Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
macqdor

Attempting 2 merge physics and the paranormal

275 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

esoteric_toad
1 hour ago, stereologist said:

I have pointed out that all theories require consensus, testing, and confirmation.

Most of the latest discussion has been a straw man argument in which someone pretends that finding dissension must mean I am wrong when I am not a defender of any of these theories. It is simply a ludicrous illogical construct.

Even the steady state theory still has adherents today. went to  lecture by one such person. Been to several creationist lectures as well to see what they have to say.

I don't disagree with you. it just seems that I see someone claiming that the string theory is invalidated somehow because one scientist thinks it's no good. just was trying to stay that just because certain scientist don't adhere to a certain theory does not completely invalidate it.

to the best of my knowledge I'm not aware of any scientific theory at all that includes things like poltergeist.unless you throw in some scientific theory that could be in some fantasy novel or science-fiction I suppose.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
macqdor

@esoteric_toad

I posted more than one scientist.  I just doubled down with Roger Penrose towards the end.

My argument was science has it's own uncertainties were theories are concerned.  Their own house cleaning.

If science (or skeptics want to cling to science as if science is infallible) wants to pick on Poltergeist then watch me pick on string theory.

That theory (string) falls flat on its face. Hence why it's still a theory. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
esoteric_toad
Posted (edited)

The issue here is there is no true empirical evidence or study of poltergeist or really anything deemed paranormal. There have been studies though, no denying that. Was there anything of usefulness found? Certainly nothing as Earth shattering as one would expect (of course one could subscribe to some sort of international Illuminati organization covering up but I do like Occams Razor so....)

Ultimately it seems that poltergeist, like most things deemed paranormal, are nothing more than a collection of stories and anecdotes. It is riddled with shoddy research, much of which done with tools that cannot even be proven to test what it is that is being searched for. Then there is the seemingly endless list of hoaxes that at one time may have fooled people and in many cases where likely thought of as more of a type of entertainment rather than anything serious (think tabloids like the weekly world news and the subjects they covered). Most of what I have read about any sort of paranormal (including poltergeist) goings-on leaves virtually no doubt about how easy it would be for the events to be blown out of proportion, open to hoaxing, fulfilling wishful thinking, outright conning gullible people, a form of escapism or simply a fad that changes over time.

Over the thousands of years that mankind has been civilized (and before I am sure) we have believed in many things that have fallen to the side because of science and common sense. Over those many many years belief in the paranormal has always been there and likely always will be. That does not mean it actually exists. Claims of spirits, ghosts, demons, faeries, poltergeist and a myriad of other supernatural beings throughout THOUSANDS of years and yet we still have nothing, only tales. Throughout those same thousands of years we went from hunter gatherers to the technological society we are today. We went from small clans struggling to survive the elements to having a permanent presence in space orbiting the Earth.

In all those thousands of years of surviving and figuring out everything that has gotten us to where we are today people believed in the paranormal. Many people looked into those beliefs and dispelled many of them as well. Science advanced and still those beliefs carried on. So for all those thousands of years we are where we are and yet there is still nothing scientific about anything paranormal to speak of. For those that believe nothing has changed, nothing has advanced and those basic primitive beliefs are still intact (and unproven). 

Incidentally from what I have read the poltergeist problem is easily "cured". Simply invite a few friends to stay with you a while, they never seem to like numbers. Also moving away seems to work well. That and just keep trying to get real evidence, sure they might take things and make them disappear but while you are trying they seem to just b***** off. Invite some close minded skeptics over, they don't seem to tolerate that very well either. Subject them to groups of scientists, that seems to be poltercide to them. 

I've babbled on enough...sorry if it rambled a bit. The whole thing is just silly.

 

Edited by esoteric_toad
Didn't realize that rugger (with a b) was considered all that foul of a word, huh.
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
macqdor

@esoteric_toad

 

You see that's where you get in trouble. You think the poltergeist is suppose to make sense.  Let me tell from my own experience nothing about the poltergeist sense.   The poltergeist is an enigma within an enigma. A riddle inside a sea of riddles.  

Quote

The issue here is there is no true empirical evidence or study of poltergeist or really anything deemed paranormal. There have been studies though, no denying that. Was there anything of usefulness found? Certainly nothing as Earth shattering as one would expect (of course one could subscribe to some sort of international Illuminati organization covering up but I do like Occams Razor so....)

False - there's an abundance of evidence going back ages about the poltergeist i.e. about the phenomena.    Investigators, researchers, house occupants, civil servants, clergy, people from all walks of life have reported instances.     Have seen instances.   We'll have to agree to disagree. I can't help people who purposely avoid studying the phenomena themselves.   The data is their on the net and in organizations. None which you believe are legit so I'm not going to name them.

Occam's razor?  Has no bearing on "geist" phenomena.    

You wanna crash course in poltergeist phenomena?  Study https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment   Matter of fact master em'

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
2 hours ago, esoteric_toad said:

I don't disagree with you. it just seems that I see someone claiming that the string theory is invalidated somehow because one scientist thinks it's no good. just was trying to stay that just because certain scientist don't adhere to a certain theory does not completely invalidate it.

to the best of my knowledge I'm not aware of any scientific theory at all that includes things like poltergeist.unless you throw in some scientific theory that could be in some fantasy novel or science-fiction I suppose.

I agree wholeheartedly with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
2 hours ago, macqdor said:

@esoteric_toad

I posted more than one scientist.  I just doubled down with Roger Penrose towards the end.

My argument was science has it's own uncertainties were theories are concerned.  Their own house cleaning.

If science (or skeptics want to cling to science as if science is infallible) wants to pick on Poltergeist then watch me pick on string theory.

That theory (string) falls flat on its face. Hence why it's still a theory.

Once again you prove that you have no idea what you are talking about. Here you posted "Hence why it's still a theory. "

In science nothing can be better than a theory.

Of course there are uncertainties in science. Otherwise all work would be done.

Your Penrose commentary also showed that you are clueless about science. Penrose's comments were the same sentiment as most of the links I posted.

Go ahead and pick on string theory it makes you look ridiculous. Maybe one day you will  understand the comments of Penrose and others.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
macqdor

My inserting Penrose was the ultimate check mate to your notion that string theory has been proven. It hasnt. It's a 30+ yr old theory that has provided zero evidence to it being real.

So says physicists the world over.  One being Roger Penrose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
40 minutes ago, macqdor said:

@esoteric_toad

 

You see that's where you get in trouble. You think the poltergeist is suppose to make sense.  Let me tell from my own experience nothing about the poltergeist sense.   The poltergeist is an enigma within an enigma. A riddle inside a sea of riddles.  

False - there's an abundance of evidence going back ages about the poltergeist i.e. about the phenomena.    Investigators, researchers, house occupants, civil servants, clergy, people from all walks of life have reported instances.     Have seen instances.   We'll have to agree to disagree. I can't help people who purposely avoid studying the phenomena themselves.   The data is their on the net and in organizations. None which you believe are legit so I'm not going to name them.

Occam's razor?  Has no bearing on "geist" phenomena.    

You wanna crash course in poltergeist phenomena?  Study https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment   Matter of fact master em'

 

There is no evidence for poltergeists. You on the other hand are the promoter of one of the silliest poltergeist stories.

There is no evidence. There are plenty of tall tales, fiction, and hoaxes.

Just to make fun of yourself you go for the uncertainty principle which as we see is

Quote

In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle (also known as Heisenberg's uncertainty principle) is any of a variety of mathematical inequalities[1] asserting a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle, known as complementary variables or canonically conjugate variables such as position x and momentum p, can be known.

It is a mathematically derived property, sort of like string theory.

Here is where the wackos get it wrong

Quote

Historically, the uncertainty principle has been confused[5][6] with a related effect in physics, called the observer effect, which notes that measurements of certain systems cannot be made without affecting the systems, that is, without changing something in a system.

This quantum effect is not the observer effect. It only applies to the microscopic world. It cannot be detected in the macroscopic world.

Then you go to the double slit. What has you confused about that issue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
1 minute ago, macqdor said:

My inserting Penrose was the ultimate check mate to your notion that string theory has been proven. It hasnt. It's a 30+ yr old theory that has provided zero evidence to it being real.

So says physicists the world over.  One being Roger Penrose.

Clueless, just clueless.

First off scientific theories cannot be proven. String theory is a mathematical theory and there is a collection of proved theorems. The question which I have stated since page 2 is that the extent to which string theory reflects reality is unknown.

Can you read?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
macqdor

Zero confusion.  Re read what I said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
onlookerofmayhem
Posted (edited)

 

http://m.nautil.us/issue/47/consciousness/roger-penrose-on-why-consciousness-does-not-compute

"Penrose is an atheist who calls himself “a very materialistic and physicalist kind of person,” and he’s bothered by New Agers who’ve latched onto quantum theories about non-locality and entanglement to prop up their paranormal beliefs."

@macqdor

Edited by onlookerofmayhem
@
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
macqdor

@stereologist

I already debunked your string theory.  U want some more?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

Over 100 posts from me and maqcdor still has no idea what is a theory in science or mathematics.

So let's try a new link and see if anything, anything at all gets through. I doubt it is possible to get through to this closed mind.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/527934/what-scientific-theory

Quote

In science, a theory is a stronger assertion. Typically, it's a claim about the relationship between various facts; a way of providing a concise explanation for what's been observed. The American Museum of Natural History puts it this way: "A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
3 minutes ago, macqdor said:

Zero confusion.  Re read what I said.

You still don't have a clue as to what a scientific theory is.

You just posted that scientific theories can be proven. Absolutely wrong. You are clueless.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
2 minutes ago, macqdor said:

@stereologist

I already debunked your string theory.  U want some more?

You can't. It a mathematical theory. At best you can say it does not reflect reality, but I've been posting that since page 2.

You are still completely clueless.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DingoLingo

@macqdor

I will take your Penrose and double down with Edward Witten

:D

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

You can always spot the lunatics because they turn to things they have no idea what they are talking about and pretend it is related to something they are promoting.

I'm surprised Tesla and entanglement and micro black holes and other malarkey has not been posted.

People have not  clue and they write double slit or uncertainty principle or exclusion principle or whatever. They think they can fool people. The only fool is the one posting things they do not understand.

In the last 2 1/2 pages macdor has posted 5 times proving they are clueless about what a scientific theory is.

Take Penrose. I wrote " Penrose is a mathematician and is pointing out this is math and not science. "

What does Penrose call string theory. He calls it a fashion. What does he mean by that?

Quote

For Penrose, on the other hand, string theory’s "stranglehold on developments in fundamental physics has been stultifying”. He exposes a series of technical holes in the theory, questioning, in the tone of a bemused schoolmaster, why they have not been seriously addressed. The implication is that string theorists are too caught up in following their field’s latest fashions to be worried about the foundational problems of the theory.

He indicates that the mathematics is fashion because it is fashionable to do. He points out that the mathematically correct and beautiful theory is not science.

That's what I wrote. I am agreeing with Penrose. Apparently, reading and comprehending the article is important in being able to discuss it.

Again then it comes to QM and Penrose calls it faith the issue is this:

Quote

For Penrose, quantum mechanics is “faith” because its mathematics uses assumptions that could never really be logically justified – and nobody really understands the theory anyway.

Again, its the mathematics. Once more reading and comprehending the article is important.

And how does all of this end up? Penrose admits he has crazy ideas of his own.

Quote

When Penrose describes a theory as fantastical he is not necessarily being disparaging. As he emphasises, the universe is full of apparently fantastic notions that are demonstrably valid – the Big Bang origin of the universe, for example, or the existence of black holes. Sometimes wild ideas are appropriate; but only when they describe our observations of the universe better than rival theories.

In the final chapter, Penrose indulges to lay out two wild theories of his own. The first, conformal cyclical cosmology, is his self-described “crazy” theory that the universe has no beginning or end; rather it iterates through infinite cycles. The heat death of one universe becomes the Big Bang of the next. Meanwhile “twistor theory” is Penrose’s stab at linking general relativity and quantum mechanics. The “twist” comes from the idea that quantum spin is tied up in spacetime. Though Penrose first suggested the theory in the 1960s, it has seen a surge in interest in recent years.

It is just more reading and comprehending that is required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
macqdor

@DingoLingo

i raise you 

Steven Weinberg.  Three chips/down.

^_^

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
macqdor
Quote

"Penrose is an atheist who calls himself “a very materialistic and physicalist kind of person,” and he’s bothered by New Agers who’ve latched onto quantum theories about non-locality and entanglement to prop up their paranormal beliefs."

Bothered by New Agers?

 

String Theory came out of the 70's and 80's  LOL.  Nice try.

 

 

@onlookerofmayhem

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
onlookerofmayhem
4 minutes ago, macqdor said:

Bothered by New Agers?

 

String Theory came out of the 70's and 80's  LOL.  Nice try.

 

 

@onlookerofmayhem

New Age is a term applied to a range of spiritual or religious beliefs and practices that developed in Western nations during the 1970s.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Age

I was simply pointing out that the man you feel has "disproven" string theory doesn't believe in the paranormal and would like it if adherents of the paranormal didn't use his ideas to promote it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
macqdor

I know that.   @onlookerofmayhem  already.

 

Quote

................................ Of course, it is possible that a final theory will never be found, that neither string theory nor any of the alternatives mentioned by Smolin and Woit will come to anything. Perhaps the most fundamental truth about nature is simply beyond the human intellect, the way that quantum mechanics is beyond the intellect of a dog.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/10/02/unstrung-2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
macqdor
Quote

Yet since string theory became ascendant about three decades ago, “there has not been a single genuine breakthrough in understanding of elementary particle physics.” Not only is string theory rife with malarkey about imperceptible dimensions, Smolin fears, it may be holding back legitimate science. Lee Smolin

Quote

It is imperative, Smolin thinks, to stop talking sci-fi claptrap about alternate universes and get back to figuring out why our own physical world is as we observe. Perhaps Smolin is right that pure-physics breakthroughs are an imperative. Or perhaps stumbling around in the dark will be the physicist’s lot for generations to come—my guess is that we know the first 1 percent of what there is to be known, and it may be centuries before we learn such things as why matter exists. If we ever know.

Quote

The Trouble With String Theory

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
esoteric_toad

It's funny in a twisted way that a physicist that talks about how ridiculous string theory might be, calling it science fiction claptrap is being held up by someone who believes poltergeist cannot be understood by any science at all. Even if string theory doesn't pan out at least there was an atempted to explain the unknown rather than saying it's unknowable.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
macqdor

Just proves science is not the know all be all like you guys make them out to be.

There men just like you and me.  Figuring the Poltergeist requires a new way of thinking. New paradign.

Unlearn what you have learned young Padawans.

Think outside the box, only then will we have chance in figuring the "geist" out.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rashore

Thread closed for moderator review.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.