4Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksIs there a group here for discussions about ESP and the paranormal?..
September 23rd, 2013, 12:53 PM
Is there a group here for discussions about ESP and the paranormal?..
If you mean a scientific discussion as to the merit of claims, yes.Originally Posted by changedforever
If you mean a group that suffers delusions in regards to confirmation bias, fabricated 'evidence' and promotes fallacious supernatural claims; then no, not really.
Would someone with esp need(or use) this web?
Pseudoscience would be an appropriate sub-forum for such a discussion.
And don't expect much support because this is a science forum which deals mainly on what's on the mainstream#
True, but Harold was kind enough to direct him.
If the thread has no interests, it will die.
*chuckle*...at least he directed them!
I think a discussion on why some people are more likely to suffer from this delusion than others could also be appropriate.
There's no discussion....some ppl just love magic,science doesn't.I think a discussion on why some people are more likely to suffer from this delusion than others could also be appropriate.
We do not recognize a 6th sensory organ is has been shown over and over again#
"Spooky action(magic) at a distance"?
It only seems like magic untill you understand it.
Pseudoscience would be an appropriate sub-forum for such a discussion.
Or the Trash Can, if the thread really goes wrong.
Driving home yesterday, I observed an unusually bright red and yellow light that appeared to be hovering about 5 feet above the ground.
My first thought was an emergency flare/signal of some sort yet there was no sign of any vehicle, persons or activity as I approached this persistent glow at reduced speed. My angle of perception changed as I drew nearer and I saw that this glow was caused by reflected light of the sun.
It was a 'sign' alright.
A 'stop' sign, and it was merely the time of day and the sun peeking through the clouds that had projected this very convincing illusion of a 'hovering light'.
I think a discussion on why some people are more likely to suffer from this delusion than others could also be appropriate."Spooky action(magic) at a distance"?
It only seems like magic untill you understand it.
You can please start with the briefing and explanations,possibility,claims,etc and I will be glad to discuss it alongside you#
"spooky action at a distance" is what albert einstein called quantum entanglement(schrodinger's verschränkung)
the communication of/between entangled particles is claimed to be much much faster than the speed of light.
crazy stuff?
bending light with gravitational lensing
more crazy stuff?
How can light be effected by gravity if it has no mass?
Does gravity have any effect on quantum entanglement?
Much that seemed magical a century ago doesn't seem so today.
All true scientists love studying/understanding what seems to be magic.
If you feel the need to throw out the bath water, kindly remove the baby first.
I don't think they saw it as magical.
What you relate to the thread here is what I was talking about in the "Is everything pre-determined?" thread.
The history of the debate:
Einstein felt that the methodology of examining the quantum scale was messy. He equated it to "Wood" whereas Relativity was elegant and neat; the "marble."
What Einstein wanted was a theory of quantum mechanics that was also elegant and neat. He was not claiming that entanglement was magic in the least.
When these guys first began working with these problems, they came to a base agreement as to the likeliest model and results but not to a method.
The division was when Bohr and Heisenberg and such said that a wave function must be used to make measurements and Einstein believed that a deeper theory which eliminated that necessity should be developed. It was a matter of priorities.
Bohr wanted to start testing the models based on that methodology as he felt that was the most effective way to learn enough to expand and build greater accuracy for theory.
Einstein felt that was a waste of time and that if he applied himself to the problem, he could come up with a theory as elegant as Relativity. He would rib Bohr, in good nature, that Bohr believed the Moon did not exist unless someone was there to see it. Bohr did not believe this, but usually came up with a retort that involved a wave function. It was amicable ribbing based over a deeper disagreement. Along with the Moon joshing, he cgave him a hard time with "Spooky Action at a Distance." He never acted as though he thought it was "Magic" or appeared to be magic; rather, illusory and a more fundamental theory would clear it up. I agree with Einstein. I'm very much not alone in that- and so did Bohr agree with Einstein. The trouble was that we still had the measurement problem. And simply agreeing won't produce a solution to that troublesome problem.
All Parties agreed that the wave function was not a "true" measure or a model of direct reality.
They agreed that the Moon did exist even if not observed. They all were in agreement that the H.U.P. is an artifact of our ability measure what we cannot directly observe and will interact with and influence the outcome if we DO try to measure indirectly.
Where they disagreed was where to go from there.
Einstein continued to work on the problem for the rest of his life. After such a success as Relativity, perhaps his confidence was a little too high.
Or maybe he was optimistic. In the end, his goal was no different from his colleagues. They just had different priorities as to where to put forth the effort.
It seems Bohr was not so far off. Einstein did not theorize a better model and no one has since.
But today, in popular science, it's a very common idea that there was some enmity there and a disagreement as to whether or not the H.U.P was fundamental - or intrinsic- to the Universe. There wasn't then and there should not be now. But just as Dingle was improperly taught Relativity and improperly taught it to his students for almost two decades... such is happening with Q.M. to some degree. But more noticeably, pop sci groups are often totally and utterly misrepresenting the debate and the statements within them.
hup=Heisenberg's uncertainty principle
.................
what i was getting at was
albert called it magic, spooky magic,then worked on it for the rest of his life
have a little fun along the way
a few months ago i read about an australian who wanted to take an entangled particle up to the space station, then observe it's partner on earth and see if the entanglement holds over 500k--------I think there was mention of the different gravity also???
did that ever happen?
I haven't got a clue.
Maybe he should just take a regular airline to Puerto Rico.
Sculptor I believe you now realize that we didn't see quantum mechanics the way you are supposing.
After that is said and done I'd prefer telepathy to any extra sensory perception#
That would be a double edged sword, IMHO!
IMO I don't understand#That would be a double edged sword, IMHO!
AN expression.That would be a double edged sword, IMHO!
IMO I don't understand#
Means it could be both a good and bad thing.
IN MY HUMBLE OPINION
AN expression.That would be a double edged sword, IMHO!
IMO I don't understand#
Means it could be both a good and bad thing.
IN MY HUMBLE OPINION
Clear now# IMHO
| « Dark energy | The subjective experience is an underestimated tool to discover parts of our reality » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
