New Physics, Healing, Paranormal
Jack Sarfatti
I am being paid a significant amount of money to write this by an
influential European corporation. If you want to make
corrections,suggestions etc. with no monetary compensation from me,feel free
to do so. I will include opposing points of view in footnotes with your
names if you like. All I can say is that this document is going to be
translated into Spanish, French, Portuguese,Russian, Hindi and will be
read by some of the most powerful people (politicians, CEO's of multi-
nationals etc.) in the world who are about to set up a satellite based
multi-media world wide university in which I have been asked to play a
major role with major funding.
This is no joke! I have been told that I am a "super star" in some powerful
circles that have decided that traditional universities are "brain dead"
and that something new-age is needed.
On the Mind-Matter Interaction
by Jack Sarfatti, Ph.D.
The connection between mind and matter is not a problem restricted to
philosophy and theology. It is a problem for new physics. Indeed, it may be
the fundamental problem for the new post-Einsteinian physics of quantum
connectivity beyond the confines of space and time.
The new physics is the telepathic physics of "The Force" without force
portrayed in the film "Star Wars". It is the Physics of Destiny. It is the
source of meaning. It is the generator of existence in a universe of
purpose uniting Man with God.
The new physics provides the beginnings of a paradigm for wholistic
medicine. It provides ideas on how disease develops, how drugs work, how
electromagnetic machines influence health, how the body influences the mind
and how the mind influences the body.
Today we use our fingers to type messages into a computer. This is
changing rapidly. We already have programs that respond to our voice
commands. We are beginning to develop programs coupled with sensitive
electromagnetic detectors that allow computers to respond to our tiny eye
movements. Soon the computers will respond to the electromagnetic
radiations from our brains that correspond to our thoughts. The computer
will obey the commands of our unvoiced thoughts. It will work both ways.
The computer will be able to generate thoughts, feelings and experiences
directly into our conscious and unconscious minds without audio and video
outputs. This new "psychotronic" technology will, like any new technology,
have the potential for healing and harming.
How is the new physics different from the old physics? The basic
difference is in that complex of connected ideas represented by the words:
"signal", "communication", "information", "meaning" and "value". Old
physics assumes that causes are always before their effects, and that the
only way to transfer information is by moving matter or radiation. New
physics permits causes to be after their effects under certain condition.
When an effect happens, the several causes of that effect are both in its
past and in its future. There is also a third possibility. A cause of the
effect can be faster-than-light in Einstein's "absolute elsewhere" of that
effect. New physics also says that there are two modes of information
transfer. The first is the old physics mode, in which the information is
transferred by a carrier within Einstein's unified spacetime. The carrier
is either radiation or matter in motion (e.g., a radio or TV signal, a
sound wave packet, a courier etc.).
The second mode of information transfer is telepathic,
clairvoyant,psychokinetic and precognitive, alien to old physics but
familiar to prophets, mystics, poets and artists. It is communication on
the "nonlocal" quantum connection "beyond spacetime". There is no single
direct carrier of matter or radiation moving directly from sender to
receiver. There are, however, two indirect connected carriers moving from a
third "source" to sender and receiver, respectively. Under certain
conditions called "delayed choice" the sender of information can be in the
far future of the receiver of that information. It is in this sense that
we think of The Force without force or "La Forza del Destino".
The Princeton University Engineering Anomalies Research Laboratory under
the former Dean of the Engineering College, Robert Jahn, claims that the
human mind has this "precognitive remote-viewing" ability. The "skeptics"
(e.g., former Scientific American columnist Martin Gardner's Committee to
Investigate Claims of the Paranormal), who only believe old physics, claim
that Dr. Jahn is misinterpreting is results with bad statistics. However, a
late station chief of the American Central Intelligence Agency assured me
that he had used "remote viewing" very successfully in covert operations
inside the Soviet Union during the peak of the Cold War. If Martin
Gardner's real motive is to hide the reality of remote viewing for reasons
of "national security", then he would naturally wish to debunk it. The
American Army has published positive reports of "psychic warfare" in
several professional journals like Miltary Review and Signal. The gossip
is that Martin Gardner and the arch-debunker, "The Amazing Randi" take
psychic phenomena very seriously. That is why they came down so hard on Uri
Geller because they believe him to be an imposter - a stage magician in
psychic clothes. It is certainly true that Randi can do everything that
Geller can do. It is also true that Geller fails rigorous tests set up by
other stage magicians. On the other hand, I saw topologically intricate
twisted metal allegedly bent by psychics in Brazil that is very puzzling.
The reader should form his own opinion. As a scientist, I do not have an
opinion on the reality of psychokinetic metal-bending at this point in
time.
We must be more precise about telepathic information transfer on the
quantum connection. The quantum connection was discovered by Einstein in
the early 1930's in his debate with Bohr on the completeness of the new
quantum mechanics of quantum jumping electrons (in atoms, molecules and
crystals) emitting and absorbing photons. Both electrons and photons, under
certain experimental conditions, behaved like tiny particles, while
behaving as spread-out waves under different incompatible experimental
conditions. All quantum particles obeyed the Heisenberg uncertainty
principle. This principle asserts that observable properties of the
particle like its position and its momentum were incompatible. That is, an
increase in the precision of our measurement of one property would decrease
the precision in a simultaneous measurement of the other incompatible
property. This was something new, not found in Newton's classical
mechanics of gravitational or electromagnetic forces causing particles to
accelerate (i.e. change speed or direction or both).
Einstein thought about a simple molecule that split into two atoms that
flew away from each other in opposite direction. He showed that the
Heisenberg uncertainty principle for one of the atoms could not be true
unless there was a real quantum connection or an "action at a distance"
between the two atoms. This long-range connection was qualitatively
different from from the known long-range forces of gravitation and
electromagnetism. The known forces weaken with increasing separation
between the two particles. Quite the contrary is the case for the quantum
connection which persists undiminished with increasing separation in either
space or time. Einstein called this "telepathic" and "spooky action at a
distance". Quantum mechanics seems to open the door to a precise
mathematical voodoo, i.e., embracing or "entangled" quantum
"wavefunctions".
An experiment by Alain Aspect at the University of Paris in 1982 on a pair
of photons emitted in opposite directions by a calcium atom shows
conclusively that such a theoretically predicted faster-than-light quantum
connection is real. There is a "loophole" that must be plugged when more
efficient photon detectors become available. To really be sure the photon
detectors must be at least 83% efficient. Aspect's detectors are
considerably less efficient. However, the extremely good agreement between
the experimental data and the theoretical curve of standard quantum
mechanics makes most experts quite confident that the loophole when plugged
will not overturn Aspect's result.
We must however be clear that Aspect's discovery is not sufficient to
establish the factuality of useful faster-than-light communication in which
the quantum connection is a communication channel. A communication channel
means that we must be able to encode a message at the sender and to decode
it at the receiver. In Aspect's experiment it is easy to encode the
message but it is impossible to decode it by observations at the receiver
alone. One must compare or "correlate" the observations from both the
receiver and the sender in order to decode the message. This, unfortunately
defeats the purpose. On the other hand, this observed quantum connectedness
may be vital in understanding the coherent behavior of complex living
systems. There is little doubt that a deeper understanding of the webs of
quantum connectivity between widely separated spinning electrons on DNA and
enzymes will lead to more effective medicine in the battle against disease
and aging. It will also lead to a new psychotronic nano-technology
interfacing mind to machine including new healing therapies.
to be continued (the above is one evening's work).
Admiral Sarfatti
Star Fleet Academy
Star Fleet Command
Presidio
San Francisco
Federation of United Planets.
Cameron Randale Bass
>This is no joke! I have been told that I am a "super star" in some powerful
>circles that have decided that traditional universities are "brain dead"
>and that something new-age is needed.
What would a powerful circle look like? Are its
physical properties any different from ordinary circles?
>On the Mind-Matter Interaction
>by Jack Sarfatti, Ph.D.
>
>The connection between mind and matter is not a problem restricted to
>philosophy and theology. It is a problem for new physics. Indeed, it may be
>the fundamental problem for the new post-Einsteinian physics of quantum
>connectivity beyond the confines of space and time.
>
>The new physics is the telepathic physics of "The Force" without force
>portrayed in the film "Star Wars". It is the Physics of Destiny. It is the
>source of meaning. It is the generator of existence in a universe of
>purpose uniting Man with God.
[and on and on and on and on]
I suppose it is too much to ask that some actual
physics be included in the 'new physics'? Misrepresenting
the meaning of Aspect's experiments for the 400th time doesn't
seem to count.
I don't know about you, but I generally avoid taking
physical ideas from Hollywood, though Bugs Bunny's
world *is* quite entertaining in its place. However,
films violate 'the old physics' all the time. It's nothing
profound, though. It's called an 'illusion'. Having
seen Geller first hand, I'm sure you're familiar with
illusion.
dale bass
--
C. R. Bass cr...@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical,
Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia (804) 924-7926
David Toland
| I am being paid a significant amount of money to write this by an
| influential European corporation. If you want to make
| corrections,suggestions etc. with no monetary compensation from me,feel free
| to do so. I will include opposing points of view in footnotes with your
| names if you like. All I can say is that this document is going to be
| translated into Spanish, French, Portuguese,Russian, Hindi and will be
| read by some of the most powerful people (politicians, CEO's of multi-
| nationals etc.) in the world who are about to set up a satellite based
| multi-media world wide university in which I have been asked to play a
| major role with major funding.
Oh, so many things I could say here. I'll just leave it at "a fool and
his money are soon parted".
| This is no joke! I have been told that I am a "super star" in some powerful
| circles that have decided that traditional universities are "brain dead"
| and that something new-age is needed.
More's the pity that this is "no joke". I'm afraid that there *is* a decline
in the quality of education in at least American universities, but it would
be far worse if they were to teach classes in New Age pseudoscience, unless
it were in debunking it with critical analysis. What we need is a more
solid grounding in foundation subjects, beginning in primary and secondary
schools, with higher graduating standards in oral and written communication,
literature, critical analysis, the physical sciences, and mathematics.
| Admiral Sarfatti
| Star Fleet Academy
| Star Fleet Command
| Presidio
| San Francisco
| Federation of United Planets.
Does this sound like someone with a firm grasp on reality? I mean, I enjoy
trek a great deal, but I don't confuse it with the real world!
I know replying to this sort of drivel won't make it go away, but it
really raises my b.p. to see how many people actually believe this crap.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
All opinions are MINE MINE MINE, and not necessarily anyone else's.
d...@phlan.sw.stratus.com | "Laddie, you'll be needin' something to wash
| that doon with."
Robert Firth
>The new physics provides the beginnings of a paradigm for wholistic
>medicine.
That's "holistic", from greek "holon".
>It is in this sense that
>we think of The Force without force or "La Forza del Destino".
I think this is a serious distortion of the intended message of the opera.
Erik Svensson FOA2
>I am being paid a significant amount of money to write this by an
>influential European corporation. If you want to make
>corrections,suggestions etc. with no monetary compensation from me,feel free
>to do so. I will include opposing points of view in footnotes with your
>names if you like. All I can say is that this document is going to be
>translated into Spanish, French, Portuguese,Russian, Hindi and will be
>read by some of the most powerful people (politicians, CEO's of multi-
>nationals etc.) in the world who are about to set up a satellite based
>multi-media world wide university in which I have been asked to play a
>major role with major funding.
>This is no joke! I have been told that I am a "super star" in some powerful
>circles that have decided that traditional universities are "brain dead"
>and that something new-age is needed.
If somebody's paying you for this, the universities aren't the only thing
that's brain dead.
(hope it won't be translated into swedish. Think of the forests saved)
cheers
--
Erik Svensson
Research Officer National Defense Research Establishment (FOA)
Guided Weapons Division Stockholm, Sweden er...@fenix.lin.foa.se
"The problem with the future is that it keeps turning into the present"
-- Hobbes
Peter Nelson
| I am being paid a significant amount of money to write this by an
| influential European corporation. If you want to make
| corrections,suggestions etc. with no monetary compensation from me,feel free
| to do so. I will include opposing points of view in footnotes with your
| names if you like. All I can say is that this document is going to be
| translated into Spanish, French, Portuguese,Russian, Hindi and will be
| read by some of the most powerful people (politicians, CEO's of multi-
| nationals etc.) in the world who are about to set up a satellite based
| multi-media world wide university in which I have been asked to play a
| major role with major funding.
| This is no joke! I have been told that I am a "super star" in some powerful
| circles that have decided that traditional universities are "brain dead"
| and that something new-age is needed.
| Admiral Sarfatti
| Star Fleet Academy
| Star Fleet Command
| Presidio
| San Francisco
| Federation of United Planets.
And you guys still don't think Star Trek is Bad For You?
Maybe some people can't handle that much "intellectual
stimulation".
8-)
---peter
Christopher Jon Petit
>More's the pity that this is "no joke". I'm afraid that there *is* a decline
>in the quality of education in at least American universities, but it would
>be far worse if they were to teach classes in New Age pseudoscience, unless
>it were in debunking it with critical analysis. What we need is a more
>solid grounding in foundation subjects, beginning in primary and secondary
>schools, with higher graduating standards in oral and written communication,
>literature, critical analysis, the physical sciences, and mathematics.
Well, I do agree that the quality of education has declined, but saying that
'New Age' ideas are all worthless is total crap. While some of the ideas are
ridiculous, there is supposedly (or so I've heard) scientific proof that some
forms of ESP do in fact exist. I think the head of Stanford's Engineering
dept. did some studies which showed that, by trying to influence certain
statistically valid actions (e.g. 100,000 flips of a coin, in one second, by a
computer), the subjects did have a small but measurable influence.
Now, I want to see those tests done myself, but I don't have the resources.
Has anyone else heard of these experiments?
--
"Protect endangered species! Contribute to the Exxon Supporter's Fund!"
"Pay no attention to that little man behind the keyboard."
"If you want to look for fish, best not to look in desert."
"The greatest beauty in the world is beauty that is private."
Blair Wyman
|> The new physics is the telepathic physics...
Please offer references to any reproducable experiments that prove the existence
of "telepathy." Without such references, there is no merit to any of your claims.
--
Blair Wyman IBM Rochester If MST3K did usenet posts, we'd be
(507)253-2891 Blair...@vnet.ibm.com witnessing the birth of the next
Opinions expressed are not those of IBM. Roger Corman.
Eric Lippert
This is a joke, right?
I ask, because a few weeks ago, there was a message in rec.humour.funny, detailing how to make up a "revisionist history" message. The example was a document which "proved" that Hiroshima was never bombed.
This document, "New Physics, Healing, Paranormal" uses most of the techniques mentioned in the humourous article on how to fool some of the people some of the time.
Typical methods include
- self sealing arguments, such as "Martin Gardner is part of a conspiracy to cover up the truth."
- claiming to be a scientist. Degree? Who needs a degree?
- taking the most counter-intuitive consequences of relativity and quantum theory, stating them out of context, and then stating that they imply the possibility of time travel/telepathy/telekinesis/whatever.
- taking the nontechnical, out-of-context remarks of famous scientists as proof that they embraced time travel/telepathy/whatever
- the ridiculous presupposition that being able to sense brainwaves implies that we can determine the mental states of the brain. That is like building a machine which could determine the theme of a novel stored on a laser disc by looking at the mirror-image on the disk!
- make references to well-know publications such as Scientific American or Military Review. Volume numbers? REFERENCES TO ACTUAL ARTICLES? Who needs THOSE?
Seriously now, I really do not understand psychic advocates. The real world is a wondrously interesting place! Weirdnesses like black holes, einstein-rosen wormholes, quasars, quantum wells, point particles, superconductors, etc, etc, etc are bizarre and interesting, and best of all, demonstrable!
Further, we have an entire industry dedicated to amusing fictions such as time travel and PK. (Its called SF... and Paramount owns over a billion dollars worth of it!)
Rudy Rucker once said "An interesting fact which is often overlooked in psychic studies is that we all have PK and telepathy. You think some thoughts, tell me about them, and instantly I am thinking THE SAME thoughts. Who needs telepathy when we have telephones?"
(quoted from memory, "The Fourth Dimension" )
And further to the point, what the hell is this doing in startrek.tech???
Eric Lippert
Peter Nelson
>In article <C1GEp...@well.sf.ca.us>, sarf...@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti) writes:
>
>|> The new physics is the telepathic physics...
>
>Please offer references to any reproducable experiments that prove the existence
>of "telepathy." Without such references, there is no merit to any of your claims.
. . . Something I also frequently demand on many newsgroups.
But the need to say things like this so frequently is
tiresome, especially as the clueless and gullible products
of the US educational system and popular culture are spewed
onto the net.
Usenet has evolved a number of acronyms to reduce typing
time and needed bandwidth such as BTW (by the way), FOAF
(friend of a friend), IMHO (in my humble opinion), and
RTFM (read the manual), to name a few.
IMHO, we should develop an acronym for the above sentiment,
something like NUCWE (no unusual claims without evidence)
or RNFSC (references needed for strong claims) or simply RP
(references please)? But I find these a bit awkward.
Any suggestions for something simple, clear, and catchy?
---peter
Ethan T. Vishniac
In cases like this the request for appropriate references
is doomed to failure, but making the request makes a point
so....
How about CARP?
Cite Appropriate References Please
--
"Quis tamen tale studium, quo ad primam omnium rerum causam evehimur,
tamquam inutile aut contemnendum detractare ac deprimere ausit?"-Bridel
Ethan T. Vishniac, Dept. of Astronomy, The University of Texas at Austin
Austin, Texas, 78712 et...@astro.as.utexas.edu
Donald Lindsay
pet...@nuge105.its.rpi.edu (Christopher Jon Petit) writes:
>there is supposedly (or so I've heard) scientific proof that some
>forms of ESP do in fact exist. I think the head of Stanford's Engineering
>dept. did some studies which showed that, by trying to influence certain
>statistically valid actions (e.g. 100,000 flips of a coin, in one second, by a
>computer), the subjects did have a small but measurable influence.
That would be interesting IF IT WERE TRUE. But the last I heard, it
just isn't true.
Since you are the person making the amazing claim, it's up to you to
produce the amazing facts. Find a reference, please.
--
Don D.C.Lindsay Carnegie Mellon Computer Science
Bronis Vidugiris
)I am being paid a significant amount of money to write this by an
)influential European corporation.
Do you think they'd pay the rest of us? Oh yeah, would we have to
be so new-agey to get funding (dunno if it'd be worth it if we would have
to compromise our ideals, ya know).
William Tyler
>
>In cases like this the request for appropriate references
>is doomed to failure, but making the request makes a point
>so....
>
>How about CARP?
>
>Cite Appropriate References Please
I'd suggest a slight modification: CRAP
Cite References Appropriately Please
-Bill
--
Bill Tyler wty...@adobe.com
Robert McGrath
|> The gossip
|> is that Martin Gardner and the arch-debunker, "The Amazing Randi" take
|> psychic phenomena very seriously. That is why they came down so hard on Uri
|> Geller because they believe him to be an imposter - a stage magician in
|> psychic clothes. It is certainly true that Randi can do everything that
|> Geller can do. It is also true that Geller fails rigorous tests set up by
|> other stage magicians.
You really shouldn't repeat unsubstantiated gossip about individuals.
However, these comments are pretty slippery. Yes, MG and JR "take
psychic phenoman very seriously"--why else would they spend so much
time and effort debunking such claims. And yes they came down hard
on UG because they believe him to be an imposter. And you state the
essence of the claims against UG. What exactly are you trying to
say?
And by the way, claims that the military/CIA have successfully used
and believe in remote viewing are most likely lies or mistakes. Next
thing you'll be telling me is that something is true because Richard
Nixon said so in a press conference. Puh-leeeze.
|> On the other hand, I saw topologically intricate
|> twisted metal allegedly bent by psychics in Brazil that is very puzzling.
I can't realy help you being puzzled. Many things puzzle me, but
most aren't remotely psychic.
--
Robert E. McGrath
Urbana Illinois
mcg...@cs.uiuc.edu
James J. Lippard
Princeton, not Stanford. There are lots of references, including many
Technical Notes published by the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research
center. Roger Nelson of PEAR has previously sent out a listing of
available reports to interested parties; I have one or two somewhere.
Jim Lippard Lip...@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy Lip...@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Donald Lindsay
sarf...@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti) writes:
>I have been told that I am a "super star" in some powerful
>circles that have decided that traditional universities are "brain dead"
>and that something new-age is needed.
And you're humble, too, apparently.
>How is the new physics different from the old physics?
The main difference is that the old physics exists to explain
experimental evidence. You, on the other hand, don't seem to make
much mention of evidence.
Are your theories falsifiable?
John C. Baez
>>sarf...@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti) writes:
>
>>I am being paid a significant amount of money to write this by an
>>influential European corporation. If you want to make
>>corrections,suggestions etc. with no monetary compensation from me,feel free
>>to do so. I will include opposing points of view in footnotes with your
>>names if you like. All I can say is that this document is going to be
>>translated into Spanish, French, Portuguese,Russian, Hindi and will be
>>read by some of the most powerful people (politicians, CEO's of multi-
>>nationals etc.) in the world who are about to set up a satellite based
>>multi-media world wide university in which I have been asked to play a
>>major role with major funding.
>
>>This is no joke! I have been told that I am a "super star" in some powerful
>>circles that have decided that traditional universities are "brain dead"
>>and that something new-age is needed.
Man, I missed this the first time! Are you sprouting delusions of
grandeur on us like Abian, Jack? Typical signs - remarks like "I have
been getting millions of adulatory email messages concerning my theories
- it's just you folks who *post* who keep knocking my ideas"... "I am
being paid a significant amount of money by a top-secret multinational
corporation to post lots of articles to many newsgroups," "Every article
I write is going to translated into Swahili and broadcast live on Kenyan
television during prime time", etc..
Please, please tell us you're joking and haven't flipped out! Or give
us a scintilla of evidence for your story! Surely it can't be all that
hush-hush if they're gonna start broadcasting your stuff worldwide.
Tell us which channel to tune to!
David E. Brahm
> showed that, by trying to influence certain statistically valid actions
> (e.g. 100,000 flips of a coin, in one second, by a computer), the
> subjects did have a small but measurable influence.
> Now, I want to see those tests done myself, but I don't have the
> resources.
It seems obvious to me that you do have the resources, namely
1) A computer,
2) A human brain.
So go for it! Mentally influence your random number generator! Myself,
I'll be trying to mentally influence millions of UseNet readers to keep
this stuff out of sci.physics.
--
Staccato signals of constant information, | David Brahm, physicist
A loose affiliation of millionaires and | (br...@cco.caltech.edu)
billionaires and Baby ... |---- Carpe Post Meridiem! --
These are the days of miracle and wonder, | Disclaimer: I only speak
And don't cry, Baby, don't cry, don't cry. | for the sensible folks.
Roger D. Nelson
[snip]
>Seriously now, I really do not understand psychic advocates. The real world is a wondrously interesting place! Weirdnesses like black holes, einstein-rosen wormholes, quasars, quantum wells, point particles, superconductors, etc, etc, etc are bizarre and interesting, and best of all, demonstrable!
>
I don't understand psychic advocates either, and by all means agree that the
real world is interesting. But I do wonder at your apparent conviction that
the above list is "demonstrable!"
Superconductors, yes, but the rest of the list? In what way would you
propose to demonstrate a black hole, or an "einstein-rosen wormhole" (a
paradox worthy of podolsky), for example? Demonstrations of the PK you
deny are more likely.
Roger
James Kibo Parry
>influential European corporation. If you want to make
>corrections,suggestions etc. with no monetary compensation from me,feel free
>to do so. I will include opposing points of view in footnotes with your
>names if you like. All I can say is that this document is going to be
>translated into Spanish, French, Portuguese,Russian, Hindi and will be
>read by some of the most powerful people (politicians, CEO's of multi-
>nationals etc.) in the world who are about to set up a satellite based
>multi-media world wide university in which I have been asked to play a
>major role with major funding.
>
>This is no joke! I have been told that I am a "super star" in some powerful
>circles that have decided that traditional universities are "brain dead"
>and that something new-age is needed.
>to be continued (the above is one evening's work).
>
>Admiral Sarfatti
>Star Fleet Academy
>Star Fleet Command
>Presidio
>San Francisco
>Federation of United Planets.
No joke indeed. DOO DAH, DOO DAH, DOO DAH, DOO DAH!
-- K.
Cameron Randale Bass
>
> Emotions and mental states are CRUCIAL to physical health...
> Properly done therapudic touching can help heal sicknesses by making the
>subject feel cared for...
Or, more simply, caring for a person can make a person
feel cared for. Somehow, I feel another Norman Cousins attack
coming on.
> Intuition is a very powerful mental ability (look at it this way---have you
>ever heard of AI---Artifical Intuition?). Why? Because it brings together
>life experience (e.g. Wisdom), and lets you look at problems in totally new
>ways. Einstein probably wasn't just intelligent---he was also very intuitive..
> It is possible to perceive someone else's emotional state by non-verbal
>means...
Throwing darts at a board is also a powerful mental ability.
> As for all the ESP info---consider this. There are many urban legends which
>involve ESP as 'saving the day' Now, in order for ESP not to exist, EVERY ONE
>of those stories must have either an alternate explaination or be totally false
>. But, if even one has no such explaination, and is somewhat true, then ESP
>exists in some form.
Consider this. Millions of people thought their diseases
caused by bad humours, or evil spirits or ...
They were all wrong.
> Just remember---Relativity wasn't believed to exist either, until someone
>thought of how to prove its existence.
Galilean relativity had a long history prior to
Einsteinian relativity, and ESP is widely believed to
exist. Unfortunately for ESP proponents, there is actually
evidence for the both of the former. And just remember, J.B.
Rhine studied 'ESP' for countless years down at Duke, with no undisputed
positive results, and yet our particle-heaving friends
use SR with every new toss.
Sortta makes you wonder why ol' J.B. was so incompetent.
Tom Epstein [415]
(Afzal Ballim) writes:
|> In article <1k436c...@emx.cc.utexas.edu>, et...@emx.cc.utexas.edu
(Ethan T. Vishniac) writes:
|> |>
|> |> In cases like this the request for appropriate references
|> |> is doomed to failure, but making the request makes a point
|> |> so....
|> |>
|> |> How about CARP?
|> |>
|> |> Cite Appropriate References Please
|>
|> How about CRAP?
|>
|> Cite References And Proof
|>
Both seem to be winners here. A kudos each to Messrs Ballim and Vishniac.
How about this:
In cases where claims are unreferenced and the responding party is merely
suspicious that there is something fishy about the original poster's source,
use CARP. Example:
na...@gullable.edu > What about the proof of the CIA cover-up
of the JFK / Stalin connection?
s...@anywhere.org > This sounds fishy - CARP.
On the other hand, there may be reason to suspect that the poster has a particular
agenda or is a nutcase or for whatever reason appears to have no regard for facts:
In such cases, use CRAP.
bo...@paranoia.com > I have inside knowledge of the CIA cover-up
of the *real* source of AIDS: the Vatican!
s...@anywhere.org > There is certain air about your statement - CRAP.
Tom Epstein
AT&T Bell Labs
Allentown, PA. USA
Peter Nelson
>In article <1k436c...@emx.cc.utexas.edu> et...@emx.cc.utexas.edu (Ethan T. Vishniac) writes:
>
>> In cases like this the request for appropriate references
>> is doomed to failure, but making the request makes a point
>> so....
>
> How about CARP?
>
> Cite Appropriate References Please
I like this one! Unless I hear a better one in the next few
days I'll start propagating it (there is never any shortage
of opportunities on Usenet). Maybe we can start a new acronym.
This could be an interesting experiment in language propagation.
>Why bother responding. The first poster made his request just for
>the halibut!
. . .
. . . I can't think of a funny rejoinder.
---peter
Christopher Jon Petit
>sarf...@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti) writes:
>>It is also true that Geller fails rigorous tests set up by
>>other stage magicians.
>You're understating. Geller has been outright caught cheating, by
>plural people, plural times.
>For example, the reporter who visited Geller in a hotel room. She
>noted that the edge of the coffee table had three notches in it, just
>as if someone had bent a key, three times. When Geller "psychically"
>bent her key, she noticed that the coffee table had just sprouted a
>fourth notch.
Hehe. I can imagine Geller trying to talk his way outta THAT one...
"You see, to bend a key, I must use immense amounts of psychic energy.
That energy came from the table, but was too much for it, so another notch
appeared."
Robert Firth
>It seems obvious to me that you do have the resources, namely
> 1) A computer,
> 2) A human brain.
>So go for it! Mentally influence your random number generator!
Not fair - it's well known that psychics can't influence pseudo-random
processes. The experiment should be done with a true random process -
for instance the process that, with extreme rarity, generates sense on
sci.physics.
Thomas Kettenring
In article <-xq3...@rpi.edu>, pet...@nuge112.its.rpi.edu (Christopher Jon Petit) writes:
> As for all the ESP info---consider this. There are many urban legends which
>involve ESP as 'saving the day' Now, in order for ESP not to exist, EVERY ONE
>of those stories must have either an alternate explaination or be totally false
>. But, if even one has no such explaination, and is somewhat true, then ESP
>exists in some form.
Yes, and in order for Santa Claus not to exist, EVERY ONE of the Santa Clauses
you see on the streets at the end of the year must be an imposter. But if
even one of them is for real...
(To avoid being misunderstood *again* by a certain person with an agenda:
No, I don't want to compare Santa and PSI, I only want to show that the
argument above is less than impressive. But at least it is new to me,
contrary to the old chestnut below.)
> Just remember---Relativity wasn't believed to exist either, until someone
>thought of how to prove its existence.
--
thomas kettenring, 3 dan, kaiserslautern, germany
Philosophy is the art of drawing conclusions from definitions that have been
chosen so that one can draw the conclusions one would like to get.
It immediately follows that philosophy is silly.
Afzal Ballim
|>
|> In cases like this the request for appropriate references
|> is doomed to failure, but making the request makes a point
|> so....
|>
|> How about CARP?
|>
|> Cite Appropriate References Please
How about CRAP?
Cite References And Proof
--
Afzal Ballim |BITNET,EARN,MHS,X.400: af...@divsun.unige.ch
ISSCO, University of Geneva |UUCP: mcsun!divsun.unige.ch!afzal
54 route des Acacias |JANET: afzal%divsun....@uk.ac.ean-relay
CH-1227 GENEVA,Switzerland |CSNET,ARPA: afzal%divsun....@relay.cs.net
fos...@jed.cs.uidaho.edu
of mastery of anything, they are brain dead, too.
You may quote me.
--
James A. Foster fos...@cs.uidaho.edu
Universty of Idaho Dept. of Computer Science
Carl J Lydick
> As for all the ESP info---consider this. There are many urban legends which
>involve ESP as 'saving the day' Now, in order for ESP not to exist, EVERY ONE
>of those stories must have either an alternate explaination or be totally false
>. But, if even one has no such explaination, and is somewhat true, then ESP
>exists in some form.
A great many such stories are easily explained by selective perception and
memory. A great many more are easily explained by the fact that the people
reporting the experiences have no intuitive feeling for the probabilities
involved. Most are poorly documented.
> Just remember---Relativity wasn't believed to exist either, until someone
>thought of how to prove its existence.
The question of testing relativity wasn't one of "thinking of how to prove its
existence." Experiments for testing it were known pretty much from the outset.
The problem was in the relative infrequency of opportunities for testing it,
and the development of equipment that could be used to perform the experiments.
For example, with general relativity, the only nearby object massive enough to
be used to test the theory was Sol. Unfortunately, testing the theory using
Sol required observing the occultation of a distant star, and seeing a star
near the sun is somewhat problematical from the ground. So we had to wait for
a total eclipse.
With special relativity, one obvious test was to compare time measurements in
two different reference frames. That had to wait until we were able to
generate short-lived subatomic particles and measure the lifetime of the
particles as a function of their energy.
Also both theories of relativity were developed to account for discrepencies
between observations and the predictions of Newtonian mechanics.
ESP, on the other hand, is more or less in the situation of being an
explanation looking for something to explain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CA...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
Disclaimer: Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS. That's what I get paid for. My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below). So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it. If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Gerry Roston
> In cases like this the request for appropriate references
> is doomed to failure, but making the request makes a point
> so....
How about CARP?
Cite Appropriate References Please
Why bother responding. The first poster made his request just for
the halibut!
--
Gerry Roston (ge...@cmu.edu) | IX - The enumeration in the Constitution,
Field Robotics Center, | of certain rights, shall not be construed
Carnegie Mellon University | to deny or disparage others retained by the
Pittsburgh, PA, 15213 | people.
(412) 268-3856 |
|
The opinions expressed are mine |
and do not reflect the official |
position of CMU, FRC, RedZone, |
or any other organization. |
Christopher Jon Petit
Actually, I also side more with the advocate of 'New Age' stuff. Most of it,
I'll agree is probably off-the-wall. But, some is very important and ignored
in this day and age. Specifically...
Emotions and mental states are CRUCIAL to physical health...
Properly done therapudic touching can help heal sicknesses by making the
subject feel cared for...
Intuition is a very powerful mental ability (look at it this way---have you
ever heard of AI---Artifical Intuition?). Why? Because it brings together
life experience (e.g. Wisdom), and lets you look at problems in totally new
ways. Einstein probably wasn't just intelligent---he was also very intuitive..
It is possible to perceive someone else's emotional state by non-verbal
means...
As for all the ESP info---consider this. There are many urban legends which
involve ESP as 'saving the day' Now, in order for ESP not to exist, EVERY ONE
of those stories must have either an alternate explaination or be totally false
. But, if even one has no such explaination, and is somewhat true, then ESP
exists in some form.
Just remember---Relativity wasn't believed to exist either, until someone
thought of how to prove its existence.
David Toland
>I'll agree is probably off-the-wall. But, some is very important and ignored
>in this day and age. Specifically...
>
>Emotions and mental states are CRUCIAL to physical health...
>Properly done therapudic touching can help heal sicknesses by making the
>subject feel cared for...
This predates New Age pseudoscience. It differs from New Age babble in
that it 1) is supported by well-documented clinical studies and 2) is
explainable without mysticism or mis-stated physics. The brain does
exist within and has influence over the physical body, including influence
over aspects of the biochemistry. It does not require mysticism to
expect that this gives the patient's psychological state a degree of
influence over his or her recuperative abilities.
>It is possible to perceive someone else's emotional state by non-verbal
>means...
Which is extrapolation of sensory information, not some "6th sense" input.
>As for all the ESP info---consider this. There are many urban legends which
>involve ESP as 'saving the day' Now, in order for ESP not to exist, EVERY ONE
>of those stories must have either an alternate explanation or be totally
>false.
No argument. But no one has been able to demonstrate the existence of ESP
under laboratory conditions that stand up to peer review, despite substantial
monetary incentives to do so. This does not prove that ESP does not exist
in any form, but certainly does not argue in favor of it.
>Just remember---Relativity wasn't believed to exist either, until someone
>thought of how to prove its existence.
The theory of relativity made specific predictions that were testable
under difficult to measure conditions. When the measurements were
possible, they agreed with the predictions with statistically significant
accuracy. Thus far, all predictions based upon ESP conjectures have failed
to produce statistically significant verifiable results. There is a
set of procedures for verifying scientific theories, and it exists to
ensure that results are repeatable and to eliminate false results due to
the bias of the researcher. Even the simplest forms of ESP have failed
to be reproducibly measurable under any conditions that eliminate
alternate explanations.
People will believe what they want. Religions have arisen in the past to
explain what people do not understand. Coincidence is not well understood
by most people, especially when low probability events occur. Most people
interpret a 1 in 10000 chance of an event as an impossible occurrence,
but if there are 1000000 opportunities per day of such an event, it
in fact becomes a likely occurrence.
This discussion really does not belong in r.a.s.t., and I apologize
to subscribers whose time is being wasted here. I was trained as a
scientist, and find today's widespread ignorance of the scientific
no less than appalling. I see the bulk of the New Age claims as
at best based upon ignorance and wishful thinking, and at the
worst blatant hucksterism.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
All opinions are MINE MINE MINE, and not necessarily anyone else's.
d...@phlan.sw.stratus.com | "Laddie, you'll be needin' something to wash
| that doon with."
Donald Lindsay
sarf...@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti) writes:
>It is also true that Geller fails rigorous tests set up by
>other stage magicians.
You're understating. Geller has been outright caught cheating, by
plural people, plural times.
For example, the reporter who visited Geller in a hotel room. She
noted that the edge of the coffee table had three notches in it, just
as if someone had bent a key, three times. When Geller "psychically"
bent her key, she noticed that the coffee table had just sprouted a
fourth notch.
Peter Nelson
>Quoting sarf...@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti) in article <C1GEp...@well.sf.ca.us>:
>>
>>This is no joke! I have been told that I am a "super star" in some powerful
>>circles that have decided that traditional universities are "brain dead"
>>and that something new-age is needed.
>
>poster.
I know spelling flames are frowned upon but where I'm from
his posting sounds more like it's from an IMposter.
---peter
Mahesh Zambani
|> |>
|> |> In cases like this the request for appropriate references
|> |> is doomed to failure, but making the request makes a point
|> |> so....
|> |>
|> |> How about CARP?
|> |>
|> |> Cite Appropriate References Please
|>
|> How about CRAP?
|>
|> Cite References And Proof
|>
--Mahesh
--
Mahesh Zambani mah...@elcaro1.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM
NCR MCPD , Columbia,SC 29170 hello: off #803-791-6915
res #803-750-1863
_____________________________________________________________________________
Universe.MilkyWay.Sol.Earth.USA.enet.dec.com
the recent spate of garbage in this group. It's been extremely bad lately
and that is after my KILL file processing...
Don Dossa
Eric Lippert
> In article <C1H02...@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> reli...@napier.uwaterloo.ca (Eric Lippert) writes:
> >
> I don't understand psychic advocates either, and by all means agree that the
> real world is interesting. But I do wonder at your apparent conviction that
> the above list is "demonstrable!"
>
OK, perhaps "demonstrable" is the wrong word.
black holes -- predicted by cosmologic theory, several unconfirmed candidates
exist, such as the one in Cygnus
wormholes -- well, quite far out, but Einstein was a pretty smart guy...
quasars -- plenty exist, we just don't know what they are, exactly
quantum wells -- appearing soon in a semiconductor near you
point particles -- electrons, for instance
superconductors -- all over the place, these days
The point is that all of these guys are (a) really weird and (b) implied by orthodox theory and accepted by mainstream science. My point is that it is
not necessary to go back to the Middle Ages (when, curiously enough, they believed in magic, faith healing, possession, etc) to find unexplained phenomenon.
Isaac Asimov said that the so-called New Age is really just a very Old Age, all over again. I don't need magic pixies or telepathy to make my world interesting and meaningful. Some, apparently, do.
Eric Lippert
ALEX MATTHEWS
In article <-xq3...@rpi.edu> pet...@nuge112.its.rpi.edu (Christopher Jon Petit) writes:
>
> Properly done therapudic touching can help heal sicknesses by making the
>subject feel cared for...
CRAP, please. The Rocky Mountain Skeptics today confront the Colorado
State Nursing Board about the accreditation of therapeutic touch
courses for continuing ed credits for nurses. The Board's mandate
is to regulate the practice of nursing according to available
scientific evidence. The board has released its "scientific"
evidence, a bibliography of over 200 articles, most from the popular
press. Of the true scientific papers, only a few claim extremely
marginal positive results, and NO POSITIVE RESULTS ARE REPLICATED.
This is probably the most comprehensive bibliography available because
one of the most published and influential TT researchers is a prof
at CU in Denver, and she supplied the bibliography to the Board.
If you have additional information, we'd be very happy to add it
to the bibliography and review it.
(Followups to sci.skeptic. Anybody who's interested, read the SI
Winter 1993 issue, or yesterday's article in the local paper, The
Daily Camera, 1/27/93.)
--
- Alex Matthews (new address: alexm.csn.org)
"A typical Grand Prix race. High noon. Tension mounts. Throttles clench."
Patricia Zonker, _Murdercycles_
Robert McGrath
|> In article <C1GEp...@well.sf.ca.us> sarf...@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti) writes:
|> )I am being paid a significant amount of money to write this by an
|> )influential European corporation.
|>
|> Do you think they'd pay the rest of us? Oh yeah, would we have to
|> be so new-agey to get funding (dunno if it'd be worth it if we would have
|> to compromise our ideals, ya know).
Surely you don believe this idle boast! The rest of the post is
total fantasy, so I'd expect the big contract is pure fiction, too.
Benjamin Weiner
rdne...@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger D. Nelson) writes:
> reli...@napier.uwaterloo.ca (Eric Lippert) writes:
>[snip]
>>Seriously now, I really do not understand psychic advocates. The real
>>world is a wondrously interesting place! Weirdnesses like black holes,
>>einstein-rosen wormholes, quasars, quantum wells, point particles,
>>superconductors, etc, etc, etc are bizarre and interesting, and best of
>>all, demonstrable!
>I don't understand psychic advocates either, and by all means agree that the
>real world is interesting. But I do wonder at your apparent conviction that
>the above list is "demonstrable!"
>Superconductors, yes, but the rest of the list? In what way would you
>propose to demonstrate a black hole, or an "einstein-rosen wormhole" ...
> (stuff on how PK is more demonstrable than these things deleted)
Maybe, but here is an example of the too-narrow scope of sci.physics.
We spend all this time talking crap about black holes et al, and you
wind up mischaracterizing two of the elements on his list. First the
less painful one: "quasar" in fact originally stood for "quasi-stellar
radio source." There are these things on the sky; we can't go there,
but they do exist.
Okay, now the one that really bothers me. "Quantum wells" are a neat,
VERY well-documented, Hot Topic in solid-state physics. If you have
access to a literature searcher, search for "quantum" + "well." I found
1,939 items, and my database only covers items published since
September 1988. Or you could just pick up a random issue of Phys Rev
Letters, Phys Rev B, or Applied Physics Letters. I just went to the
library and looked at the latest issue of Appl Phys Lett, and there
are four papers on quantum well phenomena.
Basically they're just tiny structures in semiconductors, but there
are all sorts of fun things that happen in them, e.g. lasing. What
gets me is that because it's solid-state physics, it's ignored. I'd
rather hear about mesoscopic quantum systems than about event horizons
or EPR paradoxes for the Nth time. (No offense to those who discuss
it, but you gotta admit these topics tend to reoccur painfully often,
with frequency 1/semester.) I have to point out that this is not
special pleading: I'm doing astrophysics. I get enough of cosmology
already, that's why I want to hear something else.
Robert Firth
> As for all the ESP info---consider this. There are many urban legends which
>involve ESP as 'saving the day' Now, in order for ESP not to exist, EVERY ONE
>of those stories must have either an alternate explaination or be totally false
Quite true. In thinking about this, I find it helpful to narrow the subject
matter somewhat. Specifically, to dreams. And, indeed, to a small subset
of dreams - dreams by a person about to travel that the train will crash,
the boat will sink, or whatever.
I've had such dreams, and you probably have too. So, let's suppose Serena
Savak is about to fly to Hawaii, has a dream of a plane crash, cancels her
ticket, and the plane crashes. And, of course, the Weekly World News
publishes the whole story. ESP, right?
Not necessarily. What we don't know is, how many times Ms Savak has had the
same dream, but the plane has *not* crashed. And we need that information,
in order to prove even a statistical correlation between dreams and crashes.
After all, if one flight in 1000 crashes, and only one dream in 1000 comes
true, that's exactly what you'd expect if the dreams were the result of
random anxiety rather than precognition. But, of course, the WWN doesn't
run 999 stories on dreams that didn't come true.
There is an alternative approach. Travellers cancel their trips quite
frequently, but psychic travellers, presumably, are more likely to cancel
trips on vehicles that are about to crash. So, is there a detectable
difference in the pattern of cancellations for planes that have crashed?
This has been studies at least three times, and (typically, I'm afraid)
I've long ago forgotten where the stuff is written up. So, if you have
time to hunt, two of them are
(a) a series of interviews with people who did not sail on the Titanic
(b) a study of cancellations on the de Havilland Comet 1, conducted by
British Overseas Airways Corporation. That's the plane that caught
"metal fatugue", by the way, and there were for a while all kinds of
wild theories about what was going on.
As best I can recall, no pattern emerged. But it still gives me the
creeps to read "Futility".
John C. Baez
> IMHO, we should develop an acronym for the above sentiment,
> something like NUCWE (no unusual claims without evidence)
> or RNFSC (references needed for strong claims) or simply RP
> (references please)? But I find these a bit awkward.
> Any suggestions for something simple, clear, and catchy?
Umm, how about the time-honored acronym "BS"?
John C. Baez
Indeed, I contacted a powerful European financial firm and, unbeknownst
to Jack, they are paying both him and Abian to spew ever more silly
posts to sci.physics, so that people will vote for sci.physics.research!
(Just kidding.)
Jason D Corley
>In article <C1GEp...@well.sf.ca.us> sarf...@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti) writes:
>)
>)I am being paid a significant amount of money to write this by an
>)influential European corporation.
>
>Do you think they'd pay the rest of us? Oh yeah, would we have to
>be so new-agey to get funding (dunno if it'd be worth it if we would have
>to compromise our ideals, ya know).
Oh, my ideals probably wouldn't be bothered by the whole $2.76 this
pseudoscientific group probably scraped together off the sidewalks
of the world....
[insert smileys as needed]
--
******************************************************************************
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the
black flag and begin slitting throats."---------H. L. Mencken
Jason D. "cor...@gas.uug.arizona.edu" Corley Claims Full Responsibility
dave budd
>|> |> In cases like this the request for appropriate references
>|> |> is doomed to failure, but making the request makes a point
>|> |> so....
>|> |> How about CARP?
>|> |> Cite Appropriate References Please
>|>
>|> How about CRAP?
>|> Cite References And Proof
>|>
D------ Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence
We just need some word for the D
Actually, Occam wore a beard: philosophers kept borrowing his razor
Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England (44|0)61-275-6033
Mark Meyer
| Admiral Sarfatti
Space Cadet Sarfatti, if you ask me.
| Star Fleet Academy
| Star Fleet Command
| Presidio
| San Francisco
| Federation of United Planets.
United Federation of Planets. If you're going to allude to
well-known SF, get it right.
--
Mark Meyer | mme...@dseg.ti.com |
Texas Instruments, Inc., Plano TX +--------------------+
Every day, Jerry Junkins is grateful that I don't speak for TI.
Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage.
Matt McIrvin
(on quantum wells)
>Basically they're just tiny structures in semiconductors, but there
>are all sorts of fun things that happen in them, e.g. lasing. What
>gets me is that because it's solid-state physics, it's ignored. I'd
>rather hear about mesoscopic quantum systems than about event horizons
>or EPR paradoxes for the Nth time. (No offense to those who discuss
>it, but you gotta admit these topics tend to reoccur painfully often,
>with frequency 1/semester.) I have to point out that this is not
>special pleading: I'm doing astrophysics. I get enough of cosmology
>already, that's why I want to hear something else.
No offense taken-- I *don't* do astrophysics, so the stuff is entertaining
to me. But I'm getting sick of my own three or four canned addresses
about black holes. I usually get provoked into jumping in when a massively
crossposted discussion on the topic attracts a critical mass of
misinformation. I apologize if I've been boring those of you without
fancy newsreaders that let you prune the news.
I've noticed that special-relativity paradoxes don't get discussed as
often as they used to. Could this be the modern miracle of the FAQ list
at work? Could be. Let's hope people keep reading and contributing to it.
--
Matt McIrvin
Joe Zitt
>How about DECREE ?
> D------ Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence
>
>We just need some word for the D
Doubtable. Dubious. Daffy. Damned. Dimwitted. Doubly. Disastrously. Dismissable.
Daringly. Throatwarbler Mangrove. Dingbattish. Dastardly. Doofy. Duh.
Robert Firth
> D------ Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence
And an "extraordinary claim", of course, is short for "a claim I find hard
to believe". Thus does conventional skepticism close itself within the
event horizon of a superdense belief system.
Ken Arromdee
>> D------ Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence
>And an "extraordinary claim", of course, is short for "a claim I find hard
>to believe". Thus does conventional skepticism close itself within the
>event horizon of a superdense belief system.
"extraordinary claim" is short for "a claim which says that a few million
physicists have been wrong for a few decades", and similar stuff.
It implies no closed system like you apparently see--there _is_ evidence that
physicists will accept, even for extraordinary claims.
--
"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me... Leftover Turkey!
On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me... Turkey Casserole
that she made from Leftover Turkey.
[days 3-4 deleted] ... Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
-- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)
Ken Arromdee (arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arro...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
Stan Friesen
|> [re: mental states effecing health]
|> This predates New Age pseudoscience. It differs from New Age babble in
|> that it 1) is supported by well-documented clinical studies and 2) is
|> explainable without mysticism or mis-stated physics. The brain does
|> exist within and has influence over the physical body, including influence
|> over aspects of the biochemistry. It does not require mysticism to
|> expect that this gives the patient's psychological state a degree of
|> influence over his or her recuperative abilities.
Not only that - there are *known* anatomical connections that could mediate
this effect. Several hormones are secreted by the brain directly - from cells
that are anatomically just modified neurons. (The pituitary is one example of
this). And then there is the 'autonomous' nervous system, which innervates
most of the internal organs of the body, including ones responsible for the
release of even more hormones.
So, mind-body linkages are quite well established based on perfectly standard
biology - no new age crap needed.
|> >It is possible to perceive someone else's emotional state by non-verbal
|> >means...
|>
|> Which is extrapolation of sensory information, not some "6th sense" input.
Or, to use a different idiom - it is reading body language.
--
sar...@teradata.com (formerly tdatirv!sarima)
or
Stanley...@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
SCOTT I CHASE
Come on, Robert, give it a rest. Are *you* really willing to accept
without further skepticism, all claims, however contrary to long-tested
and well-trusted principles of physics, as long as they come along
with a single piece of experimental evidence? Or would you insist on
reserving judgement for a definitive battery of experiments before
declaring that physics is in crisis?
-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase "It is not a simple life to be a single cell,
SIC...@CSA2.LBL.GOV although I have no right to say so, having
been a single cell so long ago myself that I
have no memory at all of that stage of my
life." - Lewis Thomas
Stan Friesen
|> In article <C1H02...@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> reli...@napier.uwaterloo.ca (Eric Lippert) writes:
|>
|> ... But I do wonder at your apparent conviction that
|> the above list is "demonstrable!"
|>
|> Superconductors, yes, but the rest of the list? In what way would you
|> propose to demonstrate a black hole, or an "einstein-rosen wormhole" (a
|> paradox worthy of podolsky), for example?
Well, black holes are right on the edge of being demonstrated. If it were not
for the abberation in the Hubble Telescope, they would probably already have
been demonstrated. The evidence is *just* short of being conclusive that
some galaxies (including the Milky Way) have black holes at their centers.
[A slightly more precise measurement of angular momentum vs. radial position
will do it - I predict that within 18 months it will be established].
Stan Friesen
|>
|> OK, perhaps "demonstrable" is the wrong word.
|>
|> exist, such as the one in Cygnus
|> wormholes -- well, quite far out, but Einstein was a pretty smart guy...
These are now mostly considered pretty unlikely.
|> quasars -- plenty exist, we just don't know what they are, exactly
The most likely candidate is black holes!!
|> quantum wells -- appearing soon in a semiconductor near you
Yep, these do exist - I think the Hubble Telescope may already be using
them for the photomultipliers.
|> point particles -- electrons, for instance
At least as far as we can tell to date.
What the future will show is difficult to tell.
David S. Masterson
> And by the way, claims that the military/CIA have successfully used
> and believe in remote viewing are most likely lies or mistakes. Next
> thing you'll be telling me is that something is true because Richard
> Nixon said so in a press conference. Puh-leeeze.
And yet, you said in the previous paragraph:
> You really shouldn't repeat unsubstantiated gossip about individuals.
Puh-leeeze.
--
====================================================================
David Masterson Consilium, Inc.
(415) 691-6311 640 Clyde Ct.
dav...@consilium.com Mtn. View, CA 94043
====================================================================
progasm: the feeling you get when your code works the first time
Andrew Shellshear
In article <zlsii...@fs1.mcc.ac.uk>, zls...@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd) writes:
> [sorry about the attributions, guys]
> >|>
> >|> How about CRAP?
> >|> Cite References And Proof
> >|>
> How about DECREE ?
> D------ Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence
>
protestations of persecution:
ATLANO
And they laughed at nitrous oxide.
--
_/\_ ------ Blue Canary in the outlet by the lightswitch. -------
\`'/ The Earth's magnetic field is particularly strong today.
/~~\ ------------------------- "Salt?" --------------------------
Blair P. Houghton
->In article <C1GEp...@well.sf.ca.us>, sarf...@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti) writes:
->
->|> The new physics is the telepathic physics...
->
->Please offer references to any reproducable experiments that prove the existence
->of "telepathy." Without such references, there is no merit to any of your claims.
-
- . . . Something I also frequently demand on many newsgroups.
-
- But the need to say things like this so frequently is
- tiresome, especially as the clueless and gullible products
- of the US educational system and popular culture are spewed
- onto the net.
-
- Usenet has evolved a number of acronyms to reduce typing
- time and needed bandwidth such as BTW (by the way), FOAF
- (friend of a friend), IMHO (in my humble opinion), and
- RTFM (read the manual), to name a few.
-
- IMHO, we should develop an acronym for the above sentiment,
- something like NUCWE (no unusual claims without evidence)
- or RNFSC (references needed for strong claims) or simply RP
- (references please)? But I find these a bit awkward.
- Any suggestions for something simple, clear, and catchy?
<*plonk!*>
--Blair
"It's been done."
SRS Consultant
Sorry, Blair. The correct response was:
"ATTRIBUTION, DAMMIT!!"
--
Mitch Gorman srsc...@telesciences.com em...@cellar.org
"Even this we could call music, as that would match my body connection.
Let me take your hand, I will be beside you. Beside."