|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
 Posted - 02/13/2003 : 15:40:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Einsteins relativity theory cannot account for 'paranormal' events.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong(and I know Phantom will!) but I'm pretty sure the Theory of Relativity was never intended to account for anything paranormal.
@tomic |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
 |
|
|
TG
Skeptic Friend
USA
121 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2003 : 16:04:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
originally posted by Phantom:
I think NDEs do tie in with the original topic. Einsteins relativity theory cannot account for 'paranormal' events.
I stand by my previous post. NDE's have nothing to do with either the General or Special TofR.
Perhaps you can point to a specific postulate in which Einstein references NDE's. |
|
|
|
Phantom
New Member
35 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2003 : 17:55:35 [Permalink]
|
Dave W -
I am talking about objective reality. Is it so hard to accept that Einstein could be wrong? Why should the speed of light be constant?
Tomic -
In the past, background mediums like the solid Ether, have been dismissed by physicists as relativity and observational data didn't allow for their existence. What I am attempting to do is bring to light a more comprehensive theory that does - www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/rdp/theoreticalphysics.html & www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/rdp/rdp_summary.html
PhDreamer -
While it may be true that paranormal evidence is largely anecdotal in nature, that by no means makes them worthless or untrue. Not only is anecdotal evidence mostly reliable with regard to everyday things, but it's reliability can further be measured based on several factors.
1) Anecdotal evidence is mostly reliable in regard to everyday things. The main problem with the "anecdotal evidence is invalid" argument is that anecdotal evidence IS in fact mostly reliable with regard to everyday mundane things. Most of the stories and things I hear about tend to check out. If a tourist who visited France described the details of the Eiffel Tower to me, I could easily check it out by looking up books or brochures on it. When I hear that there is a sale going on for something at the local store, it is validated if I go and check it out. Once, when I heard that a new Star Wars movie was coming out, a year later the movie Star Wars The Phantom Menace came out. When I hear secondhand that something happened on the news, all I have to do is to turn on the news later and what I heard will be verified, often with regard to specific details such as names, number of victims, price hikes, etc. So we do see that anecdotal evidence is reliable in general. Now since anecdotal evidence is reliable and trustworthy for the MOST part with regard to everyday things, why should it be any different for paranormal phenomena just because it lies outside the skeptics' belief system? With skeptics, what is mostly reliable suddenly becomes worthless zero evidence. This is because this argument is a dismissal tactic, used by pseudo-skeptics who prefer to lump all paranormal claims into the small percentage of instances that anecdotal evidence is mistaken or fraudulent. What you don't realize though, is that if skeptics were right about anecdotal evidence being unreliable, then most of the things I hear about with regard to everyday things would check out to be false, but in fact the exact opposite is true as I just mentioned! This alone seriously damages the dogma of this argument.
2) Anecdotal evidence is dependent upon perspective. My firsthand direct experiences are anecdotal evidence to others, while their direct experiences are anecdotal to me too. Therefore, whether something is anecdotal or not depends on whether or not you are the experiencer, rather than on it being true or false. Obviously, just because something happens to someone else doesn't mean that it's false. This is not to say that what everyone says is true, but that just because my firsthand experience is anecdotal to someone else does not diminish its validity, especially if I am telling the truth. It can also be said that the skeptic's subjective dismissal of another's experience is just as unreliable as any anecdotal evidence.
3) Important variables increase the reliability of anecdotal evidence. The degree of reliability of anecdotal evidence can usually be measured by variables such as:
a) The number of eyewitnesses.
b) The consistency of the observations and claims.
c) The credibility of the witnesses.
d) The clarity of and proximity of the observation.
e) The state of mind of the witnesses.
That is why anecdotal evidence is commonly accepted in many societal functions, such as in the court of law, with the strength of evidence directly proportionate to the number of eyewitnesses. If it was no evidence at all, the courts wouldn't be using it as such, but they d |
"You laugh at me because I am different, but I laugh at you because you are all the same." |
| Edited by - Phantom on 02/13/2003 17:57:26 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2003 : 19:08:10 [Permalink]
|
Phantom wrote:quote:
I am talking about objective reality.
Fine. Einstein's ToR cannot take into account the price fluctuations in Chinese Tea, either. Besides which, you're most assuredly not talking about "objective" reality when you go on to talk about the value of anecdotal evidence changing based on one's perspective. That's definitely subjective.quote:
Is it so hard to accept that Einstein could be wrong? Why should the speed of light be constant?
Where is there good (objective, that is, non-anecdotal) evidence that the speed of light in a vacuum is not a constant?
quote:
www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/rdp/rdp_summary.html
From that page: "Interestingly enough Ron found that Einstein's well known formula of E=MC2 could be derived from Newtonian Mechanics without reference to relativity but it now showed that matter was really made out of energy." Either the author of this article has no clue as to what Einstein was talking about, or Ron has no clue. From what I've heard, it's a standard college-level physics exercise to derive E=mc^2 from Newtonian physics. And Einstein's equation has, as far as I know, always shown that matter and energy are equivalent. When did either of these things become news? Obviously, they're news to either Ron or that author. I haven't read enough of Ron's writing, but I bet he ranks pretty high on the Crackpot Index. At least 100.quote:
What you don't realize though, is that if skeptics were right about anecdotal evidence being unreliable, then most of the things I hear about with regard to everyday things would check out to be false, but in fact the exact opposite is true as I just mentioned!
You're building your own strawman here. The other part of the dismissal of anecdotal evidence is the maxim that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. An anecdote that my dog poops everyday isn't extraordinary, and you can believe the claim on common sense alone, without even needing to check it out. An anecdote that the next Star Wars movie will be number 10 in the series, on the other hand, is highly unbelievable.quote:
It can also be said that the skeptic's subjective dismissal of another's experience is just as unreliable as any anecdotal evidence.
Not at all - the skeptic demands objective evidence, evidence which everyone can measure. Anecdotes don't offer anything that anyone can measure again.quote:
That is why anecdotal evidence is commonly accepted in many societal functions, such as in the court of law, with the strength of evidence directly proportionate to the number of eyewitnesses.
And yet, science is not a popularity contest. The number of people who believe in something has no bearing on whether it is, objectively, true or false. Science |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
|
|
riptor
Skeptic Friend
Germany
70 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2003 : 05:32:27 [Permalink]
|
Fact is, relativity cannot explain everything and is based on some wrong premisses (Like taking light speed as being constant).
Fact is as well, that we do not have any better theory to replace Einstein's one yet. This is all normal in physics - as long as we don't have a better theory to describe universe we must use the best we have yet. |
Hail the Big bearded Jellyfish up in heaven above. |
|
|
|
Phantom
New Member
35 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2003 : 07:09:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.I haven't read enough of Ron's writing, but I bet he ranks pretty high on the Crackpot IndexAt least 100.
You admit that you haven't read enough of Ron's writing yet you have the confidence to bet that he is a crackpot? Where is the logic?
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
You're building your own strawman here. The other part of the dismissal of anecdotal evidence is the maxim that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Now it would help if you specify what you would accept as extraordinary evidence. Otherwise, arbitrarily stating this argument gives one an out no matter what evidence is shown. While it is reasonable to expect a higher standard of evidence for more extraordinary claims, there are nevertheless 5 difficulties to keep in mind.
1) First, although this rule is good as a general guideline, the fact that 3 possible alternatives exist make this rule fallible.
a) It is possible for something to exist without leaving behind collectable evidence as a souvenir to us. For example, planes, radio waves, electromagnetism, and light move around without leaving "hard evidence" yet they exist. Therefore, extraordinary phenomena can easily exist without leaving behind extraordinary evidence.
b) It is possible for something to exist yet the evidence for it hasn't been found or understood yet, which is the case for almost every discovery in history from fire and wheels to gunpowder and gravity, to planets, atoms and electromagnetism.
c) It is possible that the evidence is already there but that it's subject to interpretation, making it controversial.
Of course, skeptics have argued that all these things are possible but not probable, hence the requirement for extraordinary evidence. However, in order to really know all that is probable and improbable in the universe and reality, it would require that one have complete knowledge of every dimension and reality that exists in the universe and beyond. No one, neither skeptic nor believer, has that kind of knowledge, at least not consciously. Therefore, it would be more accurate to state that:
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to convince skeptics, but not necessarily to exist in objective reality."
2) Definitions of "extraordinary claims" vary based on prior beliefs and experiences. Not everyone agrees on whether a claim is extraordinary or ordinary. Suppose we were fishes for example, and lived underwater our whole lives without ever seeing or hearing about land. The claim of land existing above water would be an extraordinary claim to us, though not to the creatures living on the land above. Now obviously just because the claim of land is extraordinary to us as fishes does not mean that the land doesn't exist. The point is that extraordinary claims are not extraordinary to everyone. What is extraordinary to some is ordinary and natural to others depending on their experience and level of consciousness. For example, the internal body energy of chi gong (or quigong) is mystical to Westerners but has been a natural everyday part of life for thousands of years in Asia. Chi is used, felt, and observed by its practitioners much the same as the effects of gravity are felt and observed by us. Likewise, the concept of Astral Projections and Out of Body Experiences is extraordinary to those who have never experienced them, but for those who experience them regularly, it is an ordinary thing to them that they know is a reality. In the same way, our cars, radios and cell phones are extraordinary to tri |
"You laugh at me because I am different, but I laugh at you because you are all the same." |
|
|
|
Infamous
Skeptic Friend
85 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2003 : 07:16:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
quote:
Originally posted by Infamous
There is a binary star called DI Herculis which does not behave as Einstein's theory of general relativity predicts.
See DI Herculis .
Yes, a third star in the system could affect the apsidal motion within the binary system.
But the presence of a third object would also cause an additional "wobble" in the stars' motions...a wobble which hasn't been observed.
EDITED TO ADD:
I do however think that there is most likely a problem with the star system, rather than a problem with relativity. |
| Edited by - Infamous on 02/14/2003 07:55:41 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2003 : 03:03:25 [Permalink]
|
Phantom wrote:quote:
You admit that you haven't read enough of Ron's writing yet you have the confidence to bet that he is a crackpot? Where is the logic?
Got me there, on a typo. Try "I haven't read enough of Ron's writing to know for sure, but I bet..." From what I did read from him and about him, I got at least 60 points on the Crackpot Index. And I was skimming.quote:
Now it would help if you specify what you would accept as extraordinary evidence.
You seem to know an awful lot about what "skeptics" do or don't think about things, but you've really got no idea, do you. The simple answer is that the level of evidence required is in porportion to the claim.quote:
Otherwise, arbitrarily stating this argument gives one an out no matter what evidence is shown.
I'm not looking for an "out," I'm looking for good, non-anecdotal evidence that the speed of light is not a constant, now. You've completely de-railed your own derailment of this topic by asking things which you should already know the answer to.quote:
a) It is possible for something to exist without leaving behind collectable evidence as a souvenir to us. For example, planes, radio waves, electromagnetism, and light move around without leaving "hard evidence" yet they exist.
Every example you've used leaves behind good evidence that they exist. Your use of the word "hard" where I have used "good" makes this a dodge. quote:
b) It is possible for something to exist yet the evidence for it hasn't been found or understood yet, which is the case for almost every discovery in history from fire and wheels to gunpowder and gravity, to planets, atoms and electromagnetism.
A red herring. You are claiming that the evidence of NDEs being examples of mind separate from brain already exists and is understood. Also, I would like to see good evidence that gunpowder existed before it was invented.quote:
c) It is possible that the evidence is already there but that it's subject to interpretation, making it controversial.
Then it's not "good" evidence, now is it?quote:
Of course, skeptics have argued that all these things are possible but not probable, hence the requirement for extraordinary evidence. However, in order to really know all that is probable and improbable in the universe and reality, it would require that one have complete knowledge of every dimension and reality that exists in the universe and beyond. No one, neither skeptic nor believer, has that kind of knowledge, at least not consciously.
This is a strawman. Skeptics don't claim to be omniscient. They just have good BS-meters. Most people don't, as PT Barnum knew.quote:
Therefore, it would be more accurate to state that:
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to convince skeptics, but not necessarily to exist in objective reality."
This is nothing but a confusion of terms. My skepticism doesn't necessarily mean that I don't believe something exists. Instead, it may mean that I am withholding judgement about its existence until sufficient evidence is shown either pro or con. Or, something completely different: I believe that NDEs happen, but not for the reasons that you say they do.quote:
2) Definitions of "extraordinary claims" vary based on prior beliefs and experiences. Not everyone agrees on whether a claim is extraordinary or ordinary. Suppose we were fishes for example...
Oh, geez. Here I am, Mr. Skeptifish. I'm talking to my buddies, and one of 'em mentions this "land" thing. I say, "yeah, right." So he takes me to the shallows, and tells me to stick my eyes out of the water. I'm game, I do it... and now I go around telling all my other schoolmates about "land" also. We all go and look. We all see the same thing. It's extraordinary, you bet. But every one of us can have that same extraordinary experience.quote:
For example, the internal body energy of chi gong (or quigong) is mystical to Westerners but has been a natural everyday part of life for thousands of years in Asia. Chi is used, felt, and observed by its practitioners much the same as the effects of gravity are felt and observed by us.
And yet, nobody, not even Easterners, are capable of measuring it, or disecting a body and finding a "meridian."quote:
Likewise, the concept of Astral Projections and Out of Body Experiences is extraordinary to those who have never experienced them, but for those who experience them regularly, it is an ordinary thing to them that they know is a reality.
As I said above about NDEs, I know that OBEs are a reality, I just have no evidence that they are what many people claim them to be - an actual transportation of the "spirit" or something likewise.quote:
In the same way, our cars, radios and cell phones are extraordinary to tribal natives in remote parts of Africa, but ordinary to us.
And yet, you can sit down with one of those natives for a week or a month, explain how to work the device, and guess what? They get it, and it becomes ordinary to them. On the other hand, I have had OBEs, and I still reject as silly the explanations offered by spiritualists. It's pathetically easy to have an OBE.quote:
The best solution, in my opinion, is for everybody to put their cards on the table by honestly specifying their prior beliefs. This sets the standards for what is to be expected and |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2003 : 05:31:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Infamous
quote:
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
quote:
Originally posted by Infamous
There is a binary star called DI Herculis which does not behave as Einstein's theory of general relativity predicts.
See DI Herculis .
Yes, a third star in the system could affect the apsidal motion within the binary system.
But the presence of a third object would also cause an additional "wobble" in the stars' motions...a wobble which hasn't been observed.
Probably because noone has bothered to check for it. Yet. There are a lot more interesting things to look for with the "wobble-detectors", such as planets around other stars. And this binary system is not likely to have one interesting enough. We're hoping to find an Earth-size planet about 1 AU from the star.
quote:
EDITED TO ADD:
I do however think that there is most likely a problem with the star system, rather than a problem with relativity.
Right. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2003 : 07:32:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Phantom
quote:
Originally posted by Computer Org
I don't think that I've ever read a better posting than Lars_H's above.
_____________________________________
 As to Phantom's last: Why don't you (and Dr. Pearson--what an abominable interview!!--) move out of 18th Century Physics and into the 21st? All of the problems addressed by Pearson (and you) can be (at least somewhat) adequately addressed in the context of modern String Theory. The answers found may or may not be correct but at least no one has to have recourse to totally discredited theories such as the Aether Hypothes.
(After centuries of searching, has anyone ever been able to measure even the smallest aspect of aether? NYET!! ) (Edited for punctuation; more emphasis added.)
Did you even read the interview? Pearson states:
But these problems are still baffling cosmologists. For proof look at a book by Brian Green published in 1999 about the latest craze, "superstrings", expected to provide the physicists holy grail, the theory of everything. The book is called, "The Elegant Universe", written as a popularisation to boost enthusiasm for this theory. It admits on page 225 that the theory is unable to solve the problem of the cosmological constant. He also admits on page 211 that the theory cannot yet provide a single valid prediction able to confront the data followed by, "Is string theory right? We just don't know."
I suppose you are ignorant towards the growing evidence coming from NDE research and the studies on mediums which point towards the continuance of conciousness upon physical death. How do you reconcile this with what 'mainstream science' tells us?
Firstly, solving "the problem of the cosmological constant" may well be an intractable one----within our present concept of "the Universe" Expanding the concept of "our Universe" is, in fact, (if I understand their efforts correctly), exactly what SuperStringTheorists are trying to do. 
Secondly: When in the advancement of Physics, Chemistry, Geology, and other sciences, have all problems been solved? Never, I suggest. That there are some vagaries in the results of String Theory says (nor implies) nothing whatsoever. In fact, all the other dimensions indicate that something(s) are there; the question is "What?". (If, of course, String Theory is MathematicalPhysicsFiction, then the answer to "What is to be found?" is "Nothing!".  The Theory, IMO, is to 'elegant' for "Nothing!" to be the answer.)
And thirdly: I think that I have agreed that 'life' (other than the body's life  ) continues after (the body's) death. You ask "What does mainstream science say about that?" I answer: Not much----so let's try non-mainstream science; say, for example, SuperStringTheory. 
__________________________________quote:
ginally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Probably because noone has bothered to check for it. Yet. There are a lot more interesting things to look for with the "wobble-detectors", such as planets around other stars. And this binary system is not likely to have one interesting enough. We're hoping to find an Earth-size planet about 1 AU from the star.
CseqAth's very-nice reference saysquote:
Still, it would be very helpful if this new star could be detected using something like speckle interferometry. Unfortunately, because speckle interferometry requires bright stars and at 8th and 12th magnitude, we will have to wait a long time before a definitive test can be made.
which should answer that question! 
|
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2003 : 19:26:25 [Permalink]
|
Susan Blackmore has probably done more research into NDE than any one person I can think of. So this might be of some interest here:
http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/si91nde.html
There is more on NDE's at the Skeptics Dictionary site at:
http://skepdic.com/nde.html
From a scientific point of view, as long as credible explanations of a natural kind exist for these kinds of experiences, any paranormal explanation would have to be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism. It just follows...
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Espritch
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2003 : 15:17:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
But these problems are still baffling cosmologists. For proof look at a book by Brian Green published in 1999 about the latest craze, "superstrings", expected to provide the physicists holy grail, the theory of everything. The book is called, "The Elegant Universe", written as a popularisation to boost enthusiasm for this theory. It admits on page 225 that the theory is unable to solve the problem of the cosmological constant. He also admits on page 211 that the theory cannot yet provide a single valid prediction able to confront the data followed by, "Is string theory right? We just don't know."
A favorite crackpot assertion: “See. Mainstream scientists admit that they can not explain X. Therefore my theory must be valid!” The willingness of real science to admit it's limitations is one of it's chief virtues. The lack of such self criticism is one of the surest signs of crackpot science.
quote:
Ron Pearson - Science, however, cannot progress by theory alone; it requires a synthesis of theory and experiment. When observation runs ahead of theory to provide anomalies which seem inexplicable, then as history has shown by repeating itself over and over, the anomalies are avoided, ignored or discredited in order to maintain the status quo: to avoid the need to injure existing intellectual vested interests.
Ah. The other consistent crackpot refrain: “Main stream science ignores my theory because it would upset their comfortable dogma.” The entire history of science directly contradicts this assertion. Mainstream science accepted aether up to the point that experiments designed to confirm it's existence consistently produced negative results. Mainstream science accepted relativity exactly because experiments designed to test it's assertions consistently produced results consistent with the theory. The general acceptance of relativity by the scientific community has not stopped mainstream scientists form continually coming up with new and ingenious ways to test every aspect of the the theory. What never seems to occur to crackpots is that the decision by mainstream science to dismiss the crackpot's pet theory may have a lot more to do with the fact that the crackpot theory is a big old pile of steaming cow dung than any effort on the part of mainstream science to maintain the status quo.
quote:
I think NDEs do tie in with the original topic. Einsteins relativity theory cannot account for 'paranormal' events.
There is not a single piece of reproducible or testable evidence to support the existence of ‘paranormal' events. Why would any theory need to account for a phenomenon that has never objectively been proven to exist? NDEs may exist but there is no objective proof that they are in any way paranormal. All such evidence is based on interviews with the patient after the fact. Any assumption that the experience related occurred when the patient was flat lining can not be objectively proven since the patient cannot be relied upon under the circumstances to be able to establish any meaningful time line. In general, testimony by the physician and operation room staff is unreliable in this respect as well since at the time a patient is flat lining they tend to have more urgent considerations on their minds.
quote:
Anecdotal e |
| Edited by - Espritch on 02/16/2003 15:35:12 |
|
|
|
Infamous
Skeptic Friend
85 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2003 : 11:09:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Probably because noone has bothered to check for it. Yet. There are a lot more interesting things to look for with the "wobble-detectors", such as planets around other stars. And this binary system is not likely to have one interesting enough. We're hoping to find an Earth-size planet about 1 AU from the star.
Actually I'm 90% sure that DI Her has been checked for wobble and none was found...I'll check again though. |
|
|
|
Infamous
Skeptic Friend
85 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2003 : 08:01:32 [Permalink]
|
I was right. They checked for indicators of a third object, and none was found.
A third body would quickly change the inclination of the binary's orbital plane so it would no longer appear edge-on (as it now does). And then eclipses wouldn't be as dark because the closer star wouldn't completely obstruct the other star. But no changes in eclipse brightness have been observed.
The only way a third body could affect the apsidal motion without altering the binary's orbital plane would be if its orbit is perpendicular to the orbital plane of the binary, at least 5 AU away from the binary. The only hitch is that the third body would need a mass greater than 0.5 Sol--making the body bright enough to be easily detectable. If it's there, we could easily see it.
Unless it was a black hole or neutron star. The problem in this case however, is that DI Her's gaseous winds would be funneled into an accretion disk, which would heat up and emit X-rays. There are no X-ray sources anywhere near DI Her.
Other possible causes that have been ruled out:
-Tipped rotational axes (spectra show upright orientation)
-Internal structure (the only way to change the internal distribution of mass to explain the apsidal motion would be if density were to increase with depth--which is impossible)
-Stellar atmospheres (nothing shows up in visible or ultraviolet)
-Unusual magnetic fields (spectra show no magnetic fields)
-Extreme stellar winds (spectra show winds to be weak)
Basically DI Her is completely normal except for the fact that it appears to violate relativity. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
