CSICOP open letter? - Subtle world hypothesis
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-10-2013, 04:51 PM (This post was last modified: 31-10-2013 05:00 PM by Luminon.)
RE: CSICOP open letter? - Subtle world hypothesis
(30-10-2013 11:50 PM)morondog Wrote:  Hey, give him a chance. CSICOP gets a bad rap from a lot of the fringe-science people but he's willing to put his stuff up for examination - unlike most fringe science people who in my experience are very good at finding reasons why experiment X didn't work *but* belief Y is still true e.g. "Astrology doesn't work in the presence of skeptics". I'm really hoping someone over there will take it seriously enough to not just send a form response.
Well, I actually have to backpedal here a little. The e-mail does not involve me personally, it involves a selection of people who I think have a good chance to pass through empirical scientific investigation.
In order to involve me, I'd have to travel and live halfway across the world, or there'd have to be some substantial funding. So I selected people who already did some work, so we don't have to start all anew.

(31-10-2013 12:10 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
(30-10-2013 11:50 PM)morondog Wrote:  Hey, give him a chance. CSICOP gets a bad rap from a lot of the fringe-science people but he's willing to put his stuff up for examination

There is no such thing as "fringe-science", there is science and pseudoscience. That is pseudoscience.

His "stuff" is nothing more than reports of his subjective experiences regarding things which he claims have an objective existence. Chas posted pretty much what I was going to post. Read Chas' post carefully. No one is going to mount an investigation on the basis of nothing more than some phenomenological descriptions, some instrospections.
What the hell... So you say I should have dropped all the references to myself and just send the compilation of the technical experiments that I wish to have investigated? Oh, I hope I'll still get a reply. Live and learn.

(31-10-2013 06:53 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(30-10-2013 01:48 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I'm not waiting any longer. Letter sent. I will publish any replies I get.

We have seen the drafts, what is the text of the letter you sent?
I have sent this 2nd draft, which was here all along. (apparently, I got Cljr to read it exactly once, thus there is only one edit) Any suggestions? I've dropped lots of vitriol from this 2nd version, anything else to add or erase?

(31-10-2013 08:15 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  If the subtle matter interacted electromagnetically, wouldn't it be detectable electromagnetically? The point about dark matter is that its strongest interaction must be gravitational, which is why it emits no discernible black body radiation and doesn't block photons. I'm a lay person, but I think as a matter of basic physics the way you have described subtle matter is inconsistent with the definition needed to call it dark matter.
The problem is, it doesn't seem to interact electro-magnetically. All it seems to do is ELECTRO-STATIC interaction, reacting to electro-static charge. It likes lightning, direct current, capacitors, dielectric layered materials, coronary discharge, superficial skin resistance... It seems kind of counter-intuitive today, but it is the typical stuff that Nikola Tesla was working with. Somehow, the electro-static interaction is much stronger than the EM one. I don't know how is that possible, someone good at spin mechanics should think about that.

I'm a layman too (and not gender balanced politically correct to call myself a lay person, makes me think of getting laid) and it seems to me that the dark matter in outer space may be pretty much the same, only it has nothing to react with electro-statically in a visible way. That might explain why it seems so inert. It needs a complex, layered dielectric material with strong electric charge to interact with. Such as suns, planets, humans or living cells.

(31-10-2013 08:15 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  Talking about supersymmetry also seems way off base, both because supersymmetry is about symmetry of known particles and antiparticles and predicting possible future antiparticles and because the more we bash small particles together the more supersymmetrists have been needing to revise their models. Supersymmetry isn't solid scientific ground by any means at this point.
It's antiparticles? I thought antiparticles are well known and not especially more massive. But I thought supersymmetry was a likely candidate for the weakly interacting massive particles hypothesis of dark matter.

(31-10-2013 08:15 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  Plasma again is way off, as a plasma is a superheated state of ordinary matter that is highly electrically active. Again - the opposite of what we would classify as dark matter. Saying that nerves are a symbiotic system consisting of ordinary and subtle matter seems unjustified, as the chemical and electrical operation of neural pathways is these days fairly well understood. What properties precisely of the nervous system are unexplained or unexplainable using conventional models?
Perhaps we need another word for this state, but just because something is plasma, doesn't mean it's hot or that it burns freely. Vacuum is full of solar wind of ions, but because it's vacuum, they don't cool down easily and don't burn things too much. If there really are particles with limited interaction, they should maintain their "heat" even better.

What properties of the nerve system? Well, my properties, but that's not a good answer. Perhaps the answer is, that every cell is a small capacitor and this function is most apparent with nerve cells, because they are the most electrically active. That would offer a theoretical framework. I think Provod describes his experiments with capacitors and their field effect on living tissue and people, saying that he discontinued them, because it could be deadly...
http://www.miroslavprovod.com/cells-versus-2008.html
From what I saw in person, I saw that a skin resistance can change in presence of isolated chemical substances that we keep in our aura. I held a medicine in a bottle and my skin resistance at certain specific points changed. This is how I got prescribed the optimal vitamins & stuff... The values were different when I held a box with one supplement or the other. Each try was quickly measured at least 10 times in the same spot. There was no chemical contact. The only way of transmission I can think of was some kind of field dynamics. I wonder how an electric field interacts with a foreign object in it. Must be something like a microwave effect on microscopic scale.

(31-10-2013 08:15 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  The scientific words you are using all seem to be misapplied, making them a babble instead of effectively using them to convey information. My suggestion as you go forwards is to strip them away and talk about what you think is happening in as simple and clear terms as you can come up with. I think your hypothesis is roughly as follows:
1. There exists an objective reality that is overlayed on our own reality, but is not perceptible to our instruments as yet built. Some humans are able to interact directly with this other reality. Let's take anime[1] as our lead and call it the unseen world, as distinct from the apparent world.
2. You believe you can perform experiments and observations in the unseen world on a substance you are calling subtle matter.
3. You are able to describe (not mathematically yet, as far as I can see) the motion of subtle matter in relation to yourself within the unseen world.

There isn't much anyone can do until you can establish the existence at least of the unseen world. The simplest way to do this is for one person to pass a message to another person through the unseen world under laboratory conditions. I think you are ruling that out as not something you are capable of doing. The next possibility would be to make the subtle matter in some way apparent to objective instruments. Until you can do one of those two things I'm not sure you'll make any progress. Unless you can do one of those things - what would it mean to be "tested"?

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_Hound
The "simplest way" is not the simplest at all - I would need another person with a nerve system and training like me.
This is why I used my experience to pick the people who, under laboratory conditions, had demonstrated the existence of the unseen matter. Mostly on the principle of interaction with electro-static charge and dielectric layered materials, with biologic organisms, with photons and so on.

Yes, I like that particular anime, it's very... thoughtful, nothing crazy, fast, flashing and violent like most of Japanese crap. But in my system of classifying experience, this is astral stuff, even more elusive than that which we deal with here. So first we need to discover one before we discover the other.

If you claim there are nuances to principles, there are no nuances to getting arrested or shot for disobeying the power.
The Venus Project
FreeDomain Radio - The greatest philosophy show on the web!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply

Messages In This Thread
RE: CSICOP open letter? - Subtle world hypothesis - Luminon - 31-10-2013 04:51 PM
Forum Jump: