what do you say on Sheldrake idea that physical laws also goes trough evolution?
It is not a bad idea, and quite a few reputable scientists are investigating this.

Sheldrake explains the situation in a very juvenile way. It is quite well understood how many observable properties are very sensitive to the "universal constants". The energy levels of atoms are very dependent on the "fine structure constant", for example.

Research by some astronomers may suggest that the fine structure constant has slowly changed over the years (sorry but I don't have a good Internet connection so I can't give you all the appropriate links, but if I recall correctly Wikipedia has a comprehensive article on the subject), so the theory has traction.

Sheldrake's suggestion that the speed of light spontaneously changed by one part in ten thousand and then changed back in a period of 15 years is simply ludicrous. Such a large change would have dramatic and visible consequences, even in ordinary chemical reactions.


#26    Big Bad Voodoo

Big Bad Voodoo

    High priest of Darwinism

  • Member
  • 9,582 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 October 2013 - 08:33 PM

Sepul,
Can you give names of those scientists who study this sucject?

JFK: "And we are as a people, inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy..."

#27    sepulchrave

sepulchrave

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,823 posts
  • Joined:19 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 04 October 2013 - 02:09 AM

View PostBig Bad Voodoo, on 03 October 2013 - 08:33 PM, said:

Sepul,
Can you give names of those scientists who study this sucject?
I don't think I can give a full list, but here are a few:

Prof. John Barrow from Cambridge and Prof. John Webb of UNSW both spring to mind; they recently coauthored an article about whether or not the ``universal constants'' are actually constant in Scientific American. In particular they studied the fine structure constant and believe that it has changed over time, and in different areas of space.

A collection of scientists recently investigated the ratio of the mass of the electron to the mass of the proton and found no detectable changes over a period of 7 billion years (see the article in Science or an article for the general public on space.com). You can see the names and affiliations of these scientists in the Science article.

I don't think the other dimensionless constants are known with enough accuracy to allow these sort of measurements.


#28    Big Bad Voodoo

Big Bad Voodoo

    High priest of Darwinism

  • Member
  • 9,582 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 October 2013 - 08:09 AM

Thanks Sepul. Six page article! Thats article. Thanks again. You were helpfull as always.

JFK: "And we are as a people, inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy..."




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users