In another post, recent contributor TomMueller stated that GPS satellites use relativistic synchronization to match up their clocks with earthbound clocks. I explained to him that this was not so, even though its easy to believe, if you don’t think critically, that it is.
Tom followed my post to him with a litany of ad hominem, “Oh, you are a moron, you are a troll, creationist idiots, I read about it on a credible site, I talked to a physics professor about it…” and on and on he went with his insults and denial.
Now to be fair to Tom, if you just read mainstreams sites, like Wikipedia, or Wired or Salon, or even many science websites, this is the information you will find-that GPS satellites use Einstein’s theory of relativity to sync their clocks to earth clocks. Its written everywhere, surely it must be true. But I know why its not true, because I actually thought about it. At first I just had a hunch about it, but again, if you just google it, most sites will tell you its true. But it didn’t make sense to me, for so many reasons. What clocks are the satellite clocks syncing with, a GPS’s receivers clock? Huh? How precise are they? For that matter, how precise are any clocks. Its nearly impossible to ever get ANY two clocks to match.
I also read about the so called Haefele-Keating atomic clocks, where relativistic changes in clocks due to speed was tested and confirmed aboard airplanes going around the earth. Again, everywhere you looked online, they say its true. It was tested, it worked. And its bullshit. But how would one know, if all you did was read what is supposedly credible sources, written by academics and scholars and Wikipedia…
I wouldn’t even bother telling you how I learned it was not true. I wouldn’t even bother citing sources, because all skeptics do is try to spew the same old defense, “Oh, that source is for cranks, try MY sources, they are the best parrots for information.” I learned by thinking, skeptics will never understand that.
And so here’s the thing, I didn’t learn that things are complete bullshit, by just going to the vast amount of sources online that claim they are true, instead I thought about. But here’s what skeptics, as ironic as it sounds, tell you to do. They tell you to just accept the common wisdom. Accept that these science facts must be true, because someone famous says so. Accept that evolution is true, accept that GMO foods are good for you, accept that Oswald acted alone, accept that alternative medicine is all fake, accept that bigPharm is looking out for your best interests, accept materialism, accept that every time you hear about a study which contradicts strict materialism it must be wrong, accept that every time someone challenges the scientific consensus, then they are by definition quacks, and basically just stop thinking for yourself. The skeptical movement is founded on the exact opposite principle of be skeptical, instead it means to simply follow whatever the skeptic movement tells you must be right.
Its the same everywhere, on podcast like the Skeptics Guide to the Universe, or anything with Seth Shostak, or Michael Shermer, or Phil Plaitt, or Neil Degrasse Tyson or Bill Nye, or any of the whole community of people who identify themselves as skeptics, by virtue that they all believe exactly the same things. This toxic thought has seeped into virtually every source of information you can find, be it television, news, blogs, everywhere. They will claim they are deep thinkers, and this is how they found the answers, buts its a con game, they are anything but, they are sheep. They never have an original thought, ever. I think I even read Lawrence Krauss repeating this same crap line about relativity and GPS satellites-and he has a PhD in physics, for crying out loud. But don’t ask him to think, he prefers to just parrot the party line, its so much easier.
So nowadays where do you find truth, it sure as hell ain’t easy, thanks to these brainwashed preachers of the scientific consensus. Its what leads Allan to make ludicrous statements about what fitness means, its what leads parrots like Tom Mueller to say, “Oh, I read it about it, so how dare you say its not true! Moron!”
The skeptic movement is one of the biggest diseases to stifle learning that I can think of. They cloud every news article, and every attempt at understanding with their atheist based need to preach their worldview. Its just like Lynn Margulis said, they want to tell everyone what to think, by telling them to stop thinking. I despise these types of thought Nazis. They are the worst thing that has ever happened to academia.
I’ve never heard of there being any specific evidence for a multiverse theory. It’s just one attempt to concoct a theory that’s consistent with the data. What it has going for it, I guess, are claims of consistency, simplicity, fecundity, etc.
It seems ridiculous to me, BWTHDIK?
I agree!
What you never heard of models?
I doubt that there’s a multiverse theory in and of itself. Several models of our universe and it’s origin, imply, or result in, the prediction that there’s a multiverse. But that’s one of their many consequences. Some consequences can be explored and confirmed or rejected, some cannot. The multiverse would seem a consequence that’s pretty hard to put to the test.
All theories attempt to be consistent with the data. That’s what theories are by definition, attempts at explaining the data and then predicting instances not yet observed. It’s part of the process.
I see nothing wrong with that. If a model helps physicists discover new features of the physics of the universe, explain features that the model didn’t contemplate in the first place, etc. Then the model might be on to something. If this means that the multiverse would have to be there, then that’s what it means. Still, I rather hold my judgement.
Which is all right for you, since you find your doubt and little knowledge sufficient to make that judgement. But you should not expect everybody to agree with a judgement born out of ignorance.
Hahaha. OK.
I know what evidence means phoodoo. I know that not every model is evidence, which is why I bothered to provide an explanation. You wouldn’t know that because your illiteracy is a huge barrier to your understanding. Not much I can do about it. Only you can work towards improving yourself. That would require you to care and then to have the guts to do the work. Entirely your problem.
Oh yeah. That. 🙂
One thing they did was to drive blindfolded. That was one trick that they refused to explain, but assured them that it certainly didn’t involve driving without seeing.
That’s kind of it, we can’t really explain every last bit of trickery, but we do have good reason not to believe just because not everything is explained.
Glen Davidson
Well, they were in cahoots with Randi, so that doesn’t count.
See?
How convenient that you have absolute proof of the truth of your claim but will be unable to provide it.
Citation please. I’ve read several accounts of the testing process and all involved seemed satisfied.
Citation please. It’s the rule of woo. after you’ve been thoroughly discredited, make up a controversy to give everyone some sense that you actually matter.
So, phoodoo. Do you believe that wild animals can sense when we are looking at them? How far do you go in your belief that Rupert Sheldrake is right?
As noted already, it seems you don’t really get what an argument actually is. It’s point, counterpoint. We’re not having an argument. I’m just noting, mostly for my own amusement, how hollow everything you’ve said so far is. I don’t expect you to actually respond in kind, otherwise we’d be talking about the paper that you believe best supports your notion of PSI and your beliefs in Uri Geller.
The fact is that it’s quite possible you are aware of some study that I am not. I specifically said every study I was aware of I’ve seen serious holes pointed out in each.
That you are unwilling to even name one speaks to your confidence level in your case.
So you are happy to accept the results of a study because the techniques used are similar to other studies you also accept the results of, despite glaring inconsistencies and errors being pointed out with no rebuttal?
It’s not being biased to say that we don’t accept something because it has not made a sufficient case for itself.
For example, the “magic” space engine: https://www.space.com/26713-impossible-space-engine-nasa-test.html
Should we just accept that it works as claimed, or should we investigate further?
The point is that people are happy to do that. Pour money and time on even the slimmest chance of it working as stated. And as already pointed out, if PSI gave even the slightest advantage in any situation….
But if even the most ardent PSI supporters, like yourself, don’t have the guts to even speak out and provide the solid scientific evidence for it then what chance does it have? It’s your own actions that are preventing the truth of the matter coming out in fact. It simply reinforces my belief that there is no scientific support for PSI, your refusal to provide what you claim is scientific support for PSI. See the link there? “Even the PSI supporters tacitly admit the scientific support for PSI is non-existent by their refusal to reference it directly.“.
It’s like your claim that you personally know someone that Randi treated unfairly.
It’s why China has built a magic space engine and put it in orbit and why they are not training legions of PSI super soldiers. Because you are happy to simply make a claim and leave it unsupported.
Yeah, PSI works but nobody can seem to do anything useful or interesting with it. Whoop-de-do.
You’d not last a second in academia. They have to reference their sources. You reference your mate who it personally happened to, down the pub, honest guv’nor. Very convincing.
Except the FBI and CIA, obviously.
Yeah that’s the one, thanks for finding the link. It is so revealing.
“After this hoax was exposed, the artist was constantly approached by people who believed him to be genuine, even if he told them directly that he was an actor.”
This is the human nature we are up against. The people who believe in this stuff are DESPERATE to do so.
“The story had been widely circulated by the time the meeting was held the next month. Reactions were varied; some thought it was simply a lie, others that Randi was pulling off a hoax, and still others concluded the entire experiment was dreamed up as a conspiracy by Randi and Phillips to discredit the field.“
“Randi decided to end the project and announced the entire affair in Discover magazine. Many of the researchers who endorsed Shaw and Edwards after the August meeting were now burned in the process. One went so far as to claim that the young men really did have psychic powers, and that they were now lying about being magicians.”
Seriously, these paranomalist believers are fucking mentally ill.
I seem to recall that Houdini and Conan Doyle had a falling out because Doyle insisted Houdini was using real magic, and Houdini spent a great deal of time exposing frauds.
From a psychological standpoint, I can imagine someone who has spent thousands of hours perfecting sleight of hand skills to have their hard work blown off as poof.
The entertainment value of stage magic is knowing you are being fooled, but being unable to figure out how it is done. I’ve seen a video of Penn and Teller being baffled by a sleight of hand performance.
Those scammers!
The very idea of people denying that they’re using magic as a cover for their use of magic!
Non-magic is the great scam, as UD points out ad nauseam.
Glen Davidson
There is no being skeptical in skepticism!
Citation please!
There is no one testing procedure because every proposal is different.
How convenient that you have absolute proof of the truth of your claim but will be unable to provide it.
I also know that no models are evidence. That is why they are called models instead of evidence.
But I do enjoy when you talk about illiteracy whilst you misunderstand English so revealingly. You are a performance parrot. Parrots don’t have to know what they are saying to still be funny.
Phoodoo,
No offence but you might be wrong about the atomic clock synchronization…
Skeptics like me have flown planes around the world many times and the atomic clocks have always been off by a fracture of a second according to Einstein’s predictions… So this part of his theory might be right to a degree…that is if time is real…;-)
Your illiteracy knows no boundaries, does it?
Interesting projection phoodoo.
You already confessed your unwillingness to read for comprehension. You already attested to your incapacity to read for comprehension. So I’m not surprised that you misunderstand English so revealingly, and that you think of yourself as a performance parrot.
Of course it does. The boundary of illiteracy is literacy. phoodoo is obviously literate.
Mung,
Obviously you didn’t read much before making your assessment. Or maybe you did, but you aim at looking as illiterate as phoodoo.
Your comments at Noyau kind of convinced me that you can do better, but the model is based on too little a sample. We’ll see. 🙂
That would explain all the reading I do!
Why do you ask for a citation? You don’t provide them but expect others do to the same? The point is that when I ask for a citation and you ignore it you admit that you can’t support your claims. And here instead of supplying the requested citation you ask me instead.
That’s as absurd as it is desperate. Before you even start, you’ll get to determine what will constitute success, and both sides agree to the rules, details of which are open for negotiation.
And yet accounts from the people being tested exist where they agree that all was fair and they agreed to everything.
For example: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2009/may/12/psychic-claims-james-randi-paranormal
And what to make of the extensive list of other challenges that can be taken, if indeed Randi is a liar? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prizes_for_evidence_of_the_paranormal
Presumably they are all likewise invalid?
In any case, here is a list of the challenge applications and it’s clear that extensive accomodations are made for each challenger: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=43
For example: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=118952
An extensive, complex protocol was proposed by the claimant and agreed to. They were sufficient happy with the protocol to proceed to testing. And, of course, they failed.
But apparently a protocol agreed by both sides as fair is insufficient for you.
Chuckle. There are other accounts in that forum, some including direct quotes from the challengers agreeing that the setup was fair.
Noted you continue to refuse to name a paper that has your approval for it’s support of PSI and you refuse to indicate if you think Uri Geller has real PSI powers.
Reading != understanding.
From the Guardian article:
Apparently phoodoo knows better them Mrs Putt. Why should she engage in something she considered unfair?
Well, I suppose it’s understandable really. It’s a binary choice – Randi is a charlatan or PSI is false. As phoodoo knows PSI is real, the only logical choice that remains is that Randi is a fraud.
It makes a certain kind of sense. If you are that desperate to cling onto an absurd worldview anyway.
So I’ve provided citations for everything I’ve claimed now phoodoo. And you’ve not provided a single one. And yet this says nothing to you about the strength of your claims.
Back on ignore with you I think….
Hey, where’s the ignore button gone! 🙂
OMagain,
Since when did I say that NOBODY ever agreed to Randis conditions?
Sure, some people just figure, do it for fun, what’s there to lose. But when you say both sides agree to the conditions, that silly. Randi gets to accept or reject any attempt he wants. So if he feels he might lose, he can just reject it.
Its pretty simple.
And so are you.
And yet, despite all the challenges being documented and linked to by me you don’t see to be able to actually support that claim. Go on, find a challenge where the challenger made reasonable demands and those reasonable demands were rejected out of hand.
Still afraid to say if Uri Geller really does have PSI powers then? It seems so.
phoodoo,
And that’s the crux of the matter. IF. If they said that and then IF Randi said that.
Your entire basis for the rejection of the challenge is based on your imagination rather then anything that actually happened.
And the funniest thing about it is that you think that Randi must therefore believe that PSI is real and is deliberately arranging his challenge so that nobody ever passes it because although he believes PSI is real he does not want anyone else to find that out.
I guess that probably makes sense in phoodoo world. A contorted, twisted understanding of reality that starts with the position you want to be true then warps everything else in service of that.
So, to sum up, Randi believes in PSI but cheats people who have PSI out of the price because for unstated reasons although he believes in PSI he does not want anyone else to. Have I understood your position correctly?
And yet I’ve both quoted and linked to where exactly that has happened, in the words of a challenger no less. And somehow that’s insufficient to penetrate the barrier that insulates you from reality.
There are many many examples of both sides agreeing to the conditions. It really does seem that there are none so blind as who refuse to see.
Here is just ONE example of the so called “fair” process Omagain is bragging about. It is a reply from one of the applicant, who tired for over one year to get his application approved:
Ah, so finally you are doing some of your own research. One informed commentator notes:
It also appears as if the claimant was trying to arrange things such that he had a 50% chance of passing by chance alone.
So to sum up, they spent years negotiating with the claimant until eventually they drew a line in the sand.
In any such process there will be unsatisfied people. It’s telling you choose to continue to focus on demonstrating the challenge is unfair from the viewpoint of disgruntled claimants rather then address the fact that despite agreeing to the rules no other claimant has successfully passed the test.
And phoodoo, if Pavel Ziborov has such strong PSI talents, what has he done in the decade since that challenge to demonstrate those powers? There are dozens of other prizes he could claim, but somehow for some reason he’s chosen not to do that. I guess the million dollars may have had something to do with it? I can tell that and I’m not even physick myself!
What about the dozens of examples where the claimants agreed the process was indeed fair? Are they all cancelled out by a single example of an unsatisfied claimant?
Do you think Uri Geller has PSI powers phoodoo? Why are you afraid to say?
It’s also telling that phoodoo presents a one sided reply and expects that to prove his case. It’s almost as if he does not care about the truth of the matter, only proving his case via cherry picking. If his case was that solid he’d have no need to do that. There are many examples of trials being conducted with both sides agreeing to the arrangement, and yet these are apparently invalidated by a single failed attempt to obtain such a trial. There are in fact other failed attempts too, but so what? Nothing so far presented demonstrates Randi is acting in the way that phodoo claims.
You have yet to demonstrate that statement is true. I mean, do you think that Pavel could do what he claimed to do? What was it, specifically, that Pavel was claiming to do? Do you even know?
OMagain,
What choice does a claimant have? They either agreed to what Randi says or they just get rejected.
So of course some people are going to just say fine, do it for the publicity.
But if someone has a legitimate method they use, and Randi keeps rejecting it, for years, then of course they just give up.
And yet plenty of people have take the challenge.And you have not demonstrated that those people were not able to use their “legitimate method” in those challenges.
So presumably you have read through all the back and forth of this particular case. In that case I wonder why you can’t answer what it is in this case the claimant claimed to be able to do?
You’ve yet to demonstrate that “what Randi says” is in any way unreasonable. In order for the test to have meaning it has to be scientifically valid. In order for it to be scientifically valid it has to be conducted under controlled conditions.
What you are saying is that when Randi asks “it must be conducted under scientific controlled conditions” that is somehow unreasonable. It’s perfectly correct for him to reject tests that do not meet these conditions.
And why are you so afraid to express an opinion on Uri Geller? Charlatan or PSI genius? Which is it?
So it’s your belief that every entrant to the formal challenge did it despite the protocol being unfair to them, with their full knowledge of that unfairness and where they agreed in advance to that unfairness? And they did it for the “publicity” of failing a challenge of their claimed skill in public? That does not seem logical in any way.
I would say “citation please” but we know how that ends up, right?
I take your inability to rebut any of my points as an inability to rebut any of my points.
Can James Randi be trusted to be fair? I doubt it.
Sheldrake
Thinking about the multiverse and psi, here are a few thoughts, something to maybe consider.
We can imagine a world populated by two dimensional being. Imagine those beings speculating on a multiverse. A reality consisting of three dimensions would be the same thing as a multiverse for a two dimensional being.Three dimensions can be thought of as an infinite stack of two dimensional planes, for them a multiverse.
Now imagine this two dimensional reality as the surface of a body of water. If a three dimensional being such as a human spread his/her fingers and pushed his/her hand a short distance into the water then this would appear to the two dimensional beings as five disconnected areas although in reality from a three dimensional perspective they are not disconnected but are part of a higher entity, a higher unity.That which appears separate in a lower dimension is actually unified in a higher dimension.
So for us three dimensional creatures, the so called multiverse may actually be a unified higher reality which impinges into our reality in a way that makes some aspects of psi possible. Connections that seem impossible from the dimension of our everyday experience may be possible if higher dimensions are taken into account.
I notice that when a quick search of the JREF is done Rupert Sheldrake does not appear. Considering the amount of work Sheldrake has done on telepathy and the like that he might have had some mention.
CharlieM,
I believe there is even more to the story than this, I remember once reading about it. Randi claimed that one of the cameramen who filmed the test told Randi that he tipped off the dog owner when the other person was about to come home.
The cameraman said that is completely untrue, he never told Randi that, and that Randi just made up that story.
CharlieM,
And Omagain stills argues, yea, but some people have still tried to win the money, so…
phoodoo, I suggest you might want to refresh your memory.
For both Jaytee and Kane, it was the owner who was returning home, so tipping them off wouldn’t do much good.
In both cases, there was no “cameraman”: dumb as he is, even Sheldrake realizes that having a cameraman filming the dog would hopelessly contaminate the experiment. Static cameras were used. HOWEVER, in the experiments with Kane, the researcher who switched the camera on may have (inadvertently) tipped Kane off as to when Kane’s owner might return home. Maybe that’s what you are mis-remembering. Interestingly, said researcher was Jaytee’s owner.
Make of that titbit what you will.
Huh, maybe you better check your memory. Jaytee was owned by girl (PS) who left her dog with her parents everyday she went to work. Her parents started to notice that the dog always seemed to know when PS was coming home, even when she came home at strange times. How the fuck would anyone had ever known about the dog doing this, if there wasn’t other people living in the house? Dufus.
PS read about Sheldrake doing this kind of researching on dogs, and she volunteered to let him test her dog. Is this what you mean by her being a “researcher’?
Furthermore, Randi even admitted he lied about trying to discredit the studies Sheldrake did. Its been widely reported. One of the lies was about some camera person tipping people off. That a cameraman never actually did this is not news to me, I just said it was a lie.
Precisely. That was my point. So when you wrote “one of the cameramen who filmed the test told Randi that he tipped off the dog owner when the other person was about to come home.” you were talking rubbish. I responded: “it was the owner who was returning home, so tipping them off wouldn’t do much good.”
No. If you had read Sheldrake’s paper, you would realize that Jaytee’s owner, Pamela Smart, acted as Sheldrake’s assistant in the experiments on Kane.
Well, you also wrote that the cameraman said that it was a lie. Given the non-existence of any cameraman, you were obviously wrong about that. Do try to keep up.
I have no opinion about what Randi may or may not have said about these experiments. Richard Wiseman is the guy who fisked Sheldrake’s shoddy work, and one of his two main points was about people inadvertently tipping the dog off. It’s called “Sensory leakage”.
ET fix link