Science

  • Started
  • Last post
  • 873 Responses
  • detritus0

    I had a thought a few years back —

    What if gravity is actually a repulsive force, exhibited by vacuum space and somehow inhibited by mass?

    What if the entire fundamentals of our perspective are completely wrong and assumed, and we don't walk on our feet and legs, holding ourselves up as we allow our hands to wave through the air - what if up is down and we are like geckos on the ceiling, hands keeping us pushed away from the mass, hands dangling in space, waving?

    The models would still work, the formulas still be correct, it's just that everything is back to front?

  • detritus0

    I didn't say it was a very good thought - I just thought it was a decent thought exercise in terms of challenging first principles..

  • yurimon0

    This guy has a different idea of gravity,

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/615631…

    • He was so full of bullshit. It is a known fact that EMR has no gravitational effect.monospaced
    • Also, he offered no experiments on his theory.monospaced
    • seriously, this book is basically 99% utter nonsense based on almost-no-knowledge of physical lawsmonospaced
    • maybe you are right but can you prove please?yurimon
    • MILLIONS of experiments have proven it wrong. I don't need to. Everybody knows it's bullshit.monospaced
    • He's famous for being wrong.monospaced
    • can you come to my work with the equipment and set up to prove?yurimon
    • you're an idiotmonospaced
    • By your logic yuri, I can claim that africa does not exist because I haven't actually seen it in person.hereswhatidid
    • lol lighten up guys... you take things to serious...yurimon
  • ukit20

    The way I understand it Einstein's theory basically trumps Newton's. So gravity is not actually a "force" that acts directly on objects but the result of the result of mass warping the fabric of space and time. And Einstein's theory has been tested repeatedly over the past century:

    http://online.wsj.com/news/artic…

    Where it breaks down is on the quantum level, where things seem to behave differently. So whoever unifies quantum with Einstein's theory will add a new level of understanding to it like Einstein did.

    • New theories on gravity relate more to electric universe theory,,
      http://www.youtube.c…
      yurimon
    • that's basically how it's understood among the scientific communitymonospaced
    • The crazy thing is that Einstein figured all of this out in an age when people were using typewritersukit2
    • the power of logical mathsmonospaced
    • How is abstract math logical? can there be logic abstraction?yurimon
    • as abstract as it might seem, math is still logical. You only reveal your stupidity askingmonospaced
    • no such thing as a stupid question however logic can be different then abstract thinking.. duh and i is different in most cases duhyurimon
    • you have some logical emotions in there,...yurimon
  • monospaced0

    yurimon, that video you posted above in comment to ukit's post, has this description:

    "Simon lays down the simple facts which obliterate several of the pillars of egghead mythematical psyence, which is owned by the energy barons, other insidious corporate war mongering sources and central banking parasites.

    Quackademic theories sold in corporate controlled schools, are just mind control garbage which enslaves humanity to false ideas like explosion based technologies which burn the fuels they sell at top dollar.

    These fuels have required the murder of millions of innocent people in oil baring lands, so that this illegal and degenerate godless system of control may continue as long as possible for the lying shysters who own this world.

    Learn the truth and demand Free Energy Technologies"

  • yurimon0
  • GeorgesIV0

    I think the quadratic galactic push is holding the lycra fabric of the space density together with a simple antistatic over substantiation.

  • ukit20

    Brazilians welcome genetically-modified mosquito to help fight dengue fever

    http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-…

  • ukit20

    Scientists May Have Decoded One of the Secrets to Superconductors

    http://www.wired.com/2014/05/sci…

    This goal, if realized, could make an array of fantastical-sounding technologies commercially viable, from power grids that never lose energy and cheap water purification systems to magnetically levitating vehicles.

  • Morning_star0

    Quite old but interesting, especially for those who were looking for proof of 'paranormal'.

    • Yeah, "proof"hereswhatidid
    • Care to explain what that means?Morning_star
    • that whole thing has been widely panned as completely made uphereswhatidid
    • research that stuff before you post it and expect anyone to take you seriouslyhereswhatidid
    • Links please.Morning_star
    • christ, do a single good search for Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Labhereswhatidid
    • do you just take all of these nonsense videos for face value?hereswhatidid
    • No. How are you so certain these experiments aren't illustrating the phenomena they claim?Morning_star
    • No. How are you so certain they're even remotely legit?monospaced
    • What would be the point of 25yrs research? hundreds of scientists and experiments? Peer reviewed papers? if there was no anomalous results? Universities are not in the habit of pissing money up the wall on 'woo woo"Morning_star
    • if there was no anomalous results? Universities are not in the habit of pissing money up the wall on 'woo woo"Morning_star
    • Peer reviewed papers? Show me some please.hereswhatidid
    • And absolutely none of the data from their experiments have ever been replicated elsewhere.hereswhatidid
    • If people spend money on something, does that make it real? Get some goddamn critical thinking skills please.hereswhatidid
    • seriously, 5 minutes of searching shows that the entire thing was funded by one rich donorhereswhatidid
    • lol, dude, that's not a real universitymonospaced
    • /sarcasmmonospaced
    • OK, let me get this straight. You're saying that if science is funded privately it's meaningless and can be ignored?
      Morning_star
    • no, if it's completely un-replicable and uses dubious methods to achieve it's results, it's not sciencehereswhatidid
    • I was merely countering your nonsense argument that because a university paid for it, it must be realhereswhatidid
    • are you really this dense or just trolling?hereswhatidid
    • Look, if you want to start trading insults that's fine with me. I'd rather understand your rather dogmatic scientific position and how you are so certain there is no value in the PEAR labs evidence, for instance.Morning_star
    • scientific position and how you are so certain there is no value in the PEAR labs evidence, for instance.Morning_star
    • lab was running for decades, shut down in 2007, and only had a handful of shaky papers with mostly invalid claims and assumptionsmonospaced
    • 'mostly' - so there was some valid results then?Morning_star
    • Never replicated. What else do you need to know to be skeptical about an experiment?hereswhatidid
    • Do you know what the double split experiment is?Morning_star
    • double slit? yes, and it has no bearing at all on this particular case.hereswhatidid
    • I beg to differ. I think it is entirely possible that observation and intent are important factors in the experiments.Morning_star
    • That's not what this case is about at all. It's about shoddy pseudo science that gullible folks eat up to satiate their desire to believe in a higher power.hereswhatidid
    • their desire to believe in a higher power.hereswhatidid
    • You are obviously not open to the discussion of anything that questions a purely deterministic, materialist universe. You and Ken Ham have a similar attitude.Morning_star
    • and Ken Ham have a similar approach.
      Morning_star
    • I'm not open to discussing things which are impossible to verify as science. If you want to speculate, go ahead, just don't call it science.hereswhatidid
    • call it science.hereswhatidid
    • Actually, you and Ham are far more in common. You have no requirements for actual evidence to support your nonsense beliefs.hereswhatidid
    • Ham's mind is shut, like yours. There is existing provision in Quantum Theory for this kind of phenomena. As I have pointed out, observation and intent may well have an influence on results so replication is an issue. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.Morning_star
    • out, observation and intent may well have an influence on results so replication is an issue. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.Morning_star
    • Well, you continue down that path then, I have nothing else to add to this discussion.hereswhatidid
    • That's a shame, you seem to know your onions.
      Morning_star
  • reanimate0

    This is interesting article...many ‘herbivores’ are actually carnivores sometimes

    http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapod…

  • Morning_star0

    Peer reviewed experiments galore.

    "Overall the evidence is consistent with von Neumann's proposal that consciousness is involved in the behavior of quantum systems."

    http://deanradin.blogspot.co.uk/…

  • monospaced0

    ^ First, that is just a blog post of the 3rd publication or an experiment that AT BEST, is "consistent" with one approach/interpretation.

    I quote them directly, "Note that consistency doesn't necessarily mean that von Neumann's approach is the only valid interpretation."

    While it might be peer-reviewed and scientific, it's not conclusive by any stretch of the definition, and certainly would never, ever in any reality be used to support the claim that science is a belief system.

  • monospaced0

    Also, the "peer reviewed" paper is by a guy who's a "scientist" at the Noetic Institute. That institute is, by definition, fringe science and is certainly not taken very seriously by peers in the field. Just sayin, since you thought you actually found something.

  • Morning_star0

    @mono
    The results of those experiments are valid, peer reviewed and replicable - the things that you have said are the only things that count in science.
    The interpretation of those results is worthy of further consideration but the results still show that consciousness has had an influence on a material systems.
    Now you say that because it comes from the edges of science it's not worth consideration even though it ticks all of the boxes you require for validity.

    • but it's not a belief systemmonospaced
    • Science is full of belief, probability and theory. All of which are supported with experimental results. For several weeks last year, the majority of the world BELIEVED that we'd found stuff that travelled faster than the speed of light.Morning_star
    • several weeks last year, the majority of the world BELIEVED that we'd found stuff that travelled faster than the speed of light. Those people who reported this were reputable mainstream scientists. It just not as black and white as you're making it.Morning_star
    • of light. Those people who reported this were reputable mainstream scientists. It just not as black and white as you're making it.Morning_star
    • making it.Morning_star
    • "Belief" is just a word that you can define in a lot of ways. What people are trying to say most of the time when they bring this up is that science relies on evidence and tests.ukit2
    • bring this up is that science relies on evidence and tests rather than some a priori knowledge about the existence of god.ukit2
    • of God. Which is important since the mind can be easily fooled as anyone who has taken drugs knows :)ukit2
    • ^ My first post today links to the experimental results or evidence that shows consciousness has influenced a physical system.Morning_star
    • Who mentioned God?Morning_star
    • This thread is about comparing the scientific process to the blind belief in myths, such as religionmonospaced
    • That's what the religion thread is about, no?Morning_star
    • Besides you claimed that there is no evidence for paranormal phenomena. There is.
      Morning_star
    • no, no there isn'tmonospaced
    • also, to get an idea of what this thread is about, look at the first post and the following hundreds of postsmonospaced
    • So your issue is that my posts aren't on topic?Morning_star
    • Not if you're attempting to position science as a belief system.monospaced
  • ukit20

    If psychic powers are real like Dean Radin says, wouldn't this be pretty easy to demonstrate? Why would we need to be arguing over whether his experiments were peer reviewed, when you could just film someone levitating an object or predicting a future event?

    • There are lots of experiments with peer reviewed results looking at Remote Viewing, Telekenetic Influence, Prediction, Placebo etc. The fact is that most of it is never considered due to the dogma of mainstream science.Morning_star
    • Placebo etc. The fact is that most of it is never considered due to the dogma of mainstream science. Scientists fear the taboo of 'paranormal'.Morning_star
    • of the paranormal.Morning_star
    • yes, but aside from a proton acting randomly or not, there's no evidence for mind controlmonospaced
    • What are the experiments supposed to show though?ukit2
    • That telekinesis works but only on a micro level?ukit2
    • are you really still insisting the placebo effect is an example of paranormal abilities?hereswhatidid
    • No. Are you still insisting that this universe is purely materialistic.Morning_star
    • I'm assuming you guys havent experience anything extra ordinary or havent met special peopleyurimon
    • no, we just haven't been stupid enough to think they were beyond the natural lawmonospaced
    • its part of natural law. Some people are more sensitive then other. like yourself. your consciousness.yurimon
    • it like trying to take 30 gigpixel with a 1megapizel brainyurimon
    • photo i meansyurimon
  • ukit20

  • ukit20

    • watched the whole thing, and the one from 2012. thanks.iCanHazQBN
    • 2 hours? fuck ima have to put this on the telemoldero
  • Morning_star0

    I watched that ^ video. I heard lots of different theories about 'nothing' and the start of the universe; some based on quantum physics, some based on multiple universes, some philosophical explanations, some based in traditional physics. The five scientists on the panel cold not agree on anything let alone a consistent demonstrable solution. Yet each of the scientists had faith in the validity of their particular theory even though it would contradict other explanations.

    If you replaced each of the scientists with a representative from different faiths and asked them a similar question there would be an almost identical clash of ideas but from a theological perspective.

    Given this particular scientific question all the answers were based on nothing more than belief.

    • Just say that you want to believe in ghosts and magic and be done with it, please, you're killing this threadhereswhatidid
    • < you got lots of main stream mombo jumbo stereotypes about magicyurimon
    • fuck off with your "mainstream" bullshit, yurihereswhatidid
    • Hey hereswhatidid, what do you think of that video? You know what an opinion is don't you?Morning_star
    • My opinion is that you are completely incorrect in your definition of belief and how that relates to scientific knowledge.hereswhatidid
    • None of those people have "faith" in their ideas. They have reached conclusions based on their own research. Faith is blindly believing something regardless of evidencehereswhatidid
    • blindly believing in something regardless of the evidence for or against it.hereswhatidid
    • Belief in a god creator is exactly the same as believing in a purely material explanation for the 'first cause'. Just because the belief falls under a science heading doesn't make it any more plausible.Morning_star
    • falls under the heading 'science' doesn't make it any more plausible.
      Morning_star
    • that is so wrong I'm not sure where to beginhereswhatidid
    • Explain then. Treat me like the idiot you think I am. All you ever do is dismiss and bitch without explanation. I'm starting to think you know nothing other what you've heard from the cool atheist types.Morning_star
    • you know nothing other what you've heard from the cool atheist types.Morning_star
    • The difference between science and faith has been explained to you several times. It's a waste of a decent thread having to do that again.hereswhatidid
    • Oh there's a surprise, no opinion, no insight again. You are an empty vessel quite suited to the 'biological machine' description.
      I'll try to make myself clearer, the humans involved in science and religion exhibit the SAME behavior when faced with first cause type questions (watch the video). If you think that the label 'science' gives the debate any more insight or credibility when dealing with a question of this type then you are deluded. I understand the difference between Religion and Science very well, what I am suggesting is that there is little difference between the two when dealing...
      Morning_star
    • I'll try to make myself clearer, the humans involved in science and religion exhibit the SAME behavior when faced with first cause type questions (watch the video). If you think that the label 'science' gives the debate any more insight or credibility when dealing with a question of this type then you are deluded. I understand the difference between Religion and Science very well, what I am suggesting is that there is little difference between the two when dealing with questions of this type.Morning_star
    • type questions (watch the video). If you think that the label 'science' gives the debate any more insight or credibility when dealing with a question of this type then you are deluded. I understand the difference between Religion and Science very well, what I am suggesting is that there is little difference between the two when dealing with questions of this type.Morning_star
    • dealing with a question of this type then you are deluded. I understand the difference between Religion and Science very well, what I am suggesting is that there is little difference between the two when dealing with questions of this type.Morning_star
    • very well, what I am suggesting is that there is little difference between the two when dealing with questions of this type.Morning_star
  • ukit20

    They are theorizing about stuff that goes to the limit of what we currently understand. 100 years ago scientists debated about the existence of the atom, and a lot of people thought that was a ridiculous theory, but eventually we got the evidence proving it was true.

    So yeah a lot of it is theorizing that could be right or wrong, but I don't see how that's the same as religion. Religions are all based on books and stories that people came up with thousands of years ago, and there isn't any room for new theories or ideas, in fact they used to torture and execute people just for suggesting them :)

    • Precisely. Science is he search for truth. Religion is like agreeing that we gave up long ago.monospaced
    • Religion is also the search for truth but from a spiritual perspective.Morning_star