Attempting 2 merge physics and the paranormal

[macqdor 343]

Oh trust me if u saw what I saw you'd be on here doing the same. Being called the same names.

Be careful what u wish for.

 

U never know .

 

[Habitat 7,237]

Stereologist, your continued participation betrays the fact you do harbour some doubts that there may indeed be something to these reports. And it turns out, those doubts are well founded. I don't take much, if any credit, for knowing it to be true, but I have never tried to obtain proof, and am quite relaxed about having failed to do so.

[stereologist 16,888]

There never seems to be a level too deep for the hoaxers to stoop to.

The simple fact is that science such as physics is based on facts and there are no facts in the world of the paranormal. It is all about lame story telling. The stories are just boring.

You can't reconcile physics where evidence is accumulated on a steady basis with the paranormal in which it is the lamest of story telling.

Stupid stories vs the reality of science. Which should I choose? I'll stick with science and laugh at those telling us they are too incompetent to provide evidence to support their lame and boring fiction.

[stereologist 16,888]

1 minute ago, Habitat said:

Stereologist, your continued participation betrays the fact you do harbour some doubts that there may indeed be something to these reports. And it turns out, those doubts are well founded. I don't take much, if any credit, for knowing it to be true, but I have never tried to obtain proof, and am quite relaxed about having failed to do so.

I am so glad you are happy to have fooled yourself into thinking any of this has merit.  You are a trooper to admit this.

[stereologist 16,888]

So far nothing has been posted which even hints that the paranormal has anything to do with real science let alone physics.

[Habitat 7,237]

I take the view that if it wanted to be on public display, whatever allows these events, would do just that, so there is something about trying to "unmask" it, that I baulk at. It goes against the grain.

[Habitat 7,237]

1 minute ago, stereologist said:

I am so glad you are happy to have fooled yourself into thinking any of this has merit.  You are a trooper to admit this.

It certainly is quite real, but is no ordinary phenomenon. I also tend to think, pretty rare, but that is hard to judge. 

[Habitat 7,237]

I am certain that Stereologist does have a residual suspicion there is something real here, or else he would vacate the thread.

[DingoLingo 2,909]

On 3/18/2019 at 5:42 PM, Horta said:

It would be good if someone were to bring some scientific rigour to this field. It will be interesting to see how this is done though, as generally the entire field consists of large numbers of anecdotes and honest believers amid a sprinkling of charlatans.

Will look forward to his paranormal experiments and resulting papers being submitted to peer reviewed journals, though it seems doubtful that will happen.

 

same.. but for him to get published in a peer review his testing will need to be able to be duplicated by others.. here is how it will play out..

Brian : I have discovered XYZ proving telekinesis is real..

Scientific Community : "laughter"

Brian : this is how I did it.. 

Scientific Community : Sure Sure.. *and points at a undergrad* replicate his tests

Undergrad : why is it I  get stuck with the crap jobs. *mutter mutter mumble mumble* 

from here it will go two ways 

First way

Undergrad : It doesnt work.. 

Scientific Community : Try again.. 

Undergrad tries a few more times with no result.. 

Scientific Community : Ha we knew it.. 

Second Way

Undergrad : Ahhh.. I got the same result.. *and tries the testing a number of times more* b***** me.. he was right..

Undergrad to Scientific Community : He was right..

Scientific Community : Hmm.. lets test it more.. *points at various researchers* replicate the tests

Researchers do the testing..

Brians research is confirmed 

Scientific Community : Well we were wrong.. 

and a new theory is born.. based on testing and facts .. not based on well nothing as the current psuedo science runs off.. 

[DingoLingo 2,909]

On 3/19/2019 at 12:50 AM, macqdor said:

It's a theory.  One out of many.  May be proven true one day. For now it's a theory.  

I know of no scientists that's seen one.

Show me a string lol

show me gravity then.. since that is a theory.. or are you denying there is no gravity? 

[DingoLingo 2,909]

On 3/20/2019 at 3:15 AM, macqdor said:

"geist" outbreak phenomena has been talked about, studied. still is being studied.  The root cause is unknown.  Just because you're stiff and refuse to believe in it doesn't make the phenomena less real.  Poltergeist like most other spiritual related events is personal and discrete.  You'll never see the poltergeist tying up Park Avenue during rush hour traffic but you will see cases of it on every continent, every culture and every time period.  Ask the people who encounter them - the answer they give is the same.

again with that statement.. 

once again.. I will ask the same question.. 

Australia Indigenous Peoples.. oldest continuous culture on the planet.. point out where they record it.. 

you did say on the other thread.. you come over here often.. you have spoken to the elders.. which elders and which tribe? 

[DingoLingo 2,909]

The funniest thing I have with the string theory bit.. is I really do not think macq knows what string theory is trying to do.. 

so will dumb it down for you macq.. make it easier for you to understand..

 

String theory is trying to be the theory of everything.. the way to bridge two established theories.. 

Quantum Mechanics.. the theory of the very very small.. and the Theory of Relativity .. the very very big.. 

Relativity has been proven .. time and time again (your blackhole reference can be found in that macq) and Quantum mechanics the same.. 

but you break down relativity down into the small (quantum) is does not mesh with quantum mechanics.. (again quantum mechanics has been proven as well.. you use it every day) 

what string theory is working on.. is being a way to explain both.. its not fully accepted .. as there are 5 versions of string theory if I remember rightly.. or you can step into M theory which basically explains that all 5 versions of string theory is correct.. each one sees the same thing in a different way.. 

[macqdor 343]

Quote

So far nothing has been posted which even hints that the paranormal has anything to do with real science let alone physics.

@stereologist

 

if that's why you came here. To find evidence that the paranormal is real then you set yourself up for fail.   sorry for breaking the bad news 2 you.

[macqdor 343]

Quote

show me gravity then.. since that is a theory.. or are you denying there is no gravity? 

show me strings and I'll promise I'll show you gravity.

Gravity is not called gravity theory. String theory is called string theory because its a theory.  Its not fact.  It hasn't been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Its a fancy for speculation.    

@DingoLingo

Edited March 23 by macqdor

[onlookerofmayhem 1,777]

1 hour ago, macqdor said:

show me strings and I'll promise I'll show you gravity.

Gravity is not called gravity theory. String theory is called string theory because its a theory.  Its not fact.  It hasn't been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Its a fancy for speculation.    

@DingoLingo

https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/evolution-today/what-is-a-theory

In everyday use, the word "theory" often means an untested hunch, or a guess without supporting evidence. But for scientists, a theory has nearly the opposite meaning. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts. The theory of gravitation, for instance, explains why apples fall from trees and astronauts float in space. Similarly, the theory of evolution explains why so many plants and animals--some very similar and some very different--exist on Earth now and in the past, as revealed by the fossil record.

[macqdor 343]

Wow you guys are really reaching with this string theory. 

[macqdor 343]

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

https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/this-is-why-physicists-think-string-theory-might-be-our-theory-of-everything-d4a653e15bf9

Theory, unproven.

It's a framework with great possibilities if ever proven true.

@DingoLingo

[DingoLingo 2,909]

3 hours ago, macqdor said:

show me strings and I'll promise I'll show you gravity.

Gravity is not called gravity theory. String theory is called string theory because its a theory.  Its not fact.  It hasn't been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Its a fancy for speculation.    

@DingoLingo

Gravity is most accurately described by the generaltheory of relativity (proposed by Albert Einstein in 1915) which describes gravity not as a force, but as a consequence of the curvature of spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass.

 

opps on your part again..  because well.. its still a theory like string theory

Edited March 23 by DingoLingo

[DingoLingo 2,909]

2 hours ago, macqdor said:

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

https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/this-is-why-physicists-think-string-theory-might-be-our-theory-of-everything-d4a653e15bf9

Theory, unproven.

It's a framework with great possibilities if ever proven true.

@DingoLingo

oh I know *grins* if you want to talk string theory feel free.. 

actually if you are interested in string theory.. I recommend Brian Green.. he is a good place to start with.. actually puts it into laymens terms for people.. rather enjoy his shows.. 

and if your interested in quantum .. I recommend you look at Richard Feynman's lectures.. you can find them on youtube.. well worth the watch.. he really had a way of explaining it all.. though the main lectures the Cornell ones.. has a annoying bells ringing at the begining.. the audio is a bit muffled at times.. but considering they were recorded back in the early 60's.. I am really hoping someone will clean them up a bit.. even with headphones at times I find it hard to hear some of the things he says.. (joys of industrial deafness) 

[Horta 2,642]

5 hours ago, macqdor said:

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

https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/this-is-why-physicists-think-string-theory-might-be-our-theory-of-everything-d4a653e15bf9

Theory, unproven.

It's a framework with great possibilities if ever proven true.

It's basic to science that theories aren't "proven", because they must  be inherently falsifiable. The word "proven" itself is a bit irrelevant in this context, it' a subjective term and means different things to different people.

A theory is really an accepted (by consensus) explanation for something. To get to that point though, it has to withstand an awful lot of scrutiny from people who are highly trained in the relevant field of study.

As to string theory, while I have heard physicists wonder whether it really should even be an accepted theory, it's a bit of a stretch to compare it to paranormal things like telekinesis.

Though I don't doubt people wholeheartedly believe they experience weird things that they believe are paranormal, but it's the explanation for these experiences that most skeptics will differ on. The paranormal explanation doesn't seem to have much to support it, so most skeptics will either go with more likely mundane explanations or simply consider it unexplained. This doesn't mean they think people are simply lying (although that does happen), it means they won't necessarily accept peoples interpretation and explanation of these experiences, simply because they believe it themselves.

[stereologist 16,888]

9 hours ago, Habitat said:

I am certain that Stereologist does have a residual suspicion there is something real here, or else he would vacate the thread.

That is as bad an idea as any tossed out here.

The issue is that there is no evidence for any of this and that leaves the issue unresolved. For me to have a suspicion that something is real would require some evidence and there is none.

I have heard a pile of excuses as to why there is none. You recently suggested that the phenomenon is rare. That might be the case. There are plenty of rare things that do turn up evidence and can be studied.

[stereologist 16,888]

7 hours ago, macqdor said:

@stereologist

 

if that's why you came here. To find evidence that the paranormal is real then you set yourself up for fail.   sorry for breaking the bad news 2 you.

More sad excuses from someone promoting a hoax for financial gain. Sad, sad, sad.

[stereologist 16,888]

7 hours ago, macqdor said:

show me strings and I'll promise I'll show you gravity.

Gravity is not called gravity theory. String theory is called string theory because its a theory.  Its not fact.  It hasn't been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Its a fancy for speculation.    

@DingoLingo

Once again you show that you do not know what a fact and theory are i n science. Guess we can go over this AGAIN!

Theories in science explain facts. A theory cannot be a fact. It explains facts. There is a theory of gravity. There is the theory of relativity.

Quote

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.[3]

The meaning of the term scientific theory (often contracted to theory for brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of theory.[4][Note 1] In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess,[4] whereas in science it describes an explanation that has been tested and widely accepted as valid.

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

Quote

Although Newton's theory has been superseded by Einstein's general relativity, most modern non-relativistic gravitational calculations are still made using Newton's theory because it is simpler to work with and it gives sufficiently accurate results for most applications involving sufficiently small masses, speeds and energies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Newton's_theory_of_gravitation

[stereologist 16,888]

6 hours ago, macqdor said:

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

https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/this-is-why-physicists-think-string-theory-might-be-our-theory-of-everything-d4a653e15bf9

Theory, unproven.

It's a framework with great possibilities if ever proven true.

@DingoLingo

Theories in science are never proven. Been over that too.

Take the time to learn you seem to be quite close minded about these issues.

[macqdor 343]

Some theories in science are.

Lots matter of fact. @stereologist