Zen...and the art of Debunkery
Andreas Klokkaris
by Daniel Drasin of www.planetarymysteries.com
(C) 1993 All rights reserved.
May not be reproduced commercially without permission.
May be posted electronically provided that it is reproduced unaltered and in
its entirety, and made available without charge.
So you've had a close encounter with a UFO or its occupants. Or a serious
interest in the subject of extramundane life. Or a passion for following
clues that seem to point toward the existence of a greater reality. Mention
any of these things to most working scientists and be prepared for anything
from patronizing skepticism to merciless ridicule. After all, science is
supposed to be a purely hardnosed enterprise with little patience for
"expanded" notions of reality. Right?
Wrong.
Like all systems of truth seeking, science, properly conducted, has a
profoundly expansive, spiritual impulse at its core. This "Zen" in the heart
of science is revealed when the practitioner sets aside arbitrary beliefs
and cultural preconceptions, and approaches the nature of things with
"beginner's mind." When this is done, reality can speak freshly and freely,
and can be heard more clearly. Appropriate testing and objective validation
can--indeed, *must*-- come later.
Seeing with humility, curiosity and fresh eyes was once the main point of
science. But today it is often a different story. As the scientific
enterprise has been bent toward exploitation, institutionalization,
hyperspecialization and new orthodoxy, it has increasingly preoccupied
itself with disconnected facts in a spiritual, psychological, social and
ecological vacuum. Virtually gone from the scene is the philosopher
scientist, to whom meaning and context were once the very fabric of a
multi-level universe. Today's mainstream science tends, instead, to deny or
disregard entire domains of reality, and satisfies itself with reducing all
of life and consciousness to a dead physics.
As we approach the end of the millennium, science seems in many ways to be
treading the weary path of the religions it presumed to replace. Where free,
dispassionate inquiry once reigned, emotions now run high in the defense of
a fundamentalized "scientific truth." As anomalies mount up beneath a sea of
denial, defenders of the Faith and the Kingdom cling with increasing self-
righteousness to the hull of a sinking paradigm. Faced with provocative
evidence of things undreamt of in their materialist philosophy, many
otherwise mature scientists revert to a kind of skeptical infantilism
characterized by blind faith in the absoluteness of the familiar. Small
wonder that, after more than half a century, the UFO remains shrouded in
superstition, ignorance, denial, disinformation, taboo . . . and debunkery.
What is "debunkery?" As intended here, it is the attempt to *debunk*
(invalidate) new information and insight by substituting scient*istic*
propaganda for scient*ific* method.
To throw this kind of pseudoscientific behavior into bold--if somewhat
comic--relief, I have assembled below a useful "how-to" guide for aspiring
debunkers, with a special section devoted to debunking the UFO--perhaps the
most aggressively debunked subject in the whole of modern history. As will
be obvious to the reader, I have carried a few of these debunking strategies
over the threshold of absurdity for the sake of making a point. As for the
rest, their inherently fallacious reasoning, twisted logic and sheer
goofiness will sound frustratingly familiar to those who have dared explore
beneath the ocean of denial and attempted in good faith to report back about
what they found there.
So without further ado . . .
HOW TO DEBUNK JUST ABOUT ANYTHING
PART 1: GENERAL DEBUNKERY
Before commencing to debunk, prepare your equipment. Equipment needed: one
armchair.
Put on the right face. Cultivate a condescending air that suggests that your
personal opinions are backed by the full faith and credit of God. Employ
vague, subjective, dismissive terms such as "ridiculous" or "trivial" in a
manner that suggests they have the full force of scientific authority.
Portray science not as an open-ended process of discovery but as a holy war
against unruly hordes of quackery-worshipping infidels. Since in war the
ends justify the means, you may fudge, stretch or violate scientific method,
or even omit it entirely, in the name of defending scientific method.
Keep your arguments as abstract and theoretical as possible. This will "send
the message" that accepted theory overrides any actual evidence that might
challenge it--and that therefore no such evidence is worth examining.
Reinforce the popular misconception that certain subjects are inherently
unscientific. In other words, deliberately confuse the *process* of science
with the *content* of science. (Someone may, of course, object that science
must be neutral to subject matter and that only the investigative *process*
can be scientifically responsible or irresponsible. If that happens, dismiss
such objections using a method employed successfully by generations of
politicians: simply reassure everyone that "there is no contradiction
here.")
Arrange to have your message echoed by persons of authority. The degree to
which you can stretch the truth is directly proportional to the prestige of
your mouthpiece.
Always refer to unorthodox statements as "claims," which are "touted," and
to your own assertions as "facts," which are "stated."
Avoid examining the actual evidence. This allows you to say with impunity,
"I have seen absolutely no evidence to support such ridiculous claims!"
(Note that this technique has withstood the test of time, and dates back at
least to the age of Galileo. By simply refusing to look through his
telescope, the ecclesiastical authorities bought the Church over three
centuries' worth of denial free and clear!)
If examining the evidence becomes unavoidable, report back that "there is
nothing new here!" If confronted by a watertight body of evidence that has
survived the most rigorous tests, simply dismiss it as being "too pat."
Equate the necessary skeptical component of science with *all* of science.
Emphasize the narrow, stringent, rigorous and critical elements of science
to the exclusion of intuition, inspiration, exploration and integration. If
anyone objects, accuse them of viewing science in exclusively fuzzy,
subjective or metaphysical terms.
Insist that the progress of science depends on explaining the unknown in
terms of the known. In other words, science equals reductionism. You can
apply the reductionist approach in any situation by discarding more and more
and more evidence until what little is left can finally be explained
entirely in terms of established knowledge.
Downplay the fact that free inquiry, legitimate disagreement and respectful
debate are a normal part of science.
At every opportunity reinforce the notion that what is familiar is
necessarily rational. The unfamiliar is therefore irrational, and
consequently inadmissible as evidence.
State categorically that the unconventional arises exclusively from the
"will to believe" and may be dismissed as, at best, an honest
misinterpretation of the conventional.
Maintain that in investigations of unconventional phenomena, a single flaw
invalidates the whole. In conventional contexts, however, you may sagely
remind the world that, "after all, situations are complex and human beings
are imperfect."
"Occam's Razor," or the "principle of parsimony," says the correct
explanation of a mystery will usually involve the simplest fundamental
principles. Insist, therefore, that the most familiar explanation is by
definition the simplest! Imply strongly that Occam's Razor is not merely a
philosophical rule of thumb but an immutable law.
Discourage any study of history that may reveal today's dogma as yesterday's
heresy. Likewise, avoid discussing the many historical, philosophical and
spiritual parallels between science and democracy.
Since the public tends to be unclear about the distinction between evidence
and proof, do your best to help maintain this murkiness. If absolute proof
is lacking, state categorically that there is no evidence.
If sufficient evidence has been presented to warrant further investigation
of an unusual phenomenon, argue that "evidence alone proves nothing!" Ignore
the fact that preliminary evidence is not supposed to prove *anything*.
In any case, imply that proof precedes evidence. This will eliminate the
possibility of initiating any meaningful process of
investigation--particularly if no criteria of proof have yet been
established for the phenomenon in question.
Insist that criteria of proof cannot possibly be established for phenomena
that do not exist!
Although science is not supposed to tolerate vague or double standards,
always insist that unconventional phenomena must be judged by a separate,
yet ill-defined, set of scientific rules. Do this by declaring that
"extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence"--but take care never to
define where the "ordinary" ends and the "extraordinary" begins. This will
allow you to manufacture an infinitely receding evidential horizon, i.e., to
define "extraordinary" evidence as that which lies just out of reach at any
point in time.
Practice debunkery-by-association. Lump together all phenomena popularly
deemed paranormal and suggest that their proponents and researchers speak
with a single voice. In this way you can indiscriminately drag material
across disciplinary lines or from one case to another to support your views
as needed. For example, if a claim having some superficial similarity to the
one at hand has been (or is popularly assumed to have been) exposed as
fraudulent, cite it as if it were an appropriate example. Then put on a
gloating smile, lean back in your armchair and just say "I rest my case."
Use the word "imagination" as an epithet that applies only to seeing what's
*not* there, and not to denying what *is* there.
If a significant number of people agree that they have observed something
that violates the consensus reality, simply ascribe it to "mass
hallucination." Avoid addressing the possibility that the consensus reality,
which is routinely observed by millions, might itself constitute a mass
hallucination.
Ridicule, ridicule, ridicule. It is far and away the single most chillingly
effective weapon in the war against discovery and innovation. Ridicule has
the unique power to make people of virtually any persuasion go completely
unconscious in a twinkling. It fails to sway only those few who are of
sufficiently independent mind not to buy into the kind of emotional
consensus that ridicule provides.
By appropriate innuendo and example, imply that ridicule constitutes an
essential feature of scientific method that can raise the level of
objectivity, integrity and dispassionateness with which any investigation is
conducted.
Imply that investigators of the unorthodox are zealots. Suggest that in
order to investigate the existence of something one must first believe in it
absolutely. Then demand that all such "true believers" know all the answers
to their most puzzling questions in complete detail ahead of time. Convince
people of your own sincerity by reassuring them that you yourself would
"love to believe in these fantastic phenomena." Carefully sidestep the fact
that science is not about believing or disbelieving, but about finding out.
Use "smoke and mirrors," i.e., obfuscation and illusion. Never forget that a
slippery mixture of fact, opinion, innuendo, out- of-context information and
outright lies will fool most of the people most of the time. As little as
one part fact to ten parts B.S. will usually do the trick. (Some veteran
debunkers use homeopathic dilutions of fact with remarkable success!)
Cultivate the art of slipping back and forth between fact and fiction so
undetectably that the flimsiest foundation of truth will always appear to
firmly support your entire edifice of opinion.
Employ "TCP": Technically Correct Pseudo-refutation. Example: if someone
remarks that all great truths began as blasphemies, respond immediately that
not all blasphemies have become great truths. Because your response was
technically correct, no one will notice that it did not really refute the
original remark.
Trivialize the case by trivializing the entire field in question.
Characterize the study of orthodox phenomena as deep and timeconsuming,
while deeming that of unorthodox phenomena so insubstantial as to demand
nothing more than a scan of the tabloids. If pressed on this, simply say
"but there's nothing there to study!" Characterize any serious investigator
of the unorthodox as a "buff" or "freak," or as "self-styled"-the media's
favorite code-word for "bogus."
Remember that most people do not have sufficient time or expertise for
careful discrimination, and tend to accept or reject the whole of an
unfamiliar situation. So discredit the whole story by attempting to
discredit *part* of the story. Here's how: a) take one element of a case
completely out of context; b) find something prosaic that hypothetically
could explain it; c) declare that therefore that one element has been
explained; d) call a press conference and announce to the world that the
entire case has been explained!
Engage the services of a professional stage magician who can mimic the
phenomenon in question; for example, ESP, psychokinesis or levitation. This
will convince the public that the original claimants or witnesses to such
phenomena must themselves have been (or been fooled by) talented stage
magicians who hoaxed the original phenomenon in precisely the same way.
Find a prosaic phenomenon that resembles, no matter how superficially, the
claimed phenomenon. Then suggest that the existence of the commonplace
look-alike somehow forbids the existence of the genuine article. For
example, imply that since people often see "faces" in rocks and clouds, the
enigmatic Face on Mars must be a similar illusion and therefore cannot
possibly be artificial.
When an unexplained phenomenon demonstrates evidence of intelligence (as in
the case of the mysterious crop circles) focus exclusively on the mechanism
that might have been wielded by the intelligence rather than the
intelligence that might have wielded the mechanism. The more attention you
devote to the mechanism, the more easily you can distract people from
considering the possibility of nonphysical or nonterrestrial intelligence.
Accuse investigators of unusual phenomena of believing in "invisible forces
and extrasensory realities." If they should point out that the physical
sciences have *always* dealt with invisible forces and extrasensory
realities (gravity? electromagnetism? . . . ) respond with a condescending
chuckle that this is "a naive interpretation of the facts."
Insist that western science is completely objective, and is based on no
untestable assumptions, covert beliefs or ideological interests. If an
unfamiliar or inexplicable phenomenon happens to be considered true and/or
useful by a nonwestern or other traditional society, you may therefore
dismiss it out of hand as "ignorant misconception," "medieval superstition"
or "fairy lore."
Label any poorly-understood phenomenon "occult," "paranormal,"
"metaphysical," "mystical" or "supernatural." This will get most mainstream
scientists off the case immediately on purely emotional grounds. If you're
lucky, this may delay any responsible investigation of such phenomena by
decades or even centuries!
Ask questions that appear to contain generally-assumed knowledge that
supports your views; for example, "why do no police officers, military
pilots, air traffic controllers or psychiatrists report UFOs?" (If someone
points out that they do, insist that those who do must be mentally
unstable.)
Ask unanswerable questions based on arbitrary criteria of proof. For
example, "if this claim were true, why haven't we seen it on TV?" or "in
this or that scientific journal?" Never forget the mother of all such
questions: "If UFOs are extraterrestrial, why haven't they landed on the
White House lawn?"
Remember that you can easily appear to refute anyone's claims by building
"straw men" to demolish. One way to do this is to misquote them while
preserving that convincing grain of truth; for example, by acting as if they
have intended the extreme of any position they've taken. Another effective
strategy with a long history of success is simply to misreplicate their
experiments--or to avoid replicating them at all on grounds that to do so
would be ridiculous or fruitless. To make the whole process even easier,
respond not to their actual claims but to their claims as reported by the
media, or as propagated in popular myth.
Insist that such-and-such unorthodox claim is not scientifically testable
because no self-respecting grantmaking organization would fund such
ridiculous tests.
Be selective. For example, if an unorthodox healing method has failed to
reverse a case of terminal illness you may deem it worthless, while taking
care to avoid mentioning any of the shortcomings of conventional medicine.
Hold claimants responsible for the production values and editorial policies
of any media or press that reports their claim. If an unusual or
inexplicable event is reported in a sensationalized manner, hold this as
proof that the event itself must have been without substance or worth.
When a witness or claimant states something in a manner that is
scientifically imperfect, treat this as if it were not scientific at all. If
the claimant is not a credentialed scientist, argue that his or her
perceptions cannot possibly be objective.
If you're unable to attack the facts of the case, attack the
participants--or the journalists who reported the case. Ad-hominem
arguments, or personality attacks, are among the most powerful ways of
swaying the public and avoiding the issue. For example, if investigators of
the unorthodox have profited financially from activities connected with
their research, accuse them of "profiting financially from activities
connected with their research!" If their research, publishing, speaking
tours and so forth, constitute their normal line of work or sole means of
support, hold that fact as "conclusive proof that income is being realized
from such activities!" If they have labored to achieve public recognition
for their work, you may safely characterize them as "publicity seekers."
Fabricate supportive expertise as needed by quoting the opinions of those in
fields popularly assumed to include the necessary knowledge. Astronomers,
for example, may be trotted out as experts on the UFO question, although
course credits in ufology have never been a prerequisite for a degree in
astronomy.
Fabricate confessions. If a phenomenon stubbornly refuses to go away, set up
a couple of colorful old geezers to claim they hoaxed it. The press and the
public will always tend to view confessions as sincerely motivated, and will
promptly abandon their critical faculties. After all, nobody wants to appear
to lack compassion for self-confessed sinners.
Fabricate sources of disinformation. Claim that you've "found the person who
started the rumor that such a phenomenon exists!"
Fabricate entire research projects. Declare that "these claims have been
thoroughly discredited by the top experts in the field!" Do this whether or
not such experts have ever actually studied the claims, or, for that matter,
even exist.
PART 2: DEBUNKING THE UFO
Point out that an "unidentified" flying object is just that, and cannot be
automatically assumed to be extraterrestrial. Do this whether or not anyone
involved *has* assumed it to be extraterrestrial.
Equate nature's laws with our current understanding of nature's laws. Then
label all concepts such as antigravity or interdimensional mobility as mere
flights of fancy "because obviously they would violate nature's laws." Then
if a UFO is reported to have hovered silently, made right-angle turns at
supersonic speeds or appeared and disappeared instantly, you may summarily
dismiss the report.
Declare that there is no proof that life can exist in outer space. Since
most people still behave as if the Earth were the center of the universe,
you may safely ignore the fact that Earth, which is already in outer space,
has abundant life.
Point out that the government-sponsored SETI program assumes in advance that
extraterrestrial intelligence can only exist light-years away from Earth.
Equate this a-priori assumption with conclusive proof; then insist that this
invalidates all terrestrial reports of ET contact.
When someone produces purported physical evidence of alien technology, point
out that no analysis can prove that its origin was extraterrestrial; after
all, it might be the product of some perfectly ordinary, ultra-secret
underground government lab. The only exception would be evidence obtained
from a landing on the White House lawn-the sole circumstance universally
agreed upon by generations of skeptics as conclusively certifying
extraterrestrial origin!
If photographs or other visual media depicting a UFO have been presented,
argue that since images can now be digitally manipulated they prove nothing.
Assert this regardless of the vintage of the material or the circumstances
of its acquisition. Insist that the better the quality of a UFO photo, the
greater the likelihood of fraud. Photos that have passed every known test
may therefore be held to be the most perfectly fraudulent of all!
If you can't otherwise destroy the credibility of a UFO photo, plant a small
model of the alleged craft near the photographer's home where it can be
conveniently discovered and whisked off to the local media. The model need
not resemble the original too closely; as long as the press says it's a dead
ringer nobody will question the implication of fraud.
Argue that all reports of humanoid extraterrestrials must be bogus because
the evolution of the humanoid form on Earth is the result of an infinite
number of accidents in a genetically isolated environment. Avoid addressing
the logical proposition that if interstellar visitations have occurred,
Earth cannot be considered genetically isolated in the first place.
Argue that extraterrestrials would or wouldn't, should or shouldn't, can or
can't behave in certain ways because such behavior would or wouldn't be
logical. Base your notions of logic on how terrestrials would or wouldn't
behave. Since terrestrials behave in all kinds of ways you can theorize
whatever kind of behavior suits your arguments.
Stereotype contact claims according to simplistic scenarios already well
established in the collective imagination. If a reported ET contact appears
to have had no negative consequences, sarcastically accuse the claimant of
believing devoutly that "benevolent ETs have come to magically save us from
destroying ourselves!" If someone claims to have been traumatized by an
alien contact, brush it aside as "a classic case of hysteria." If contactees
stress the essential humanness and limitations of certain ETs they claim to
have met, ask "why haven't these omnipotent beings offered to solve all our
problems for us?"
Ask why alleged contactees and abductees haven't received alien infections.
Reject as "preposterous" all medical evidence suggesting that such may in
fact have occurred. Categorize as "pure science-fiction" the notion that
alien understandings of immunology might be in advance of our own, or that
sufficiently alien microorganisms might be limited in their ability to
interact with our biological systems.
Above all, dismiss anything that might result in an actual investigation of
the matter.
Travel to China. Upon your return, report that "nobody there told me they
had seen any UFOs." Insist that this proves that no UFOs are reported
outside countries whose populations are overexposed to science fiction.
Where hypnotic regression has yielded consistent contactee testimony in
widespread and completely independent cases, argue that hypnosis is probably
unreliable, and is always worthless in the hands of non-credentialed
practitioners. Be sure to add that the subjects must have been steeped in
the UFO literature, and that, whatever their credentials, the hypnotists
involved must have been asking leading questions.
If someone claims to have been emotionally impacted by a contact experience,
point out that strong emotions can alter perceptions. Therefore, the
claimant's recollections must be entirely untrustworthy.
Maintain that there cannot possibly be a government UFO coverup, but that it
exists for legitimate reasons of national security!
Accuse conspiracy theorists of being conspiracy theorists and of believing
in conspiracies! Insist that only *accidentalist* theories can possibly
account for repeated, organized patterns of suppression, denial and
disinformational activity.
Argue that since theoretically there can be no press censorship in the
United States, there is no press censorship in the United States.
In the event of a worst-case scenario--for example, one in which the UFO is
suddenly acknowledged as a global mystery of millennial proportions--just
remember that the public has a short memory. Simply say dismissively, "Well,
everyone knows this is a monumentally significant issue. As a matter of
fact, my colleagues and I have been remarking on it for years!"
twi...@worldnet.att.net
<snipo>
>Like all systems of truth seeking, science, properly conducted, has a
>profoundly expansive, spiritual impulse at its core.
Bullshit!
<snipo>
>
>What is "debunkery?" As intended here, it is the attempt to *debunk*
>(invalidate) new information and insight by substituting scient*istic*
>propaganda for scient*ific* method.
Bullshit.
<snipo>
>Put on the right face. Cultivate a condescending air that suggests that your
>personal opinions are backed by the full faith and credit of God.
First you claim:
"the scientific enterprise ...has increasingly preoccupied
itself with disconnected facts in a spiritual...vacuum."
Then you claim they act as if their opinions are "backed by
the full faith and credit of God."
Get your lies straight!
> Employ
>vague, subjective, dismissive terms such as "ridiculous" or "trivial" in a
>manner that suggests they have the full force of scientific authority.
When someone posts pure bullshit with no facts, it is
ridiculous.
>
>Portray science not as an open-ended process of discovery <snipo>
It is an open-ended process. But without facts, any claims
are bullshit.
>Keep your arguments as abstract and theoretical as possible.
We work on facts, not the abstract. It is you are employing
the abstract.
> This will "send
>the message" that accepted theory overrides any actual evidence that might
>challenge it--and that therefore no such evidence is worth examining.
The evidence for UFOs has been checked and it is poor in
quality.
Please post any that isn't, I'd like to see it.
>
>Reinforce the popular misconception that certain subjects are inherently
>unscientific.
Is that the reason that scientists have looked at the
paranormal?
Is that the reason that scientists looked at UFOs?
"But we must also be aware that science has investigated UFO
sightings in the past. To encourage them to do so in the
future, we must raise our standards so that we don't accept
every tale told because we want to believe. Like the
scientists, we much look at the evidence before we decide
that a UFO sighting is of something that did not originate
on Earth."
(The Randle Report)
<snipo>
>Arrange to have your message echoed by persons of authority.
Gee, like posting articles about military leaders who have
made pro-UFO statements?
Without evidence, of course.
<snipo>
>Always refer to unorthodox statements as "claims," which are "touted," and
>to your own assertions as "facts," which are "stated."
Unorthodox statements about things are claims. Orthodox
statements are also claims.
The evidence isn't in favor of UFOs as ET spacecraft,
however.
>
>Avoid examining the actual evidence. <snipo>
Gee, the evidence has been examined. It has been examined
and found pitifully poor.
Out of all of the UFOs, reported to CUFOS during a 15 month
study period, only 1.5% were put in the "best" UFO category.
But they concluded:
"NEVER does the evidence suddenly allow a burst of approval
for even one UFO!"
They examined all of the evidence for those reported UFOs!
If you weren't aware, CUFOS is a believer organization.
>If examining the evidence becomes unavoidable, report back that "there is
>nothing new here!"
"NEVER does the evidence suddenly allow a burst of approval
for even one UFO!"
> If confronted by a watertight body of evidence that has
>survived the most rigorous tests, simply dismiss it as being "too pat."
A watertight body of evidence?
Please post this miraculous case.
"NEVER does the evidence suddenly allow a burst of approval
for even one UFO!"
>
>Equate the necessary skeptical component of science with *all* of science.
All of science is skeptical.
>Emphasize the narrow, stringent, rigorous and critical elements of science
>to the exclusion of intuition, inspiration, exploration and integration. If
>anyone objects, accuse them of viewing science in exclusively fuzzy,
>subjective or metaphysical terms.
If the intuition, inspiration, exploration, and integration
can't provide the data required to meet the stringent,
rigorous, and critical elements of science they are not
acceptable except to wackos.
>
>Insist that the progress of science depends on explaining the unknown in
>terms of the known.
No one I know of has ever said this. The unknown can become
known.
<snipo>
>Downplay the fact that free inquiry, legitimate disagreement and respectful
>debate are a normal part of science.
Disagreement and debate are but only when they have evidence
for their position.
>
>At every opportunity reinforce the notion that what is familiar is
>necessarily rational. The unfamiliar is therefore irrational, and
>consequently inadmissible as evidence.
Again, a strawman.
>
>State categorically that the unconventional arises exclusively from the
>"will to believe" and may be dismissed as, at best, an honest
>misinterpretation of the conventional.
Well, the facts of UFOs certainly indicate that this is the
case with the UFO reports.
When the Moon was reported to have "landed one to two miles
away" (Case 295 CUFOS study), you have to wonder if the
witness might not have made an error.
>
>Maintain that in investigations of unconventional phenomena, a single flaw
>invalidates the whole.
How about when the witness is found to have hoaxed some of
the data, such as Gerald Anderson did for Roswell?
Do you just accept everything else he claimed?
What a marvelous standard of "science" you propose.
<snipo>
>"Occam's Razor," or the "principle of parsimony," says the correct
>explanation of a mystery will usually involve the simplest fundamental
>principles. <snipo>
Or do like UFO believers and propose that the wildest
explanation, the one with the least evidence for it, is the
right one.
>
>Discourage any study of history that may reveal today's dogma as yesterday's
>heresy. Likewise, avoid discussing the many historical, philosophical and
>spiritual parallels between science and democracy.
Discourage study of history?
Like this?
Many people here know of the "discovery" of N-Rays.
But many people are not aware of the scope of that
scientific blunder.
N-Rays were "discovered" in 1903 by Rene Blondlot, a
distinguished French physicist and a member of the French
Academy of Sciences.
His results were soon verified by more than 20 other French
scientists and psychologists. Many more observed these
N-Rays when Blondlot gave demonstrations.
There were a rush of scientific papers documenting that
N-Rays could be bent by an aluminum prism, and that paper,
thin sheets of iron, tin, silver, and gold transmitted them.
Water and Rock salt were found to block them and bricks
could store their energy, with the odd finding that ten
bricks couldn't store more than one brick.
In 1904, a French scientific Journal published 54 papers on
N-Rays but only 3 on X-Rays.
The annals of science are filled with such tales. Usually
these discoveries are only by a few scientists but sometimes
more.
The term "Chesire Fact" is sometimes used to described datum
that are recorded, explained, vehemently defended, and that
disappear and are never heard from again.
(The Chesire Cat being the reference)
Irving Langmuir, Nobel award winning Chemist, describes
pathological science as "the science of things that aren't
so."
(Languir, Pathological Science, originally printed as part
of a GE series of technical articles and reprinted in
Physics Today, 36)
Besides N-Rays, we have, for just a few examples:
Cold Fusion
The Davies-Barnes effect (experimental observations on the
combination of alpha particles and electrons)
Mitogenetic rays emitted by onions said to bring about a
type of ESP among growing cells
The Allison effect which allowed the identification of new
elements (eg., Alabamine and Virginium) [Sometimes now
referred to as Allison Wonderland]
Polywater
Pathological science frequently includes a body of evidence
which is carefully selected thus eliminating "bad points of
data" which don't show what the examiner wished to
demonstrate.
This is sometimes called "data dredging" or "rationalizing
the data".
As the challenges to the discovery occur, the "discovery" is
vehemently, almost violently, defended with new arguments
and rationalizations for failures.
When other scientists couldn't see N-Rays in their own
laboratories, it was seriously suggested that N-Rays improve
the vision of those who have been studying them and thus it
is easiest for the researchers who have studied N-Rays to
find more of them than mere newcomers.
Another failure resulted in the suggestion by Blondlot that
there was "insufficent regulation of the spark" as the
reason that the researchers couldn't see the N-Rays.
One failure got the suggestion that certain racial types
just couldn't see N-Rays!
Another characteristic of pathological science is that the
when the evidence being used is shown to be wrong, it merely
results in adding parameters, or alterations of the
analysis, etc. so that the intermediate steps may change but
the results stay the same.
Now let's look at UFOs.
When Doctor Maccabee's analysis of a UFO photo from Gulf
Breeze was shown to be in error, he merely changed the
distance and the size of the UFO so that the analysis was
altered but the results stayed the same.
When Randle and Schmitt first wrote of Roswell, they had one
day for the crash, one crash site, and used the testimony of
the Wilmots to justify it.
In their next book, they changed the day, the changed the
crash site, they decided that the testimony of the Wilmot's
wasn't important, etc.
They justified this partly based on a sworn testimony from
Jim Ragsdale.
Less than two years later, Jim Ragsdale swore a new
affidavit altering everything.
Did this change Randle and Schmitt's view of Roswell?
Nope, they just stated that they believed that Ragsdale was
telling the truth the first time.
The Travis Walton abduction case is another case in point.
Lie detector tests from the sheriff were used to initially
push the case.
When Travis came back, he took another lie detector test.
He failed because of "Gross Deception".
The National Enquirer, APRO, and the Waltons immediately
covered up this "bad point of data" and went shopping for an
examiner who would say that Travis passed.
The Sturrock Workshop on UFOs is yet another example. The
scientists were presented the 'best' evidence for the
existance of UFOs as alien spacecraft. Any evidence which
didn't agree with this proposition, wasn't presented.
Data dredging on a massive scale!
A federal study quoted in 1986 stated that pathological
medical Quacks "rely heavily on testimonials and anecdotes
as evidence ... (they) don the mantle of respectable science
while at the same time traducing the reputable scientists of
the day... (they) cite examples of ...scientists of the past
who were forced to fight the rigid dogmas of their day...
They do not use regular channels of communications, such as
journals, for reporting scientific information, but rely
instead on the mass media and word of mouth."
(H. E. W. Publicatiopn No. 773056, 1978, quoted in Ellis,
Clinical Ecology: Myth and Reality)
Do UFOlogists rely heavily on testimonials and anecdotes
(read eyewitness reports, regressive hypnosis, etc.)?
Do UFOlogists traduce the reputable scientists of the day?
(The Sturrock workshop comes to mind with complaints about
regular scientists. Condon was villified. Menzel was
despised. Sagan came to be almost a devil. Oberg gets no
christmas cards from UFOlogists. Etc.)
Do we hear of examples of scientists of the past who were
forced to fight the rigid dogmas of their day?
(Shades of Galileo! How many times have we heard that one?)
Do UFOlogists use truly scientific journals?
(The Journal of Scientific Exploration, practically the only
journal that these authors write for, had an article which
espoused:
"After reviewing the evidence for the role of a scientific
aesthetic, I suggest the conscious adoption of a new
aesthetic (in science) based on love.")
Could it be possible that the claim for UFOs as alien
spacecraft is another example of pathological science?
Are you suggesting that Believers should bring up the fact
that the vast majority of history is on the side of the
skeptics?
>
>Since the public tends to be unclear about the distinction between evidence
>and proof, do your best to help maintain this murkiness. If absolute proof
>is lacking, state categorically that there is no evidence.
Well, now we know that you don't know the difference between
evidence and proof. There is no proof in science.
There is no decent evidence for UFOs as alien spacecraft,
however.
>
>If sufficient evidence has been presented to warrant further investigation
>of an unusual phenomenon,<snipo>
Where has this evidence been presented? Certainly not to
science!
>In any case, imply that proof precedes evidence. This will eliminate the
>possibility of initiating any meaningful process of
There is no proof in science.
No scientist would make such a comment, only a UFO believer.
>investigation--particularly if no criteria of proof have yet been
>established for the phenomenon in question.
There is no criteria of proof in science.
>
>Insist that criteria of proof cannot possibly be established for phenomena
>that do not exist!
The critieria of proof don't exist.
>
>Although science is not supposed to tolerate vague or double standards,
>always insist that unconventional phenomena must be judged by a separate,
>yet ill-defined, set of scientific rules. Do this by declaring that
>"extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence"--but take care never to
>define where the "ordinary" ends and the "extraordinary" begins.
This has been defined many, many times. An ordinary claim
has many, many observations and theory behind it.
Einstein's work didn't come in a vacuum, it sat on top of
all of the other work that came before it.
If there is no background to support an claim, it is an
extraordinary claim and requires the background data as well
as the claimed evidence.
<snipo>
>Practice debunkery-by-association. Lump together all phenomena popularly
>deemed paranormal and suggest that their proponents and researchers speak
>with a single voice.
Gee, just like you are doing with skeptics?
<snipo>
>
>Use the word "imagination" as an epithet that applies only to seeing what's
>*not* there, and not to denying what *is* there.
When you don't have any evidence it is.
>
>If a significant number of people agree that they have observed something
>that violates the consensus reality, simply ascribe it to "mass
>hallucination." Avoid addressing the possibility that the consensus reality,
>which is routinely observed by millions, might itself constitute a mass
>hallucination.
Why don't you address the evidence that this is the case?
Again, from the CUFOS study:
When comparing the number of cases which remained UFOs
against the cases which were found to be mundane IFOs, they
found that cases with more than one eyewitness actually
favor the IFOs by 12%!
So the Mistaken, mundane IFOs had more witnesses than the
cases which remained as UFOs.
"This is just about favorite IFO in the whole study. On
September 13, 1976, in Bloomington, Indiana, thirteen adult
witnesses (including one police officer) phoned in their
sighting of an elongated aluminum object glowing in the
center with lights around the edges. It was hovering
motionlessly in the sky 45 degrees up at 11 in the morning.
The officer called back sheepishly to say that it was only a
kite wire seen hanging between two trees and reflecting the
sun."
>
>Ridicule, ridicule, ridicule.
Like writing an article called "Zen...and the art of
Debunkery?"
<snipo>
>Imply that investigators of the unorthodox are zealots. Suggest that in
>order to investigate the existence of something one must first believe in it
>absolutely.
That is what the believers claim.
They even claim that the proponents can't demonstrate the
paranormal before skeptics because the presence of skeptics
sends out bad vibes.
Skeptics claim that what ever is demonstrated by someone who
beleives absolutely in what they expect to find must also be
replicated by an independent researcher.
<snipo>
>Use "smoke and mirrors," i.e., obfuscation and illusion. Never forget that a
>slippery mixture of fact, opinion, innuendo, out- of-context information and
>outright lies will fool most of the people most of the time.
You mean that using the information that CUFOS found when
studying UFOs isn't allowable?
Isn't it funny how any evidence becomes out of context when
it disagrees with what a believer wants to believe?
<snipo>
>Employ "TCP": Technically Correct Pseudo-refutation. Example: if someone
>remarks that all great truths began as blasphemies, respond immediately that
>not all blasphemies have become great truths. Because your response was
>technically correct, no one will notice that it did not really refute the
>original remark.
It shows that the original remark isn't the whole story.
Most great blasphemies turn out to be total bullshit.
Like polywater, N-Rays, etc.
It is only when you can go beyond and show that the great
blasphemies have evidence supporting them do they become
acceptable.
You haven't any decent evidence.
>
>Trivialize the case by trivializing the entire field in question.
>Characterize the study of orthodox phenomena as deep
Oh, it gets deep sometimes. Brown and deep.
<snipo>
>Characterize any serious investigator
>of the unorthodox as a "buff" or "freak," or as "self-styled"-the media's
>favorite code-word for "bogus."
But I'm the one who keeps using the CUFOs study and the
believers here all try to claim it is bogus!
>
>Remember that most people do not have sufficient time or expertise for
>careful discrimination, and tend to accept or reject the whole of an
>unfamiliar situation. So discredit the whole story by attempting to
>discredit *part* of the story. Here's how: a) take one element of a case
>completely out of context;
Like Gerald Anderson of Roswell?
>b) find something prosaic that hypothetically
>could explain it;
Like Mogul?
>c) declare that therefore that one element has been
>explained;
As a matter of fact, that is the only decent explanation.
>d) call a press conference and announce to the world that the
>entire case has been explained!
>
Most of the press conferences are by the believers who claim
that the entire case has been explained.
Then they hold another press conference telling how, in
their new book, they tell the "TRVTH™" this time.
Amazing how they never tell the truth in their first book.
>Engage the services of a professional stage magician who can mimic the
>phenomenon in question; for example, ESP, psychokinesis or levitation. This
>will convince the public that the original claimants or witnesses to such
>phenomena must themselves have been (or been fooled by) talented stage
>magicians who hoaxed the original phenomenon in precisely the same way.
Nope. But it shows that the same feat can be done simply by
stage magic.
Now, why should it require a new explanation if it can be
done by simple stage magic and can't be done if controls
stopping the tricks used by the stage magician are in place?
>
>Find a prosaic phenomenon that resembles, no matter how superficially, the
>claimed phenomenon
I'm glad you said claimed phenomenon. That is the only type
of paranormal phenomenon we've seen so far.
<snipo>
>When an unexplained phenomenon demonstrates evidence of intelligence (as in
>the case of the mysterious crop circles)
When the Cereaologists can't tell the difference between a
crop circle made by skeptics and "real" crop circles who
cares what they say?
<snipo>
<snipo>
It may be that the race is not always to the swift
nor the battle to the strong - but that is the
way to bet.
Damon Runyon
Betty
diamension?!?
Andreas Klokkaris wrote in message <37309...@news.spidernet.net>...
Kooter
Betty <honey...@harborside.com> wrote in message
news:7gtrpl$7c$1...@news.harborside.com...
> I'm from Hyrule. You Gonna hold it against me just cause I'm from another
> diamension?!?
Come here baby. Daddy'll hold it against you.
Actually, I think I could buy the idea of interdimensional travel before I
would FTL interstellar travel.
Aldous Tyler
news:7gv3rd$mgk$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
another
> > diamension?!?
>
>
> Actually, I think I could buy the idea of interdimensional travel before I
> would FTL interstellar travel.
>
Have to say I'm with you there, in regards to the origin of humanoid-like
"extraterrestrials". Interdimensional travel would only require an
alteration in the dimensionality of an object, something (in my mind) far
more probable than great (and I MEAN great) distance travel within the same
dimension. Besides which, the chances of any other planet in this dimension
evolving similarly enough to be identifiable as roughly humanoid or even
roughly mammalian (or vertebrate!) are very slim. At least, any other one
within any kind of travelable distance. At least, using the
extradimensional origin concept allows us to comprehend these beings as
being possibly an offshoot (or a directly-linked parallel evolution) to
humanity, or at least Earth!
Aldous
Lunatic Fringe
wrote:
>I'm from Hyrule. You Gonna hold it against me just cause I'm from another
>diamension?!?
What's Hyrule?
Peace,
Lunatic Fringe
Lunatic Fringe
wrote:
>
>Betty <honey...@harborside.com> wrote in message
>news:7gtrpl$7c$1...@news.harborside.com...
>> I'm from Hyrule. You Gonna hold it against me just cause I'm from another
>> diamension?!?
>
>Come here baby. Daddy'll hold it against you.
<sniff><sob> I wanted her.
>Actually, I think I could buy the idea of interdimensional travel before I
>would FTL interstellar travel.
Absolutely. There's no evidence against interdimensional travel, so
it's still concievable.
Peace,
Lunatic Fringe
Lunatic Fringe
wrote:
> At least, using the
>extradimensional origin concept allows us to comprehend these beings as
>being possibly an offshoot (or a directly-linked parallel evolution) to
>humanity, or at least Earth!
Do you think it's possible that there are other dimensions of time
that are slightly out of phase with ours where beings might have
evolved along lines nearly identical to ours?
Peace,
Lunatic Fringe
Kooter
Aldous Tyler <ju...@jules.org> wrote in message
news:37334...@news.ic.net...
> Kooter <cbow...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:7gv3rd$mgk$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> >
> another
> > > diamension?!?
> >
> >
I
> > would FTL interstellar travel.
> >
>
> "extraterrestrials". Interdimensional travel would only require an
> alteration in the dimensionality of an object, something (in my mind) far
> more probable than great (and I MEAN great) distance travel within the
same
> dimension. Besides which, the chances of any other planet in this
dimension
> evolving similarly enough to be identifiable as roughly humanoid or even
> roughly mammalian (or vertebrate!) are very slim. At least, any other one
> extradimensional origin concept allows us to comprehend these beings as
> being possibly an offshoot (or a directly-linked parallel evolution) to
> humanity, or at least Earth!
I don't know that I agree with you about alien physiology in this universe
but that's a side issue.
I think that before we attempt to describe the creatures that might come
from another universe, a case has to be built to support the idea of
multiple universes.
From my understanding of current theoretical physics, the universe is based
on superstrings. These superstrings operate in 10 or 11 dimensions
depending on which theory you subscribe to. This isn't to say that there
are only 10 or 11 dimensions. Just that that's what's necessary to make
superstrings work.
It might be possible that creatures could exist within these dimensions
without being perceivable by us. It seems equally possible that these
creatures could have the same problems perceiving us as we do them. Or,
that they are aware of other dimensions and try to cross over or make
contact in someway that is recognisable to us.
Kooter
Lunatic Fringe <Lunatic...@writeme.com> wrote in message
news:3733fc57...@news.swbell.net...
another
> >> diamension?!?
> >
>
Hey, when I'm done I'll send her your way. Just hose her down and she'll be
good as new.
> >Actually, I think I could buy the idea of interdimensional travel before
I
> >would FTL interstellar travel.
>
> Absolutely. There's no evidence against interdimensional travel, so
> it's still concievable.
Exactly.
LoBo
Lunatic Fringe wrote in message <3733fc57...@news.swbell.net>...
>On Fri, 7 May 1999 12:23:21 -0400, "Kooter" <cbow...@mindspring.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Betty <honey...@harborside.com> wrote in message
>>news:7gtrpl$7c$1...@news.harborside.com...
another
>>> diamension?!?
>>
>
><sniff><sob> I wanted her.
>
>>would FTL interstellar travel.
>
>Absolutely. There's no evidence against interdimensional travel, so
>it's still concievable.
>
>Lunatic Fringe
Thats because we haven't found out if their is other dimensions never mind
if we can get to them
LoBo
Ok we all know the distances that are involved in this universe and sure
enough people are now coming to the conclusion that FTL and other huge
journeys are just not really feasible.... but... Is travelling to another
dimension so easy, come on lads, I dont know anything about interdimensional
travel but lets point out a few things.
How many dimensions are they? Most believe they go on forever ok I can go
with that but if they do that means their must be trillions and billions of
interdimensional aliens popping in and out continuously. I know that means
theirs millions and billions of uninhabited dimensions there as well with
aliens going there and so slowing down their journey here, but come on with
an unlimited amount you really would get aliens popping into this universe
all the time. I think there is no more dimensions and I'm sorry to say
finding another intelligent race is going to be very slim, and if their is
other dimensions I dont think we can get their
Kooter
> >extradimensional origin concept allows us to comprehend these beings as
> >being possibly an offshoot (or a directly-linked parallel evolution) to
> >humanity, or at least Earth!
>
> that are slightly out of phase with ours where beings might have
> evolved along lines nearly identical to ours?
Are you talking about alternate timelines where an event branches off into
parallel realities. One where it happened and the other where it didn't?
Kooter
LoBo <lo...@lobonia.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7h1gkh$tea$6...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
If it were possible that there were an infinate number of alternate
dimensions then I'd bet that the journey from one to another wouldn't be an
easy thing. You'd have to rule out all the worlds where intelligent life
never developed as well as civilizations where interdimensional travel
wasn't possible or technologically practical. That would probably leave an
extremely small ratio of worlds with civilizations capable of traveling
across dimensions.
Kooter
>
> Lunatic Fringe wrote in message <3733fc57...@news.swbell.net>...
> >On Fri, 7 May 1999 12:23:21 -0400, "Kooter" <cbow...@mindspring.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>Betty <honey...@harborside.com> wrote in message
> >>news:7gtrpl$7c$1...@news.harborside.com...
> another
> >>> diamension?!?
> >>
> >
> ><sniff><sob> I wanted her.
> >
> >>Actually, I think I could buy the idea of interdimensional travel before
I
> >>would FTL interstellar travel.
> >
> >Absolutely. There's no evidence against interdimensional travel, so
> >it's still concievable.
> >
> >Peace,
> >Lunatic Fringe
>
>
> Thats because we haven't found out if their is other dimensions never mind
> if we can get to them
That's true. However, there are mathematical models that permit the
possibility. As far as I know, there are no good mathematical models that
allow for practical FTL travel and there is a pretty solid argument against
the possibility.
Lunatic Fringe
wrote:
>> Do you think it's possible that there are other dimensions of time
>> that are slightly out of phase with ours where beings might have
>> evolved along lines nearly identical to ours?
>
>Are you talking about alternate timelines where an event branches off into
>parallel realities. One where it happened and the other where it didn't?
Sure. Or maybe there's another you occupying the same space at the
same time (in our timeline) thinking the same thoughts just slightly
out of phase with our space-time continuum. And then there's another
you with slightly different thoughts, maybe a little more out of
phase, and on and on and branching into different events and different
realities. I'm just brainstorming.
Or since a gravity field warps space, why not time, too?
Peace,
Lunatic Fringe
Lunatic Fringe
wrote:
>> <sniff><sob> I wanted her.
>
>Hey, when I'm done I'll send her your way. Just hose her down and she'll be
>good as new.
Well, ok. I'm only interested in her mouth anyway. :)
Peace,
Lunatic Fringe
Mary Laquidara
>wrote:
>
>> At least, using the
>>extradimensional origin concept allows us to comprehend these beings as
>>being possibly an offshoot (or a directly-linked parallel evolution) to
>>humanity, or at least Earth!
>
>that are slightly out of phase with ours where beings might have
>evolved along lines nearly identical to ours?
>
>Peace,
>Lunatic Fringe
Kooter
Yea. Toothless wimmin is my favorites too.
Kooter
> >> that are slightly out of phase with ours where beings might have
> >> evolved along lines nearly identical to ours?
> >
into
> >parallel realities. One where it happened and the other where it didn't?
>
> Sure. Or maybe there's another you occupying the same space at the
> same time (in our timeline) thinking the same thoughts just slightly
> out of phase with our space-time continuum. And then there's another
> you with slightly different thoughts, maybe a little more out of
> phase, and on and on and branching into different events and different
> realities. I'm just brainstorming.
>
> Or since a gravity field warps space, why not time, too?
Well I know that theoretical physicists are having a lot of trouble coming
of with a theory of everything. So far the best they can do is the
superstring stuff. If I understand how it works, elementary particles are
actually the result of string vibrations. Strings operate in a 10 or 11
dimensional universe. That means that there are at least 6 dimensions that
we can't see at all. I could imagine the possibility of the strings
vibrating in ranges and harmonics that we are unable to perceive. Possibly
creating whole worlds that live in a subset of those dimensions.
Evan
was flat...that man could not fly... that the speed of sound could not be
broken... and that there is no such thing as cold fusion...If you look in some
of the latest science magazines you might see articles about them SLOWING the
speed of light down by an incredible amount and if you can slow it down... you
can speed it up...and if you are plating with light, you are playing with
time... As for FTL, particles of light can be shown to go faster than the
predicted speed of light, a result of this is what is called (I think I am
spelling it right) Cerenkov radiation, a photonic shockwave ...
If you are interested in me going on, let me know...I just ran out of time...
Evan
Kooter wrote:
> LoBo <lo...@lobonia.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:7h1gkh$tea$7...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > Lunatic Fringe wrote in message <3733fc57...@news.swbell.net>...
> > >On Fri, 7 May 1999 12:23:21 -0400, "Kooter" <cbow...@mindspring.com>
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>Betty <honey...@harborside.com> wrote in message
> > >>news:7gtrpl$7c$1...@news.harborside.com...
> > >>> I'm from Hyrule. You Gonna hold it against me just cause I'm from
> > another
> > >>> diamension?!?
> > >>
> > >>Come here baby. Daddy'll hold it against you.
> > >
> > ><sniff><sob> I wanted her.
> > >
Kooter
Evan <evan...@juno.com> wrote in message news:37376463...@juno.com...
> Remember, for the longest time there were many people that knew that the
earth
> was flat...that man could not fly... that the speed of sound could not be
> broken... and that there is no such thing as cold fusion...
You're rambling. What is your point?
> If you look in some
> of the latest science magazines you might see articles about them SLOWING
the
> speed of light down by an incredible amount and if you can slow it
down...
I'll need references on this before I'll accept it. And not for some
fucking wacko alien magazine. We're talking reputable scientific journal
here.
> you can speed it up...and if you are plating with light, you are
> playing with time...
In the absence of your references I'll say that time is a phenomena that is
relative to the observer. Lightspeed is an absolute constant of 186,000
miles per second no matter where you are or what speed you're traveling at.
> As for FTL, particles of light can be shown to go faster than the
> predicted speed of light, a result of this is what is called (I think I am
> spelling it right) Cerenkov radiation, a photonic shockwave ...
When I use the term FTL in the context of interstellar travel I'm referring
to light in a vacumn. Cerenkov radiation only applies to light traveling
thru a medium with an index of refraction.
> If you are interested in me going on, let me know...I just ran out of
time...
> Evan
Hey, go for it. I'm all eyes.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
>Remember, for the longest time there were many people that knew that the earth
>was flat.
Other than you, name one.
>..that man could not fly.
Without an airplane, he can't.
He falls well, however.
>.. that the speed of sound could not be
>broken.
You got me there.
>.. and that there is no such thing as cold fusion.
There ain't.
>..If you look in some
>of the latest science magazines you might see articles about them SLOWING the
>speed of light down by an incredible amount
So? It has been known for a very long time that the speed
of light in a medium other than a vacuum is less than the
speed of light in a vacuum. That is how refraction works.
Nothing new in slowing light down, just in the magnitude of
the slowing.
> and if you can slow it down... you
>can speed it up.
Please post the comments from the scientist who claims this
is the case.
>..and if you are plating with light, you are playing with
>time.
Time and light are totally different. One is composed of
photons and the other isn't.
I imagine that you are confusing time and space.
>.. As for FTL, particles of light can be shown to go faster than the
>predicted speed of light, a result of this is what is called (I think I am
>spelling it right) Cerenkov radiation, a photonic shockwave ...
Alas, Cerenkov radiation isn't particles of light going
faster than the speed of light in a vacuum.
"Cerenkov radiation consists of light waves emitted by
charged particles which move through a medium with a speed
greater than the phase velocity of light in that medium."
(Physics for students of science and engineering, Halliday
and Resnik, Wiley, combined edition, eighth printing, August
1965, Pg. 443)
No particles can move faster than light in a vacuum.
>If you are interested in me going on, let me know...I just ran out of time...
>Evan
>
>Kooter wrote:
>
>> LoBo <lo...@lobonia.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:7h1gkh$tea$7...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> >
>> > Lunatic Fringe wrote in message <3733fc57...@news.swbell.net>...
>> > >On Fri, 7 May 1999 12:23:21 -0400, "Kooter" <cbow...@mindspring.com>
>> > >wrote:
>> > >
>> > >>
>> > >>Betty <honey...@harborside.com> wrote in message
>> > >>news:7gtrpl$7c$1...@news.harborside.com...
>> > >>> I'm from Hyrule. You Gonna hold it against me just cause I'm from
>> > another
>> > >>> diamension?!?
>> > >>
>> > >>Come here baby. Daddy'll hold it against you.
>> > >
>> > ><sniff><sob> I wanted her.
>> > >
>> > >>Actually, I think I could buy the idea of interdimensional travel before
>> I
>> > >>would FTL interstellar travel.
>> > >
>> > >Absolutely. There's no evidence against interdimensional travel, so
>> > >it's still concievable.
>> > >
>> > >Peace,
>> > >Lunatic Fringe
>> >
>> >
>> > Thats because we haven't found out if their is other dimensions never mind
>> > if we can get to them
>>
>> That's true. However, there are mathematical models that permit the
>> possibility. As far as I know, there are no good mathematical models that
>> allow for practical FTL travel and there is a pretty solid argument against
>> the possibility.
>
It may be that the race is not always to the swift
Kooter
> On Sun, 9 May 1999 06:17:41 -0400, "Kooter" <cbow...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> Well, ok. I'm only interested in her mouth anyway. :)
> >
> >Yea. Toothless wimmin is my favorites too.
>
> a purdy mouth."
Yea. Bad thing is, about half of look like Ned Beatty and the other half
are REALLY ugly.
Lunatic Fringe
<Kendra-...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>>Do you think it's possible that there are other dimensions of time
>>that are slightly out of phase with ours where beings might have
>>evolved along lines nearly identical to ours?
>>
>I think it's possible. Do you?
Mmmm. I think it's possible, but I was just trying to start something
new. I don't claim to know for sure anything beyond what has been
proven by science and what I have experienced for myself without the
benefit of a scientific explanation.
Peace,
Lunatic Fringe
Lunatic Fringe
wrote:
>> Well, ok. I'm only interested in her mouth anyway. :)
>
>Yea. Toothless wimmin is my favorites too.
You should move to Arkansas. I heard that "in Arkansas everybody's got
a purdy mouth."
Peace,
Lunatic Fringe
Michael Edelman
Evan wrote:
> Remember, for the longest time there were many people that knew that the earth
> was flat
and some still do
> ...that man could not fly...
And he still can't, unaided ;-)
> that the speed of sound could not be
> broken... and that there is no such thing as cold fusion...
And they're still correct ;-)
> If you look in some
> of the latest science magazines you might see articles about them SLOWING the
> speed of light down by an incredible amount and if you can slow it down... you
> can speed it up...
Suddenly we've been visited by the Stupid Fairy....
> and if you are plating with light, you are playing with
> time... As for FTL, particles of light can be shown to go faster than the
> predicted speed of light
IN a given medium. Nothing exceeds the speed of light in vaccuo.