Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The Society for the Investigaion of Prescience, SIP

  1. Nov 7, 2004 #1
    We are pleased to announce the formation of a group for scientists and others interested in the developing convergence of physics (measurement and theory) with the practices of ancient traditional experienced-based systems.

    Can sacred geometry and direct perception as handed down through generations of advanced thinkers who worked without the benefit of our modern instrumentation give us and insight into current questions regarding the energies and structures of vacuum states?

    Is there any correspondence between the higher dimensions found by intuition and the higher dimensions found in supersymmetric string theory?

    If you are a scientist or other interested person, please visit us at our board on Meetup.com and join in the discussion.
    If you can't find us, look for the index word PRESCIENCE on the meetup.com welcome board.
    Thank you,

    Richard T. Harbaugh
    Director of Programs

    Joseph J. Fasano
    Director of Research

    Suzanne Elizabeth Seitz
    Executive Secretary
    Assistant Director of Research

    Gerald Wesley Seitz
    Director of Finance

    and the Members of
    The Society for the Investigation of Prescience, SIP

    http://paraphysics.meetup.com/1/boards/ [Broken]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 7, 2004 #2

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Good luck folks.
     
  4. Nov 7, 2004 #3

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Was that directed toward Shoshana, or the rest of us reading that post? :rofl: I was thinking Christmas must be here early, a crackpot theory and spam all in one post! This looks like a job for anti_crank! :biggrin:
     
  5. Nov 7, 2004 #4

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Let it ride. These guys are not presenting a theory but are looking to do research. You may notice that some of our members are on board.
     
  6. Nov 7, 2004 #5

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I hadn't gone so far as to follow the link before, and jumped to the conclusion it was another flaky pseudoscience site. Now that I have followed the link, I see they are more serious than my first impression. The intro doesn't really do the site justice.
     
  7. Nov 7, 2004 #6
    Moonbear got yelled at. hehe Should have asked me first, I'm a parapsychic and could have told you the planets' alignment pointed to trouble if you criticized them.
    On the other hand, like I always say. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck then this group just might be a bunch of quacks.
     
  8. Nov 8, 2004 #7

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I went to their site and nosed around a bit. Nothing of much interest to me there, but at this point, while they seem to enjoy speaking in metaphors, they seem to want to use scientific method to approach their questions, and want some scientists there. However, I'm not sure how they plan to accomplish that when they start out with a thread that says science is limited because it only deals with the physical world, which immediately assumes their questions don't have an answer in the physical world even though that's what they claim to be trying to find out.

    Of course, it doesn't bode well when their intro here includes a statement such as:
    Anyway, they don't have anything at all about that on their site, so it looks like it may have been intended to entice readers, though if SelfAdjoint hadn't posted, it was enough for me to completely dismiss them. I can't tell yet if they are open to the idea that they just might disprove that what they call paraphysics really is outside the physical realm. I'm still not even sure what they want to test. There isn't any real discussion there about that stuff, just a lot of posts about changing their name and getting the board started.
     
  9. Nov 8, 2004 #8
    Thank you for your feedback

    Good Morning,
    We do not intend to us metaphors. Please forgive us and help us make note of everytime we do that.
    We have a challenge to develop a slightly different approach to verbal communication than previously used to bridge the gap where we can not find historical commonalities.

    As you might assume, we are new as a group but certainly not new with the idea to begin serious dialog between the traditonal philosopher and the scientists.

    We do have several scientist in our group even as small and new as we are.

    We did not even begin the group until we had the commitment of these scientists to take this nobel challenge and around them we constructed a supporting technical staff.
    Thank you for your feedback.
    Suzanne Elizabeth Seitz
    and
    The Society for the Investigation of Prescience
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 8, 2004
  10. Nov 8, 2004 #9
    waddle...waddle...waddle
     
  11. Nov 8, 2004 #10
    Hi all

    Well, we are trying. I guess it is not surprising to me that the first reaction to our idea is a negative one. First we are assigned a personality which we do not have, since the group is made up of a variety of individuals, and then the personality is dismissed as kook and crank before there is even a cursory glance at the new forum. Humans who feel threatened usually act this way to new stimuli, and who doesn't feel threatened today? I hold no grudge against the responders, but I will ask them to take another look at their own reactions. Were they responding to an idea, or merely reacting to a perceived threat?

    My observation of humans for the past fifty four years has led me to believe that even the most intelligent among us are usually knee-jerk reactionaries. It takes guts to respond to an idea, and frankly, why bother? Curiosity and the love of scientific discourse are not encouraged in today's highly competitive environment. Instead, our 'intellectuals' focus on cocooning themselves into neat cages made of commonly held beliefs masquerading as facts. It is considered a feather in one's cap to destroy someone elses reputation, and the cult of personality has nearly completely eclipsed the search for truth.

    But we came here looking for intelligent discussion of these questions, so I will repeat them. Perhaps someone may yet be able to put aside their fears and their self-serving ego tactics, and enter into a reasonable discussion of the ideas.

    Being, the quality of existence, and its opposite, nothingness, has been a topic of interest to thinkers for thousands of years. Millions if not billions of humans have found meaning and comfort in cherished ideas that have been passed down for generations, reinforced by the commonality of direct perception of "truths." Some of us have found what appears to be a startling correspondence between ancient ideas and the new questions on the frontiers of theoretical physics. Once again, in other words, can modern scientists find anything of value in ancient ideas to guide them in their search for what is beyond the frontier of our current understanding?

    String theory is not accepted by all physicists, nor should it be. After all, it is a theory. But it implies eleven or more dimensions to the physical universe. Some of these dimensions may even be large. Are there any useful correspondences between these dimensions and the higher dimensions which often have been invoked by ancient thinkers to explain their perception of higher truths? This is an innocent question intended to provoke thoughtful dialog, not to promulgate any dogmatic solution. We propose to look for evidence, both in theoretical and experimental physics, and in the traditional wisdoms handed down to us from generations past.

    Vacuum states are a current problem in string theory, and in cosmology. There are too many of them. Inflation, quintessence, brane theory, and the standard big bang model all suffer from a lack of definition of the zero point. Yet the stillness at the center of everything is a common theme in many philosophies. We propose a survey of these ancient ideas of nothingness, with an eye toward finding new directions and methodologies for advancing scientific research.

    I am only one person, but all this seems sensible to me. If it is nonsense, then use your reasoning abilities to discredit the idea, rather than resorting to the pathetic fallacy of personal attack. You claim to be scientists, posting on a scientific forum. Show us the science. We are willing to learn. We will try to show you what we have seen in the old texts and in our personal anecdotal experience. We do not wish to threaten you. We hope to be of some assistance. Science is surely a powerful tool for finding out the truth, but it is not the only tool available to consciousness.

    I have heard it said that a good theory must be falsifiable. We are willing to lay our ideas on the table, and let them be falsified if that is their fate, because we are interested in the truth. Can you say the same?

    Richard, the nightcleaner
     
  12. Nov 8, 2004 #11

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    What attracted me to this program, and I am not a member, nor do I plan to become one, is that it selects a restricted question, the relation of extra dimensions to traditional notions of paraconsciousness, and proposes to investigate it scientifically. We can wish them luck, whatever our own opinions on the matter are.
     
  13. Nov 8, 2004 #12
    I wish them all the luck in the world. I've wasted countless hours on projects doomed to fail, so I'm not going to begrudge them the freedom to do the same. I hope their experiments are fun, because I think the only result they will get from them will be a way to pass the time. Oh and I'll keep rewarding them with these bread crusts.
     
  14. Nov 8, 2004 #13
    Thank you!
    And we like popcorn Too!
    Quack!
    Freedom to BE a duck!
    Ducks Rule!
    Ducks also work their tails off...
    so that's all the fun for now..
    S
     
  15. Nov 8, 2004 #14
    LOL! You sure you have the temperment to carry on these types of experiments.
    I must say though you have taught me something. I never knew ducks are one of the worker species. Sure I knew about the beaver and the honeybee, but not the duck. Perhaps the duck works hard, psychicly, neurons firing like mad. I always wondered about an animal that would gobble up a burning cigarette butt just as quickly as a Ritz Cracker, but I'm sure the duck had a deeper plan. Good luck on your prescience ducky. And watch that temper, you know it runs in the family eg Donald. Sorry if I ruffled your feathers.
     
  16. Nov 8, 2004 #15

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I can't speak for everyone, but I was reacting to the content of the initial post, which sounded, well, flaky. Peruse some of the locked threads and the sites they link to around here and you'll see how that reaction has developed.

    [quote}Humans who feel threatened usually act this way to new stimuli, and who doesn't feel threatened today? I hold no grudge against the responders, but I will ask them to take another look at their own reactions. Were they responding to an idea, or merely reacting to a perceived threat?[/quote]

    What makes you think we perceive this as a threat? I'm not accustomed to running into many (or any) people willing to apply scientific method to what they consider paraphysics studies, usually because it already implies an assumption that you've a priori rejected physical explanations to say it is paraphysics.

    Why do you think it takes guts to respond to an idea? I think it takes time. The "why bother" part is that I'm not overly interested in bothering to reply if I think the person I'm responding to isn't going to listen anyway. Now that Shoshana has returned, with friends, I'm at least certain you're paying attention to the replies here, whether or not you'll accept them as valid or not.

    Quite the opposite in my experience. You can't be competitive without curiousity and willingness to take a few risks, albeit, calculated risks. Afterall, most basic science is government funded, so we have to be careful with what we do with the taxpayer's money.

    Please cite a few examples, otherwise this just sounds like a snide remark rather than a valid criticism. If you give examples, then we would have the opportunity to refute them.

    You're kidding, right?! You think scientists are out to destroy others' reputations? I don't even know what to say to that other than you're wrong.

    Seriously, the only ego-serving tactics here are yours. You come here and insult scientists, tell us we're locked up in cages of beliefs, that you're ideas are somehow important enough to make us feel threatened, that we'll stab each other in the back to don a feather in our cap for ruining someone's reputation, and that we discourage curiousity and the love of science, yet tell us we're the ones who need to keep an open mind?

    An example or two would be helpful here. What ancient ideas? Which new questions? If you don't give examples of what ideas you think are related, how can we possibly make any sense out of that statement?

    Again, you need to give some examples of how these ancient thinkers described these dimensions in order for us to know if it's relevant or not.

    I don't know enough about these theories to comment. I'll leave it up to the physicists here to discuss this point.

    What other tool do you propose?

    Okay, so here's the deal, if you want to encourage dialog and to really find out the truth of whether your ideas have any validity or not, you have to give specific details. Talking in vague generalities about ancient wisdom and truth and higher dimensions, which may or may not mean the same as physical dimensions, makes it impossible to support or refute your claims.
     
  17. Nov 8, 2004 #16

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I'd have to concur that a statement like :
    ...makes me skeptical of the venture.
     
  18. Nov 8, 2004 #17
    YA! Your right about that tendency to gobble up burning cigarette butts. We do indeed pay for it in the END...if ya know what I mean. Perhaps that's why we have bad tempers.
    Spose I have one thing to say about all this feather fun...We, meaning the duck family always have to be on the look out not to be fooled into thinking a decoy is really a fellow quack!
    Ducky
     
  19. Nov 8, 2004 #18

    Les Sleeth

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Hi Suzanne,

    I suspect I might not be alone in the dark about what you are specifically referring to with:

    1. the practices of ancient traditional experienced-based systems

    2. sacred geometry

    3. the higher dimensions found by intuition
     
  20. Nov 8, 2004 #19
    I have seen the geometry that nightcleaner, Richard is talking about and it is indeed consistent with text written thousands of years ago. When he showed it to me the week he was staying in our guest apartment to attend ISACP, I went running for the text I just happened to have a translation of in english.

    I do not have that book any more as it returned home with Richard so I can not quote you from the book. But not only had Richard developed a geometry consistent with cutting edge work being done in astroparticle physics, but he had even made some amazing advances.
    Again, I am only the ducky secretary of this group but I am a ducky little secretary with the degree to comfirm that Richard is on to something that elegently closes the spaces with mathematics. YA! mathematics.

    This is not the place to argue the work we are doing.
    We are working 24/7 trying to keep up with the business of the group.
    We appreciate your interest in giving us constructive suggestions but I do not think this announcement however it may have appealed or NOT appealed to people was meant to begin a time consuming dialog on this forum.
    We hope to find an environment more suitable for people to dare to take chances in their thinking and the eventual science application. The announcement was meant for people who were inclined towards this investigaion to join us, some privately, to do what we hope will be some good work.
    S
     
  21. Nov 8, 2004 #20

    Hello Les Sleeth,
    I have noted this question of 3 points. Please understand I am on this forum alone this evening as a member from our team and I would like to give you more than my personal opinion on these topics. The group has taken these topics as research subjects and after so short a time, we certianly DO NOT have anything prepared.

    Thank you
    I'm sure someone will get back to you who is more qualified than myself to answer your questions.
    Suzanne
     
  22. Nov 8, 2004 #21
    Hi all.

    I don't mean to be obscure or metaphorical here. And I apollogise for not being around to take the interesting questions. Dialog at last! As I said, I do not hold grudges. However I got my duck dander up when I felt S. was being attacked unfairly when she has worked so hard to bring this together. Again, I am sorry if anyone took offense. As long as a better view of truth, or a better question, is in the offing, I don't care about personalities much.

    I won't make a bunch of promises here, but I will say that I do have discussion on the topics mentioned. I am sorry to have to tell you that my time on this line is limited and I expect to be kicked off any minute now. Also, I agree with S. that our reasons for starting a meetup forum was because we wanted a place where people might be more open minded than is often the case on this forum.

    I didn't mean you fear us or what we have to offer. Fear is a general aspect of life these days, isn't it? Tensions are high, and humans, even the most rational, intelligent humans, tend to react before they think. No insult. Einstein no doubt would flinch when startled.

    I am aware that there is a lot of fraud and a lot of nonsense that people try to pass off as scientific thought. If you will look at my posts I think you will see that I am not fond of either fraud or of nonsense. I work for a living and my dollars don't come cheap. I have to do the chores and run the errands and I don't get to sit in a nice cozy room and play at keyboards all day. I have an old glitchy computer and a borrowed 'phone line and I live a mostly isolated life. You have no idea how hungry I am to talk real physics.

    I am going to post this, and then I see I have email, and I don't know if I'll get back here tonight, but I promise I will get back here and answer what I can of these questions. I am serious and I am trained and I want to talk.

    Thanks,

    Richard
     
  23. Nov 8, 2004 #22

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I do not intend to judge your group on the basis of the very little knowledge I have of your work.

    However, it is my opinion that most scientists/mathematicians would be skeptical on reading that particular quote.
     
  24. Nov 8, 2004 #23
    I got the line back for a few minutes. Sorry I didn't get a chance to spell check this. I have to sign off again but will be waiting for reply. R

    There is nothing wrong with skepticism. If we cut away the dross we will find the truth. But it seems to be easy to reject an entire field of ideas out of hand without much investigation. You might remember that we do not all have the same words, the same ideas to use. Some might have good, valid, true ideas, and try to give them to you, but maybe they choose words you associate with some past fraud. It could be that there is truth in there, maybe a truth you have not seen yet for yourself. If you start out rejecting the only words we have, how will we ever begin the discussion? What word would you give us to use if you do not like paraphysics, or if you do not accept prescience? I found the word prescience used in the literature to describe the predictions Einstein made. They seemed like nonsense to many scientists at the time, but not a hundred, not a one, was able to prove him wrong. On the contrary. This is not to claim that we have the prescience Einstein had, but only that we wish to look for knowlege in places you may reject out of hand because some medicine show made a mockery of the language.

    Here is a response I made to Moonbear's post while offline.

    You said:
    "I can't speak for everyone, but I was reacting to the content of the initial post, which sounded, well, flaky. Peruse some of the locked threads and the sites they link to around here and you'll see how that reaction has developed. "

    I know about the flaky sites. Actually I worded as carefully as I could, while still trying to get the idea across.

    "What makes you think we perceive this as a threat? I'm not accustomed to running into many (or any) people willing to apply scientific method to what they consider paraphysics studies, usually because it already implies an assumption that you've a priori rejected physical explanations to say it is paraphysics. "

    Paraphysics is a word we all had trouble with. You noticed the debate about naming the group on our meetup site. But what else to call it? Many names were suggested. We finally went with Prescience for reasons also discussed on the site. I personally don't reject physical evidence beforehand. But we are interested in some questions for which physical evidence is hard to come by. What we have are models, anecdotes, reasoning from first principles.

    "Why do you think it takes guts to respond to an idea? I think it takes time. The "why bother" part is that I'm not overly interested in bothering to reply if I think the person I'm responding to isn't going to listen anyway. Now that Shoshana has returned, with friends, I'm at least certain you're paying attention to the replies here, whether or not you'll accept them as valid or not. "

    I am listening. I listen a lot. It is dialog I want now. I have read the popular press books by Kaku, Smolin, Hawking, Thorne, Einstein, Feynman, Greene, and others, but have reached as far as I can without more math. My calculus is not even passing, but I can decipher some of it. I have studied it on my own, but get stuck, need to hear it spoken. I attended one lecture of Briane Greene's topology class at Columbia last month and nearly hopped out of my skin trying to get more. But in the end my commitments here in Minnesota got me back on the bus.

    I wrote:
    Curiosity and the love of scientific discourse are not encouraged in today's highly competitive environment.

    You replied:
    Quite the opposite in my experience. You can't be competitive without curiousity and willingness to take a few risks, albeit, calculated risks. Afterall, most basic science is government funded, so we have to be careful with what we do with the taxpayer's money.

    My experience has not been so fortunate. Perhaps you went to better schools, had better advisors. For example, I started a research project in field microbiology. When I took it to the relevant professor in my university, he said "What you have is a microscope." He didn't even give me credit for the degree I had earned and paid for in his own department! I was researching the effect of a benzine spill on microbiota by surveying pond life. While I was in his office, he got a telephone call. I heard the word benzine from the other end of the line. Someone was asking questions about the very research I had begun. I thought it was probably someone from the press.

    "No," he said into the telephone. He had turned his chair away from me and was covering the reciever as if he could hide his conversation. "It will just dissapate. There will be no long term effect." I guess he was just being careful with taxpayer money.

    I wrote:
    Instead, our 'intellectuals' focus on cocooning themselves into neat cages made of commonly held beliefs masquerading as facts.
    You replied:
    "Please cite a few examples, otherwise this just sounds like a snide remark rather than a valid criticism. If you give examples, then we would have the opportunity to refute them."

    Well this is a neat trap I have set myself. If I give examples, individuals will have reason to feel insulted. However, without naming any names, if you go to your popular bookstore (I have a Barnes and Nobles near me) you will find many shelves of science books which are long on conclusions and short on data. They will tell you over and over that black holes have a singularity at the center, that spacetime is warped and maybe ripped within the event horizon, that the mass data on standard model particals can be explained by strings in eleven dimensions, but where is the math? Where is the spectrum data? Where are the partical collision traces? I have never seen the math for M-theory. Once I caught a quick glimpse in a video of a blackboard with a function containing xE10 behind a talking head, but that is as close as I have come. I know, you can't sell books full of funny squiggles that hardly anyone understands in the popular science shelves. You have to dumb it down, tell the gawking public that Einstein's formulas reveal.........and leave it at that.

    Anyway I suppose I have to admit that my experience, again, has been less fortunate than yours. I had a few minutes in the physics library at Columbia and saw dozens of titles that drew me like magnets draw fleas in a circus. There were rows of shelves and I only had time to peruse the backs of a handful of books. So I am not really putting up a criticizm, merely a lament for my life mis-spent. I have not had access to these libraries. The people I relied on for guidance did not guide me to them. It isn't your fault, only my own. Forgive me for attributing the cage of ignorence I have built around myself to the people who so graceously try to entertain me in it.

    I said:
    It is considered a feather in one's cap to destroy someone elses reputation, and the cult of personality has nearly completely eclipsed the search for truth.
    You replied:
    "You're kidding, right?! You think scientists are out to destroy others' reputations? I don't even know what to say to that other than you're wrong."

    I am happy to hear that this is not the norm. I don't get to know scientists in my life. I was talking about life on the PF boards. Of course the history of science and math has many examples.....Liebnitz and Newton, for one, Oppenheimer and Einstein, for another. On the PF boards, personal insult is commonplace. Ahem, I believe you called me a kook and a crank without even knowing who or what I was.

    I said:
    But we came here looking for intelligent discussion of these questions, so I will repeat them. Perhaps someone may yet be able to put aside their fears and their self-serving ego tactics, and enter into a reasonable discussion of the ideas.
    You replied:
    "Seriously, the only ego-serving tactics here are yours. You come here and insult scientists, tell us we're locked up in cages of beliefs, that you're ideas are somehow important enough to make us feel threatened, that we'll stab each other in the back to don a feather in our cap for ruining someone's reputation, and that we discourage curiousity and the love of science, yet tell us we're the ones who need to keep an open mind? "

    Ok, point taken. I guess I wasn't sufficiently obsequeous to your degrees and positions and so on. But this is personality again. I don't care if you are the lord high somebody or other, if you have an idea that doesn't wash, it doesn't wash. If I am Robin Hoodlum and have seen something in the forest that you havn't seen, I guess I deserve to be slapped down like the peon I am if I dare to try to describe it to you. I don't know your fancy court language and I don't have your high manners. Who am I to tell you that you have what appears to be a spot on your silk shirt? I should just go away and let you alone, I guess, dream my cabin loft dreams and never find out if I am on to something or just delusional. But I am in the habit of facing my fears. I went to New York City, and you have no idea what nightmares I had to face to go in there. (By the way, they did turn out to be only nightmares, and I had a very pleasent and enjoyable visit.) I want at least a chance to describe what I have seen, even if it means crossing words with my betters.
    I said:
    Being, the quality of existence, and its opposite, nothingness, has been a topic of interest to thinkers for thousands of years. Millions if not billions of humans have found meaning and comfort in cherished ideas that have been passed down for generations, reinforced by the commonality of direct perception of "truths." Some of us have found what appears to be a startling correspondence between ancient ideas and the new questions on the frontiers of theoretical physics.

    You replied:
    "An example or two would be helpful here. What ancient ideas? Which new questions? If you don't give examples of what ideas you think are related, how can we possibly make any sense out of that statement? "

    Two examples: many dimensions===higher truths.
    Zero point energy===nothingness.

    That's a start. The geometry thing is mainly my own work, which has some interesting similarities to topics usually relegated to dusty shelves in the back libraries of middle eastern houses of worship. I can't talk with any authority about the dusty stuff, but I have seen it, and it was amazing to me. I would ask S. to share that with you.

    I can and will happily expound for hours or pages, chapters, on my work, which stems from first principles. It is plane geometry extended into three, four, and I think more dimensions. It is still exploratory, and I don't have the right tools, but what I have done so far is, I think, very promising.

    It starts with Mach space, empty and devoid of matter or energy, fields or background of any kind. Imagine a single point. What can we say about it? Then it grows by stepwise logic, modeled on Euclid's fourteen books. I will get to that eventually if we have any agreement.

    I said:
    Vacuum states are a current problem in string theory, and in cosmology. There are too many of them. Inflation, quintessence, brane theory, and the standard big bang model all suffer from a lack of definition of the zero point. Yet the stillness at the center of everything is a common theme in many philosophies. We propose a survey of these ancient ideas of nothingness, with an eye toward finding new directions and methodologies for advancing scientific research.
    You replied:
    "I don't know enough about these theories to comment. I'll leave it up to the physicists here to discuss this point."

    What is your field of interest? Maybe we can team you up with someone from "the other side" who might have some ideas that correspond to yours. Chemistry? Alchemists? Psychiatry? Shammanists? Medicine? Wicca? Ok, I am just joking. I don't know any alchemists or Shammen. I do know a few witches. I hear that Kepler's mother was accused of witchcraft, but I havn't read that book. I did read the book Kepler's Conjecture, on the geometry of dense packed spheres of equal size, and found it highly applicable to my own work. Are you a mathematician? How can I give you examples, or even look for them, unless you tell me what your field of interest is?

    I said:
    I am only one person, but all this seems sensible to me. If it is nonsense, then use your reasoning abilities to discredit the idea, rather than resorting to the pathetic fallacy of personal attack. You claim to be scientists, posting on a scientific forum. Show us the science. We are willing to learn. We will try to show you what we have seen in the old texts and in our personal anecdotal experience. We do not wish to threaten you. We hope to be of some assistance. Science is surely a powerful tool for finding out the truth, but it is not the only tool available to consciousness.
    You said:
    "What other tool do you propose? "
    I have already discussed the difficulty in naming the tools. But I bet you use some of them yourself already. Ever follow a hunch? Go sleep on an idea? Seek comfort or aid from dieties or spirits, or from old comfortable books of wisdom, or from contemplation of nature, or from meditation? There are tools of conscious thought (and even unconscious 'thought') which yield results by what I call direct perception. You either see it or you don't. If you don't, perhaps I can give you some directions that might guide you to finding it for yourself. If you do see it already, maybe we can come to common terms and have something to talk about.

    More concretely, there are models. I find, for example, that most scientists who write in the popular press use the model of a weight on a rubber sheet to describe the effect of gravity curving space. My own insight has led me to believe that this model leads some people astray. What is the radius of a black hole? If you don't know what I am talking about, maybe we can find some common ground in your own field of expertise.

    I said:
    I have heard it said that a good theory must be falsifiable. We are willing to lay our ideas on the table, and let them be falsified if that is their fate, because we are interested in the truth. Can you say the same? "
    You said:
    Okay, so here's the deal, if you want to encourage dialog and to really find out the truth of whether your ideas have any validity or not, you have to give specific details. Talking in vague generalities about ancient wisdom and truth and higher dimensions, which may or may not mean the same as physical dimensions, makes it impossible to support or refute your claims.

    I am ready to start giving specific details. But I don't want to go off on a tangent that you will have to refer to some other specialist. Do you know any geometry? Anyway I don't think I have made any claims yet. When I do make certain assumptions, I will try to identify them and give reasons for setting them as points. Fair enough? I wait to hear that you are willing to continue. You must do more than say "go on." You must give me something of your own to work on. Do you see any way to extend this dialog? I am eager.

    Richard the nightcleaner.
     
  25. Nov 9, 2004 #24
    I agree with you, the statement does sound a little challenging if trying to make specific sense about foundational science and in this case geometry of science.
    But this was NOT a statement, this was a question?
    Shouldn't we be encourage to ask questions?
    This particular "question" was posted because of the interest in some things we have already found as a result of work being done by our own members and those in more established teams.
    I think the resulting post from Richard was an emotional one and I think we all agree scientists are human. Some of them extraordinary people. We feel Richard is one such person. But as he mentioned, he works very hard at other good things along with doing science and he was unbelievable overtired.
    Most scientists would not continue to dialog with people after a point has been made.
    Richard is a brilliant, tidy thinker, with a genuine kindness and willingness to extend himself that I have seen in only a few other people in the field.
    Brian Greene, for example who has continued to extend an invitation to the general population encouraging all people to have a look and ask questions.
    We are not an ISCAP and would never assume to be in the same cosmos with the likes of such a team, but Richard is OUR Brian Greene...Kind, with excellent leadership qualities. And to prove this fact...the only "statement" I can confidently make.....We had to drag him kicking and screaming into the position of leardership...Where he belongs.
    I believe in his last impassioned post, he was just plain tired of the lack of communication in general within the science community.

    I conclude with the following: When I entered the science community 15 years ago, the math and physics department shared the same floor in the graduate school. They barely spoke. Today we have teams like ISACP and astroparticle physics. Look how far we have come?
    Isn't this something to look forward to?
    How do you think we are gong to continue to take steps to include all relevant research?
    Thank you,
    Suzanne Elizabeth Seitz
     
  26. Nov 9, 2004 #25
    Everyone, please don't disagree anymore. I can't handle another 17 page rambling post from our psychic fools. I do have one question, would I be welcome on a psychic web page to go and explain how all their beliefs are flawed? We are quite tolerant here, I just think there is a difference between having an open mind and being a moron. I also believe that proof is more persuading that long winded ramblings, but I'll believe in all this psychic crap if it'll shut these quacks up.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook