Attempting 2 merge physics and the paranormal

[Habitat]

7 hours ago, stereologist said:

Why would anyone think there has to be a cabal of liars and fabricators?

People have all sorts of ideas and explanations for things they do not understand. Sometimes they come up with ideas based on what they wish were true. They come up with ideas and explanations that are acceptable in their minds even if there is evidence against their explanation. People come up with explanations when there is no evidence to support anything they say.

Which does not include those of sober mind who have every reason to believe they have witnessed what is clearly inexplicable, sometimes repeatedly, but it doesn't leave the kind of evidence that can be used to prove it happened, to others. You are firmly lodged in the presumption that people are either mistaken or lying, but not quite set in concrete, or you would not argue it ! It is of little interest, to bang on about a subject we know is void of any reality, like, say, lucky rabbit's feet ! They were not too lucky for the rabbits, so case closed !

[stereologist]

14 minutes ago, Coil said:

There are invisible threads that connect each object with other objects like webs and spiritual people saw them, and science indirectly groped them. And if one person does something wrong, then it spreads through invisible channels to all sides and can infect others.

 

Any evidence for that or is this another tall tale?

[stereologist]

6 hours ago, macqdor said:

STOP THE PRESS

A scientific theory can't be proven to be true?  Uh huh!

Neither can a poltergeist by scientific means   ;-)

Gotcha, you walked right into that one.    Thanks for playing............................................................

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

have a nice day !

@stereologist

That's no surprise to  anyone with any basic knowledge of science. Scientific theories cannot be proven. There can be great certainty tht they are correct, but cannot be proven. Mathematical theories are composed of proofs.

There is no gotcha. You seem to be revealing further ignorance here.

The problem with this poltergeist issue is that there is  no evidence. Scientific theories are based on evidence called facts. There are no facts when it comes to this poltergeist story telling.

Maybe one day you will learn some basic ideas as to how science works. In the meantime your floundering is amusing.

 

I see you were able to quote a section about string theory that supports everything I stated. Well done. Thanks for showing how incorrect you are. Maybe there  is a chance you will learn as you find out more about science and how science works.

Edited March 19, 2019 by stereologist

[stereologist]

2 hours ago, Habitat said:

Which does not include those of sober mind who have every reason to believe they have witnessed what is clearly inexplicable, sometimes repeatedly, but it doesn't leave the kind of evidence that can be used to prove it happened, to others. You are firmly lodged in the presumption that people are either mistaken or lying, but not quite set in concrete, or you would not argue it ! It is of little interest, to bang on about a subject we know is void of any reality, like, say, lucky rabbit's feet ! They were not too lucky for the rabbits, so case closed !

Just because someone doesn't understand what they saw does not mean that it  is anything special.

This notion of excuses keeps coming up doesn't it.

You are mired in the muck of thinking that the failure of people to understand what they experience makes for something special.

The simple fact is that there is no evidence. Plenty of stories exist, but every researched case has led to zero evidence and instead to showing there are no poltergeists

[stereologist]

The one nice thing about this thread is that the quantum flapdoodle has gone away.

[Habitat]

2 minutes ago, stereologist said:

You are mired in the muck of thinking that the failure of people to understand what they experience makes for something special.

The simple fact is that there is no evidence.

For me, there has been an abundance of convincing evidence, if it is not "open source" for the inspection of the masses, as it seemingly is, there isn't much I can do about that.

[stereologist]

1 minute ago, Habitat said:

For me, there has been an abundance of convincing evidence, if it is not "open source" for the inspection of the masses, as it seemingly is, there isn't much I can do about that.

Thanks for yet another excuse.

 

Keep them rolling.

[macqdor]

There's more evidence on the poltergeist phenomena than there is on string theory. 

not even close.

@stereologist

[Coil]

13 hours ago, stereologist said:

Any evidence for that or is this another tall tale?

first case:

*snip*

second case:

http://www.e-reading.club/chapter.php/28596/89/Kolpakidi_-_Okkul'tnye_sily_SSSR.html

 

Edited March 19, 2019 by Saru
Please avoid copy+pasting large amounts of material on the forums and always include a source link, thank you.

[macqdor]

Wow good stuff. Great accounts of Poltergeist phenomena 

 

Thanks for sharing. 

@Coil

@papageorge1

[stereologist]

10 hours ago, macqdor said:

There's more evidence on the poltergeist phenomena than there is on string theory. 

not even close.

@stereologist

There is zero evidence for poltergeists.

There is plenty of evidence for string theory. You fail again.

I've posted evidence for string theory and you've posted no evidence for poltergeists. You fail again.

[stereologist]

All there are stories. That's not evidence. That's story telling.

 

 

[macqdor]

String theory is a theory. One concept i.e. theory out of many on the Universe works.   It is not fact.  it's simply theory.

If it was fact, you would present me with a picture of it. Show me the strings?   Not an equation?  Not conjecture. Show me the actual strings, etc

Webster - a cosmological theory based on the existence of cosmic strings.  

Its theoretical. Speculation at best

 

Quote

It's one of the most brilliant, controversial and unproven ideas in all of physics: string theory. 

check-mate (My King just took your Queen)

"brilliant....but unproven."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/05/31/this-is-why-physicists-think-string-theory-might-be-our-theory-of-everything/#19e3818958c2

 

@stereologist

[stereologist]

7 minutes ago, macqdor said:

String theory is a theory. One concept i.e. theory out of many on the Universe works.   It is not fact.  it's simply theory.

If it was fact, you would present me with a picture of it. Show me the strings?   Not an equation?  Not conjecture. Show me the actual strings, etc

Webster - a cosmological theory based on the existence of cosmic strings.  

Its theoretical. Speculation at best

 

check-mate (My King just took your Queen)

"brilliant....but unproven."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/05/31/this-is-why-physicists-think-string-theory-might-be-our-theory-of-everything/#19e3818958c2

 

@stereologist

You once again show you have no idea what a mathematical theory is, nor a scientific theory.

Theories are not facts in science. Theories explain facts. For you to suggest a theory is not fact is hysterical. You need to learn before continuing to boast your lack of education.

String theory is a mathematical framework. You posted that from the wikipedia. Didn't you have even a tiny bit of understanding of what you posted? Apparently the answer is a loud NO.

YOu are confusing a mathematical theory, this framework called string theory with a science theory. I've already posted extensive information showing you the difference. It is not sinking in, not even a teeny weeny bit.

A theory in science in not speculation. That is the way the word is used in the vernacular.

You really are beyond clueless.

 

[stereologist]

When I think of fumbling bumpkins I think of remote viewers. Here is a real flop: Ingo Swann.

https://badufos.blogspot.com/2013/02/ingo-swann-1933-2013-psychic-astronaut.html

Quote

Philip J. Klass sent Sagan a copy of this National Enquirer article - Sagan's reply is above. He calls the results "dreadful - sort of vague remembrances of sixth-grade general science." In the "little book" to which he refers, Sagan writes of "two courageous American mystics" who made an "astral projection" trip to Jupiter. "If their reports had been submitted in my elementary astronomy course, they would have received grades of "D" .... they were filled with the most obvious misunderstandings both about Jupiter and about Pioneer 10."

It's simply hilarious. The sad part is that Swann had a better understanding of science than Macqdor who has none.

Quote

Swann tells how he first established an ESP connection with one of his houseplants, asking it what was wrong when it was not doing well. The plant replied by projecting mental images to him.

OMG, that's funny. 

If it's not telepathic plants then it's poltergeists. It's a joke a second with this crowd.

[macqdor]

Quote

Theories are not facts in science. Theories explain facts. For you to suggest a theory is not fact is hysterical. You need to learn before continuing to boast your lack of education.

String theory is a mathematical framework. You posted that from the wikipedia. Didn't you have even a tiny bit of understanding of what you posted? Apparently the answer is a loud NO.

YOu are confusing a mathematical theory, this framework called string theory with a science theory. I've already posted extensive information showing you the difference. It is not sinking in, not even a teeny weeny bit.

A theory in science in not speculation. That is the way the word is used in the vernacular.

You really are beyond clueless.

String hasn't been proven.  It's a theory. You can defend it till the cow comes home. its one theory out of many in Physics.

don't debate me. I'm quoting other scientists.

https://www.realclearscience.com/video/2018/12/21/why_string_theory_is_wrong.html

https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2012/03/whats-wrong-with-string-theory.html

Quote

In short, a new theory needs to be able to explain data that an old theory cannot. So far, this hasn't been the case with string theory.

Like I said one theory out of many

 

people have lived through and experienced poltergeist.

I have yet to experience string theory?   ;-)

 

 

[stereologist]

18 minutes ago, macqdor said:

String hasn't been proven.  It's a theory. You can defend it till the cow comes home. its one theory out of many in Physics.

don't debate me. I'm quoting other scientists.

https://www.realclearscience.com/video/2018/12/21/why_string_theory_is_wrong.html

https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2012/03/whats-wrong-with-string-theory.html

Like I said one theory out of many

 

people have lived through and experienced poltergeist.

I have yet to experience string theory?   ;-)

 

 

String theory is a mathematical theory. That makes it collection of theorems that have been proved. The question as I have pointed out from the beginning is how well string theory reflects reality. Let me get my quote to show you.

Here it is:

Quote

Yes you are. String theory is a mathematical construct that is used to test problems. No one really knows how well it matches reality.

I have not been defending string theory except to state that there is more evidence for string theory than there is for poltergeists. 

No you are not quoting other scientists. You are showing how you do not understand the meaning of theory in mathematics and science.

What you probably did not do is to listen to the video. You saw a headline and went with it. That is your level of thinking. The issue is that the elegance of string theory does not mean it is correct. That is the topic of the first video. There is another video that is titled "Why String Theory is Right". 

People have told stories of poltergeists and nothing more. There is no evidence that people have experienced poltergeists.

Each day and each action you experience strings if strings are correct. Typing on the keyboard and you experience strings. Reading the screen you are dealing with strings. You breath, eat, think, and all are the result of strings. When you say "I have yet to experience string theory" it simply reveals your lack of understanding of the subject.

 

[macqdor]

I disagree.  As do a lot of other people. Those who've experienced "geist" activity especially. 

To each his own.

 

 

 

[stereologist]

9 minutes ago, macqdor said:

I disagree.  As do a lot of other people. Those who've experienced "geist" activity especially. 

To each his own

No evidence and lots of stories.

 

 

 

[Piney]

1 hour ago, stereologist said:

Quote

Swann tells how he first established an ESP connection with one of his houseplants, asking it what was wrong when it was not doing well. The plant replied by projecting mental images to him.

 

  NO WAY!!!!! 

[stereologist]

1 minute ago, Piney said:

  NO WAY!!!!! 

I read that and I said to myself, "This is as plausible as psychic claims get"

[stereologist]

Here is the darling of remote viewing again. This is about Ingo Swann

Quote

They hooked the polygraph to a philodendron, but had poor results because, according to Swann, the plant was too strong-minded. They later tried hooking the equipment up to a piece of "rubberized graphite." They found it had no mind at all, but Swann gave himself headaches trying to communicate with it, anyway.

https://badufos.blogspot.com/2013/02/ingo-swann-1933-2013-psychic-astronaut.html

[Minimalists]

9 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Here is the darling of remote viewing again. This is about Ingo Swann

https://badufos.blogspot.com/2013/02/ingo-swann-1933-2013-psychic-astronaut.html

You know what's odd Stereo? The link is to Robert Sheaffer's blog, Bad UFOs is the title of a book he wrote. Which I have..I see all the lashing out at skeptics yet a skeptics blog is used for evidence.

[macqdor]

@stereologist

No less evidence than string "theory."

[stereologist]

6 minutes ago, macqdor said:

@stereologist

No less evidence than string "theory."

Zero is much less than the evidence for string theory.

Your use of quotations around the word theory continues to tell me you have not figured out the meaning of the word in mathematics or science.