Interesting astronomic observations

Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Interesting astronomic observations

I've been shown several interesting videos. I'm no expert, but either photoshop skills in population increase massively, or there are bird droppings on Hubble's telescope. Anyway, it should be interesting for astronomers. I'm curious what they have to say when they see things like this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 And finally, here's another fine piece, this time from SOHO sun telescope.

Whatever these photoshoppers are trying to edit into innocent blank videos, this time they've overdone it. Specially these reflective metallic spheres over the sun are, well, they're almost like specks in comparison. Which is I'd say at the very least Earth's size The distance is uncertain, but on the SOHO video in some cases the relative size approaches Jupiter. Holy shit. O M F... sometimes I wish there would be a real god, god of swearing. This is such a moment.
It looks like the video is trying to make an impression of UFO recharging it's batteries. Near sun there is tremendous electric field and huge electric potential for every kilometer of corona. So the objects lightly basking in outer solar flares get charged like capacitors. Or like freakin' cars at fuel station!
Fortunately I'm not hurried to worry, you guys surely have already had a good laugh after you've figured out who doctored these videos, using what software and who paid him how much. Ehm ehm, cough cough.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
OK, nothing is happening,

OK, nothing is happening, silence on the western front, so here are some possibilities.
 - Everyone got speechless seeing these videos. That includes writing.
 - Local astronomers have holiday.
 - They want to save my feelings by not bursting the bubble of my belief.
 - They still didn't find anything to refute these videos, so they keep searching.
 - I'm supposed to be stunned with deafening silence.

I searched a little for some serious information on this, and found articles like that:
http://www.examiner.com/x-2912-Seattle-Exopolitics-Examiner~y2010m1d27-Giant-UFOs-around-the-Sun-NASA-claims-malfunction-physicist...

I don't believe that NASA's excuse is credible, but neither I believe that physicist's mumbo jumbo with singularity in a sun. There are other, more reasonable methods for interstellar and intergalactic travel. These UFOs can be near sun for many other reasons, like observation, influencing it's activity, or recharging batteries.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3123
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:I don't

Luminon wrote:



I don't believe that NASA's excuse is credible, but neither I believe that physicist's mumbo jumbo with singularity in a sun. There are other, more reasonable methods for interstellar and intergalactic travel. These UFOs can be near sun for many other reasons, like observation, influencing it's activity, or recharging batteries.

Maybe they're looking for new comic material for intergallatic comedy clubs. Theists on planet earth are the best source in the known universe for new material.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
EXC's snark aside...

Luminon wrote:
There are other, more reasonable methods for interstellar and intergalactic travel.

I do not know of any FTL travel methods (nor would I waste anyone's time pretending to)- however, it would seem to me that traveling faster than light would be a simple question of dilating the 'quantum foam' between one corner of space and the other.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
I was thinking of a magnetic

I was thinking of a magnetic projector that would scoot atoms out of its way with a charged proton force on the rear for propulsion effectively splitting atoms for thrust.

lol

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:I was thinking

robj101 wrote:

I was thinking of a magnetic projector that would scoot atoms out of its way with a charged proton force on the rear for propulsion effectively splitting atoms for thrust.

lol

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Spiral light over China

Spiral light over China (1988):

 

Spiral light over Norway (2010):

 

Spiral light over Australia (2010):

 

Spiral light over Russia (2006):

 

Yeah, all of these are supposed to be fizzling missiles? So people just fire missiles into upper atmosphere, and on regular basis they somehow stop and start circling at one point, making this spiral effect and black hole disappearing. And the technicians never managed to fix that, so governments keep making expensive fireworks for the fun of reindeers, bears, kangaroos and pandas around the world. Riiight. I can barely write, being so far away from keyboard, as someone's trying to pull my leg.

I think the reason why we can not expect any governments or authorities entitled to do so, to confirm the extraterrestrial presence, is because they don't feel ready. They had to deny these things for decades, this means, they have to lie every day. And they can't admit that. Let's say, I'm a politician, and I had to lie for many years about extraterrestrial presence. Now suddenly I get an order to make disclosure. So I go in front of people and say: "Ladies and gentlemen, extraterrestrials are here, and were here for quite some time. I know I kept telling it's not true for decades, but we all just lied to you. I hope you won't take it personally, please trust me and vote for me on next elections, as if nothing would happen. From now on, please stay faithful to government as you know it and love it, pay no attention to the fact, that extraterrestrials have government so much better, that they ended all poverty, war and environmental pollution. I'm sure we can somehow put together a solution by ourselves, after a few decades and half billion needlessly dead people, mostly abroad. You know that aliens are most probably plotting something against us, as Hollywood kept informing you for decades with our silent approval and funding. This is what I wanted to say ladies and gentlemen, thanks for your attention."

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
If a rocket fails with

If a rocket fails with burning fuel jetting out from some rupture that is not exactly in line with the centre of mass of the vehicle, it will start spinning, so that is exactly what one would expect.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:If a rocket

BobSpence1 wrote:

If a rocket fails with burning fuel jetting out from some rupture that is not exactly in line with the centre of mass of the vehicle, it will start spinning, so that is exactly what one would expect.

So if I understand, if rocket works, it's practically invisible, but when it fails (but still doesn't blow up) then the spectacle can be seen across continents, and it will always look the same. Is that correct?

 

Because, I've never seen or heard that civilians would report a missile test that went well and didn't produce such a spiral. It's like what Skeptic23 wrote, you can mention another possibility, but this is not evidence. The missile might just as well tear apart, for spinning in such a high speed. Or anything else.

And by the way, you might hopefully want to comment on the sun videos. Who's missiles are these?

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:BobSpence1

Luminon wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

If a rocket fails with burning fuel jetting out from some rupture that is not exactly in line with the centre of mass of the vehicle, it will start spinning, so that is exactly what one would expect.

So if I understand, if rocket works, it's practically invisible, but when it fails (but still doesn't blow up) then the spectacle can be seen across continents, and it will always look the same. Is that correct?

No - incorrect on pretty much all counts.

If a rocket functions correctly, it will be visible for a short time, during which it will only be visible (at night) as a relatively concentrated point of light from its exhaust nozzle, and will quickly get high enough to be harder to make out against the stars as more than a moving point of light, until its motor cuts out. The 'burn time' is usually a matter of a few minutes at most.

If there is an explosion, either as a malfunction of the rocket itself or a leakage of fuel, and it leaves a fuel tank largely intact but spewing fuel, or the nozzle still partly functional but mis-aligned, it will often be spinning. If the steering and stabilizing equipment fails, it can easily leave the nozzle pointing well away from the direction it would need to be to keep it on course. If it shows any indication of going off course, then the people will try to trigger a self-destruct, which may occasionally not destroy the rocket completely.

So there are significant possibilities for a failure which could produce a spinning object, spewing burning fuel. Such a burn will typically be less tightly constrained and intense than a functioning rocket, and so will often be more a larger flame, illuminating any cloud or trail of debris or unburned fule or oxidant, and also at a lower altitude than it should be, so much more visible.

Quote:

Because, I've never seen or heard that civilians would report a missile test that went well and didn't produce such a spiral. It's like what Skeptic23 wrote, you can mention another possibility, but this is not evidence. The missile might just as well tear apart, for spinning in such a high speed. Or anything else.

In a previous thread about some similar sighting, we did produce evidence that at least that one was probably just such a failed missile.

There is no suggestion that the rocket must be spinning at some high rate, sufficient to 'tear it apart'

Producing at least one plausible 'ordinary' explanation is not intended to be evidence, just pointing it out than any 'esoteric' or 'alien' explanation cannot be assumed by default. 

Quote:

And by the way, you might hopefully want to comment on the sun videos. Who's missiles are these?

I would not assume they were 'missiles', if they were actually physical objects at all, rather than the artefacts of image compression or processing that NASA claimed, or some kind of reflection from a defect in the camera. It is not even clear whether they were actually anywhere near the Sun - they could have been much closer to the camera, and inevitably out of focus.

Or a blob of glowing plasma ejected from the Sun. Whatever - nowhere near enough basis for jumping to the alien spacecraft hypothesis.  

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Luminon, I actually saw one

Luminon, I actually saw one these spiral displays from where I live.

Here is an article about it: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/06/05/oh-those-falcon-ufos/

Not my photos, but definitely what I saw.

The one in Norway was from a mist of fuel leaking from a spinning booster rocket being lit by the sun, this looks like it was something similar. 

This one was in just the right time and place to be from SpaceX Falcon 9 launch.

Note that the sun was just over the horizon, so could easily illuminate the fuel spray a hundred miles or so up.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:No -

BobSpence1 wrote:

No - incorrect on pretty much all counts.

If a rocket functions correctly, it will be visible for a short time, during which it will only be visible (at night) as a relatively concentrated point of light from its exhaust nozzle, and will quickly get high enough to be harder to make out against the stars as more than a moving point of light, until its motor cuts out. The 'burn time' is usually a matter of a few minutes at most.

If there is an explosion, either as a malfunction of the rocket itself or a leakage of fuel, and it leaves a fuel tank largely intact but spewing fuel, or the nozzle still partly functional but mis-aligned, it will often be spinning. If the steering and stabilizing equipment fails, it can easily leave the nozzle pointing well away from the direction it would need to be to keep it on course. If it shows any indication of going off course, then the people will try to trigger a self-destruct, which may occasionally not destroy the rocket completely.

So there are significant possibilities for a failure which could produce a spinning object, spewing burning fuel. Such a burn will typically be less tightly constrained and intense than a functioning rocket, and so will often be more a larger flame, illuminating any cloud or trail of debris or unburned fule or oxidant, and also at a lower altitude than it should be, so much more visible.

OK, evidence is piling, but I'm not sure for what side the evidence is. That means still more spinning failed missiles featured in media, but not even one non-spinning. It's diffcult to decide.
 

BobSpence1 wrote:

In a previous thread about some similar sighting, we did produce evidence that at least that one was probably just such a failed missile.

There is no suggestion that the rocket must be spinning at some high rate, sufficient to 'tear it apart'

Producing at least one plausible 'ordinary' explanation is not intended to be evidence, just pointing it out than any 'esoteric' or 'alien' explanation cannot be assumed by default. 

There are anotherpossibilities, for example, my sources say the governments are lying and these are signs for people to notice. So it's diffcult to decide. I posted 4 videos of this phenomenon I found, looks like there was one in 1988, which is a year of important event for my source. This was in China and chinese media apparently did not identify this phenomenon with a specific missile launch. Maybe because it wasn't one.

According to my video search then there was long time nothing such, until 2006. I hope you don't want to claim that there were no unsuccesful missile tests for 18 years, when in last 4 years suddenly there were 3 such very similar phenomena. Statistically it doesn't fit. My source says, that there will be much more of such a phenomena. So I'm curious what this evidence will be ascribed to.

I personally think you greatly depreciate the possibility of extraterrestrial spectacle, for the reason of inhospitable universe, interstellar distances, light speed limit, and so on. However, my and my source's information is, that vast majority of universe's life and itelligent life thrives in otherwise inhospitable places, but in etheric form. There also is no interstellar intrusion to our planet worthy of speaking, what we can see are practically only the cultures of etheric level of our solar system. Etheric, or in other words, matter that we know as dark matter is also contained in our solar system and forms unseen part of it, the better part of it, as I suspect.

Such is my information, which I don't present as evidence, but as explanation why I don't consider extraterrestrial presence as impossible as you. If you decide that a subject is extraordinary, you then unjustifiedly require unobtainable extraordinary evidence. But if a space telescope is good enough to spot planets, asteroids and so on, then it should be just as good to record UFOs! Technically, UFO is also an object in space, one of such things that the telescopes are made for! It is merely our cultural controversy and hysteria, that makes this extraordinary, and that makes us reject photographic, video and testimonial evidence and makes us demand disproportionate evidence. For example, acceptance of extraterrestrial evidence would endanger many religious beliefs and would destabilize countries with great religional influence in politics. For example, 25% Americans believe that the world is 6000 years old and that they're a chosen nation! And then they would see another nation, apparently either even more chosen by God, or much older, for it's superior technology and living standards. That's one hell of a cultural hysteria. That is one of greatest reasons why nobody will acknowledge anything. Governments will feed you nonsensical explanations ad nauseam, just to stay functional. Atheisitc governments will do the same, to not piss off America.

Furthermore, I get the impression that each one video or photograph of UFO is examined as a completely unique photograph or video. Thousands and hundreds of thousands of similar records are not taken into account when considering it as an evidence, though they're very similar. Because, if you do that, evidence would be overwhelming. No, 99% of the evidence must be always ignored, right?

BobSpence1 wrote:
I would not assume they were 'missiles', if they were actually physical objects at all, rather than the artefacts of image compression or processing that NASA claimed, or some kind of reflection from a defect in the camera. It is not even clear whether they were actually anywhere near the Sun - they could have been much closer to the camera, and inevitably out of focus.

Or a blob of glowing plasma ejected from the Sun. Whatever - nowhere near enough basis for jumping to the alien spacecraft hypothesis.  

With these missiles, that was an attempt for humour.

But these can not be any artefacts of image. Put the damn full screen image on!
Firstly, the first video shows three of them, in constant distance from Sun. They're not randomly placed, they're all in the same height in solar corona. Image glitches are random, they should occur anywhere on the picture. But these are not random. The lowest of the three seems closer to the Sun, but it's also dimmer, which suggests it has the same altitude, but it's more behind the upper two, more hidden in corona.

Secondly, they all look like spheres that have Sun's reflection on the bottom as a light spot. An image artifact would look random.

Thirdly, the "spiral UFO" on the second video looks like it interacts with clouds of solar flares around it. Furthermore, it's even more obvious how it's a sphere, and being below the Sun, it has the shiny reflection on it's upper side.

Fourthly, on video 3 the same object with spiral-like corona around it is found furher away below from the sun, it's place being occupied by another standard sphere. It looks they're taking freakin' turns!

Fifthly, you made no comment on the Saturn video.

Sixthly, you did not comment at all on the SOHO video. Which features a number of freakin' saucer-like shapes approaching the Sun despite of it's fiery activity, and even ejecting streams of something there. They can't be any blobs of solar plasma, because they move towards the Sun, FFS. They're caught moving in real time by the telescope and they're not comets at all. There are about 3 scenes which I'd think there are comets, but in one such a comet scene there are two of these very different objects just after. Do I need to emphasize, that some of them are very similar to that Saturn video by Cassini - Huygens probe?

I regret I have to point all that out to you like to a small child, but I guess you didn't view these videos, and if you did, you hardly even had enough interest to put them on full screen. Because, there is nothing in universe that might fit on what I say - just about 6 times more matter than the visible universe contains. So will you please turn your brain on? I feel like I'm talking to autopilot. If your discussion with Skeptic23 makes you too busy, just tell me, I can respect that.

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
I think nasa might cover up

I think nasa might cover up some things but an alien spaceship is not one of them. It would be all over the freakin news if it had any credibility.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:I think nasa

robj101 wrote:

I think nasa might cover up some things but an alien spaceship is not one of them. It would be all over the freakin news if it had any credibility.

As I wrote, this is precisely the thing that NASA must cover. What else you can do with a nation, that is dominated by 25% who believe the world is 6000 years old, and that they're a center of the universe. As dr. Steven Greer said, he has a colleague, scientist, astronomer, who personally has to cover up very ancient buildings on Mars, much older than the freakin' Biblical creation of the world.

I can understand the conspiracy aspect, my countrymen's conspirations are real and cost us 20% of annual state budget. But I can hardly imagine the religious fanaticism and hysteria, after they will see the most important thing in their lives is just a bunch of silly bronze age fairy tales.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
I see things in the sky all

I see things in the sky all the time and they tell me to burn things.

 

 

 


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:I see

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I see things in the sky all the time and they tell me to burn things.

I guess they're cigarette ads of some sort.


 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Bumpity bump bump

Bumpity bump bump


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
OK Luminon, As far as the

OK Luminon,

As far as the first batch of videos go, we have no way of judging distances. The could be fairly small objects which are quite close or they could be larger objects which are farther away.

Let's consider the images from the sun. The fact of the matter is that those are flat single frames taken from one or both of a set of telescopes which are spaced quite far apart for imaging the sun in 3D. If the objects really are quite close to the sun, then they should appear in both scopes at the same time and based on the two data sets, it should be trivial to determine a specific location and size.

In that your source is not providing that, I suspect that they are anomalous images which appear only in one scope or the other. Most likely, they are asteriods which happen to be fairly close to the specific instruments.

As far as the behavior of failed rockets go, I really want to ask you just what you expect a failed rocket will do? I will not accept that all rockets must shake themselves apart automatically.

Remember that there is a reason why it is called rocket science. It is, in fact, fairly exact engineering to even get a rocket to fly at all. Remember that we are not talking about the tiny little rockets that you can buy in a hobby store but rather huge bits of metal and large quantities of fuel. Eve a tiny deviation from ideal conditions will cause a rocket to behave in ways that the designers may not have had in mind.

In fact, almost any deviation from ideal conditions will produce rotation around at least one axis and possibly around more than one axis. A tiny deviation will cause, well, a tiny rotation (which may not be fatal to the launch).

Luminon wrote:
OK, evidence is piling, but I'm not sure for what side the evidence is. That means still more spinning failed missiles featured in media, but not even one non-spinning. It's diffcult to decide.

OK, so you want to see a rocket show a fail in linear flight? They can do that. I can show you one. Here you go:

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

OK Luminon,

As far as the first batch of videos go, we have no way of judging distances. The could be fairly small objects which are quite close or they could be larger objects which are farther away.

Let's consider the images from the sun. The fact of the matter is that those are flat single frames taken from one or both of a set of telescopes which are spaced quite far apart for imaging the sun in 3D. If the objects really are quite close to the sun, then they should appear in both scopes at the same time and based on the two data sets, it should be trivial to determine a specific location and size.

In that your source is not providing that, I suspect that they are anomalous images which appear only in one scope or the other. Most likely, they are asteriods which happen to be fairly close to the specific instruments.

It's unfortunate that I don't have 3D evaluation of distances whether it exists or not, or is classified or not. But it's important to focus constructively on what we can do. As I already mentioned,


Firstly, the first video shows three of them, in constant distance from Sun. They're not randomly placed, they're all in the same height in solar corona. Image glitches are random, they should occur anywhere on the picture. But these are not random. The lowest of the three seems closer to the Sun, but it's also dimmer, which suggests it has the same altitude, but it's more behind the upper two, more hidden in corona.

This suggests, that all these objects are very close to Sun. And no matter what kinds of objects they are, or how distant, they are anomalous enough be taken seriously.

AND!!!!!! It looks like you also ignored the SOHO video. Is that again the skeptic autopilot? This video is worth seeing, it's not just a few images.

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
OK, so you want to see a rocket show a fail in linear flight? They can do that. I can show you one. Here you go:
All right, it's really impressive inferno. But it doesn't look like something anyone could mistake for the spiral-like spectacle that appeared in 1988 and then 3 times since 2006 and definitely didn't blow up. As I said, it's diffcult to tell one way or the other. For instance, even if a rocket has a fuel leak on it's side or whatever that sends it into spinning motion, it doesn't have to stop spinning at one place. It's a heavy thing and the original motion forward should continue, resulting in rather erratic corkscrew pattern of smoke behind. Or anything else.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:robj101

Luminon wrote:

robj101 wrote:

I think nasa might cover up some things but an alien spaceship is not one of them. It would be all over the freakin news if it had any credibility.

As I wrote, this is precisely the thing that NASA must cover. What else you can do with a nation, that is dominated by 25% who believe the world is 6000 years old, and that they're a center of the universe. As dr. Steven Greer said, he has a colleague, scientist, astronomer, who personally has to cover up very ancient buildings on Mars, much older than the freakin' Biblical creation of the world.

I can understand the conspiracy aspect, my countrymen's conspirations are real and cost us 20% of annual state budget. But I can hardly imagine the religious fanaticism and hysteria, after they will see the most important thing in their lives is just a bunch of silly bronze age fairy tales.

So they are covering up Lucy and theories of the universe along with carbon dating techniques etc?

Nope, science does not seem to cater to the creationist or anyone else, science just is.

Ufo's would be all over the news, buildings on mars would be all over the news. There is simply no real evidence for it.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:So they are

robj101 wrote:

So they are covering up Lucy and theories of the universe along with carbon dating techniques etc?

Nope, science does not seem to cater to the creationist or anyone else, science just is.

Ufo's would be all over the news, buildings on mars would be all over the news. There is simply no real evidence for it.

I don't know about Lucy or carbon dating, but no, science just isn't. Nothing exists by itself, and specially not science. Government, military and private sector influence the science greatly. They don't own it or control it completely, it's not that simple, but there is a struggle of interests, unofficial pacts, groups, taboos and domains of influence. Just like everywhere. Specially business sphere and governments are notoriously known for this, and they're very much interested in science. There is no damn way how can science be pure as lily when it's freakin' financed and ordered by these subjects. If you think so, you know nothing about economy and market in practice.

Science doesn't just exist in laboratory that simulates neutral conditions, and even if yes, this laboratory would have to be placed in another laboratory simulating neutral conditions, and this one in another laboratory, and so on. If you think otherwise, you have the same faith in science, like Christians have in their priests who of course don't molest children. You would have to live on Mars, far from all the corruption scandals gone public. Yes, scientific method is pure. But scientific method is on paper, far from real life. The discovery can be made, but it's not always scientists who decide what will be published, officially supported or even industrially produced. Anything, any scientific discovery can be made classified, if someone decides that it's a threat to national security. This includes anything that would change status quo.

There is an overwhelming evidence of photographs, videos, witnesses and government and military records that were held unreleased for 50 years. Some of them have excellent quality. The problem is, that hundreds of thousands evidence pieces are considered one at a time, forgetting all evidence besides one particular example, and of course dismissing it as just a single inconclusive piece of evidence. I think this is the basis of this fallacious tactics. Of course, it's complemented by people's trust to authorities who do this so-called evaluation of evidence. They apparently do it like Bob and A. i. Gene Simmons, which is practically not at all.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:This suggests,

Luminon wrote:
This suggests, that all these objects are very close to Sun. And no matter what kinds of objects they are, or how distant, they are anomalous enough be taken seriously.

 

OK, let me try again. Say that you look out of your window and you see a hawk flying past. Visibly, it happens to be similar in size or even a good deal larger than the sun. There are two options open to you here. Pick one.

 

First, there is a hawk flying near your house.

 

Second, there is a gigantic space bird millions of kilometers across.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Second, there is a gigantic space bird millions of kilometers across.

 

 

AiGS, haven't you learned?  One of those options is WAY cooler.

 

Like, seriously.


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
I would have no problem

I would have no problem believing in "aliens" passing through our system- particularly, Saturn is a useful planet given ample amounts of helium and water without having to come very near our sun (which would be time consuming to leave the orbit of)- given even a single scrap of actual evidence.

Actually, all I would need to see is something glowing hotter than inert space matter in IR that was accelerating at an appreciable rate due to forces other than gravity.

 

I do have a problem with the idea that an alien civilization that traveled this far would have any interest at all in humans.  They likely pass by primitive civilizations on a regular basis- assuming (conservatively) no civilizations other than their own ever spread from their home planets and a technological singularity is a reset button that causes the extinction of the species for all others, something on the order of one in ten thousand stars should have "civilizations" on them (ranging from cradle of civilization to slightly beyond modern-day- that is taking into account the time for a civilization to evolve from a mass extinction event).

We just aren't that interesting, in perspective, and there's nothing really that useful to be gained from our little planet (with regards to resources).  Only local aliens with more primitive technology would likely be particularly interested at all in us (and those aren't exactly the sort people usually play up).

With regards to technologically advanced 'aliens', I think Hawking is wrong; we'd be lucky if they even gave us the time of day.  Any locusts surely know our planet is here (and it's not as if we could hide it), and are fully aware of its composition and mineral offerings already, so nothing we could do will get them hungry for our resources if they weren't already.

 

I also have a problem with the idea of government conspiracies.  Most branches of government are far too stupid to pull off something like that (people, in collusion, are very messy, gossipy, and generally inefficient and overall incompetent at keeping secrets), and as to the photos, NASA could have easily blocked publication.  If there was something spooky or interesting out there, they'd be more likely to ham it up for extra funding for better telescope technology (we could certainly use it).

If Christians deny existing evidence, which is far more overt and overwhelming than alien civilizations, they're fully equipped to deny anything else that they encounter.

 

I would find it likely that some form of alien technology often passes through our system; given that anything ever moves at all, and the overwhelming amount of space faring technology there must be out there it would be like dodging rain-drops to avoid it- I would find it very unlikely that they slow down to any fraction of the speed of light that would allow us to reliably witness it, unless that is merely to collect fuel or reaction mass from one of our gas giants.

The best way to achieve alien contact would probably be to announce that we own our gas giants, and will be charging for refueling, or that we will be enacting a toll for passage through our space.  Until such a time as we can reliably do that, I doubt we'll have any contact at all (if, and I stress, we are any kind of waypoint to begin with- and that would seem to depend largely on happenstance).


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
 

First, there is a hawk flying near your house.

 

 

Second, there is a gigantic space bird millions of kilometers across.

 

 

Optical focus can go a long way towards telling the difference.  Parallax data, even farther if that is had.

 

The speed of the hawk's movement would also indicate superluminal velocity in the latter suggestion, disqualifying it.


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:This suggests,

Luminon wrote:

This suggests, that all these objects are very close to Sun. And no matter what kinds of objects they are, or how distant, they are anomalous enough be taken seriously.

If they were close to the sun, they would be fuckin' huge. We're talking hundreds of kilometers across. Something of that size would be easily noticed in transit to the sun, which leaves us with only a few possibilities -- they arrived very quickly (moving at a significant percentage of the speed of light) and accelerated quickly to rest near the sun; they approached the sun from the opposite side of the earth; or they just popped right in where they were photographed.

While I would not disregard any of those possibilities, it seems the more logical conclusion is that they were rocks floating somewhere closer to the camera than to the sun.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Someone correct me if I am

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but if they are that close to the sun shouldn't they be hot as hell?  Isn't it hot enough to melt just about anything?


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
After viewing the videos

After viewing the videos again, it appears the reflections are on the wrong side of the spheres. The side opposite the sun is brighter than the side nearer the sun. That seems -- odd.

I would suspect an image processing error, rather than huge-assed spheres floating around the sun. Minor imperfections in CCD imaging can result in artifacts similar to these when the image is poorly-processed to compensate for hot pixels in the CCD, and then converted to a lossy format like JPG or PNG.

If the reflections on the spheres matched the position of the sun, it'd be a different story. As it is, it seems suspicious.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Now everyone, for Flying

Now everyone, for Flying Spaghetti Monster's sake, look at the SOHO video, really! If photographs of spheres aren't impressive enough, you should see them in motion. It's not on Youtube, so I can't embed it, you have to follow the damn link. OK, I admit, these things on that video aren't spheres, they are shaped like saucers seen from a side. So either in different spectrum they look differently, or their rolling stock is diverse.

v4ultingbassist wrote:
Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
Second, there is a gigantic space bird millions of kilometers across.

AiGS, haven't you learned?  One of those options is WAY cooler.
Like, seriously.
LOL Smiling
OK, even if they're closer, so they look big, it still gives no clue on what are they. And I hope it's obvious that these objects have a lot to do with the Sun. So it's not unlikely they're near it.

Blake wrote:

I would have no problem believing in "aliens" passing through our system- particularly, Saturn is a useful planet given ample amounts of helium and water without having to come very near our sun (which would be time consuming to leave the orbit of)- given even a single scrap of actual evidence.

Actually, all I would need to see is something glowing hotter than inert space matter in IR that was accelerating at an appreciable rate due to forces other than gravity.

I do have a problem with the idea that an alien civilization that traveled this far would have any interest at all in humans.  They likely pass by primitive civilizations on a regular basis- assuming (conservatively) no civilizations other than their own ever spread from their home planets and a technological singularity is a reset button that causes the extinction of the species for all others, something on the order of one in ten thousand stars should have "civilizations" on them (ranging from cradle of civilization to slightly beyond modern-day- that is taking into account the time for a civilization to evolve from a mass extinction event).

We just aren't that interesting, in perspective, and there's nothing really that useful to be gained from our little planet (with regards to resources).  Only local aliens with more primitive technology would likely be particularly interested at all in us (and those aren't exactly the sort people usually play up).

With regards to technologically advanced 'aliens', I think Hawking is wrong; we'd be lucky if they even gave us the time of day.  Any locusts surely know our planet is here (and it's not as if we could hide it), and are fully aware of its composition and mineral offerings already, so nothing we could do will get them hungry for our resources if they weren't already.

Blake, you have rather mistaken though popular notion of extraterrestrial life and technology. You assume wrongly, as generations of sci-fi writers did. As experts on this topic say, Benjamin Creme and dr. Steven M. Greer in particular, there is such a thing as different, subtle levels of matter. This matter is finer than ours, it's invisible to us, has a bit different properties, and is also much more plentiful in the universe. Esotericists know these forms of matter, or universe's upper level if you want, as etheric matter. Contemporary science knows it as dark matter. Dark matter is a fact, and it was observed directly thanks to gravitational lensing. The two people above say, that etheric world existing alongside ours supports not only life, but also intelligent life with advanced technology. The greatest difference to popular opinion is, that on etheric level most of planets of our solar system is habitable and inhabited (!!!)

Contemporary science has no idea, how big part of our physiology and nature in general can be found on etheric levels of matter. Every living body has it's etheric component, and there are civilizations in planetary neighbourhood, who exist only in etheric form. However, their technology allows them temporarily to solidify their crafts and even their bodies, so that they appear to our eyes, cameras and radars. In their etheric form they're invisible and intangible, though they sometimes appear on photographs. Etheric form has it's advantages. Not only the universe becomes more hospitable and malleable, but also interplanetary and interstellar travel takes only  reasonable or even comfortable time.

It's true that our space neighbours don't consider us particularly advanced. However, their interest in us is great and we receive a lot of help from them, or so gentlemen Creme and Greer say and write publically for decades. My personal research agrees with them very strictly. But on that topics, there are whole books to be read.

Blake wrote:
I also have a problem with the idea of government conspiracies.  Most branches of government are far too stupid to pull off something like that (people, in collusion, are very messy, gossipy, and generally inefficient and overall incompetent at keeping secrets), and as to the photos, NASA could have easily blocked publication.  If there was something spooky or interesting out there, they'd be more likely to ham it up for extra funding for better telescope technology (we could certainly use it).
You are correct about that. However, I don't exactly mean government as elected individuals or employees. I mean those who dr. Greer writes about. As a sum they could be called shadow government. I do not believe that this is one secret group, or that they really control the world, but they still have certain amount of power, money and love for status quo. Greer documents their activities quite closely. For that purpose, he personally interviewed many great persons from very high offices, civilian and military. He certainly throws big names around in his book, both of America and abroad. Fortunately, even those people are humans, and many of them would gladly go public, if there wouldn't be some mysterious suicides of those that tried it before. Such is Greer's information. I am not able to verify all of it, but all that I can fits very well.

Blake wrote:
  If Christians deny existing evidence, which is far more overt and overwhelming than alien civilizations, they're fully equipped to deny anything else that they encounter.

I would find it likely that some form of alien technology often passes through our system; given that anything ever moves at all, and the overwhelming amount of space faring technology there must be out there it would be like dodging rain-drops to avoid it- I would find it very unlikely that they slow down to any fraction of the speed of light that would allow us to reliably witness it, unless that is merely to collect fuel or reaction mass from one of our gas giants.

The best way to achieve alien contact would probably be to announce that we own our gas giants, and will be charging for refueling, or that we will be enacting a toll for passage through our space.  Until such a time as we can reliably do that, I doubt we'll have any contact at all (if, and I stress, we are any kind of waypoint to begin with- and that would seem to depend largely on happenstance).

OK, I repeat, they're people of dark matter, not of visible matter. For practical purposes, they're as solid as ghosts to us, unless they push the materializing button. This also explains why UFOs were observed like appearing and disappearing out of nowhere. It's interesting idea that we could take toll, but they're not around gas giants for fuel. They recharge batteries at the Sun, as the photographs show. The reason why they're around gas giants is a little different. They inhabit some of the moons, on etheric level. No planet in our solar system is densely physically inhabited, only Earth. Although Mars might once be, if there are any buildings.

The contact is already going on long time, but not with common people and I'm not sure if with governments at all. Creme writes more on this. For now, you'll get the best idea if you consider, that this kind of extraterrestrials is something like hi-tech space hippies. You know, what things like acupuncture, homeopathy, shiatsu and so on are trying to do, is treatment of people's etheric body. But they have only etheric body. And they're most probably fully telepathic. Now, consider how many people on this planet are really telepathic. Not much of a talk, huh? This is why they only cooperate with specially trained individuals, of whom I know only about two, and with certain elite group of this planet, of whom Creme writes more. There is actually new Creme's book on that topic, which I intend to read soon.

Almost all of would-be extraterrestrial communications and messages are merely results of mediumship. This kind of telepathy is a primitive, archaic form of emotional sensitivity that has it's origin in our animal evolution. Messages acquired in this way are hardly coherent at all and should be best ignored. The same cause lies behind reports of alien abductions. I do not believe whatsoever that there ever was extraterrestrial abduction of any human. At most, I would believe that people from shadow government killed and mutilated some cows as a scare tactic for the public. But this is merely meant to scare only the gullible, who don't think forward to what was going to happen to these cows anyway.

nigelTheBold wrote:

If they were close to the sun, they would be fuckin' huge. We're talking hundreds of kilometers across. Something of that size would be easily noticed in transit to the sun, which leaves us with only a few possibilities -- they arrived very quickly (moving at a significant percentage of the speed of light) and accelerated quickly to rest near the sun; they approached the sun from the opposite side of the earth; or they just popped right in where they were photographed.

While I would not disregard any of those possibilities, it seems the more logical conclusion is that they were rocks floating somewhere closer to the camera than to the sun.

Yes, they would be fucking huge. But they are primarily etheric, or dark-material, if you prefer. Which means they're as discreet, as ghost of your great-grandmother. I think that around the Sun they either show themselves off, or it's a technical necessity to get at least partially dense-material before recharging or doing the work they do there.

A single photograph is of course not enough to tell, if they're rocks or not. But I have multiple photographs, and as you could see and read, the video 2 shows below a spiral-like shape submerged in corona. Video number 3 shows another photograph, this time with this object away from corona, replaced by another classical sphere. As I wrote, it looks like they're taking turns.
But you'd have best just to look at the SOHO video link, you'll see them in motion.

v4ultingbassist wrote:

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but if they are that close to the sun shouldn't they be hot as hell?  Isn't it hot enough to melt just about anything?

You'd be correct, but I do not believe they're actual solid, heavy physical space crafts. My information from multiple sources is, that they're made of dark (etheric) matter, and they materialize themselves at their will, or even partially. Furthermore, my own research of etheric matter shows that it has some very peculiar properties. Under certain circumstances, responsivity to thought, for example. Another properties of it might be just enough to build a sunproof ship hull, together with only partial materialization.

 

 

nigelTheBold wrote:

After viewing the videos again, it appears the reflections are on the wrong side of the spheres. The side opposite the sun is brighter than the side nearer the sun. That seems -- odd.

I would suspect an image processing error, rather than huge-assed spheres floating around the sun. Minor imperfections in CCD imaging can result in artifacts similar to these when the image is poorly-processed to compensate for hot pixels in the CCD, and then converted to a lossy format like JPG or PNG.

If the reflections on the spheres matched the position of the sun, it'd be a different story. As it is, it seems suspicious.

Well, most of these reflections seemed OK to me, but whatever. This puzzles me even more, as these objects on SOHO video have either different shape, or the light spectrum in which it's photographed records more of it's shape or light or heat emissions on their sides, or these are different objects.

 


 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:Now everyone,

Luminon wrote:
Now everyone, for Flying Spaghetti Monster's sake, look at the SOHO video, really! If photographs of spheres aren't impressive enough, you should see them in motion. It's not on Youtube, so I can't embed it, you have to follow the damn link. OK, I admit, these things on that video aren't spheres, they are shaped like saucers seen from a side. So either in different spectrum they look differently, or their rolling stock is diverse.

v4ultingbassist wrote:
Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
Second, there is a gigantic space bird millions of kilometers across.

AiGS, haven't you learned?  One of those options is WAY cooler.
Like, seriously.
LOL Smiling
OK, even if they're closer, so they look big, it still gives no clue on what are they. And I hope it's obvious that these objects have a lot to do with the Sun. So it's not unlikely they're near it.


OK, I watched the SOHO video.  It has a small problem if those things are anywhere near the sun.  Follow me on this.

The sun is 1.4 million kilometers wide.  Those things cross the entire video frame of about three solar diameters in about one second. A quick back of the envelope calculation has them moving at about 14 times the speed of light. 


Watch out for Lumbergh @ Yahoo! Video

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

OK, I watched the SOHO video.  It has a small problem if those things are anywhere near the sun.  Follow me on this.

The sun is 1.4 million kilometers wide.  Those things cross the entire video frame of about three solar diameters in about one second. A quick back of the envelope calculation has them moving at about 14 times the speed of light.

Yeah, that would be really too much, even for extraterrestrial standards, within solar system, at least. But are you aware, that this video isn't in real time? The little numbers that sometimes appear there in a corner are hours or even days! And I think some of these flights over are pretty slow. For example, there is a video sequence with blue display that has UFO flying below Sun all across screen, and it takes at least 5 days, according to the timing. That would be according to my makeshift calculations about 1/3 of light speed. Comfy ride.

Hey, are you still on the skeptic autopilot?!!! Smiling

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
v4ultingbassist wrote:  

v4ultingbassist wrote:

 

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
Second, there is a gigantic space bird millions of kilometers across.

 

AiGS, haven't you learned? One of those options is WAY cooler.

 

Like, seriously.

 

Remind me again which roller coasters you have helped to build, so that I know not to ride any of them.

 

Blake wrote:

 

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

 

First, there is a hawk flying near your house.

 

Second, there is a gigantic space bird millions of kilometers across.

 

Optical focus can go a long way towards telling the difference. Parallax data, even farther if that is had.

 

Indeed. This is certainly true.

 

Cecking further, the “green sun” images (don't be fooled by the videos, they are still frames) come from the STEREO observatory. Basically, it consists of two basically identical observatories. The A observatory is at L4 and the B observatory is at L5. They are capable of observing almost the entire sun in near real time and providing 3D images of coronal mass ejections.

 

If the stuff that Luminon wants us to look at is, in fact, near the sun, then there is data that can clearly prove the matter. The only thing we are missing here is the actual proof.

 

v4ultingbassist wrote:
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but if they are that close to the sun shouldn't they be hot as hell? Isn't it hot enough to melt just about anything?

 

OK, I will not claim to be an expert on coronal physics. However, I would think that the Ideal Gas Law would still hold. The kinetic energy of the stuff around you could well be over a million degrees (F or C probably does not matter at this point). Still, if you are in a hard vacuum, you could be frosty cold.

 

What would probably matter would be the electromagnetic flux. You would be on the receiving end of a crap load of high energy photons. If they interact with normal matter, then much heating will happen. If the supposed alien space craft are made from such materials where a low EM cross section may be had, then they will not “get hot” as you describe matters.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
Luminon, dark matter is

Luminon, dark matter is almost certainly a 'hack' which results from a broken theory of gravitation- it has all of the trappings of a constant that has been added in, inelegantly, to 'fix' something that doesn't work.

A corrected theory of gravity will most likely fix this. (It's something I'm working on)

 

So, I would like to get on record either:

1. When gravity is corrected, and dark matter no longer is used to correct a broken system, you will recant all of your beliefs with regards to the ethereal.

Or:

2. You don't need to use this to justify these notions, and you have something else of substance to reference.

 

"Dark matter" references aren't going to cut it with me; that's like referencing the 'cosmological constant' as if it were valid.

 

 

Personally I find it unlikely that there isn't life on almost every other planet in our solar system, although I suspect that it is primarily microbial (I would not be astounded to see small multicellular animals, though).


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Blake wrote:Luminon, dark

Blake wrote:

Luminon, dark matter is almost certainly a 'hack' which results from a broken theory of gravitation- it has all of the trappings of a constant that has been added in, inelegantly, to 'fix' something that doesn't work.

A corrected theory of gravity will most likely fix this. (It's something I'm working on)

You see, science is so vast, that it's easy to miss new discoveries. Specially those you disagree with Smiling I would like to point you to an article and enclosed video.

August 21, 2006 - Dark Matter Observed: Most Direct Measurement of Dark Matter Allows Study of its Nature - Press Release

 

Blake wrote:
So, I would like to get on record either:

1. When gravity is corrected, and dark matter no longer is used to correct a broken system, you will recant all of your beliefs with regards to the ethereal.

 Or:

2. You don't need to use this to justify these notions, and you have something else of substance to reference.

I don't base my worldview on beliefs. I have observations and theory that supports them. Observations of what behaves like dark matter, but down on biologic level, demonstrating that it also participates on biology and consciousness. It is not possible to recant observations. If dark matter would be disproven, which I doubt, then I'd have to find a new explanation for my observations (and for the astronomic discovery linked above), or I'd have to find holes in new theory of gravity.

I'm a little suspicious of your notion of "having". Yes, I think I do have something else, but researching and proving that may take many years. So I don't have that in a sense useful to you, a ready scientific result for curious reader of renown journals.

 

Blake wrote:
"Dark matter" references aren't going to cut it with me; that's like referencing the 'cosmological constant' as if it were valid.

 

All right, as you say. Please tell me what do you think of the article above.

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Has anyone seen this link

Has anyone seen this link from NASA about those 'UFO's?

http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/hotshots/2003_01_17/

The mere fact that they are perfectly aligned with the horizontal edges of the frame is a strong indicator that they are an artefact of the imaging system.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Has anyone

BobSpence1 wrote:

Has anyone seen this link from NASA about those 'UFO's?

http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/hotshots/2003_01_17/

The mere fact that they are perfectly aligned with the horizontal edges of the frame is a strong indicator that they are an artefact of the imaging system.

You want to say, that SOHO satellite takes pictures in resolution of 1024x1024? Are these pictures on the first videos in such a resolution? It doesn't seem to me like that. Such an expensive thing it is, and takes lesser pictures than my monitor.

NASA is known for it's sloppy censorship of photographs. When they publish photographs, of Mars for example and there is something they don't want to show, they patch it up. To expert's eye, only black censor's square could be more blatant, they don't bother with much subtlety and rely on blind skepticism of those who rely on their autority. Or maybe they're not happy about that job either.

Yeah, I agree that antialiasing doesn't prove anything. Fortunately, the SOHO video that everyone should see by now shows these objects in motion, even down to the pixelous shapes. And they fly there for days! No image artifact, planet or anything can explain this. And the reason why these objects look horizontally elongated may be, that they simply fly horizontally, as Sun rotates.

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Remind me again which roller coasters you have helped to build, so that I know not to ride any of them.

 

 

OK, I will not claim to be an expert on coronal physics. However, I would think that the Ideal Gas Law would still hold. The kinetic energy of the stuff around you could well be over a million degrees (F or C probably does not matter at this point). Still, if you are in a hard vacuum, you could be frosty cold.

 

What would probably matter would be the electromagnetic flux. You would be on the receiving end of a crap load of high energy photons. If they interact with normal matter, then much heating will happen. If the supposed alien space craft are made from such materials where a low EM cross section may be had, then they will not “get hot” as you describe matters.

 

 

George and the Dragon in De Efteling, the Netherlands.  (I only helped assemble the trains, so you should be safe )

 

But in all seriousness, I plan on being conservative in my engineering.  No amount of awesomeness is worth putting someone's life in danger.

 

As for the sun, I guess I didn't think hard enough, just remember the corona being a million Kelvin, and thinking no known element, under normal circumstances, could still be in a solid phase.


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:You want to

Luminon wrote:
You want to say, that SOHO satellite takes pictures in resolution of 1024x1024? Are these pictures on the first videos in such a resolution? It doesn't seem to me like that. Such an expensive thing it is, and takes lesser pictures than my monitor.

SOHO is 15 years old. The CCDs they use were awesome... 15 years ago. So yes, the best possible resolution is 1024x1024 pixels. It's right there in the instrument specifications.


liberatedatheist
atheistScience Freak
liberatedatheist's picture
Posts: 137
Joined: 2009-12-08
User is offlineOffline
*yawn* UFO theories are just

*yawn* UFO theories are just plain boring


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:You want to

Luminon wrote:
You want to say, that SOHO satellite takes pictures in resolution of 1024x1024? Are these pictures on the first videos in such a resolution? It doesn't seem to me like that. Such an expensive thing it is, and takes lesser pictures than my monitor.

 

Well, the first videos were taken by the SECCHI instruments on the STEREO probes. They were launched in 2006 and they have a resolution of 2048*2048.

 

Also, you are mistaken about the nature of such probes. They cost millions of dollars to build and far more than the build costs to launch into space. In order to keep costs down, they may well use off the shelf parts which are old by today's standards. Hell, my less than a year old Canon EOS takes pictures at 8,000*6,000.

 

In fact, a friend of mine is the daughter of the man who made the cameras for the voyager probes and I have spoken with him about how they work. They did not even have a resolution in the way that we understand the matter today. They were little better than the light meters that photographers used to use many years ago. So the raw data was really grayscale and the coolness was added when the data reached earth.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:You see,

Luminon wrote:
You see, science is so vast, that it's easy to miss new discoveries. Specially those you disagree with Smiling I would like to point you to an article and enclosed video.

 

I have no disagreement with that study; it doesn't provide any suggestion that this "dark matter" is present matter at all, they're just showing how the additional gravity source is behaving (or failing to behave).  The gravitational anomaly is what they observed and reported on, and that I don't disagree with; I just disagree with the long held assumption that it's caused by local matter which fails to interact with normal matter. 

Rather, by its lack of reciprocal interaction- and bear in mind that the majority of the "collision" going on between the galaxies is simply gravitational (very rarely to stars or planets actually impact each other), so the dark matter really should have been reacting in kind almost as strongly as the luminous matter if it really was there and reacting by way of gravity (in the form of dark stars, planets, or whatever else)- it seems to demonstrate that it isn't present matter at all (because it isn't reacting to the gravitation of the other galaxy).

It's far more likely that this is a moving time dilation well in the fabric of space-time resultant from (likely) a large sum of distant matter creating an underlying pattern of constructive and destructive time dilation.  That it was moving would have been a factor in the pulling along of that galaxy, but the galaxy's stopping would have no direct effect on the movement of the pool of time dilation itself.

Observed over a larger time frame, it's likely that we will see these wells of time dilation become stronger or weaker (which would imply spontaneous creation and destruction of dark matter which has a one-sided reaction with matter [pulling on matter without being pulled on as much itself], and more or less put that notion to rest).

 

 

Hey, maybe it is some kind of matter- though that only leaves them to explain why it went flying off instead of sticking around where the gravity well from the galaxies stopped (lest it violate Newton's third law).  We don't have any evidence that this is matter- if ever there is any, I'll accept it.

 

 

Quote:
I don't base my worldview on beliefs. I have observations and theory that supports them. Observations of what behaves like dark matter, but down on biologic level, demonstrating that it also participates on biology and consciousness. It is not possible to recant observations. If dark matter would be disproven, which I doubt, then I'd have to find a new explanation for my observations (and for the astronomic discovery linked above), or I'd have to find holes in new theory of gravity.

 

I already explained the astronomic observation you linked to. 

 

I can also explain your esoteric observations- they're called experimental and confirmation biases; your brain is a pattern recognizing machine, and will find patters even below the treshhold of statistical significance (where they are just random), and assign imagined causes to them.  Recall how easily people will fall into delusions of images of "the virgin Mary" on toast, and conversations with Jesus- why do you think you are immune to the same human subjectivity?  And don't give me that "deep knowing" stuff; that's circular reasoning- 'I know I have the deep knowing because I have the deep knowing and it told me so'.

 

Do you really fail to recognize that as a possible explanation to your observations?  Or do you at least consider it one of the possibilities (however slim)?

 

Quote:
I'm a little suspicious of your notion of "having". Yes, I think I do have something else, but researching and proving that may take many years. So I don't have that in a sense useful to you, a ready scientific result for curious reader of renown journals.

 

Well, I guess you have your work cut out for you.  Without even dark matter to refer to as a possible explanation (And I will admit that *if* dark matter existed- a proposition there is no evidence for, and that I consider the link you gave as evidence against from what they have published- that there could be dark planets, dark stars, and even dark alien life forms), you'll have to come up with something substantial to even suggest that it's possible.

I would have no problem with the suggestion of the possibility of dark energy aliens if dark matter held any water- as it stands thus far, it seems like a pipe-dream based most likely on the faulty resolution of gravity- little different from the fudge factor of the cosmological constant.

Your hypotheses should be easy to prove if they are true; and to win the two million dollars while you're at it.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Well Blake, I probably have

Well Blake, I probably have to apologize to you on this one. Before you joined here, Luminon used to expound at great length about the aether. I think that I was the one who corrected him on that bit of crap.

 

In so doing, I told him that the concept was, at best, a place holder for stuff which could not be explained in what was then current physics. I told him something along the lines of “just like dark matter is considered today”.

 

Really though, as I understand the matter, there are observations made by responsible people. They have been checked by other responsible people and it seems that something is not exactly to our understanding. Umm, that is what we call science. One day, the data will be subject to some explanation. Until then, dark matter is, at best, a place holder for “we don't really know what is going on”.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Well Blake, I probably have to apologize to you on this one.

 

Ahh, so you put him on to the dark matter, haha Eye-wink

 

That's alright; at least he's up to date with the latest terminology for his woo.

 

Quote:
Really though, as I understand the matter, there are observations made by responsible people.

 

Absolutely, and some of them believe that dark matter is actually a kind of matter; others are just using the term for the general collection of aberrant observations as they deviate from theory.

 

Quote:
Until then, dark matter is, at best, a place holder for “we don't really know what is going on”.

 

 

Right, but the important thing to note is that it isn't determined that it is matter at all- the problem that is expressing itself in Luminon is that he thinks he knows so much about it; and he thinks science has somehow agreed that it is matter at all, even so much as to its general properties.

The name is really deceptive, as it implies more information than we actually have... but alas, it was catchy.

I don't have any problem with "dark matter" as the collective set of observations as odds with current gravitational theory- I have a problem with it as "dark matter" as a substance we supposedly have encountered and observed (which we haven't- it's more that we have seen a shadowy area on a wall and assumed that there was a thing there blocking the light, rather than the light simply having gone out).


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Blake wrote:I have no

Blake wrote:

I have no disagreement with that study; it doesn't provide any suggestion that this "dark matter" is present matter at all, they're just showing how the additional gravity source is behaving (or failing to behave).  The gravitational anomaly is what they observed and reported on, and that I don't disagree with; I just disagree with the long held assumption that it's caused by local matter which fails to interact with normal matter.

Rather, by its lack of reciprocal interaction- and bear in mind that the majority of the "collision" going on between the galaxies is simply gravitational (very rarely to stars or planets actually impact each other), so the dark matter really should have been reacting in kind almost as strongly as the luminous matter if it really was there and reacting by way of gravity (in the form of dark stars, planets, or whatever else)- it seems to demonstrate that it isn't present matter at all (because it isn't reacting to the gravitation of the other galaxy).


So as it seems, instead of thinking what kind of matter can have such exotic properties of not reacting to each other's gravity, you rather decide there is probably no matter. Saves a lot of work, eh?

They didn't observe just gravitational anomaly, thanks to gravitational lensing it's also optical anomaly.
 

Blake wrote:
It's far more likely that this is a moving time dilation well in the fabric of space-time resultant from (likely) a large sum of distant matter creating an underlying pattern of constructive and destructive time dilation.  That it was moving would have been a factor in the pulling along of that galaxy, but the galaxy's stopping would have no direct effect on the movement of the pool of time dilation itself.

Observed over a larger time frame, it's likely that we will see these wells of time dilation become stronger or weaker (which would imply spontaneous creation and destruction of dark matter which has a one-sided reaction with matter [pulling on matter without being pulled on as much itself], and more or less put that notion to rest).

Time dilation? Fabric of space-time? WTF? Tell me your adress and I will send you the village fool's hat, currently in my possession.

Time does not exist as our brain thinks. What makes things go forward is inherent energy contained in all matter. The observation of time is just our memory of past moments. Time is not an actual dimension of the universe, it's an irreversible process.

Blake wrote:
  Hey, maybe it is some kind of matter- though that only leaves them to explain why it went flying off instead of sticking around where the gravity well from the galaxies stopped (lest it violate Newton's third law).  We don't have any evidence that this is matter- if ever there is any, I'll accept it.
Yes, I think it's very specific kind of matter. But to find out why it did not react to gravity of each other, I'd need a person and good computer who both can do simulations within string theory and M-theory. What we call dark matter, is actually luminous matter of different properties down to the level of elementary particles, down to the strings. M-theory says, that how many strings vibrate there, in such a "dimension" the particle is located. Dark matter is entirely in our own dimension, just like we are. The difference is, that strings of it's elementary particles have greater range of vibration. It's particles are bigger, therefore less dense, but I don't know how much. Arrangement of dark matter atom may be somewhat different. I know only one thing for sure, that it has bigger electron orbitals, which do not bond with small orbitals of luminous matter, therefore there's no substantial way to collide.

My sources speak of four states of aether, of various density, similar to solid, liquid and gaseous. It's interesting that on the video, both clumps of dark matter have layers. OK, I admit they have only 3 layers, but it's also great distance and great objects. It still might support the idea that this matter has various distinct states, and the most dense fall to the center.

Blake wrote:

I already explained the astronomic observation you linked to.

Explained? Sorry, but I have sort of diffcult relationship with relativity and space/time stuff. I know too much conflicting opinions on them. Some people praise it, some accuse these ideas of great inanity and point out huge flaws in it. But I have nobody to comment on the objections, so I don't know what to think. To me, what you wrote sounds like terrible mumbo-jumbo, based on assumption that space is a real thing and not just abstraction for measuring distance, and similarly with time.

If I would try to make an opinion on these things, I'd end up like Skeptic23, making people frustrated by posting stuff that I can't stand for.

 

Blake wrote:
 Do you really fail to recognize that as a possible explanation to your observations?  Or do you at least consider it one of the possibilities (however slim)?
I have to repeat it over and over. I'm not the guy with confirmation bias. For your best understanding, let's use comparison that I have a hallucination. This hallucination gives perfectly physical feeling, it's literally tangible. This hallucination lasts about 20 years (or since I can remember) and there NEVER was any single day in which it wouldn't work, any time, any moment, any state of mind or intoxication. No problem here, but, later I met several people who independently, without me or them knowing or expecting anything in advance, were able
- to see my hallucination
- to touch my hallucination
- to re-produce my hallucination in a way perceptible for me.
Furthermore, I found out that there is a lot of people who have the same hallucination and for them it is also mutually perceptible. I also found out, that there are old and new books, describing this hallucination as a natural and real thing, which all people can learn to perceive, if they devote effort and time as it is with everything else. I am also able to employ my hallucination in deliberate affecting my nerve and endocrine system, and so on. This all got me thinking. My "hallucination" is so unusual, there is nothing in the world that could be mistaken for it, it could be only two things, which are most probably one: dark matter and etheric matter.

As I am writing now, my "hallucination" is always with me, as it was for almost as long as I can remember. I'm of course physically and mentally healthy, have no police or traffic incidents, know a few foreign languages, graduated cum laude, etc. I'm apparently not a psychopath, so I'm compelled to take myself and my well-estabilished observations seriously. I don't like to take all that shit from skeptics, but they're otherwise not bad people.

 

Blake wrote:

Well, I guess you have your work cut out for you.  Without even dark matter to refer to as a possible explanation (And I will admit that *if* dark matter existed- a proposition there is no evidence for, and that I consider the link you gave as evidence against from what they have published- that there could be dark planets, dark stars, and even dark alien life forms), you'll have to come up with something substantial to even suggest that it's possible.

I would have no problem with the suggestion of the possibility of dark energy aliens if dark matter held any water- as it stands thus far, it seems like a pipe-dream based most likely on the faulty resolution of gravity- little different from the fudge factor of the cosmological constant.

To me, idea of world of dark matter is natural, because esoterics write about it for centuries and millenia, and it  elegantly explains most of so-called paranormal phenomena, which we otherwise have to ignore despite of all evidence. To me, playing with space and time seems like a greater pipe dream. Just because it works in equations, it doesn't have to work in reality. Specially if time is not a real dimension.

As you saw on the clouds of galaxies, dark matter is usually concentrated around luminous matter and within it. I'm  skeptical of dark matter-only suns and a little less of planets. I think there is one Sun, that has it's dark-material component, just as it is with planets and even living organisms.
However, try to take a look at [url=http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2009/arcade_balloon.html]ARCADE 2006 NASA experiment

And tell me what kind of space-time dilation this is. I'll save you the time - this very strong radio signal was called by esotericist and writer Benjamin Creme as part of etheric levels of matter. In my preliminary opinion, I repeat, luminous matter shines in plus minus visible spectrum, and dark matter "shines" in radio spectrum. Because, there is apparently not nearly enough galaxies that could produce this signal:

The problem, notes team member Dale Fixsen of the University of Maryland at College Park, is that there don't appear to be enough radio galaxies to account for the signal ARCADE detected. "You'd have to pack them into the universe like sardines," he says. "There wouldn't be any space left between one galaxy and the next."

 

Blake wrote:
Your hypotheses should be easy to prove if they are true; and to win the two million dollars while you're at it.

Easy to prove? I don't know, it's in such a basic phase, that I'd even have to find out a method of testing it. I suspect that dark matter is luminous, it only shines on much different wavelengths. This kind of "light" is called cosmic background microwave radiation and is very uncertainly attributed to Big bang, which is sort of true, because that's when it started, after all. But I'd really need an allied brain for such a work. I'd need to sort out a lot of various hypotheses and ideas, and come up with many new, which only a scientist or we together could come up with.
I even flirted with the idea that dark/etheric matter is supersymmetric counterpart of etheric matter, but consulting Wikipedia showed, that I need to become a proud owner of at best several thoroughbred scientists, who will provide me brainpower.

 

Blake wrote:

Right, but the important thing to note is that it isn't determined that it is matter at all- the problem that is expressing itself in Luminon is that he thinks he knows so much about it; and he thinks science has somehow agreed that it is matter at all, even so much as to its general properties.

The name is really deceptive, as it implies more information than we actually have... but alas, it was catchy.

I don't have any problem with "dark matter" as the collective set of observations as odds with current gravitational theory- I have a problem with it as "dark matter" as a substance we supposedly have encountered and observed (which we haven't- it's more that we have seen a shadowy area on a wall and assumed that there was a thing there blocking the light, rather than the light simply having gone out).

Look at this quote from the article. Does it look like indecisive to you?

 

The spatial separation of the clumps proves that two types of matter exist, while the extreme difference in their behavior shows the exotic nature of dark matter.

These measurements are compelling," said KIPAC Director Roger Blandford. "The direct demonstration that dark matter has the properties inferred on the basis of indirect arguments shows that we are on the right track in our quest to understand the structure of the universe."

Unless this guy gets grounded at home by scientific community for his claims, I think it should be also compelling for you Smiling

Maybe I don't know enough about it, but my strength is in breadth of my scope of vision. I know not only current science, but also other traditions, researches and methods of thinking and work. I know people you wouldn't believe they exist. I do things you wouldn't believe I do. I saw and otherwise observed things that nobody but esotericist has ever described. To me, the real question is not if something exists, but how to make it repeatable and observable enough for common equipment, so that it can be verified by scientific method.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote: So as it

Luminon wrote:

 

So as it seems, instead of thinking what kind of matter can have such exotic properties of not reacting to each other's gravity, you rather decide there is probably no matter. Saves a lot of work, eh?

 

It's called Occam's razor, and it's why we abandoned aether theory- as the properties it must have become more complicated and exotic, the assumptions go up- a more elegant solution is preferable.

It's probably actually more work, because it means we have to re-think some things, and start back from an earlier assumption- it can be difficult for people who are emotionally invested in it.

 

Quote:
They didn't observe just gravitational anomaly, thanks to gravitational lensing it's also optical anomaly.

 

Wow, sorry, that was one of the stupidest things I've heard in weeks.  One of, because this reply beats it:

 

Quote:
What makes things go forward is inherent energy contained in all matter. The observation of time is just our memory of past moments. Time is not an actual dimension of the universe, it's an irreversible process.

 

Do you know what time dilation is?

 

Gravity is observed by way of lensing, which is caused by time dilation.

It's like you're saying "they didn't just observe hydrogen... they observed the spectral lines!"

Or, to put it more bluntly "they didn't just observe water... they observed wetness!!"

Of course they observed wetness.

 

Time is observable in terms of that dilation, and time moves at different rates in different places and reference frames- some faster, some slower- based on local time dilation.  That is the topography- the temporal dimensionality- of the universe.

I'm not talking about time with reference to human perception, but in reference to relative rate of process.

 

You're countering my points with inanely obvious and pedestrian statements which indicate only that you have no idea what I'm talking about.

 

Quote:
Yes, I think it's very specific kind of matter. But to find out why it did not react to gravity of each other, I'd need a person and good computer who both can do simulations within string theory and M-theory.

 

String theory   

 

That's all great intellectual masturbation, but pretty much meaningless and untestable.

 

Quote:
Sorry, but I have sort of diffcult relationship with relativity and space/time stuff. I know too much conflicting opinions on them.

 

I know plenty of opinions on them too, but the observations speak for themselves regarding the intimate nature of the relationship between gravity and time dilation.  There's not really any way around that.

 

Blake wrote:
 Do you really fail to recognize that as a possible explanation to your observations?  Or do you at least consider it one of the possibilities (however slim)?

Luminon wrote:
I have to repeat it over and over. I'm not the guy with confirmation bias.

 

So you do completely deny the possibility.  I'm actually a little surprised; I pegged you as a little more open minded than that.

 

Quote:
This hallucination gives perfectly physical feeling, it's literally tangible. This hallucination lasts about 20 years (or since I can remember) and there NEVER was any single day in which it wouldn't work, any time, any moment, any state of mind or intoxication. No problem here, but, later I met several people who independently, without me or them knowing or expecting anything in advance, were able

- to see my hallucination
- to touch my hallucination
- to re-produce my hallucination in a way perceptible for me.

All statistically possible and likely, seeing as you associated with people who shared similar hallucinations.

You're completely ignoring all of the cases of people who didn't see your hallucination, or who saw a different hallucination (such as Jesus), and who have had persistent hallucinations of Jesus for 20 years or more.

Christians get their hallucination confirmed by each other too.

 

You haven't expressed anything that isn't easily a consequence of confirmation bias.


Quote:
Furthermore, I found out that there is a lot of people who have the same hallucination and for them it is also mutually perceptible. I also found out, that there are old and new books, describing this hallucination as a natural and real thing, which all people can learn to perceive, if they devote effort and time as it is with everything else.

 

All of the while you have been slowly modifying your views and hallucination at a rate you didn't notice, and have been retconning everything that didn't fit in right.

You are a poster child for confirmation bias.  There are millions of books on other kinds of hallucinations- you choose the ones you agree with.

 

Quote:
I am also able to employ my hallucination in deliberate affecting my nerve and endocrine system, and so on. This all got me thinking. My "hallucination" is so unusual, there is nothing in the world that could be mistaken for it, it could be only two things, which are most probably one: dark matter and etheric matter.

And you deny the possibility that you are hallucinating those effects.  You deny that other people, with different hallucinations, also experience those effects.  You deny that there could be a perfectly normal explanation for them (such as placebo).

 

 

Quote:
As I am writing now, my "hallucination" is always with me, as it was for almost as long as I can remember. I'm of course physically and mentally healthy, have no police or traffic incidents, know a few foreign languages, graduated cum laude, etc.

 

All in accordance with your hallucination- you don't know any of that.

All of that is also completely consistent with confirmation bias.

 

Quote:
I'm apparently not a psychopath, so I'm compelled to take myself and my well-estabilished observations seriously. I don't like to take all that shit from skeptics, but they're otherwise not bad people.

 

Blah blah "Jesus was either crazy, a liar, or he was telling the truth"

 

Or he was engaging in a perfectly normal (for most humans) delusion.  That's the one you're missing.

 

You use the same bad logic as Christians use for Jesus and the bible to "prove" that you are right.  None of what you said is inconsistent with the views of somebody suffering from confirmation bias and personal delusion.

That you can't see that, and at least admit that it is possible, is sad- even some Christians will admit the possibility (even some preachers I've talked to!).

Seems like, after all the talk, you're less open minded than many Christians.  It's surprising; that's one thing I didn't expect from you.

 

 

 

Quote:
and it  elegantly explains most of so-called paranormal phenomena, which we otherwise have to ignore despite of all evidence.

 

There hasn't been any evidence, so there's nothing to ignore.

 

Quote:
To me, playing with space and time seems like a greater pipe dream. Just because it works in equations, it doesn't have to work in reality. Specially if time is not a real dimension.

 

Not unless you subscribe to logic.... pesky logic.

The science behind what I'm saying is very conservative and makes very, very few assumptions that aren't substantiated directly by observation.

 

When I speak of time dilation, I'm speaking of direct observation.  I'm not talking about time in the way you think I am.

 

Quote:
I'm  skeptical of dark matter-only suns and a little less of planets. I think there is one Sun, that has it's dark-material component, just as it is with planets and even living organisms.

 

If there is dark matter, and it reacts with matter by way of gravity, there would likely be a dark matter sun in the same location as nearly every luminous matter sun; having been pulled into the gravity well, fusion triggered by the pressure.

There might be entirely dark matter stars where there is little luminous matter; and maybe even some stars without dark matter.

 

Quote:
In my preliminary opinion, I repeat, luminous matter shines in plus minus visible spectrum, and dark matter "shines" in radio spectrum. Because, there is apparently not nearly enough galaxies that could produce this signal:

 

Well, there you go- there's your experiment.  You should be able to detect ghosts/aliens/spirits by way of radio.

 

If you really believe in this, take out a loan from a bank and buy the appropriate equipment.

You will want to build something similar to this:

 

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/bits/2010/04/23/wifi-camera-eschews-visible-spectrum/1

 

Here are some visualizations:

 

http://wificamera.propositions.org.uk/visualization

 

You won't get as good a resolution, but you could use wider frequencies too, or with a little more mechanical know-how, make one with adjustable frequencies.

 

My guess is that you'll need about 40k to build it and get the software made.

That's a 50:1 return on your investment to win the JREF and associated prize money if you're right- and, of course, the Nobel prizes and all.

 

 

Quote:
Easy to prove? I don't know, it's in such a basic phase, that I'd even have to find out a method of testing it.

 

I could list dozens of ways off the top of my head.  See above for one of the most conclusive and simple methods.

Hell, you could even just contact those guys, and probably rent it or license their software and plans and do it yourself very cheaply without all of the R&D.

They might even *give* them to you if you explained what you want to do.  Then you'd just need a small array of the detectors as per the specs.

 

Quote:
I need to become a proud owner of at best several thoroughbred scientists, who will provide me brainpower.

 

Science isn't that difficult.  All you need to do is make observations which are consistent with the predictions of your theory in a way that is statistically significant without the ability to bias them in your procedure.

 

 

Quote:

 

The spatial separation of the clumps proves that two types of matter exist, while the extreme difference in their behavior shows the exotic nature of dark matter.

[...]

Unless this guy gets grounded at home by scientific community for his claims, I think it should be also compelling for you Smiling

 

He thinks it proves it; he's being a bit over-zealous.  The results should speak for themselves.  Look more at what scientists do and what facts they present, and less at what they say to the press.  Luckily his over-zealousness can't bias his results, so we can see what's going on and what he did and didn't prove for ourselves.

 

Quote:
Maybe I don't know enough about it, but my strength is in breadth of my scope of vision. I know not only current science, but also other traditions, researches and methods of thinking and work. I know people you wouldn't believe they exist. I do things you wouldn't believe I do. I saw and otherwise observed things that nobody but esotericist has ever described.

 

I know esoterics too; more than you would believe I do.  I can probably do things that you wouldn't believe I can do as well, given that I don't have to believe nonsense in order to do them.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Blake wrote:It's called

Blake wrote:

It's called Occam's razor, and it's why we abandoned aether theory- as the properties it must have become more complicated and exotic, the assumptions go up- a more elegant solution is preferable.

It's probably actually more work, because it means we have to re-think some things, and start back from an earlier assumption- it can be difficult for people who are emotionally invested in it.

Yeah, Occam's razor, the method of finishing all theories, whether they want it or not. Your theory will also have to deal with the already mentioned ARCADE experiment.

 

Blake wrote:

Time is observable in terms of that dilation, and time moves at different rates in different places and reference frames- some faster, some slower- based on local time dilation.  That is the topography- the temporal dimensionality- of the universe.

I'm not talking about time with reference to human perception, but in reference to relative rate of process.

You're countering my points with inanely obvious and pedestrian statements which indicate only that you have no idea what I'm talking about.

Yes, I don't have an idea what exactly is time dilation and why should it cause the mentioned effect with clusters of galaxies. This is, because such things require study, it's diffcult to know things you haven't studied. We both probably saw many people who tried to make opinions on things they didn't study and it's not a pretty spectacle.
I guess that my notion of time is not incompatible with time dilation. It just disagrees with reversing time or time travel, as we understand it. So if I ever encounter someone or something who will explain me this, I'll remember.

 

Blake wrote:

String theory   

That's all great intellectual masturbation, but pretty much meaningless and untestable.

You as a mathemathician should know what other mathemathicians are talking about when they talk about beauty of string theory. The theory is proven to be free of paradoxes, as I was told. And basics of it were laid out by esotericists about 80 years ago before it's discovery. There's a useful website that gives a little overview of it. I must frown at some awkward things they write there, but it's interesting how the 1905's drawing describes a trinity of up and down quarks. You can have a look.

 

Blake wrote:

I know plenty of opinions on them too, but the observations speak for themselves regarding the intimate nature of the relationship between gravity and time dilation.  There's not really any way around that.

OK, well, this actually stirs my curiosity, but I don't know how long it takes before I find a reliable and comprehensible source on it. I do believe in relativity of space and time, but I have no idea how and if it works in this dimension at all. In higher dimensions it's a common thing.
 

Blake wrote:
 Do you really fail to recognize that as a possible explanation to your observations?  Or do you at least consider it one of the possibilities (however slim)?

Luminon wrote:
I have to repeat it over and over. I'm not the guy with confirmation bias.

So you do completely deny the possibility.  I'm actually a little surprised; I pegged you as a little more open minded than that.

As I already told you, I knew that it was a possible explanation, but then I observed evidence that ruled it out. If you would ask me before I had this evidence, about 7 years ago, then I'd agree with you more. Even though I don't have any equipment, with similarly gifted and trained people I could produce evidence through experiment. It's really a technical problem. So I managed to do a few times in the past and results convinced me. Now I am not worried of confirmation bias or hallucinating anymore. Of course, the circumstances always had to be circumstantial, so I was sure that nobody, not even me affected the observation.

Blake wrote:
All statistically possible and likely, seeing as you associated with people who shared similar hallucinations.

You're completely ignoring all of the cases of people who didn't see your hallucination, or who saw a different hallucination (such as Jesus), and who have had persistent hallucinations of Jesus for 20 years or more.

Christians get their hallucination confirmed by each other too.

You haven't expressed anything that isn't easily a consequence of confirmation bias.

I did, but you readily misinterpreted everything, so that it would fit you. Hallucinations are not shared. They all arise in someone's brain and unless you believe in telepathy, they can't magically get to anyone else's head. So if there is something independently observed, then it's not a hallucination. Here the greatest problem is making things up, and you can't make up something you don't know about and don't expect. And even if you can, other people can't, unless you believe in telepathy. So several of such a sudden observations can give you enough certainity to bet your life on. And no, I didn't associate with people who shared similar halucinations, not at all. I only heard of them and taught one person to reproduce the effect.

Some general said that there are no atheists in foxholes. I say, that there are no believers on traffic lights. On traffic lights, you either trust your senses and make a correct observation, or you're dead. As an owner of driver's license, I trust in my senses and keep living.

Blake wrote:

All of the while you have been slowly modifying your views and hallucination at a rate you didn't notice, and have been retconning everything that didn't fit in right.

You are a poster child for confirmation bias.  There are millions of books on other kinds of hallucinations- you choose the ones you agree with.

I called it "hallucination" just for you to have better idea of how it feels. And here you presume that my views were modified, and that there was anything that didn't fit in. Without knowing anything about me, bad boy! The amazing thing on my observation is the consistency of it. I remember having it as a pre-school child, and every day of growing up, without a single day of failure. If anything, now I have greater awareness and control of of it, which comes with years of practice, but it's unchanged.

And no, there are no books on that particular "hallucination". It's not pathologic, it doesn't endanger anyone's life style, so there never was a reason to turn any attention to it. The lack of any scientific literature on that topic, as it was with religious literature, forced me to investigate esoteric literature. And don't try anything with making things up on me. I love truth just like you. Lies can carry no values, but truth can. And because I want to give something valuable to others and myself, I must search for truth.

 

Blake wrote:

And you deny the possibility that you are hallucinating those effects.  You deny that other people, with different hallucinations, also experience those effects.  You deny that there could be a perfectly normal explanation for them (such as placebo).

 

There could be a natural explanation, but it's so improbable, that it would make everything meaningless. I'd have to wake up from being in coma for all my life and without that peculiar sensitivity of mine, of course. Then I might believe that all the evidence I observed was a dream. Yeah, that might be sufficient.

Science really knows nothing of these things. As long as it doesn't make people commit crimes, there is no political will to do anything serious about it. There are just countless studies which fail to prove the existence of what we mean now. There are studies of what we esotericists know as emotional sensitivity. This ability which we share with animals is a primitive remnant of animal evolution and is notorious for it's unreliability. First there must be made distinction that some rare cases are not results of emotional sensitivity, and only these rare abilities have the potential of being consistent and infallible, therefore testable.

Blake wrote:
  Or he was engaging in a perfectly normal (for most humans) delusion.  That's the one you're missing.
What are delusions anyway? Are they testable? Are they contained, or can they negatively affect other sides of life? Because, if I'm hallucinating, then I'm hallucinating extremely strongly, and yet it has surprising lack of negative effects. I'd gladly have my brain scanned, just for the curiosity of how it works.

 

Blake wrote:
You use the same bad logic as Christians use for Jesus and the bible to "prove" that you are right.  None of what you said is inconsistent with the views of somebody suffering from confirmation bias and personal delusion.

That you can't see that, and at least admit that it is possible, is sad- even some Christians will admit the possibility (even some preachers I've talked to!).

Seems like, after all the talk, you're less open minded than many Christians.  It's surprising; that's one thing I didn't expect from you.

You don't know what I've been through. Christians are people of faith. I'm a person of countless repeated experience, tried and true. It's very diffcult for me to accomedate my worldview and perception to the norm. Could you imagine living all your life without having a left hand? You take your left hand for granted, all that time it's there for you, readily responding to thoughts. And it's diffcult to talk to other people about the possibility of not having it.  (I hope you have a left hand)

The funny thing is, that regardless of whatever happens, this peculiar perception of mine will likely be with me forever, hallucination or not. It's surely refreshing to talk about it to strangers every once a while, but it's equally diffcult to explain how hard-wired part of my physiology and mentality it is. It's like a second skin. It's not a vaguely defined God somewhere far away, I could doubt about him too.

Blake wrote:
There hasn't been any evidence, so there's nothing to ignore.
As you define evidence, there's very few of it in the world. Such is the self-limiting nature of scientific method. You can only prove things that you know, you can only know things that you researched, and you can only research things that you have proven enough to get funding. Of course it's not absolute, but I think that this circular chain of reasoning is the cause why scientific method is so inconvenient, though it's the only thing we have. With other method we'd have other problems.

Blake wrote:

Not unless you subscribe to logic.... pesky logic.

The science behind what I'm saying is very conservative and makes very, very few assumptions that aren't substantiated directly by observation.

Well, string theory is also logical. I know, it makes more assumptions. But remember, if a scientist should accept observation, it must be an observation that was thousand times observed and repeated at will, it must be perfectly under control. There are countless phenomena that are not under control, so scientists can't count with them in theories, and so these phenomena are considered as without evidence, and further research that might bring this control is not given. Except of sudden discoveries and dark matter research, but still, it's only indirect and therefore less effective than specialized research.

 

Blake wrote:
  When I speak of time dilation, I'm speaking of direct observation.  I'm not talking about time in the way you think I am.

 

If there is dark matter, and it reacts with matter by way of gravity, there would likely be a dark matter sun in the same location as nearly every luminous matter sun; having been pulled into the gravity well, fusion triggered by the pressure.

There might be entirely dark matter stars where there is little luminous matter; and maybe even some stars without dark matter.

OK... If that would be true, it would be interesting to study the "life cycle" of stars, taking into account their dark-material counterparts.
 

Blake wrote:
Well, there you go- there's your experiment.  You should be able to detect ghosts/aliens/spirits by way of radio.

If you really believe in this, take out a loan from a bank and buy the appropriate equipment.

You will want to build something similar to this:
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/bits/2010/04/23/wifi-camera-eschews-visible-spectrum/1
Here are some visualizations:http://wificamera.propositions.org.uk/visualization
You won't get as good a resolution, but you could use wider frequencies too, or with a little more mechanical know-how, make one with adjustable frequencies.
My guess is that you'll need about 40k to build it and get the software made.
That's a 50:1 return on your investment to win the JREF and associated prize money if you're right- and, of course, the Nobel prizes and all.

Hell, no! I understand it enough to have some idea what kind of technical problems might it encounter. I find it easier to stick with my original plan, become a rich, famous politician and use my political power, contacts and funds to estabilish a research group under my accredited guidance. It is much more effective to use specialists, instead of learning and doing all things by myself, science, funding, publishing and making living. Maybe I have some decent IQ, but it's high enough to let me know that it's not high enough for that Smiling I'm not freakin' Nikola Tesla. I don't want to become another useless martyr. Some scientists are like saints, sanctified long after their death.

Besides that, ghosts are not of this dimension. Radio contact with them is still only theoretical and that dimension (astral) is notoriously known by it's volatility. It's more reasonable to research etheric world, which is also awesome and much more reachable.

 

Blake wrote:

I could list dozens of ways off the top of my head.  See above for one of the most conclusive and simple methods.

Hell, you could even just contact those guys, and probably rent it or license their software and plans and do it yourself very cheaply without all of the R&D.

They might even *give* them to you if you explained what you want to do.  Then you'd just need a small array of the detectors as per the specs.

Yeah, I could also suggest several experiments, just like that, and another after consultation with a scientist. I already contained Michael Shermer who was recommended to me, but these people-friendly scientists are busy, I don't know when and if he will respond. Also, I don't want to hasten things up. There are several extremely important things to be done, before dark matter becomes seriously understood. This means complete and global end of war, end of commercialism, worldwide Marshall's plan in accordance with declaration of universal human rights, and worldwide ecological protective effort. Without these things, any such a discovery will be either commercialized, used for entertainment, used as a weapon or locked up in someone's shelf. As you should know, every good esotericist today is concerned first with politics, economy, ecology and human rights, and then only secondarily with science. FYI, we are still on the way to global self-destruction! Nobody should feel safe until we secure the very existence of our civilization. Toying with science, no matter how interesting, is secondary at this time. This is why I study administration, not science, which I only have as a hobby. (in freakin' foreign language, mind you) Later in life I want to switch to science as main occupation and administration as a hobby.

 

Blake wrote:
Science isn't that difficult.  All you need to do is make observations which are consistent with the predictions of your theory in a way that is statistically significant without the ability to bias them in your procedure.
Science isn't diffcult, people are.  When science becomes big, it enters politics and economy, that's exactly where it becomes diffcult. Albert Hoffman might tell you. Swallow a little of his discovery and he really might Smiling

 

 

Blake wrote:

I know esoterics too; more than you would believe I do.  I can probably do things that you wouldn't believe I can do as well, given that I don't have to believe nonsense in order to do them.

I don't want to make it a pissing contest, but you got me curious. Give me some idea. How can someone like you claim that you know so much of esotericism, and yet be so much un-esoteric? Which books have you read? I hope you didn't lose time with that garbage of Aleister Crowley.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
I know of 'Aleister

I know of 'Aleister Crowley', but I haven't really followed anything modern beyond present day conspiracy theories and ancient astronauts.  I'm more familiar with alchemy and theories of the mind/body/soul of ancient esotericism, gnosticism, and some of the more abstract lines of Buddhist philosophy.

The thing is, String theory is simply a consistent suggestion for how things might work- one of many hundreds or thousands of ways to construct a system with complete internal consistency (which may or may not have any bearing on reality).  A

ll of those consistent systems have certain things in common- and ancient esoterics involves several such systems.  Those commonanilites are a matter of convergent thinking- people trying to figure things out and coming up with ways that it might work- not necessarily following from each other.

It is not difficult to develop, in isolation, a 'theory of everything'.  And, ultimately, there will be some parallels to what other people have thought of- not because it's correct, or because those people are telepathic, but because human minds think alike in terms of our more basic sets of experiences that we adapt to those more advanced practices, and our basic modes of thinking (pattern recognition, causality, intentionality, etc.).

 

String theory is similar to esoteric theories because it has simply been the most intuitive way of working out how everything *might* work in an internally consistent way.  Intuition, however, is derived not from the aether, but from our brain function which has been tuned over millions of years of evolution for survival in primitive Earth conditions (hunting, foraging, avoiding predators, finding shelter)- and not for discovering the workings of the universe. 

 

Intuition has a habit of being completely wrong in just about every way it can be wrong.  As I've said before, esoterics has an amazing track record of being almost precisely wrong about everything- even worse than chance, if you were to flip a coin to decide how the universe works- that's because esoterics is derived from intuition, which is pretty much the poorest way to understand most of what's really going on behind the scenes in our universe.

 

You share similar delusions with others not because of telepathy, but because of precisely what I have explained above.  And you have led yourself to believe those delusions are exactly the same because they are expressed in vague terms (not precise equations) which take a margin of interpretation- a margin of error that allows you to believe they are identical without much effort on your part.  A little bias goes a long way.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Blake wrote:I know of

Blake wrote:

I know of 'Aleister Crowley', but I haven't really followed anything modern beyond present day conspiracy theories and ancient astronauts.  I'm more familiar with alchemy and theories of the mind/body/soul of ancient esotericism, gnosticism, and some of the more abstract lines of Buddhist philosophy.

Which is really not much, and even if it is, you picked a wrong subject. There is progress in esotericism just like in any other discipline. It's like you wanted to study science and picked ancient natural philosophy instead, a far cry from recent sources. The ancient things you have read are simply ancient, they're highly metaphoric and cryptic, because at this time esoterics was a big deal and was kept secret. It's also fitted to medieval language and thinking of eastern cultures. Modern person of today would have real problems to understand anything there, much less something on par with science. This is why I think you didn't understand a lot. And when skeptic doesn't understand something, in his conceit he thinks it's bullshit.

Let's take for example Stanzas of Dzyan, utterly incomprehensible set of extremely figurative descriptions of occult workings. And for example Alice Bailey wrote textbooks about them, explaining each short stanza in a whole freakin' chapter. Still very diffcult for comprehension, but now possible. You are a modern person and you should read modern esoteric sources in modern language, otherwise you will not understand anything. Ancient initiates had much more time than we have today.

 

Blake wrote:
String theory is similar to esoteric theories because it has simply been the most intuitive way of working out how everything *might* work in an internally consistent way.  Intuition, however, is derived not from the aether, but from our brain function which has been tuned over millions of years of evolution for survival in primitive Earth conditions (hunting, foraging, avoiding predators, finding shelter)- and not for discovering the workings of the universe.
Quite oppositely, survival mind has nothing to do with abstract, intuitive mind that we use for esoterics or intellectual effort. It should be obvious on brain scans. Let a person watch football or read Letters on Occult Meditation, and see the difference in brain activity. Different areas will be employed, different in position and in their evolutionary age. Football will provoke activity in hunting centers that measure distance and spatial orientation, and also with centres of agressivity, fight or flight. With the book response will be different, unless the reader becomes really angry at the complicated text and decides to throw the book at someone Smiling

 

Blake wrote:
Intuition has a habit of being completely wrong in just about every way it can be wrong.  As I've said before, esoterics has an amazing track record of being almost precisely wrong about everything- even worse than chance, if you were to flip a coin to decide how the universe works- that's because esoterics is derived from intuition, which is pretty much the poorest way to understand most of what's really going on behind the scenes in our universe.
Firstly, you don't know what is intuition. If you mean ancient texts, then you must count with the possibility that these people were high, uneducated, selfish, astrally sensitive and biased against women and other nations. All of this is not intuition, yet it has great impact on texts.

Secondly, this leads us to the fact, that just like everything else, intuition must be learned and trained as a specific discipline, to become useful. A person who wants really good intuition, must not have the above mentioned problems, but must do certain meditation and exercises. According to modern esoteric teachings, humanity until now developed only the rational mind, leaving intuition for later intentional development, and rational thinking will drop below threshold of consciousness.

And it's not true that intuition had everything wrong. Assuming that the intuition is of transcendental origin, as esotericism says, then properly trained and gifted people should be able to use it correctly to find out truths about reality. Esotericists and scientists alike. It's not a secret that physicist David Bohm was friend for many years with Jiddu Krishnamurti, the esotericist from Theosophic society.
As this article says,

Quote:

For many decades, scientists have been trying to devise a single unified theory to explain all known physical phenomena, but a model that appears to unite the seemingly incompatible String Theory and Standard Model has existed for 100 years. It described baryons, mesons, quarks and preons over 50 years before conventional science. It stated that matter is composed of strings 80 years before string theory. It described the existence of anti-matter 30 years before conventional science. It described the Higgs field over 50 years before Peter Higgs. It described the existence of isotopes 5 years before conventional science. Could this be the beginning of a Theory of Everything - the holy grail of modern physics?

 

Blake wrote:
You share similar delusions with others not because of telepathy, but because of precisely what I have explained above.  And you have led yourself to believe those delusions are exactly the same because they are expressed in vague terms (not precise equations) which take a margin of interpretation- a margin of error that allows you to believe they are identical without much effort on your part.  A little bias goes a long way.

This look again like that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" bullshit. For everyday practical observations you don't need equations and peer-reviewed studies, you only need to not be completely stupid. And what I observe is everyday practical observation. It seems vague only to you, because it's diffcult to describe. Unless, well, what you know from ancient esoterics might tell you what it is like to feel one's etheric body, chakras in it, and more. That's something of what I work with. And I must say, it's impossible to mistake for anything else, because there is nothing else like this in the world.

 

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:The ancient

Luminon wrote:
The ancient things you have read are simply ancient, they're highly metaphoric and cryptic, because at this time esoterics was a big deal and was kept secret. It's also fitted to medieval language and thinking of eastern cultures. Modern person of today would have real problems to understand anything there, much less something on par with science. This is why I think you didn't understand a lot. And when skeptic doesn't understand something, in his conceit he thinks it's bullshit.

 

In other words, you think it needs to be interpreted for us... HEY!  JUST like Christians think the bible needs to be interpreted!  Oh, noes, don't translate it like that!  Oh, but you just don't understand that metaphour!  Etc.

That is bullshit.  You don't "understand" it, and neither do these people who are interpreting it for others.

In your arrogance you claim that this knowledge has been around for ages, and yet everybody else needs it interpreted for them by certain experts who are tapped into the deep knowing, because otherwise they can't understand it.

Hey!  Why not put some golden plates in a hat and translate them!

 

All of your experts are just masturbating each-other and taking their popular consensus as holy writ. on the "real" meaning.

 

I understand ancient esoteric theory just fine, thank you very much, and I'm sure I understand it better than you do and probably ever will.

 

Quote:
You are a modern person and you should read modern esoteric sources in modern language, otherwise you will not understand anything.

 

No, reading the muddled and subjectively interpreted modern sources that have been poorly ad-hocced based on a bad understanding of modern science is precisely how NOT to understand ancient esoteric theory.  No wonder you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

Quote:
Quite oppositely, survival mind has nothing to do with abstract, intuitive mind that we use for esoterics or intellectual effort. It should be obvious on brain scans. Let a person watch football or read Letters on Occult Meditation, and see the difference in brain activity. Different areas will be employed, different in position and in their evolutionary age. Football will provoke activity in hunting centers that measure distance and spatial orientation, and also with centres of agressivity, fight or flight. With the book response will be different, unless the reader becomes really angry at the complicated text and decides to throw the book at someone Smiling

Bullshit.  The human brain hasn't changed very much in the past thousands of years.  Esotericists would likely use the prefrontal cortex to tap into their spiritual woo-woo in the same way a Christian does praying, and then rationalize it using the more emotional and logical areas of the brain to ascribe intentionality and retroactive consistency to their experiences.

You really just didn't understand- at all- my point.

 

Quote:
Firstly, you don't know what is intuition.

Don't be a complete idiot:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/intuition wrote:

 

in·tu·i·tion  (nt-shn, -ty-)

n.

 

1.

____a. The act or faculty of knowing or sensing without the use of rational processes; immediate cognition. See Synonyms at reason.

____b. Knowledge gained by the use of this faculty; a perceptive insight.

 

2. A sense of something not evident or deducible; an impression.

 

 

 

Quote:
If you mean ancient texts, then you must count with the possibility that these people were high, uneducated, selfish, astrally sensitive and biased against women and other nations. All of this is not intuition, yet it has great impact on texts.

 

No, I mean English.

Go read a dictionary.

 

Quote:
Secondly, this leads us to the fact, that just like everything else, intuition must be learned and trained as a specific discipline, to become useful.

 

No, rationality is learned; intuition is a crude approximation of reasoning done unconsciously which can scarcely improve.

Understanding what is counter-intuitive with demonstrations is the best way to understand what intuition is, and how it leads us astray of reality:

 

http://hubpages.com/hub/Counterintuitive-Statistics

 

When you TRAIN it stops being intuition, and starts being reasoning.

 

Quote:
According to modern esoteric teachings, humanity until now developed only the rational mind, leaving intuition for later intentional development, and rational thinking will drop below threshold of consciousness.

 

This is a perfect example of where esoterics are exactly wrong.  Intuition is primitive and pre-rational; it's an approximation of the most primitive reality that can be computed quickly and unconsciously.  Most animals only have intuition- most people almost exclusively rely on intuition and never bother to really think (thinking takes effort, intuition is virtually effortless). 

Intuition is like hardware- rationality is complex, interactive and iterative software computation, and it's something that must be learned.  By its very nature, rationality must be conscious; it can't 'drop below the threshold of consciousness'- that doesn't make any sense with respect to what rational thought is or how the human brain works.

 

Quote:
And it's not true that intuition had everything wrong.

 

Yes, it is.

 

Quote:

 

As this article says,

Quote:

For many decades, scientists have been trying to devise a single unified theory to explain all known physical phenomena, but a model that appears to unite the seemingly incompatible String Theory and Standard Model has existed for 100 years. It described baryons, mesons, quarks and preons over 50 years before conventional science. It stated that matter is composed of strings 80 years before string theory. It described the existence of anti-matter 30 years before conventional science. It described the Higgs field over 50 years before Peter Higgs. It described the existence of isotopes 5 years before conventional science. Could this be the beginning of a Theory of Everything - the holy grail of modern physics?

 

What you have posted is at best a fabrication based on wishful thinking and creative interpretation of old esoteric guesses.  At its worst, it's a malicious lie that is attacking science.

For all you hype up the truth, all of your beliefs are based on lies and biased interpretations of vague and garbled metaphors which meant nothing of the sort in their time.

It sells books, and you've bought it all hook line and sinker.

 

Quote:

Blake wrote:
You share similar delusions with others not because of telepathy, but because of precisely what I have explained above.  And you have led yourself to believe those delusions are exactly the same because they are expressed in vague terms (not precise equations) which take a margin of interpretation- a margin of error that allows you to believe they are identical without much effort on your part.  A little bias goes a long way.

This look again like that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" bullshit.

 

It is nothing of the sort.  Your claims are simply wrong, and remain slippery and nebulous in metaphor until they clasp onto something they think is safe, becoming profoundly arrogant as they stand there saying they knew it all along, and as soon as that perch sinks they go back to being slimy little amoebas that refuse to positively identify themselves until they find something else to claim to have known all along- pointing at new 'interpretations' of old 'metaphors' in the same way bible thumpers or Torah decryptionists do to show that 9-11, the economic collapse, and the BP oil spill was all predicted.  And they do it all with bad applications of... intuition.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5064
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Subjectivism versus objectivism

 

Now, here's a conversation drawing the conclusion we all knew it inevitably would. And it started out so nicely, too.

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:Now,

Atheistextremist wrote:

Now, here's a conversation drawing the conclusion we all knew it inevitably would. And it started out so nicely, too.

 

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

 

I have no problem with empiricists who believe their subjective observations, as long as they recognize that... they're being irrational, but that is the root of empiricism (rejection of rationalism).  The thing here is that Luminon thinks he's being objective.