I agree that it was interesting, but I think the author of the article way oversold the revolutionary aspect of the research.Originally Posted by Odin
- Join Date
- Jul 2012
- Location
- Idaho
- Posts
- 1,101
I agree that it was interesting, but I think the author of the article way oversold the revolutionary aspect of the research.
Where exactly do you picture the materials for your precious solar panels and wind turbines will be coming from? This is one of those reasons I and others think you are an idiot. You do not acknowledge the actual complexity of the world we live in. We need some fossil fuels as at least feedstock for plastic and other synthetic materials production.
That's why I rely upon the evidence gathered through actual scientific research.That mine is the direct result of Vandal's world view-- and yours too if you believe it.
Vandal's assertions do not have any basis, and are not justified or demonstrated by anything he says.
Not to speak for others; but, maybe they have decided that overall I've consistently backed my statements with relevant, trustworthy sources? Or, maybe they themselves know enough science to be able to recognize when I've caught you out in your pretending? Or, maybe they just think I'm funnier than you?So why just believe him? Just because he's a science teacher?
Says the guy who has vehemently claimed that I should accept Sheldrake's statements because he's a "renowned scientist and researcher."Acceptance from authority. Kinda like, argument from authority.
[sing] Projection , jection, how's that reflection? [/sing]Bowing down to science dogma. Come on Rags. Think for yourself. Don't feed out of the mouth of a demented ideologue.
EDIT 1 OK, so it is a coal mine after all. Coal can be used as a feedstock source for stuff. One doesn't really have to burn the stuff. Same for oil.
Yeah , whatever. I at least know where some of the electricy in my house comes from.That mine is the direct result of Vandal's world view-- and yours too if you believe it.
Uh. He pointed out a screwup on my part. I think that counts for something.Vandal's assertions do not have any basis, and are not justified or demonstrated by anything he says. So why just believe him? Just because he's a science teacher?
EDITAcceptance from authority. Kinda like, argument from authority. Bowing down to science dogma. Come on Rags. Think for yourself. Don't feed out of the mouth of a demented ideologue.
Remove dodo award.Vandal pointed out that Rags fucked up.
Huh? See above. Lessee.
1. Eric sees a picture of a mine.
2. Eric concludes any mine bakes the planet.
3. Eric should thank Vandal for pointing out the fact that Rags fucked up.
Last edited by Ragnarök_62; 06-27-2014 at 07:51 PM.
MBTI step II type : Expressive INTP
There's an annual contest at Bond University, Australia, calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term:
The winning student wrote:
"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end."
My guess is Eric is a typical NIMBY. Don't you know everything and I mean everything comes from 18 wheelers or grocery shelves?
[sing] Projection , jection, how's that reflection? [/sing][/QUOTE]
To the tune of
Eric, look at the "OR" car. That black stuff looks exactly like coal.
MBTI step II type : Expressive INTP
There's an annual contest at Bond University, Australia, calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term:
The winning student wrote:
"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end."
FYI: Initially I thought the same thing as you here. On a hunch, I did a reverse image search. Turns out the image is of a coal mine in Australia, not a copper mine. The truck in the foreground is removing overburden. You can see the coal seem in the upper right quarter of the image.How do copper mines cook the planet? OK, so we stop mining copper, then I'd like to pay you a visit and mine you house for copper since you're whining about the alternative. Yeah, I know Detroit's been a favorite place for what is known as "stripping", but I'd be glad to add San Jose to the list.
Yeah , whatever. I at least know where some of the copper in my house comes from. You, apparently can't figure out what kind of mine is being depicted in pictures and then prattle off nonsense from ignorance.
* dodo award for Eric ( you just keep adding to your flock) Amazing isn't it?
Why the hell are you bringing Vandal into this? I minored in geology so I learned this shit from my professors, not Vandal. Sheesh. Anyone who took any geology class knows that coal is black. The mine in the picture didn't have any black shit.
Huh? See above. Lessee.
1. Eric sees a picture of a mine.
2. Eric conclude any mine bakes the planet.
3. Rags awards Eric another dodo for thinking weird stuff.
Last edited by Vandal-72; 06-27-2014 at 07:27 PM.
Yup. My bad. I'll still strip mine San Jose since they won't need the copper without coal.
MBTI step II type : Expressive INTP
There's an annual contest at Bond University, Australia, calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term:
The winning student wrote:
"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end."
The other timelines are just as much part of reality as this one.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.
-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism
HA! Now you and Vandal are claiming that solar panels and groceries come from coal mines! That's mainstream dogmatic science for ya!
Ah, now that's a new source for the carbon cycle! So, blend it with some chocolate and make a shake. Very appetizing. Hmmmmm; no thanks. Let's just leave the useless stuff in the ground.
It takes a high level of philosophical insight to realize that if you have a world view that says "everything is about making machines" and making them work for us, and that the whole world is like that; that this creates a world that consists of black holes in the ground. And everything gets sucked in to that black dogma. This unquestioned religion of academia and public media that has us all hooked on a view of the world as dead. yadda yadda yadda....Yeah , whatever. I at least know where some of the electricity in my house comes from.
That was not the issue. The issue is that you went along with his views on physics, without question, leading to your use of that image-- which was obviously a coal mine, and so why would you need Vandal to point out the obvious to you? No, Vandal is useless as always; he is a pathetic fuck-up.Uh. He pointed out a screwup on my part. I think that counts for something.
Strawman is straw like.
Right after you go back through your home and remove all the plastics derived from petrochemical feedstocks.
Says the guy using Internet technology. Do you really think the chemicals to make computer chips and solar collectors grow on trees?It takes a high level of philosophical insight to realize that if you have a world view that says "everything is about making machines" and making them work for us, and that the whole world is like that; that this creates a world that consists of black holes in the ground. And everything gets sucked in to that black dogma. This unquestioned religion of academia and public media that has us all hooked on a view of the world as dead. yadda yadda yadda....
Says the guy who claims that electrons travel at the speed of light and that the sound created from two rocks banging together qualifies as stimulus-response.That was not the issue. The issue is that you went along with his views on physics, without question, leading to your use of that image-- which was obviously a coal mine, and so why would you need Vandal to point out the obvious to you? No, Vandal is useless as always; he is a pathetic fuck-up.
Vandal: go away, kid. Get off my lawn.
To everyone else, I say: what's wrong with quantum woo? Why not accept an interpretation that tells the truth? You can complain about new agers who claim more than is warranted from an interpretation of quantum theory, although you may be wrong. But since the whole universe is basically free, spontaneous frolic, an interpretation that implies that this is what the universe is, is just saying how things are. It makes a lot more sense, and is a lot simpler, than saying the universe "works" by determinist physical laws that are really just means of humans getting control over it and predicting it.
WOO IS TRUE
The sooner you as a Boomer learn that this isn't your lawn, the better we'll all be.
It doesn't actually do what it's advocates claim it does.To everyone else, I say: what's wrong with quantum woo?
Wish expression and confirmation bias is hardly truth.Why not accept an interpretation that tells the truth?
Good thing science has a way to differentiate between when someone is speaking accurately or spouting nonsense.You can complain about new agers who claim more than is warranted from an interpretation of quantum theory, although you may be wrong.
Free, spontaneous frolic? Do you really not understand why so many of us think your understanding of science is beyond rudimentary?But since the whole universe is basically free, spontaneous frolic, an interpretation that implies that this is what the universe is, is just saying how things are.
Making "more sense" and being "simpler" is not actually evidence of being accurate.It makes a lot more sense, and is a lot simpler, than saying the universe "works" by determinist physical laws that are really just means of humans getting control over it and predicting it.
War is peace.WOO IS TRUE
As someone who performs ECG's every day at work, I am a bit skeptical. First of all, it is clear that there IS indeed electric energy pulsing about in a beating heart. It is further, as you probably know Rani, generated by chemical energy in the specialized cardiac muscle cells.
Thus, it would be no big surprise if one could measure both hearts if two people were in close physical contact with one another. You might need some specialized measuring devices, but I'm sure it could be done.
In fact, we EMT's sometimes joke around and hook some of the leads up on one of us and the rest of the leads on another, just for grins and giggles.
But ... given even the difficulties that we face in running diagnostic ECG's in moving ambulances, or on extremely obese patients, or a thousand other confounding circumstances ... I'm doubtful that the electric fields generated by one heart that is unconnected, and three feet away from another would have much impact.
" ... a man of notoriously vicious and intemperate disposition."
Woo. They publish most of their "papers" in house. They have a mildly expensive product to sell you. They babble about information "encoded" in the electromagnetic field generated by a contracting muscle. Further, they claim that positive emotions change the information and that information can be transmitted to others. They also use a made up term called "coherence" to explain away anything that they can't actually explain or measure.
The Institute is taking well known physiological phenomena and attaching New Age verbiage to it for no real additive effect. The product they are selling can be bought by other suppliers as it is a typical tool used in studying/monitoring the physiology of the heart.
What people here don't quite understand, is that Vandal is NOT "Mr. Science." He is Mr. Science Delusion. Or Mr. Materialist.
Look at this quote:
Eric: WOO IS TRUE
Vandal: War is peace.
Or another example when I said spirit is prior to matter, and he said, yeah, up is down.
It is just a philosophical point of view. And yet people think Vandal is giving evidence for his philosophy, or saying there's evidence for it. That's why Sheldrake's video on the Science Delusion is so important. NO, Sheldrake says; there IS no evidence for it.
And this is what philosophers have been pointing out for decades, from Henri Bergson to Erich Fromm and Alan Watts, and scientists like Heisenberg and Bohr. It's not something cooked up by Sheldrake. Even Plato had to point out these things to counter the materialists of his day. The argument goes all the way back to the beginning.
The important thing is to understand the dogmas, and realize they are just dogmas. They are not derived from experiments, but from philosophical and religious statements that have been assumed.
Sheldrake demonstrates this, in his other videos and in his books. The important thing here is not his own theories, but understanding that the dogmas he discusses are not based on any evidence. Nor is it up to him to re-measure the "constants" that the scientists already routinely-measure every year, but cleverly keep hidden.
Another dogma discussed above (not by Sheldrake, but related to the dogmas he discusses of fixed laws and unconscious matter), is the dogma that there's an objective reality independent of observation. That has been neatly flattened by quantum theory, although materialists don't want to admit it, and so just deny the scientific findings with interpretations of it that don't have the foggiest basis in any fact.
But it's a revelation for each of us to discover, whether through science or mystical experience, that it's all really happening in our minds, and that the universe is really conscious and alive at some level after all. The mechanical explanations are just tools; and they don't explain anything at all. They just put back the explanation, which can only be very partial anyway, to a prior explanation-- ad infinitum; reductio ad absurdum.
It is not the world and life itself that is absurd, as some Gen Xers have been led to believe (like our evocative new poster Tahara999 here ). No, it is just that the worldview we have been led to swallow is absurd, but that during the Awakening some people questioned and overturned it. The worldview creates the cynicism as its natural consequence.
" And I saw the great blunder my teachers have made, scientific delerium madness "
Last edited by Eric the Green; 06-30-2014 at 01:00 PM.
Maybe someday; I don't have any inside info at the moment. Meanwhile, you can read my other links (or enjoy themEric, maybe you can provide some info about how they did those "HeartMath" studies? Their website is very short on details.
That's a link of yours that I would actually read.)
Have you ever read a non-woo book in your life?
The ex-botanist then goes on to quote mine, lie and misrepresent the findings of physicists over the last century.Or another example when I said spirit is prior to matter, and he said, yeah, up is down.
It is just a philosophical point of view. And yet people think Vandal is giving evidence for his philosophy, or saying there's evidence for it. That's why Sheldrake's video on the Science Delusion is so important. NO, Sheldrake says; there IS no evidence for it.
Are you referring to the quote mines Sheldrake presented about these scientists?And this is what philosophers have been pointing out for decades, from Henri Bergson to Erich Fromm and Alan Watts, and scientists like Heisenberg and Bohr.
Says the guy who claims that everything in the universe is conscious but that the consciousness can't be measured or tested for.It's not something cooked up by Sheldrake. Even Plato had to point out these things to counter the materialists of his day. The argument goes all the way back to the beginning.
The important thing is to understand the dogmas, and realize they are just dogmas. They are not derived from experiments, but from philosophical and religious statements that have been assumed.
Conspiracy mongering is one of the indications of pseudoscience.Sheldrake demonstrates this, in his other videos and in his books. The important thing here is not his own theories, but understanding that the dogmas he discusses are not based on any evidence. Nor is it up to him to re-measure the "constants" that the scientists already routinely-measure every year, but cleverly keep hidden.
And once again you repeat the lie that what you mean by the term "observation" is the same thing physicists mean. You are lying. Sheldrake is lying. And all the other New Agers who make this claim are lying.Another dogma discussed above (not by Sheldrake, but related to the dogmas he discusses of fixed laws and unconscious matter), is the dogma that there's an objective reality independent of observation. That has been neatly flattened by quantum theory, although materialists don't want to admit it, and so just deny the scientific findings with interpretations of it that don't have the foggiest basis in any fact.
Just like you always wished it was. How convenient.But it's a revelation for each of us to discover, whether through science or mystical experience, that it's all really happening in our minds, and that the universe is really conscious and alive at some level after all.
Don't use terms that you don't understand. You look like an idiot.The mechanical explanations are just tools; and they don't explain anything at all. They just put back the explanation, which can only be very partial anyway, to a prior explanation-- ad infinitum; reductio ad absurdum.
Go away "aging hippie liberal douche." No one cares what you think anymore.It is not the world and life itself that is absurd, as some Gen Xers have been led to believe (like our evocative new poster Tahara999 here ). No, it is just that the worldview we have been led to swallow is absurd, but that during the Awakening some people questioned and overturned it. The worldview creates the cynicism as its natural consequence.
" And I saw the great blunder my teachers have made, scientific delerium madness "
Yes, we exist together in one single world in the present. But there are many conceivable timelines. Usually we are "stuck" in one determined narrative, learning from the mistakes of the past, working through the chores of history like a semester of homework assignments.
But every now and then, the rooster crows and the schoolbell rings (the Romans called it the Gallic cock --- Yeats called it Juno's peacock). We get a chance to make some key choices that determine our collective fates for another round of development.
Sometimes friends split, sometimes old enemies become new friends. Families are made that will be nourished for the course of many generations. Are we at that kind of crossroads? No way to tell for certain but something tells me---maybe yes. Or close enough to think for a second.
Last edited by Anc' Mariner; 06-30-2014 at 07:47 PM.
If not at a major crossroads, at least at a fork in the road.
This assumes that wave propagation requires media, as the water example certainly does. It's not necessary. E-H waves propagate in free space ... as far as we know.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
Not true. They are posted all up and down this thread.
What IS true is that Vandal does not accept any evidence that is given.
You didn't actually mention dark matter, dark energy or de Broglie-Brohm. You didn't actually answer my question.This assumes that wave propagation requires media, as the water example certainly does. It's not necessary. E-H waves propagate in free space ... as far as we know.
Yeah, I got a little hyperbolic with that statement. Not sure that I agree with the "odd" assessment. His behavior is completely inline with all pseudoscience true believers.
Lighten-up. This isn't physics class. We're playing with concepts here, and that's dangerous if taken too seriously.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
