Far be it from me to criticize people for flaming each other, but this is not so much offensive as merely silly. You really jumped the shark on this one, Eric. How old are you, again?

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Far be it from me to criticize people for flaming each other, but this is not so much offensive as merely silly. You really jumped the shark on this one, Eric. How old are you, again?

Why don't you ask Vandal. He's been doing it for years here.

Or for that matter, look in the mirror.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Why don't you ask Vandal. He's been doing it for years here.

Or for that matter, look in the mirror.

Ask Vandal what? How old he is? Pretty sure the answer, for that as for everything else, is 42.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Ask Vandal what? How old he is? Pretty sure the answer, for that as for everything else, is 42.

Yeah, and thanks for the fish.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Yeah, and thanks for the fish.

You're welcome. Are you going somewhere?

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

You're welcome. Are you going somewhere?

H-m-m-m. Too old for hitchhiking and too non-cetacean for other means.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

... No. That's just what the evidence indicates. Vitalism is dead.

Eric,

Wohler, in the early 1800's, prepared urea, a "biochemical," from ammonium carbonate, an inorganic chemical. This preparation was very controversial at the time, as it was thought that something called "vital force" was needed to produce bio-materials.

Perhaps, you can relate to us how "vital force" works and how Wohler went wrong?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

When you say "c is a constant in Rags' world," and that's just the way it is, without any evidence whatsoever, you are doing philosophy. Even though you say you are bored with it, you have made an assumption and are holding to a materialist dogma.

No I'm actually getting bored with the idea that c is not a constant. Both Einstain and Maxwell have basically "proven" it by completely different methodologies. I'm sure there's a plethora of other real scientists who've managed to replicate that finding.

If you say certain living beings need bromine, so therefore all that's going on in life is chemistry, and Vandal is "right" about that, that is more philosophy. And it is unexamined philosophy, and as Socrates said, an unexamined life is not worth living.

No. That's a "non sequitor", does not follow. Hypothesis: "Bromine is essential to animal life". Scientist[S] run experiments in an attempt to knock the hypothesis down. [Skepticism] [modus operandi ] {analogy} (scientists perform sort of a strawman attack on their own ideas) the difference that some work goes into devising a hypothesis. Like, is this shit for real?

It is worthwhile to examine your life. It is not boring. What is boring is just holding to dogmas for no reason.

Ya. I want to examine those arsenic atoms I know reside in my body and know if they're just poison or are like bromine.

But you did some good philosophy too when you correlated boomers with metals and Xers with non-metals. Let's look at that sodium-chloride phenomena again. Yes, science shows that salt is sodium bonding with chlorine; a metal with a non-metal. But WHY are there positive and negative charges? Your science has shown you THAT something occurs, but ONLY THAT. There is something else going on; a principle of positive and negative. Organisms beyond a certain level of complexity become male and female; positive and negative. And electricians even refer to the positive and negative ends of an electric cord. Why? There's a principle being observed. The Chinese call it yin and yang, and they use it in cooking, martial arts, divination, etc.

I think the metal/non metal thingie is more of an analogy myself. At least that's what I thought it was.
Vandal already hit the "why there are +/- charges on sodium/chlorine" , respectively.
Electric cords don't have positive or negative endings.
btw, AC current is both +/- 'cause it's a sine wave. [See circle with sine wave]. That's an AC power source in a circuit diagram Rag's found on teh internets. Ya, I had to do this shit in EE for non majors 'cause Comp Sci is in the engineering dept. R = resistor, C = capacitor , I = inductor.
Now, here's a subject you should like Eric. Try an EE course. There's no imaginary unicorns, but there are imaginary numbers! That is just so you.

And you used it in your scheme of assigning metals to boomers and non-metals to Xers, because according to Generation Theory (the subject of this forum), prophets and civics are dominant types, and artists and nomads are recessive. Same principle. And those words remind me that the same distinction holds in genetics. It is not a physical law; it is a spiritual principle that applies in many fields. There's more going on than physical science can recognize. You need philosophy to see it.

OK, then what are Jonesers?

And pan-psychism such as Sheldrake and Whitehead and other integral philosophers like Wilber propose, makes more sense than materialism. All things are conscious, at least to a degree.

If Sheldrake would call himself a philosophor I wouldn't be sqawking like a hawk about it. "All things?" Really? So molten iron in a blast furnace is alive? Man, that blows my mind away.

* hawk award for Rags

Then why hold to materialist dogmas, like Vandal does? Why not be skeptical of them, as Sheldrake and I are?

Science has skepticism already built in, that's why. It's an important precept thereof.

Militant skeptics are not skeptics at all. They are zealots. Vandal is a zealot.

So militant skecptism of skeptism = zealots. Now you have me really weirded out.

An unexamined world is not worth living in.

I minored in geology. I examine the world all of the time. You can do likewise and I spent time just for you 'cause you're special.
http://www.yelp.com/biz/almaden-quic...useum-san-jose
Address 21350 Almaden Rd. San Jose, CA 95120

An arbitrary and meaningless choice. If you choose Vandal, you choose death.

You seem to be the one that's in his orbit, not me. I'm not the one whose saying I'm doing X because ... Vandal.
Maybe that's the example of Ying/Yang we've got going here.

Not only that, you are going along with authority. The authority of TED. You said if TED rejected Sheldrake, then it must be because they must know what they are doing. False. They rejected him because militant skeptics from the Skeptical Inquirer complained.

1. TED did not "reject" him. There's just that "keep out of reach of children" sign.
2. Yes, I do go by science as an authoritative answer on say medical conditions. My MD is a specialist in internal medicine. I will not see quacks like naturapaths .

3. Authoritative source wrt medical quacks.
www.quackwatch.com
* duck award

Yes, although as Sheldrake and Radin explained in their videos, it is a small field, because of the taboo. Sheldrake is no different than the others; they are all scientists using research protocols.

Bogus research protocols wrt Sheldrake.

I also don't want:

Originally Posted by teh wiki

• Reversed burden of proof: In science, the burden of proof rests on those making a claim, not on the critic. "Pseudoscientific" arguments may neglect this principle and demand that skeptics demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that a claim (e.g. an assertion regarding the efficacy of a novel therapeutic technique) is false. It is essentially impossible to prove a universal negative, so this tactic incorrectly places the burden of proof on the skeptic rather than the claimant.^[56]

I do want.

Originally Posted by teh wiki

Originally Posted by teh wiki

ailure to make use of operational definitions (i.e. publicly accessible definitions of the variables, terms, or objects of interest so that persons other than the definer can independently measure or test them)^[45] (See also: Reproducibility)

Yes, that was Vandal's link to pseudoscience.

That doesn't mean he can't speculate and have opinions, which can later be researched. Science must start with ideas, and then they are tested to see whether they can be verified. Verification is not absolute truth, but it is evidence.

If only he'd say X is not a scientific opinion, but a philosopical one, fine.

Why call Sheldrake "shyster, phoney, looney, fake, junk scientist, charlatan, goof ball, buffoon, specious, fraudulent, deceptive, simulacra science, pretender, trickster, fruit bat" simply because he has ideas that can be researched? Why are you rejecting the exploration of ideas, in favor of dogma and "that's the way it is in my world; it's not to be questioned; I just go along with whatever Vandal says, and not Eric"? Regardless of evidence?

See Wiki article on pseudoscience and quackwatch site. I'm not accepting dogma, I'm rejecting rubbish.

Maybe pan-psychism is correct. Maybe "matter" is conscious. And if electrons are travelling at the speed of light, then they must be pure energy. Why reject Einstein too? And non-locality? Obviously, if quantum entanglement is true, which has been proven, then locality is out the window, spooky action at a distance is true, and the speed of light is not the barrier Einstein thought it was.

1. Ughhhhh!!!!! Electrons are matter. Matter can't do that. I'd have to give any electron going the speed of light a ticket for violating the laws of physics.
2. I didn't reject Einstein. e = Mc². Notice "c". That's the speed of light and Einstein said it's a constant.
3. Quantum mechanics. Yes, quantum mechanics has entanglement which seems/could/? to ignore the speed limit. With that said, since I'm not a physicist, I can't say that the ramifications of quantum mechanics are. I'd be an idiot for saying ....

X <-happens-> quantum mechanics.
Same as X <-happens-> God

Question authority. Question Vandal.

Question authority that I think is stupid like Iraq stuff, yes.
Vandal? Like any other forum member. I dont have "Vandal Hangups"., hint.

Absolutely, and so it has been for me for 47 years.

OK

It is not dogma though. The red/blue divide, for example, is not monolithic; it's just a trend, observable in the evidence, including much evidence I have posted. Republicans in congress appear to be mostly monolithic, but Republicans that have to deal with real world problems (governors and mayors) are not as dogmatic. Psi exists, but so do charlatans. Scientism is false; science is a method of partial understanding and control.

If science is a "partial understanding" then it isn't ... false.

You see, I am not dogmatic like Vandal is, but you follow Vandal and not me. Vandal is a shyster, phoney, looney, fake, junk scientist, charlatan, goof ball, buffoon, specious, fraudulent, deceptive, simulacra science, pretender, trickster, fruit bat.

Vandal Hangups
[begin flight run] {begin pre process data collection} (execute main procedure)
Result. You copied/pasted my nifty perjorative adjective list and applied it to Vandal.

Vandal <-> Ragnarök

Congratulations. Yes, Vandals knew of me.

Prove it. You have not.

It's up to the claimant to provide the proof.

Why would a shyster be employed there? Don't you think you are misjudging him, if universities employ him? You can disagree with him, but your insults are invalid. It is your own judgement that is faulty here. It is not an appeal to authority; it is an appeal to qualification.

Really? So now you've taken your appeal to authority to his employer. Well done.
Universities get shit right. I disagree with the ones here in the US for bloating up their administrative staffs and sticking Millies with college debt for one thing. I also disagree with them for setting up students generally with junk degrees like fashion merchandising. A college degree is totally unneeded to sell dresses.

Originally Posted by TnT

Eric,

Wohler, in the early 1800's, prepared urea, a "biochemical," from ammonium carbonate, an inorganic chemical. This preparation was very controversial at the time, as it was thought that something called "vital force" was needed to produce bio-materials.

Perhaps, you can relate to us how "vital force" works and how Wohler went wrong?

OK, thanks for the question. I don't think Wohler went wrong, or that a vital force is needed to account for the artificial synthesis of biochemicals.

I do contend that there is a "vital force" that guided the real-life development, from inorganic to bio-chemicals, and from there to living organisms, and onward toward greater complexity, freedom and consciousness. Evolution is creative and conscious, and we know this creative consciousness exists because we are alive, and we can see that animals and plants are alive. In language descended from ancient philosophy, we say they have souls.

Another way of looking at it, is that we know from quantum physics that indeterminacy and probability is the nature and behavior of atoms. If indeterminacy is at the heart of what we call "matter," then freedom is possible within physical being. Life just develops more of it. If we are alive and conscious, then we must conclude that all of being is alive and conscious to some degree, rather than reducing ourselves and all of life to the enslaved and the unconscious.

I don't know yet if a vital force or free will has been "measured" in some way, though Sheldrake in his video Science Set Free intimated that he thinks experiments can be done that demonstrate it. There may be other evidence that I have already posted here, or can be found on-line.

It would have to be evidence of its effects; conclusions from indirect evidence. The idea that you can find sensory, empirical evidence for what is non-sensory and non-empirical may be barking up the wrong tree to begin with. It is a contradiction in itself; the wrong premise. Empirical evidence is after-the-fact of creation, and taken apart; vital force is spontaneous, free, creative, whole and original. Evidence is what consciousness observes; consciousness does the observing. Again, vital force does not need to "work;" only machines need to "work." It just acts, spontaneously. It frolics. Like a dolphin in the sea.

If you want to verify that vital force exists, first look at yourself. And I don't mean in a mirror. Just like Strawberry Alarm Clock said, turn on, tune in, turn your eyes around. To see life force, observe animals and plants in a sensitive way directly, as they exist; as whole beings. If you have pets, you probably know they are psychic. That is pretty clear evidence of life force, and Sheldrake has proven it. Life force can't be analyzed and dissected in a lab, after it is dead. Empirical science usually observes living beings as if they were dead and taken apart; you won't "observe the vital force" that way.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Ask Vandal what? How old he is? Pretty sure the answer, for that as for everything else, is 42.

Yes, I've heard that. 42 is the answer for everything. It's as good an answer as anything Vandal might propose. One thing I know, it is half of Uranus' orbit in years, and two generations as defined in The Fourth Turning.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

H-m-m-m. Too old for hitchhiking and too non-cetacean for other means.

How about the 3rd way? Pinnepeds.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

No I'm actually getting bored with the idea that c is not a constant. Both Einstain and Maxwell have basically "proven" it by completely different methodologies. I'm sure there's a plethora of other real scientists who've managed to replicate that finding.

Boy, such a long post. No, c is not a constant; they would have measured it as such by now. They've had 130 years now to do it. They have failed.

No. That's a "non sequitor", does not follow.

Of course it doesn't.

Ya. I want to examine those arsenic atoms I know reside in my body and know if they're just poison or are like bromine.

You can just ask someone about that.

I think the metal/non metal thingie is more of an analogy myself. At least that's what I thought it was.
Vandal already hit the "why there are +/- charges on sodium/chlorine" , respectively.
Electric cords don't have positive or negative endings.

Of course they do; they even LOOK like male and female organs. I don't think that's an accident. Where did Vandal explain anything? He just insults and throw charges at me. You guys have no explanation about why there are charges. I say it's a fundamental principle of the universe that manifests in many ways. Analogies are cool; they show principles at work.

Empirical science? Maybe analogies are not empirical science. But my POINT is that empirical science never tells you everything that's going on, anywhere. You also need other sources of knowledge. Like metaphysics. If you're not interested, fine. That does not change the situation. Vandalian Arrogance is not justified.

btw, AC current is both +/- 'cause it's a sine wave. [See circle with sine wave]. That's an AC power source in a circuit diagram Rag's found on the internets. Ya, I had to do this shit in EE for non majors 'cause Comp Sci is in the engineering dept. R = resistor, C = capacitor , I = inductor.
Now, here's a subject you should like Eric. Try an EE course. There's no imaginary unicorns, but there are imaginary numbers! That is just so you.

That's cool. I'm sure I need to know more about EE; my Dad knew all about it. You still had to write out +/- above I notice; that means to me that positive and negative is still relative; current still alternates between them.

OK, then what are Jonesers?

Androgynes, I guess! But you are an Xer, even if on the cusp. The idea that it's a separate generation was put forward by Jonathan Pontell. But I am of the Strauss and Howe school on that. Cusps; OK. I like that. It's in astrology too. But a Taurus is still a Taurus. An Xer is still an Xer.

If Sheldrake would call himself a philosophor I wouldn't be sqawking like a hawk about it. "All things?" Really? So molten iron in a blast furnace is alive? Man, that blows my mind away.

I think many minds need to be blown away these days. Yours for a start. The materialist philosophy has so infected peoples' minds that they can't see any longer that the world and everything in it is alive. Of course, the least alive things are the things we humans have manipulated for our own use. We have created a dead world, and then we wonder why there's so little (or no) "life" in it! Of course there isn't. The living universe is trees, animals, stars and planets. Blast furnaces are "hell," maybe.

Sheldrake calls himself a scientist, because that's what he does. He is a research scientist, and follows research protocols; probably more strictly than other scientists, because he has to prove himself, because his subject matter is often taboo (although he has also made other more-conventional discoveries). Someone said that the most careful scientists out there are parapsychologists.

I think Sheldrake is also a philosopher though, and sometimes that's what he's doing. He has a degree in philosophy, as well as in biochemistry and other science degrees. Why should he not also be a philosopher? Are scientists prohibited from being philosophers? In order to be a "scientist," should he be required NOT to have ideas that you and Vandal consider flaky? I think, on the contrary, it is much wiser for scientists to EXAMINE their ideas and assumptions. Not ignore them and take them on faith, as dogmas, as materialists do.

Science has skepticism already built in, that's why. It's an important precept thereof.

Then why are you and so many scientists not skeptical of the dogmas you take on faith? I guess skepticism is not as "built in" as many people suppose. That's the biggest delusion, in fact; that science is impartial and has no assumptions and dogmas. That is completely and utterly false. It's nothing but a slogan.

So militant skepticism of skepticism = zealots. Now you have me really weirded out.

You lost me on that one.

Zealots are people who hold to dogmatic ideas in a fanatical way. Militant skeptics are nothing but zealots.

I examine the world all of the time.

You are part of your world. Examine yourself. If you don't, you are not really examining anything. What you see is colored by what you bring to it.

You seem to be the one that's in his orbit, not me. I'm not the one whose saying I'm doing X because ... Vandal.
Maybe that's the example of Ying/Yang we've got going here.

You are in his orbit, but I am too indulgent at times. I need to ignore him, as you have suggested.

1. TED did not "reject" him. There's just that "keep out of reach of children" sign.
2. Yes, I do go by science as an authoritative answer on say medical conditions. My MD is a specialist in internal medicine. I will not see quacks like naturapaths .

They did reject him. They completely took down his video. Only after an outcry did they grudgingly put it back, but only with special "warnings" and disclaimers in a special area. What nonsense.

Medicine is a failure, as practiced by MDs. A very expensive failure in the USA. It knows next to nothing about health. They are all quacks, in a sense. The claim too much. They can only treat you after your health has failed. Naturapaths know more about health. Holistic medicine is popular because it works. There was evidence reported that acupuncture works. Acupuncture is based on the invisible energy body and its channels. The most famous energy points are the chakras. We would all save a lot of money if we honored practiced holistic, alternative medicine more often.

Bogus research protocols wrt Sheldrake.

YOU are making that claim. Prove it.

If only he'd say X is not a scientific opinion, but a philosopical one, fine.

I think it's clear which is which from his videos. But philosophical opinions can be the basis for scientific hypotheses; all such hypotheses start out as philosophical opinions. Yes, they have to become operationally-defined, to be scientific hypotheses.

See Wiki article on pseudoscience and quackwatch site. I'm not accepting dogma, I'm rejecting rubbish.

Don't refer me to wikipedia articles on this kind of subject. They are written and edited by militant skeptics.

1. Ughhhhh!!!!! Electrons are matter. Matter can't do that. I'd have to give any electron going the speed of light a ticket for violating the laws of physics.
2. I didn't reject Einstein. e = Mc². Notice "c". That's the speed of light and Einstein said it's a constant.
3. Quantum mechanics. Yes, quantum mechanics has entanglement which seems/could/? to ignore the speed limit. With that said, since I'm not a physicist, I can't say that the ramifications of quantum mechanics are. I'd be an idiot for saying ....

X <-happens-> quantum mechanics.
Same as X <-happens-> God

I thought electricity moved at the speed of light. I am wrong?

God? I didn't bring up the "dude." I just said it implies that the speed of light is not the barrier Einstein said it was. That seems obvious and easy to understand. And for one thing, it opens the door for advanced beings to come here from other planets, and not have to take hundreds of light years to do it. And it does imply things can be connected instantly and non-locally; like humans and planets. Final proof of all this? Not at all. It just tears down some dogmas that say such things are impossible. There's now grounds for further research. Tear down the dogmas, as Sheldrake says, and science becomes more interesting again.

Question authority that I think is stupid like Iraq stuff, yes.
Vandal? Like any other forum member. I dont have "Vandal Hangups"., hint.

You need to hang him up and forget him.

If science is a "partial understanding" then it isn't ... false.

That's all I am claiming in regard to science; that it is partial, not complete knowledge. I want science; I don't claim it is "false." If Vandal thinks I do; well, that's Vandal for you.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Boy, such a long post. No, c is not a constant; they would have measured it as such by now. They've had 130 years now to do it. They have failed.

Eh, screw it. We'll just have agree to disagree 'cause it's round and round,



Hehehe you set up an opportunity for me to stick in Ratt, yes, Ratt, a thing you love to hate.

You can just ask someone about that.

I'll keep checking sciencedaily for it.

Of course they do; they even LOOK like male and female organs. I don't think that's an accident. Where did Vandal explain anything? He just insults and throw charges at me. You guys have no explanation about why there are charges. I say it's a fundamental principle of the universe that manifests in many ways. Analogies are cool; they show principles at work.

Whoah! Yeah they do. OK, so Mr. toaster has 3 penises and the wall socket has 3 vaginas. So that's why appliances get a "charge" from the wall sockets? Uh, I don't think Ms. wall socket would like me sticking one of fingers in one of "her" vaginas though. I guess the human touch is verboten, eh? Alternative explanation... fucking. Will that work? "Fuck" and all conjugations thereof explain lot's of shit. "Fuck" is the most useful word in the English language.

Empirical science? Maybe analogies are not empirical science. But my POINT is that empirical science never tells you everything that's going on, anywhere. You also need other sources of knowledge. Like metaphysics. If you're not interested, fine. That does not change the situation. Vandalian Arrogance is not justified.

It tells me that if I mix sulfur and aluminum together that I should do it outside or I"ll catch my house on fire.

That's cool. I'm sure I need to know more about EE; my Dad knew all about it. You still had to write out +/- above I notice; that means to me that positive and negative is still relative; current still alternates between them.

Yes, sine waves alternate between positive and negative into infinity. It's the AC current and not the cord though. The cord is a penis extender.

Androgynes, I guess! But you are an Xer, even if on the cusp. The idea that it's a separate generation was put forward by Jonathan Pontell. But I am of the Strauss and Howe school on that. Cusps; OK. I like that. It's in astrology too. But a Taurus is still a Taurus. An Xer is still an Xer.

OK, I'm a tobacco plant. Those are Androgynes.

I think many minds need to be blown away these days. Yours for a start. The materialist philosophy has so infected peoples' minds that they can't see any longer that the world and everything in it is alive. Of course, the least alive things are the things we humans have manipulated for our own use. We have created a dead world, and then we wonder why there's so little (or no) "life" in it! Of course there isn't. The living universe is trees, animals, stars and planets. Blast furnaces are "hell," maybe.

Uh , what's with this "Horse with no Name" stuff ? I pet my dogs and I know they like it. So should I pet my pepper and tobacco plants also?

Sheldrake calls himself a scientist, because that's what he does. He is a research scientist, and follows research protocols; probably more strictly than other scientists, because he has to prove himself, because his subject matter is often taboo (although he has also made other more-conventional discoveries). Someone said that the most careful scientists out there are parapsychologists.

More agree to disagree, round and round. Sheldrake = Oracle of woo-woo.

I think Sheldrake is also a philosopher though, and sometimes that's what he's doing. He has a degree in philosophy, as well as in biochemistry and other science degrees. Why should he not also be a philosopher? Are scientists prohibited from being philosophers? In order to be a "scientist," should he be required NOT to have ideas that you and Vandal consider flaky? I think, on the contrary, it is much wiser for scientists to EXAMINE their ideas and assumptions. Not ignore them and take them on faith, as dogmas, as materialists do.

1. People can be both.
2. Dunno. Yeah, I can be at one with my dogs and be a cynic.

Then why are you and so many scientists not skeptical of the dogmas you take on faith? I guess skepticism is not as "built in" as many people suppose. That's the biggest delusion, in fact; that science is impartial and has no assumptions and dogmas. That is completely and utterly false. It's nothing but a slogan.

Well for a tit for tat, take one of your woo-woo items out of your inventory and do self same.

You lost me on that one.

and

Zealots are people who hold to dogmatic ideas in a fanatical way. Militant skeptics are nothing but zealots.

Me:
So militant skepticism of skepticism = zealots

Read your stuff and it should make sense. If your a militant skeptic of whatever, you're a zeolot. I just picked a noun to make it really weird.
You gave me that degree of freedom.

You are part of your world. Examine yourself. If you don't, you are not really examining anything. What you see is colored by what you bring to it.

OK, I did, there's tobaccy plants, pepper plants, garlic, and onions. I like spicy plants.

You are in his orbit, but I am too indulgent at times. I need to ignore him, as you have suggested.

We're in each others' orbits. Eric,Rags,Vandal are all on earth and thus should be close enough to exert some, albeit tiny gravity field.
So, the above ought to be true. If so, Eric has some really nasty "moons" in his orbit.

[quote]
They did reject him. They completely took down his video. Only after an outcry did they grudgingly put it back, but only with special "warnings" and disclaimers in a special area. What nonsense.
[/quote

Jesus, H. Christ! If he's there now, he's not "rejected".

Medicine is a failure, as practiced by MDs. A very expensive failure in the USA. It knows next to nothing about health. They are all quacks, in a sense. The claim too much. They can only treat you after your health has failed. Naturapaths know more about health. Holistic medicine is popular because it works. There was evidence reported that acupuncture works. Acupuncture is based on the invisible energy body and its channels. The most famous energy points are the chakras. We would all save a lot of money if we honored practiced holistic, alternative medicine more often.

1. Uh, the expense problem lies soley with the system of 3rd party payments. Delete the ultimate cruft, Health Insurance Companies. Now if folks don't have them to mess with, then healthcare becomes like grocery shopping. You pick where to procur healthcare, not some parasitic entity.
2. Sorry, Rags thinks chakras = junk.

YOU are making that claim. Prove it.

NO! Protocol says the claiment makes the proof.

As it goes wrt science. "There ain't no way but the hard way, get used it" - Airbourne ^-^<- rock and roll devil horns.

I think it's clear which is which from his videos. But philosophical opinions can be the basis for scientific hypotheses; all such hypotheses start out as philosophical opinions. Yes, they have to become operationally-defined, to be scientific hypotheses.

Finally, a sane thought.

Don't refer me to wikipedia articles on this kind of subject. They are written and edited by militant skeptics.

OOhhh, sour grapes....

I thought electricity moved at the speed of light. I am wrong?

Yup. "Electricity" is just electrons moving. Since electrons have mass, no can go speed of light. Like I said, if I catch one going the speed of light, I'm gonna write it a ticket. Physics laws violations are a big no-no.

God? I didn't bring up the "dude." I just said it implies that the speed of light is not the barrier Einstein said it was. That seems obvious and easy to understand. And for one thing, it opens the door for advanced beings to come here from other planets, and not have to take hundreds of light years to do it. And it does imply things can be connected instantly and non-locally; like humans and planets. Final proof of all this? Not at all. It just tears down some dogmas that say such things are impossible. There's now grounds for further research. Tear down the dogmas, as Sheldrake says, and science becomes more interesting again.

Yeah, I'm the one that brought up God.
Uh, I'm connected to earth via mutual gravitational fields. I have mass therefore I have a gravitational field.

You need to hang him up and forget him.

No. That's a human rights violation. It's also beyond my authority. I'm not deputized to "hang him up".

That's all I am claiming in regard to science; that it is partial, not complete knowledge. I want science; I don't claim it is "false." If Vandal thinks I do; well, that's Vandal for you.

Now you make sense.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Boy, such a long post. No, c is not a constant; they would have measured it as such by now. They've had 130 years now to do it. They have failed.

The speed of light in a vacuum is one of the definitive absolutes in nature. c can vary in a non-vacuum, but:

The speed of light in vacuum, commonly denoted c, is a universal physical constant important in many areas of physics. Its value is exactly 299,792,458 metres per second, a figure that is exact because the length of the metre is defined from this constant and the international standard for time. This is, to three significant figures, 186,000 miles per second, or about 671 million miles per hour. According to special relativity, c is the maximum speed at which all matter and information in the universe can travel. It is the speed at which all massless particles and changes of the associated fields (including electromagnetic radiation such as light and gravitational waves) travel in vacuum. Such particles and waves travel at c regardless of the motion of the source or the inertial frame of reference of the observer. In the theory of relativity, c interrelates space and time, and also appears in the famous equation of mass–energy equivalence E = mc2.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light

It is so absolute that light travels at c even if it emanates from a moving object. Waves shorten or lengthen, and particles become more concentrated or diffused to accommodate the absolute speed of light. c is so absolute that it is now used for defining lengths in the metric system; there is no longer any need for a meter bar.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Boy, such a long post. No, c is not a constant; they would have measured it as such by now. They've had 130 years now to do it. They have failed.

Funny how scientists and engineers have been able to build massive pieces of equipment and conduct elaborate experiments (many of which you claim support your nonsense) all while using a concept that is a "failure" according to you.

Mainstream science ignores Sheldrake because he is flat out wrong.

Of course it doesn't.

You can just ask someone about that.

Of course they do; they even LOOK like male and female organs.

Listen fruit bat, go find a link to a diagram of an electrical cord with a positive and negative end labeled on it.

I don't think that's an accident. Where did Vandal explain anything?

Protons are hadrons composed of three quarks (two ups and one down). This stable arrangement held together by the strong nuclear force gives protons a total charge of +1.

Electrons are stable leptons that have a total charge of -1.

This is basic, basic particle physics.

He just insults and throw charges at me. You guys have no explanation about why there are charges.

Standard model.

I say it's a fundamental principle of the universe that manifests in many ways. Analogies are cool; they show principles at work.

That's definitely one of your weak points. You think that analogies are something more than humans using superficial similarities to understand or explain foreign concepts.

Empirical science? Maybe analogies are not empirical science. But my POINT is that empirical science never tells you everything that's going on, anywhere. You also need other sources of knowledge.

Your other sources of knowledge are no more than somebody's say so. Hardly reliable stuff.

Like metaphysics. If you're not interested, fine. That does not change the situation. Vandalian Arrogance is not justified.

That's cool. I'm sure I need to know more about EE; my Dad knew all about it. You still had to write out +/- above I notice;

No, he did not have to write it out that way. You can also refer to AC circuits with the terms hot and neutral. For ungrounded systems, there is absolutely no such things as positive and negative wires.

that means to me that positive and negative is still relative; current still alternates between them.

Man, you are dumb. That is not how AC works.

Androgynes, I guess! But you are an Xer, even if on the cusp. The idea that it's a separate generation was put forward by Jonathan Pontell. But I am of the Strauss and Howe school on that. Cusps; OK. I like that. It's in astrology too. But a Taurus is still a Taurus. An Xer is still an Xer.

I think many minds need to be blown away these days. Yours for a start. The materialist philosophy has so infected peoples' minds that they can't see any longer that the world and everything in it is alive. Of course, the least alive things are the things we humans have manipulated for our own use. We have created a dead world, and then we wonder why there's so little (or no) "life" in it! Of course there isn't. The living universe is trees, animals, stars and planets. Blast furnaces are "hell," maybe.

Failure to make use of operational definitions (i.e. publicly accessible definitions of the variables, terms, or objects of interest so that persons other than the definer can independently measure or test them)[45] (See also: Reproducibility)

pseudoscience

Sheldrake calls himself a scientist, because that's what he does.

No. He calls himself a scientist because rubes like you will think anything else he spews will be scientific.

He is a research scientist, and follows research protocols; probably more strictly than other scientists, because he has to prove himself, because his subject matter is often taboo (although he has also made other more-conventional discoveries).

Not since the 1970's. He stopped doing science research then.

Someone said that the most careful scientists out there are parapsychologists.

Statistical significance of supporting experimental results does not improve over time and are usually close to the cutoff for statistical significance. Normally, experimental techniques improve or the experiments are repeated, and this gives ever stronger evidence. If statistical significance does not improve, this typically shows the experiments have just been repeated until a success occurs due to chance variations.

pseudoscience

I think Sheldrake is also a philosopher though, and sometimes that's what he's doing. He has a degree in philosophy, as well as in biochemistry and other science degrees. Why should he not also be a philosopher? Are scientists prohibited from being philosophers? In order to be a "scientist," should he be required NOT to have ideas that you and Vandal consider flaky? I think, on the contrary, it is much wiser for scientists to EXAMINE their ideas and assumptions. Not ignore them and take them on faith, as dogmas, as materialists do.


Then why are you and so many scientists not skeptical of the dogmas you take on faith? I guess skepticism is not as "built in" as many people suppose. That's the biggest delusion, in fact; that science is impartial and has no assumptions and dogmas. That is completely and utterly false. It's nothing but a slogan.

Scientific conclusions are always provisional. The problem for you is that overturning those ideas require actual empirical evidence. Not just the say so of some ex-botanist bozo commenting on the fundamentals of physics.

You lost me on that one.

Zealots are people who hold to dogmatic ideas in a fanatical way. Militant skeptics are nothing but zealots.

Tight social groups and authoritarian personality, suppression of dissent, and groupthink can enhance the adoption of beliefs that have no rational basis. In attempting to confirm their beliefs, the group tends to identify their critics as enemies.[65]


Assertion of claims of a conspiracy on the part of the scientific community to suppress the results[66]

pseudoscience

You are part of your world. Examine yourself. If you don't, you are not really examining anything. What you see is colored by what you bring to it.

You are in his orbit, but I am too indulgent at times. I need to ignore him, as you have suggested.

They did reject him. They completely took down his video. Only after an outcry did they grudgingly put it back, but only with special "warnings" and disclaimers in a special area. What nonsense.

Tight social groups and authoritarian personality, suppression of dissent, and groupthink can enhance the adoption of beliefs that have no rational basis. In attempting to confirm their beliefs, the group tends to identify their critics as enemies.[65]

Assertion of claims of a conspiracy on the part of the scientific community to suppress the results[66]


pseudoscience

Medicine is a failure, as practiced by MDs. A very expensive failure in the USA. It knows next to nothing about health. They are all quacks, in a sense. The claim too much. They can only treat you after your health has failed. Naturapaths know more about health. Holistic medicine is popular because it works. There was evidence reported that acupuncture works. Acupuncture is based on the invisible energy body and its channels. The most famous energy points are the chakras. We would all save a lot of money if we honored practiced holistic, alternative medicine more often.

Appeals to holism as opposed to reductionism: Proponents of pseudoscientific claims, especially in organic medicine, alternative medicine, naturopathy and mental health, often resort to the "mantra of holism" to dismiss negative findings.[57]

pseudoscience

YOU are making that claim. Prove it.

Reversed burden of proof: In science, the burden of proof rests on those making a claim, not on the critic. "Pseudoscientific" arguments may neglect this principle and demand that skeptics demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that a claim (e.g. an assertion regarding the efficacy of a novel therapeutic technique) is false. It is essentially impossible to prove a universal negative, so this tactic incorrectly places the burden of proof on the skeptic rather than the claimant.[56]

pseudoscience

I think it's clear which is which from his videos. But philosophical opinions can be the basis for scientific hypotheses; all such hypotheses start out as philosophical opinions. Yes, they have to become operationally-defined, to be scientific hypotheses.

Don't refer me to wikipedia articles on this kind of subject. They are written and edited by militant skeptics.

Assertion of claims of a conspiracy on the part of the scientific community to suppress the results[66]

pseudoscience

I thought electricity moved at the speed of light. I am wrong?

Yes. Just like most of the science you claim to know, you are wrong.

God? I didn't bring up the "dude." I just said it implies that the speed of light is not the barrier Einstein said it was. That seems obvious and easy to understand. And for one thing, it opens the door for advanced beings to come here from other planets, and not have to take hundreds of light years to do it.

Anything with rest mass can not move at the speed of light. That includes anything made out of atoms like aliens from another planet.

And it does imply things can be connected instantly and non-locally; like humans and planets.

No. Quantum entanglement happens to sub-atomic particles. Larger systems, like people and planets, decohere.

Final proof of all this? Not at all. It just tears down some dogmas that say such things are impossible. There's now grounds for further research. Tear down the dogmas, as Sheldrake says, and science becomes more interesting again.

You need to hang him up and forget him.

That's all I am claiming in regard to science; that it is partial, not complete knowledge. I want science; I don't claim it is "false." If Vandal thinks I do; well, that's Vandal for you.

We know you "want" science. What you don't want is the rigorous adherence to empirical data that science requires. You only "want" science as a label to stick on your can of white salmon. You couldn't care less whether the science actually supports your claim of "guaranteed not to go pink".

Some people, like me, find your cavalier attitude in regards to accuracy as insulting to the years of dedication and hard work done by thousands of scientists around the world.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Whoah! Yeah they do. OK, so Mr. toaster has 3 penises and the wall socket has 3 vaginas. So that's why appliances get a "charge" from the wall sockets? Uh, I don't think Ms. wall socket would like me sticking one of fingers in one of "her" vaginas though. I guess the human touch is verboten, eh? Alternative explanation... fucking. Will that work? "Fuck" and all conjugations thereof explain lot's of shit. "Fuck" is the most useful word in the English language.

Very useful, although more prudish folks disagree. I ran afoul of some.

It tells me that if I mix sulfur and aluminum together that I should do it outside or I"ll catch my house on fire.

Yes, but why mix sulfur and aluminum together?

Yes, sine waves alternate between positive and negative into infinity. It's the AC current and not the cord though. The cord is a penis extender.

Yes, but the plugs are needed.

Uh , what's with this "Horse with no Name" stuff ? I pet my dogs and I know they like it. So should I pet my pepper and tobacco plants also?

Absolutely. Plants do better when they are appreciated, and with good music too
You already know Vandal disagrees.

1. People can be both.
2. Dunno. Yeah, I can be at one with my dogs and be a cynic.

1. Right, and that's what Dr. Sheldrake is. He is both a mollusk and a duck.
2. Yes, but cynicism is not valuable.

Well for a tit for tat, take one of your woo-woo items out of your inventory and do self same.

Any woo-woo is possible; that doesn't mean it happens. I always keep a degree of skepticism in these matters.

Read your stuff and it should make sense. If your a militant skeptic of whatever, you're a zeolot. I just picked a noun to make it really weird.
You gave me that degree of freedom.

Freedom is cool but your statement still wierds me out. No entiendo.

OK, I did, there's tobaccy plants, pepper plants, garlic, and onions. I like spicy plants.

OK, examine yourself examining them.

Jesus, H. Christ! If he's there now, he's not "rejected".

They did reject him. They completely took down his video. Only after an outcry did they grudgingly put it back, but only with special "warnings" and disclaimers in a special area. What nonsense.

2. Sorry, Rags thinks chakras = junk.

Rags thinks incorrectly. Chakras are something you can feel. They also have physical counterparts.

NO! Protocol says the claimant makes the proof.

You are the claimant. Provide the proof.

Finally, a sane thought.

A rare find.

OOhhh, sour grapes....

It is a sour and disappointing situation to find out that wikipedia cannot be used in this subject area at all.

Yup. "Electricity" is just electrons moving. Since electrons have mass, no can go speed of light. Like I said, if I catch one going the speed of light, I'm gonna write it a ticket. Physics laws violations are a big no-no.

I thought electricity moved at the speed of light. I think it does, and that means it's already energy. What else could electrons be?

Yeah, I'm the one that brought up God.
Uh, I'm connected to earth via mutual gravitational fields. I have mass therefore I have a gravitational field.

You are connected in a lot more ways than that, Mr. Norse Mythology Event. If you breathe, drink, eat, sit, stand, talk, see, hear, smell, be aware of anything here, and through lots of fields, you are connected. Some say you are also connected because you are "God." so physically and spiritually, you are connected to Mother Gaia.

No. That's a human rights violation. It's also beyond my authority. I'm not deputized to "hang him up".

I have confidence in you. YOu can get rid of your hang up!

Now you make sense.

Ah, thanks. Now do I get an award?

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The speed of light in a vacuum is one of the definitive absolutes in nature. c can vary in a non-vacuum, but:

The speed of light in vacuum, commonly denoted c, is a universal physical constant important in many areas of physics. Its value is exactly 299,792,458 metres per second, a figure that is exact because the length of the metre is defined from this constant and the international standard for time. This is, to three significant figures, 186,000 miles per second, or about 671 million miles per hour. According to special relativity, c is the maximum speed at which all matter and information in the universe can travel. It is the speed at which all massless particles and changes of the associated fields (including electromagnetic radiation such as light and gravitational waves) travel in vacuum. Such particles and waves travel at c regardless of the motion of the source or the inertial frame of reference of the observer. In the theory of relativity, c interrelates space and time, and also appears in the famous equation of mass–energy equivalence E = mc2.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light

It is so absolute that light travels at c even if it emanates from a moving object. Waves shorten or lengthen, and particles become more concentrated or diffused to accommodate the absolute speed of light. c is so absolute that it is now used for defining lengths in the metric system; there is no longer any need for a meter bar.

Sheldrake said they redefined the speed of light in terms of the units used to measure it, so that the actual constant is self-defined. "We've defined the metre in terms of the speed of light, so the units would change with it."
http://youtu.be/JKHUaNAxsTg?t=9m50s

And if non-locality and quantum entanglement is true, then c is not the maximum speed at which information travels.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Very useful, although more prudish folks disagree. I ran afoul of some.

Yes, but why mix sulfur and aluminum together?

Yes, but the plugs are needed.

Absolutely. Plants do better when they are appreciated, and with good music too
You already know Vandal disagrees.

1. Right, and that's what Dr. Sheldrake is. He is both a mollusk and a duck.
2. Yes, but cynicism is not valuable.

Any woo-woo is possible; that doesn't mean it happens. I always keep a degree of skepticism in these matters.

Freedom is cool but your statement still wierds me out. No entiendo.

OK, examine yourself examining them.

They did reject him. They completely took down his video. Only after an outcry did they grudgingly put it back, but only with special "warnings" and disclaimers in a special area. What nonsense.

Rags thinks incorrectly. Chakras are something you can feel. They also have physical counterparts.

You are the claimant. Provide the proof.

A rare find.

It is a sour and disappointing situation to find out that wikipedia cannot be used in this subject area at all.

I thought electricity moved at the speed of light. I think it does, and that means it's already energy. What else could electrons be?

Why should we believe your claims about any science when you spew complete and obvious nonsense like this?

For a typical copper wire, the drift velocity of electrons is about 1.0 meters per hour.

You are connected in a lot more ways than that, Mr. Norse Mythology Event. If you breathe, drink, eat, sit, stand, talk, see, hear, smell, be aware of anything here, and through lots of fields, you are connected. Some say you are also connected because you are "God." so physically and spiritually, you are connected to Mother Gaia.

I have confidence in you. YOu can get rid of your hang up!


Ah, thanks. Now do I get an award?

Sheldrake explains morphic resonance, and why other explanations fail.



At this point in the video, he provides some of the evidence:

http://youtu.be/MtgLklXZo3U?t=30m20s

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Sheldrake said they redefined the speed of light in terms of the units used to measure it, so that the actual constant is self-defined. "We've defined the metre in terms of the speed of light, so the units would change with it."
http://youtu.be/JKHUaNAxsTg?t=9m50s

And if non-locality and quantum entanglement is true, then c is not the maximum speed at which information travels.

Yes. Once it was determined that the speed of light was a universal constant, it could be used to formally define base quantities in the International System.

Vandal makes a response even while I am still watching the video.

Wanna bet that he watched it? Yeah, sure.

I'm not looking at the vandal's post.

Vandal asked how many people who post here believe all the "nonsense" I am putting out, as opposed to the nonsense he is putting out. Well, why not ask how many people gave Sheldrake's "nonsense" a standing ovation at the end of his video. Argument from majority vote; a logical fallacy, do you think? Oh no. Vandal never commits that crime. No, he just vandalizes your soul.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Very useful, although more prudish folks disagree. I ran afoul of some.

Well, that makes "fuck" even more useful. It messes up one set of PC. Fuck fucks up fucking PC fuckwits. Fucking aye. I don't give a flying fuck that fuck fucks up PC fuckwits because they're fuckups anyhow.

Yes, but why mix sulfur and aluminum together?

The 4th of July is coming up. It's a 2 in one thing. It makes lots of pretty fire and sparks. You can then pour water on the Al2S3 and make a stink bomb after that. You gotta do it outside though because.

1. It will probably set your house on fire.
2. Hydrogen sulfide is toxic. Not such a problem in windy Oklahoma because the wind mixes it out.

Yes, but the plugs are needed.

No. Usually a car's alternator can be connected to parts of the car like spark plugs without a plug. The wall socket/ cord thing is just a convenient way of connecting an electric device to the grid, which is just one huge electric circuit.

Absolutely. Plants do better when they are appreciated, and with good music too

They're outside in my garden. I don't want to pet my tobacco plants because they have sticky stuff all over them. That's way they protect themselves. The other way is of course nicotine. Mr. bunny rabbit gnawed on my peppers and tomatoes, but left the tobacco. I had to resort to making some nasty habanero powder to keep Mr. bunny rabbit from doing that again. Grinding dried habaneros is a painful but worthwhile endeavor. Ever since I sprinkled that on my plants, Mr. bunny rabbit won't get near them. I don't think petting this year's habaneros is a good idea either. If I even touch a habanero pepper and accidentally rub my eyes, I get lot's of pain.

You already know Vandal disagrees.

Yes. That's because we both haven't seen any experiments that say petting plants makes them grow better. I know mulch works because it keeps the ground temperature more even. I know that tomato fertilizer works on tomatoes because it has trace elements in it. I even know tomatoes are more picky than tobacco. Tobacco just grows here without doing anything except keeping it watered.

1. Right, and that's what Dr. Sheldrake is. He is both a mollusk and a duck.

That's perfect. He's a bottom feeder and a quack.

2. Yes, but cynicism is not valuable.

It is for Xer's.

Any woo-woo is possible; that doesn't mean it happens. I always keep a degree of skepticism in these matters.

Great. So, can you tell me the recipe for turning lead into gold? I don't have access to a particle accelerator.

Freedom is cool but your statement still wierds me out. No entiendo.

That's what I wanted. The freedom to insert a random noun to make a junky sentence.

OK, examine yourself examining them.

I don't have a face mirror.

They did reject him. They completely took down his video. Only after an outcry did they grudgingly put it back, but only with special "warnings" and disclaimers in a special area. What nonsense.

1. Read what you wrote.
2. His stuff is there, NOW. That means it's "not taken down, NOW."
3. Well, perhaps they do think that stuff is not appropriate content for children. It's rated R.

Rags thinks incorrectly. Chakras are something you can feel. They also have physical counterparts.

That's Eric A Meece's opinion. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and sometimes shit comes out.

You are the claimant. Provide the proof.

Wrong. I'm the skeptic. Sheldrake's the one who claims that c is not a constant.

A rare find.

It is a sour and disappointing situation to find out that wikipedia cannot be used in this subject area at all.

"There's no way, but the hard way, get used to it." - Airbourne. Teh internets are a big place. I'm sure he stash his stuff someplace.

Damn, those guys are smart. Much better than Beiber mush. Maybe Vandal can use that quote when he starts a class. That way his students will know ahead of time they have a "It's Long Way to the top of the curve if you want to be a chemist".

It's a long way to the top if you want to Rock and Roll - AC/DC

I thought electricity moved at the speed of light. I think it does, and that means it's already energy. What else could electrons be?

Gads.

Just because you think it does, won't make it happen , sorry. Just for that Eric, must go to jail, do not pass GO, do not collect $200.
You're charged with contributing to the delinquency of electrons.

You are connected in a lot more ways than that, Mr. Norse Mythology Event.

Actually, Ragnarök has accreted many meanings.
1. It's of course a Norse mytholgoy event. One of great grandmothers is Swedish. She was also a nomad being born in 1883.
2.1962 missile crisis. We got pretty close to an actual Ragnarök that year.
3. It's a 4T in said mythology.

If you breathe, drink, eat, sit, stand, talk, see, hear, smell, be aware of anything here, and through lots of fields, you are connected. Some say you are also connected because you are "God." so physically and spiritually, you are connected to Mother Gaia.

I think there are only 4. [Gravity,strong force, weak force [lots of unstable potassium atoms], and electromagnetic[+/-] ions.

Wrt spritual stuff, well, we don't know what or how those work.

I have confidence in you. You can get rid of your hang up!

I have hangups wrt science and heavy metal. I'll keep 'em because I like them, thank you very much.

Ah, thanks. Now do I get an award?

OK. I'll be nice . Enjoy.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Sheldrake explains morphic resonance, and why other explanations fail.



At this point in the video, he provides some of the evidence:

http://youtu.be/MtgLklXZo3U?t=30m20s

He's not a scientist. Posting a video of him lecturing to a bunch of fellow woo enthusiasts is not evidence of anything.

Rupert Sheldrake

Pay particular attention to the lies he tells about his background. He is not a Fellow of the Royal Society. He can not name any actual scientists that agree with his ideas. The Gorilla Skeptics never, ever made any edits to his Wikipedia entry.

He is a delusional, conspiracy mongering crackpot. Nothing more.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Vandal makes a response even while I am still watching the video.

Wanna bet that he watched it? Yeah, sure.

1- I don't need to see it. I teach this stuff, fruit bat.

2- I actually have seen this particular video.

3- Are you telling us that you advocated for this Tedx talk and you hadn't even seen it?

I'm not looking at the vandal's post.

Heard that before. Keep crying wolf.

Vandal asked how many people who post here believe all the "nonsense" I am putting out, as opposed to the nonsense he is putting out. Well, why not ask how many people gave Sheldrake's "nonsense" a standing ovation at the end of his video.

I'm supposed to be impressed by the reaction of a group of people who likely have no formal training in science?

You do realize that nearly all Ted talks end in standing ovations right?

Argument from majority vote; a logical fallacy, do you think? Oh no. Vandal never commits that crime. No, he just vandalizes your soul.

I don't go with majority votes. I go with majority evidence.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Well, that makes "fuck" even more useful. It messes up one set of PC. Fuck fucks up fucking PC fuckwits. Fucking aye. I don't give a flying fuck that fuck fucks up PC fuckwits because they're fuckups anyhow.

Fucking correct.

The 4th of July is coming up. It's a 2 in one thing. It makes lots of pretty fire and sparks. You can then pour water on the Al2S3 and make a stink bomb after that. You gotta do it outside though because.

1. It will probably set your house on fire.
2. Hydrogen sulfide is toxic. Not such a problem in windy Oklahoma because the wind mixes it out.

Eh. fireworks are boring, and so is the 4th of July.

No. Usually a car's alternator can be connected to parts of the car like spark plugs without a plug. The wall socket/ cord thing is just a convenient way of connecting an electric device to the grid, which is just one huge electric circuit.

That's true. There's other ways for the male and female terminals to look. How prejudiced of me.

They're outside in my garden. I don't want to pet my tobacco plants because they have sticky stuff all over them. That's way they protect themselves. The other way is of course nicotine. Mr. bunny rabbit gnawed on my peppers and tomatoes, but left the tobacco. I had to resort to making some nasty habanero powder to keep Mr. bunny rabbit from doing that again. Grinding dried habaneros is a painful but worthwhile endeavor. Ever since I sprinkled that on my plants, Mr. bunny rabbit won't get near them. I don't think petting this year's habaneros is a good idea either. If I even touch a habanero pepper and accidentally rub my eyes, I get lot's of pain.

Well, send them good vibes then.

Yes. That's because we both haven't seen any experiments that say petting plants makes them grow better. I know mulch works because it keeps the ground temperature more even. I know that tomato fertilizer works on tomatoes because it has trace elements in it. I even know tomatoes are more picky than tobacco. Tobacco just grows here without doing anything except keeping it watered.

Nevertheless, the evidence exists. Materialists don't want to believe it so they try to dismiss it.

That's perfect. He's a bottom feeder and a quack.

Living things are beautiful.

It is for Xer's.

They think so; that is their problem. They need to get over it so they can be good managers during the 4T like the theory says!

Great. So, can you tell me the recipe for turning lead into gold? I don't have access to a particle accelerator.

My alchemy book says it's possible, but only for one who has mastered the great work, which is inner spiritual work. But he gave no evidence for this, so it's only woo-woo possibility, or hearsay. But the supernatural is natural; anything is possible, because there are no physical laws, only habits as Dr. Sheldrake says. He is the new Einstein, and his theories gell with all my metaphysical knowledge explained on my website. He is an integral philosopher and a scientist providing evidence for the philosophy.

Wrt spritual stuff, well, we don't know what or how those work.

As I said, it's the wrong question. spiritual stuff doesn't "work." Machines built by humans "work." Nothing else. Spiritual stuff is just there; it's the truth just being the truth. Watch again the spoon segment from The Matrix.

That's what I wanted. The freedom to insert a random noun to make a junky sentence.

You succeeded, but the problem is that it's irrelevant.

I don't have a face mirror.

Listen to Strawberry Alarm clock again, and get back to me.

1. Read what you wrote.
2. His stuff is there, NOW. That means it's "not taken down, NOW."
3. Well, perhaps they do think that stuff is not appropriate content for children. It's rated R.

What I wrote is what happened, and it was nonsense. TED had to put it back in a special section with warnings, rather than remove it, because of the support Dr. Sheldrake and Mr. Hancock got for those videos, and ONLY because of that support.

That's Eric A Meece's opinion. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and sometimes shit comes out.

Chakras are essential knowledge and used by millions of practitioners; they are not just my opinion.

Wrong. I'm the skeptic. Sheldrake's the one who claims that c is not a constant.

No. Your claim is that Dr. Sheldrake does not use scientific protocols. Prove it.

Sheldrake merely reported the fact that those who measure the speed of light show that it is not a constant. They already did the work; Sheldrake merely exposed the lie.

"There's no way, but the hard way, get used to it." - Airbourne. Teh internets are a big place. I'm sure he stash his stuff someplace.

Wikipedia is a resource commonly used by students and everyone. To censor it is reprehensible. It is hypocritical to claim wikipedia is neutral, and then to censor data that don't fit the taboo.

Damn, those guys are smart. Much better than Beiber mush. Maybe Vandal can use that quote when he starts a class. That way his students will know ahead of time they have a "It's Long Way to the top of the curve if you want to be a chemist".

It's a long way to the top if you want to Rock and Roll - AC/DC

If you want to start another argument with me over Bieber, at least spell his name right.

Gads.

Just because you think it does, won't make it happen , sorry. Just for that Eric, must go to jail, do not pass GO, do not collect $200.
You're charged with contributing to the delinquency of electrons.

I still think electrons move at the speed of light. Perhaps you can show me a non-wikipedia site that says no. Meanwhile I am reading up on some nuclear physics; maybe I'll find out. The use of color as an apparent metaphor for how force is exchanged between quarks is very interesting, considering how important color is to my own philosophy theory.

Actually, Ragnarök has accreted many meanings.
1. It's of course a Norse mytholgoy event. One of great grandmothers is Swedish. She was also a nomad being born in 1883.
2.1962 missile crisis. We got pretty close to an actual Ragnarök that year.
3. It's a 4T in said mythology.

You have an ancestral relationship to a Norse myth event. Good.

I have hangups wrt science and heavy metal. I'll keep 'em because I like them, thank you very much.

But you don't have to be hung up on Vandal.

You don't need heavy metal either. It is not good for your plants. Play them some soothing ambient music, or Indian ragas, or some Bach. Toccata in F is the music of the spheres; the universal archetype of truth and the spiritual journey. Rage is not so healthy for plants.

OK. I'll be nice . Enjoy.

Nice!