Orgonomy: The Evidence
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-12-2011, 05:40 PM
Orgonomy: The Evidence
This is the promised thread, in which I'll try to sum up my best evidence for existence of the "subtle world" and its substances. They were and are known or proposed by many names, like ether (not luminoferous), orgone and recently also dark matter. Apparently, once ether was pushed out of door, scientists had to take it in back by window.
Whatever you decide, please do not decide lightly. I have years of experience dealing with skeptics and I'm somewhat tired to hear the same non-arguments again. If anything, I learned to keep my cool, so don't even bother to try to get me angry, crazy and raving so you can dismiss this one.
I'm sorry to say that, but for most of you this will be an unfamiliar subject. It is time for you to first learn in silence and then make an opinion (and say it). I have gathered the most tangible and scientific evidence I could find, plus some interesting references and correlations. But I merely scratched a surface of what is out there.

I do not claim to know everything about all the subjects involved. For example, I have a good idea about dark matter (from non-mathematician's point of view), but no effing clue what dark energy is. Also, I tried not to include any personal observations of mine. There's a plenty of them, but there is no such thing as shared experience.

Everyone, if there will be any discussion on this topic on the SGU podcast among Novella brothers & the rest of the team, please let me know. Or if it was, tell me which number of a podcast.

Dark matter
I came to believe that dark matter is the umbrella term for not only the elusive stuff of outer space, but also the etheric environment around planets, including our Earth. This is, because 99% of the matter in the universe is plasma. Only rare exceptions - like our planets are non-ionized matter. It is reasonable to presume, that the same case it is with dark matter. It is a matter much like our own, but in outer space it is mostly plasma and behaves differently. It is diffuse and amorphous. However, a "cold" dark matter should concentrate around Earth and other planets.
This is the orgone sphere and the source of detecting the partially dragged aether and so on.
This is theoretically described by Jay Alfred and his Dark Plasma Theory.
"According to Jay Alfred's estimate, the visible Earth is gravitationally coupled to a Jupiter-sized dark matter halo. As dark matter clumped it created conditions for a dark biosphere to form."

Etheric vitality
Yes, many of his ideas are rather premature even by my standards. A dark matter biosphere is a reasonable guess, but it is better to begin with evidence. The evidence suggests, that
dark matter (IOW so-called etheric levels) participate on our world, on living organisms, weather and possibly other phenomena. I don't know how about dark-matter-only life forms, but if this research is correct, we are partially dark matter life forms. All life is, specially the most conscious. Etheric template or scaffold underlies all material objects, but in living organisms this template is an actively participating "body" of its own, interacting mainly with nerve and endocrine system and thereby influencing consciousness and health.
This is why I believe Wilhelm Reich (with whom I'll deal more later, don't switch the channel) started his research so much focused on health and sexual energy. Sexual "energetic" stimulation is after all, a very obvious effect. The "energy" as such is of course asexual, only depending which organs it gets into Tongue

Anyway, if the theory is correct and we really are partially made of this usually invisible vital substance, then some of us are potential walking detectors. Unlike most of machines, we are already best equipped to detect the etheric levels naturally with our etheric body, provided that our nerve system is taught to do so. This is, as I believe, the true cause behind Hinduistic philosophy of subtle bodies, energetic centres and energy meridians. It may also be the cause why religious icons of saints are painted with a halo. Perhaps some clairvoyant painter started this tradition?

Orgonomy studies
I refer to the research of professor James DeMeo, who works in Orgone Biophysical Research Lab in Oregon.

Research summary
Displacement current field and measuring vital aura

Summary of activities
This comprehensive list gives you a better idea of long and active research going on in OBRL.

The evidence for aether in space vs. Michelson-Morley experiment
This is the study guide that challenges the result of the famous M-M experiment and argues for the existence of ether, energy in space and so on. The evidence for it is much greater than against and must be reckoned with.

Skepticism and pseudo-skepticism
There has been always a great controversy about all the topics mentioned here. Although never disproven scientifically, Wilhelm Reich faced a literal persecution from FDA, resembling business mafia practices. Further denigration of his name and the name of orgonomy ensued. JDM attempts to refute this undeserved criticism.

JDM himself had to deal with fierce opposition and these are his responses to the over-active skeptics.
The responses are of course documented by references to literature and scientific studies, therefore I recommend them for reading.

Weather
If the idea of weather control and cloudbusters bothers you, you can read up more about it here. I suspend my judgement on that topic, I am used to perform first-hand investigations and have been through lots of experience. Only not with cloudbusting. But if you want articles and references, you'll find them there.
Be assured, that prof. JDM openly rejects and refutes the conspiracy claims and pseudoscience of orgonite peddlers and chemtrails fearmongers.

I don't know anything about cloudbursting technology. However, I am pretty sure I could verify its effectivity. As I already argued, we have etheric body, that is tied to our body and specially nerve system. With proper training, this etheric body becomes an extension of our senses. In addition to our five senses, a trained person can use also etheric equivalent of touch, hearing or even sight.
If such a trained sensitive person puts a hand in front of the cloudbuster, it should be obvious to him or her if the thing's cable is plugged in or not. Therefore, a test can be easily arranged.

Nukes and reactors
There seems to be a direct relationship between etheric world and nuclear fission. During nuclear fission there is a release of radiation, which is not only alpha, beta, gamma or delta, but also other, not yet measured kind on the etheric levels.
I had first heard of this idea from British esotericist Benjamin Creme, who is both aware of etheric levels and has experience with orgone accumulator of Wilhelm Reich, in who's work JDM continues.

Benjamin Creme Wrote:As a child of four or five, one of my favourite pastimes was to sit at the window and watch the wind; not the effect of the wind on the trees or leaves, but the wind itself. I would watch the movements of the air and try to guess whether it was a north, south, east or west wind blowing. When I went to school, I learned that the air was invisible, the wind likewise, and forgot, I do not remember whether gradually or suddenly, my ability to see what of course was some level of the etheric planes of matter.

Above the dense physical-solid, liquid, and gaseous are four planes of still finer matter which constitute the etheric envelope of this planet, and of which the dense physical planes are a precipitation. It was not until some 20 years later, through the building and use of Wilhelm Reich's orgone accumulator, that I again became aware of this ocean of energy of which we ourselves are a part, and proved to myself conclusively the existence of the etheric planes.

In the late 1940s, through a study of Wilhelm Reich's work (1897-1957) (see photo), and the use of the orgone accumulator, I became consciously aware of, and extremely sensitive to, energy currents; so much so that eventually I could tell when an atomic bomb had been exploded in the Pacific or wherever. Across these thousands of miles, I registered the shift in the etheric currents caused by the explosions. Inevitably, a day or two later, would come the report that America, Russia, or Britain had tested a "device" of such and such a size.

I do not wish to discuss everything this man says on all possible topics. But in this discussion and this topic I happen to have an independent confirmation from James DeMeo.
Creme further links this kind of nuclear radiation not only with bomb tests, but also to everyday working of nuclear reactors in power-plants. He says this is the cause of sudden extreme increase in neural-degenerative diseases in the 2nd half of 20th century. Alzheimer's, Parkinsons, and so on. I think this is an alarming possibility. If only because that uranium will run out in about the same rate as oil, so there's one more reason to stop using it.

Other research
So far, I have mentioned the theory of Jay Alfred. He provides a proper references to other studies (mainly astronomic), his e-books are free and worth giving them a read. Despite of his tendency to explain all strange sightings by dark-plasma life forms, I think he does a good job.

Then I have described the research of James DeMeo, which I think is well-grounded in scientific studies and his decades of research in the field speak for themselves. Should I find myself in Oregon, I'd surely visit his lab and try to see for myself that glowing orgone-charged vacuum tube and other practical demonstrations.

My countryman, Miroslav Provod provides another excellent field research on the orgonomy effects in nature. He examines experiments that were done with dowsing, capacitors and so on.
Here I can't help but share a story. For a while I was a student on faculty of informatics of the Masaryk's university. While the area was absolutely badly chosen, I greatly my classes of philosophy of science and language. The teacher was an old professor guy, much acclaimed in his life achievements, research, bibliography... And he was a great skeptic. He encouraged open-mindedness, but he himself was careful about it.
Anyway, in our private discussions he told me about his dowsing experiments. He was good at dowsing and even taught it to his grandson. Despite of his strictly materialistic worldview he was aware, that a an Y-shaped twig torn from a tree nearby was strongly pulled from his hands when he walked over underground water currents. He could not explain that effect to me.
Hell, even I couldn't explain it. But I believe that orgonomy and Miroslav Provod could.

Another valuable source of hard science is Dr. Nikolai Kozyrev and his aether research. He describes multiple other methods of detecting etheric world.
Furthermore, in reference to his first paragraph... He's right. I don't like the name "dark matter", because it is not dark. "Aether" means "shine" in greek and all the clairvoyants of history have described it as such Smile
One more remark, search on that page Kozyrev's The “memory of water” experiments and compare it with James DeMeo's work on the main page (replication of Reich's structured water discovery) and the Victor Schauberger page.

If you are dilligent, many various research activities can be found. Another example is dr. Harry Oldfield and his Polycontrast Interference Photography. Just one of many pieces into the puzzle.

Conclusion
As it is obvious, the etheric levels, orgone, dark matter or whatever name we will eventually give to it is a whole world of its own. It's another form of material existence, that includes as wide variety of phenomena as our visible world, maybe more. There is no such thing as a single particle of ether or dark matter or a single piece of evidence that proves everything. Like in the theory of evolution, there are thousands of pieces of evidence of varying complexity that give the highly convincing result.

But as you see, I am already convinced. I need to see how much is the evidence convincing for a non-convinced person. What sort of arguments there are and how to counter irrational arguments. Maybe even with evidence convincing takes time, just like religious conversion or deconversion. It is, after all, reconnecting of many synapses in our brain. To paraphrase Chas, if change of opinion would be a smooth process, Einstein would not go to his grave disbelieving in quantum theory.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2011, 07:44 PM
RE: Orgonomy: The Evidence
I am not going to address this point by point, because there really aren't any points.

This post displays a basic misunderstanding of the scientific method. It is not up to others to disprove anyone's claims - it is up to the claimer to provide evidence.

To provide evidence, a testable, falsifiable hypothesis is made and well-designed tests performed on that hypothesis. The tests must be able to be performed by others, and the results replicable independently.

But some of the more egregious errors:
Quote:During nuclear fission there is a release of radiation, which is not only alpha, beta, gamma or delta, but also other, not yet measured kind on the etheric levels.
I had first heard of this idea from British esotericist Benjamin Creme, who is both aware of etheric levels and has experience with orgone accumulator of Wilhelm Reich, in who's work JDM continues.
The energy output of nuclear reactions is completely explained by the measurable energy output.

Benjamin Creme Wrote:As a child of four or five, one of my favourite pastimes was to sit at the window and watch the wind; not the effect of the wind on the trees or leaves, but the wind itself. I would watch the movements of the air and try to guess whether it was a north, south, east or west wind blowing. When I went to school, I learned that the air was invisible, the wind likewise, and forgot, I do not remember whether gradually or suddenly, my ability to see what of course was some level of the etheric planes of matter.
This is purely anecdotal and unverifiable.

When I was a child, I caught a fleeting glimpse
out of the corner of my eye.
I turned to look, but it was gone.
I cannot put my finger on it now -
the child is grown, the dream is gone.

Quote:I do not wish to discuss everything this man says on all possible topics. But in this discussion and this topic I happen to have an independent confirmation from James DeMeo.
This is another common error - once again, correlation does not prove causation.
Quote:Creme further links this kind of nuclear radiation not only with bomb tests, but also to everyday working of nuclear reactors in power-plants. He says this is the cause of sudden extreme increase in neural-degenerative diseases in the 2nd half of 20th century. Alzheimer's, Parkinsons, and so on. I think this is an alarming possibility.
Yes, this is an alarming possibility, and should be investigated. I think it more likely that the chemical soup we breath and eat is a cause - and should be tested.
Quote:If only because that uranium will run out in about the same rate as oil, so there's one more reason to stop using it.
Doubtful - there are huge reserves of unmined pitchblend. Also, have you never heard of breeder reactors?

Quote:Anyway, in our private discussions he told me about his dowsing experiments. He was good at dowsing and even taught it to his grandson. Despite of his strictly materialistic worldview he was aware, that a an Y-shaped twig torn from a tree nearby was strongly pulled from his hands when he walked over underground water currents. He could not explain that effect to me.
Hell, even I couldn't explain it. But I believe that orgonomy and Miroslav Provod could.
Dowsing has been repeatedly and thoroughly tested. It fails.

Quote:Another valuable source of hard science is Dr. Nikolai Kozyrev and his aether research. He describes multiple other methods of detecting etheric world.

This really doesn't qualify as hard science as there has been no testing, no verification.

Quote:Conclusion
As it is obvious, the etheric levels, orgone, dark matter or whatever name we will eventually give to it is a whole world of its own. It's another form of material existence, that includes as wide variety of phenomena as our visible world, maybe more.
No, not obvious to me. There is no evidence, just conjecture.

Quote: There is no such thing as a single particle of ether or dark matter or a single piece of evidence that proves everything. Like in the theory of evolution, there are thousands of pieces of evidence of varying complexity that give the highly convincing result.
Really, there is no hard, scientific evidence in any of this.

Quote:But as you see, I am already convinced. I need to see how much is the evidence convincing for a non-convinced person. What sort of arguments there are and how to counter irrational arguments. Maybe even with evidence convincing takes time, just like religious conversion or deconversion. It is, after all, reconnecting of many synapses in our brain. To paraphrase Chas, if change of opinion would be a smooth process, Einstein would not go to his grave disbelieving in quantum theory.
You are convinced by something other than evidence.

Ideas, conjectures, personal experiences, and speculation are a useful part of science. These generate ideas and directions for research, for creating hypotheses.
I don't know whether their ideas have merit or not, but nothing presented looks like evidence.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Chas's post
16-12-2011, 02:48 AM (This post was last modified: 16-12-2011 03:02 AM by Filox.)
RE: Orgonomy: The Evidence
Most of this is just theorizing, without evidence. Dark matter/dark energy are two things that scientists are actually doing experiments and are trying to find it. It does explain a lot about the Universe, but I am not sure did they made any progress in the last couple of years. SO until they are finished with the research, I am waiting. And by what I know about dark matter and dark energy, you are a bit off, it's not really like you have described it, try looking for something written by Stephen Hawking on that subject. Who told you that 99% of the Universe is plasma?

Quote:Astronomers have yet to determine what constitutes this dark matter, although some leading candidates go by the names MACHOs, WIMPs, and neutrinos.

Anyway, dark matter and energy are too complex for us to debate it like this.

But dowsing is somewhat interesting, glad you have mentioned it. Just to be on the safe side, I must say that no one can be 100% when searching for water, but it does give results, my cousin has asked their help couple of times and half of the times they have found the water and a place to dig the well. And I know that no one has ever explained this phenomenon. Now the real question is: Did they ever try to explain it and have they put it to scientific testing?

[Image: a6505fe8.jpg]
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.
-Hunter S. Thompson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2011, 06:07 AM
RE: Orgonomy: The Evidence
(16-12-2011 02:48 AM)Filox Wrote:  But dowsing is somewhat interesting, glad you have mentioned it. Just to be on the safe side, I must say that no one can be 100% when searching for water, but it does give results, my cousin has asked their help couple of times and half of the times they have found the water and a place to dig the well. And I know that no one has ever explained this phenomenon. Now the real question is: Did they ever try to explain it and have they put it to scientific testing?

It has been subjected to testing many times; it fails.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2011, 03:45 PM
RE: Orgonomy: The Evidence
Wow. That's what I needed to hear. Alla sudden, I'm sane! Praise the Gwynnies!

Luminon, have you been to that electric cosmos website again? You know that shit will rot your brain. Wink

[Image: 10289811_592837817482059_8815379025397103823_n.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2011, 04:19 PM
RE: Orgonomy: The Evidence
(15-12-2011 07:44 PM)Chas Wrote:  I am not going to address this point by point, because there really aren't any points.

This post displays a basic misunderstanding of the scientific method. It is not up to others to disprove anyone's claims - it is up to the claimer to provide evidence.

To provide evidence, a testable, falsifiable hypothesis is made and well-designed tests performed on that hypothesis. The tests must be able to be performed by others, and the results replicable independently.
Tell me please why didn't you go to the linked websites and articles and didn't look at the evidence by yourself. A couple more clicks and scrolls should make a difference.
Do you specifically want stuff like PDF test protocols, or are you satisfied with references to articles in journals?

(15-12-2011 07:44 PM)Chas Wrote:  The energy output of nuclear reactions is completely explained by the measurable energy output.
This is not a question of energy input or output, but of right method of measurement.

(15-12-2011 07:44 PM)Chas Wrote:  This is purely anecdotal and unverifiable.

When I was a child, I caught a fleeting glimpse
out of the corner of my eye.
I turned to look, but it was gone.
I cannot put my finger on it now -
the child is grown, the dream is gone.

Of course it is purely anecdotal and unverifiable. However it is also data relevant for the hypothesis. The hypothesis is, that we have this etheric body and some of us can be born or learn to use it and so there will be reports of people using it. These people must be contacted and their sensoric brain activity must be measured.

(15-12-2011 07:44 PM)Chas Wrote:  This is another common error - once again, correlation does not prove causation.
I don't say it proves, only that it should be remembered until the time the evidence is weighed for and against.

(15-12-2011 07:44 PM)Chas Wrote:  Doubtful - there are huge reserves of unmined pitchblend. Also, have you never heard of breeder reactors?
Well, I didn't. Or maybe they said that metals will run out faster than oil, don't know exactly.

(15-12-2011 07:44 PM)Chas Wrote:  This really doesn't qualify as hard science as there has been no testing, no verification.
So the other sources like the Orgone lab in Oregon that indeed do include testing and verification are wrong about what...?

(15-12-2011 07:44 PM)Chas Wrote:  Really, there is no hard, scientific evidence in any of this.

You are convinced by something other than evidence.

Ideas, conjectures, personal experiences, and speculation are a useful part of science. These generate ideas and directions for research, for creating hypotheses.
I don't know whether their ideas have merit or not, but nothing presented looks like evidence.
That's very well possible, because I apparently don't know how a hard scientific evidence looks like. Please show me some example of a science report that totally makes you believe in its results, (regardless of any names, institutions or any other characteristics) so I can search for something like that.


(16-12-2011 06:07 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(16-12-2011 02:48 AM)Filox Wrote:  But dowsing is somewhat interesting, glad you have mentioned it. Just to be on the safe side, I must say that no one can be 100% when searching for water, but it does give results, my cousin has asked their help couple of times and half of the times they have found the water and a place to dig the well. And I know that no one has ever explained this phenomenon. Now the real question is: Did they ever try to explain it and have they put it to scientific testing?

It has been subjected to testing many times; it fails.
Please look at Miroslav Provod's website.
http://miroslavprovod.com/dowsing-rod-2003.html
He verified the tests and the tests are all wrong. I'll try to sum it up. Firstly, the force that the twig reacts to takes time to accumulate, at least hours of continual streaming of water. Secondly, it may not show a tug above the water stream itself, but on both sides of it, as if the surrounding soil and stone would accumulate the force, not the water itself. (which is logical, the water flows away all the time)

So a typical test with hidden water pipes which stop and start and change direction and cross each other is useless. The result is a confusing and hardly measurable medley of forces that aren't where the actual pipes are and change quickly. Plus, there are of course other factors, like weather or the dowser's person.

This is a typical case when people act without real understanding, in this case both dowsers (who didn't outright reject this kind of test and design a better one) and skeptics. This is why I am so concerned about armchair skepticism and closed-mindedness. We must always stay open-minded and investigate things personally also from the claimant's perspective. Otherwise there will be badly designed tests and no interest to correct them. Then there will be strife between claimants and skeptics and dissident groups will keep appearing, with no access to proper testing and media.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2011, 05:07 PM
RE: Orgonomy: The Evidence
(16-12-2011 04:19 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(15-12-2011 07:44 PM)Chas Wrote:  I am not going to address this point by point, because there really aren't any points.

This post displays a basic misunderstanding of the scientific method. It is not up to others to disprove anyone's claims - it is up to the claimer to provide evidence.

To provide evidence, a testable, falsifiable hypothesis is made and well-designed tests performed on that hypothesis. The tests must be able to be performed by others, and the results replicable independently.
Tell me please why didn't you go to the linked websites and articles and didn't look at the evidence by yourself. A couple more clicks and scrolls should make a difference.
Do you specifically want stuff like PDF test protocols, or are you satisfied with references to articles in journals?
I did, and I followed some of the references. However, it all became circular, each referring to others within a very small group; small compared to the millions of working scientists.
Quote:
(15-12-2011 07:44 PM)Chas Wrote:  The energy output of nuclear reactions is completely explained by the measurable energy output.
This is not a question of energy input or output, but of right method of measurement.
OK, what is it that is being measured? How?
Quote:
(15-12-2011 07:44 PM)Chas Wrote:  This is purely anecdotal and unverifiable.

When I was a child, I caught a fleeting glimpse
out of the corner of my eye.
I turned to look, but it was gone.
I cannot put my finger on it now -
the child is grown, the dream is gone.

Of course it is purely anecdotal and unverifiable. However it is also data relevant for the hypothesis. The hypothesis is, that we have this etheric body and some of us can be born or learn to use it and so there will be reports of people using it. These people must be contacted and their sensoric brain activity must be measured.
OK, it is absolutely true that personal experiences, anecdotes, third-party reports, etc. can tell us that maybe there is something to investigate. If there are enough of them, maybe we can form a working hypothesis.

What is 'sensoric brain activity'?
Quote:
(15-12-2011 07:44 PM)Chas Wrote:  This is another common error - once again, correlation does not prove causation.
I don't say it proves, only that it should be remembered until the time the evidence is weighed for and against.
OK, fair enough. What needs to be done in cases of correlation is to create a testable hypothesis about causation. Or wait for more data.
Quote:
(15-12-2011 07:44 PM)Chas Wrote:  Doubtful - there are huge reserves of unmined pitchblend. Also, have you never heard of breeder reactors?
Well, I didn't. Or maybe they said that metals will run out faster than oil, don't know exactly.

(15-12-2011 07:44 PM)Chas Wrote:  This really doesn't qualify as hard science as there has been no testing, no verification.
So the other sources like the Orgone lab in Oregon that indeed do include testing and verification are wrong about what...?

(15-12-2011 07:44 PM)Chas Wrote:  Really, there is no hard, scientific evidence in any of this.

You are convinced by something other than evidence.

Ideas, conjectures, personal experiences, and speculation are a useful part of science. These generate ideas and directions for research, for creating hypotheses.
I don't know whether their ideas have merit or not, but nothing presented looks like evidence.
That's very well possible, because I apparently don't know how a hard scientific evidence looks like. Please show me some example of a science report that totally makes you believe in its results, (regardless of any names, institutions or any other characteristics) so I can search for something like that.
It's not the results, it's the methodology.
Let me, instead, quote a description of good testing that results in good evidence.

A well-designed and constructed experiment will be robust under questioning, and will focus criticism on conclusions, rather than potential experimental errors. A sound experimental design should follow the established scientific protocols and generate good statistical data.

With most true experiments, the researcher is trying to establish a causal relationship between variables, by manipulating an independent variable to assess the effect upon dependent variables.
In the simplest type of experiment, the researcher is trying to prove that if one event occurs, a certain outcome happens.

Also see, for instance: Testing a scientific hypothesis
Quote:
(16-12-2011 06:07 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(16-12-2011 02:48 AM)Filox Wrote:  But dowsing is somewhat interesting, glad you have mentioned it. Just to be on the safe side, I must say that no one can be 100% when searching for water, but it does give results, my cousin has asked their help couple of times and half of the times they have found the water and a place to dig the well. And I know that no one has ever explained this phenomenon. Now the real question is: Did they ever try to explain it and have they put it to scientific testing?

It has been subjected to testing many times; it fails.
Please look at Miroslav Provod's website.
http://miroslavprovod.com/dowsing-rod-2003.html
He verified the tests and the tests are all wrong. I'll try to sum it up. Firstly, the force that the twig reacts to takes time to accumulate, at least hours of continual streaming of water. Secondly, it may not show a tug above the water stream itself, but on both sides of it, as if the surrounding soil and stone would accumulate the force, not the water itself. (which is logical, the water flows away all the time)

So a typical test with hidden water pipes which stop and start and change direction and cross each other is useless. The result is a confusing and hardly measurable medley of forces that aren't where the actual pipes are and change quickly. Plus, there are of course other factors, like weather or the dowser's person.

This is a typical case when people act without real understanding, in this case both dowsers (who didn't outright reject this kind of test and design a better one) and skeptics. This is why I am so concerned about armchair skepticism and closed-mindedness. We must always stay open-minded and investigate things personally also from the claimant's perspective. Otherwise there will be badly designed tests and no interest to correct them. Then there will be strife between claimants and skeptics and dissident groups will keep appearing, with no access to proper testing and media.

These ideas on dowsing are hypotheses, at best. There need to be well-designed tests if he doesn't like what has been tested.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-12-2011, 01:36 AM
RE: Orgonomy: The Evidence
What I'd like to know is, what can you predict with orgonomy? So far it seems you can predict long posts and accusations of bias.

So:
1. What exactly is orgonomy? A few sentences please. I don't know why people think reading long waffling posts is fun. I don't. I don't need links to external long waffling sites either. If you can't say what it is in a few sentences then you yourself don't know what it is.

As an example:
Relativity is a theory which relates to gravity. It explains why objects which have mass are attracted to each other. The theory is pretty wacky, basically the idea is that massive objects actually distort space around them and this produces and effect which looks like the objects are being attracted to each other. An analogy is often drawn with heavy objects placed on a rubber sheet - the heavier the object, the more other objects have a tendency to roll towards it. Relativity also has to do with time, and in fact asserts that time and space are interconnected.

See? I wrote that without reference to wikipedia or anything *and* I don't really know what's going on with relativity. So please: a basic outline of what you are discussing.

2. Why do we need it. What's missing from the current theory?
With relativity there were all sorts of weird things coming out of what should have been routine experiments, like the Michelson-Morley experiment.

3. Why isn't it mainstream science? Is it because
a. everyone's biased.
b. it's a new theory.
c. ???

4. What does it add? What can you predict with it? To continue the relativity analogy, with relativity you can predict planetary orbits, you can predict behaviour of particles, there's a nice tie in with electromagnetism... So: what field of scientific study will benefit from Orgonomy theory?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2011, 10:24 AM (This post was last modified: 18-12-2011 11:02 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Orgonomy: The Evidence
I hope to answer you best as I can, because your questions sound very tolerant and reasonable.
(17-12-2011 01:36 AM)morondog Wrote:  What I'd like to know is, what can you predict with orgonomy? So far it seems you can predict long posts and accusations of bias.
We can predict that there is this "energetic" substance called orgone (ether) in cosmos and on Earth which participates on living organisms (specially nerve and endocrine system) and weather. It also interacts with nuclear fission and in a limited way with non-living materials.

(17-12-2011 01:36 AM)morondog Wrote:  So:
1. What exactly is orgonomy? A few sentences please. I don't know why people think reading long waffling posts is fun. I don't. I don't need links to external long waffling sites either. If you can't say what it is in a few sentences then you yourself don't know what it is.
Orgonomy is the study of ether, or as Wilhelm Reich called it, orgone. It studies the interaction of ether with visible world. It explains what role dark matter (or ether) plays in our biology, atmospheric phenomena, nature and certain technical equipment. It studies the etheric component of life and maybe wholly etheric life forms as well. Orgonomy investigates claims of numerous faiths and practices based on people having an "energy body" and "vital energy" that they breath in or absorb from the surroundings and use for healing.

(17-12-2011 01:36 AM)morondog Wrote:  2. Why do we need it. What's missing from the current theory?
With relativity there were all sorts of weird things coming out of what should have been routine experiments, like the Michelson-Morley experiment.
There was theory of (a)ether. It was thought to be the vital principle we breathe AND the stuff that carries light waves. The light part was rejected because of relativity and the rest because of Michelson-Morley experiment with light beam and mirrors.
Then dark matter was discovered. (sort of) The argument actually is, that ether was the dark matter all along. Michelson-Morley experiment was wrong, because the light beam got phase-locked with mirrors. And there were equivalent but succesful experiments before AND after that, so the ether exists.

While dark matter is thought of as the inert and distant stuff in space, ether was always considered highly interacting with our world, bodies, nature and even certain pieces of technology. Technical and scientific implications of that are potentially huge. Why do we need it? Advances in medicine are always welcome. We got rid of plagues, but we're ravaged by civilizational diseases. Plus, there may be dangerous etheric radiation stirred by nuclear reactors, which we can't measure yet and can't do anything about. Next, if DeMeo is right, and looks like he does a serious work, Reich's non-chemical manipulation of weather could be valuable in greening the desert and broadening arable lands.
And then there are certain technical concepts, which depend on further questions like whether our matter is really convertible on etheric matter and vice versa, stuff like materialization and dematerialization. Nikola Tesla was interested in such things and his claims of possible technologies (in his opinion) sounded really fantastic. That is really premature to say.

(17-12-2011 01:36 AM)morondog Wrote:  3. Why isn't it mainstream science? Is it because
a. everyone's biased.
b. it's a new theory.
c. ???
3. Why isn't it mainstream science?
1. At one point in history it was thought of as mutually exclusive with the theory of relativity. Einstein was right, so ether was automatically rejected by many. Also, Michelson-Morley experiment got grossly overestimated, despite of that neither Einstein, nor M&M were certain in their results.

2. It's not a new theory, it was there since the beginnings of modern science. It is even potentially ancient, having many parallels in mystical traditions worldwide. Since these traditions can't be taken seriously, it reflects negatively on the ether.
Mystics could potentially know about etheric world, because it forms our bodily counterpart and many of them were aware of this, due to exercise of various disciplines and general fooling around with nerve system. (or by just being born sensitive in a right way) Imagination of their followers did the rest. Modern believers peddling woo did even more harm.

3. Wilhelm Reich, the founder of orgonomy was arrested by FDA for healing people by means not approved by FDA. He died in jail and FDA tried to confiscate and destroy as much of his writings and equipment as possible. Together with slanderous media campaign against his name.

4. It is not a new theory, but only today we begin to reach the level of technology necessary to detect etheric world. It has to do with sensitivity of instruments and so on. Wilhelm Reich invented a detector of living etheric field, but it was rather big. James DeMeo now sells a modern, miniaturized version of it.
So logically, earlier attempts with worse technology were more expensive, less succesful, portable and convincing.

(17-12-2011 01:36 AM)morondog Wrote:  4. What does it add? What can you predict with it? To continue the relativity analogy, with relativity you can predict planetary orbits, you can predict behaviour of particles, there's a nice tie in with electromagnetism... So: what field of scientific study will benefit from Orgonomy theory?
These fields:
- Medicine
- Particle physics (mainly theory of supersymmetry)
- Astrophysics
- Ecology
- Psychology
- And maybe even energetics, by potentially harnessing solar energy not from direct sunlight, but anywhere on Earth from magnetosphere.

Basically, most of the ether freely penetrates our dense-material world. However, it weakly interacts with some materials and gets slowed down and concentrated around them. This is the purpose of orgone accumulator. A box (or a whole room) with special layered walls allows the orgone concentrate within and make it interact more strongly. It has influence on:
- Healing, vitality and bodily sensations
- Increased growth of plants compared to controls
- Direct observations of glowing orgone, some of which are photographed.
- Temperature variations inside the accumulator, unexplaniable by air convection compared to a control sample inside a sham accumulator.

Ether also flows in nature, influenced by meanders of rivers and large erect stone structures. (menhirs, pyramids) Some greater natural concentrations of etheric currents (related probably to geomagnetic field) form major vortexes. These vortexes instinctively attract human settlers over millenia. Most of world's biggest cities were built near them, also pagan sanctuaries with subsequent churches built on their remains. Of course, in ancient places like Stonehenge the original vortexes moved away by time or maybe disappeared.


Scientists are not immune to the urge to have certainity and tend to explain away all phenomena based on ether by many other unrelated causes, because they considered them merely anomalies within margin of error of already accepted theories. (which is only natural, they can't spend millions on every pipe dream) Other, unexplainable phenomena gained blind following in the culture, became called "paranormal" and excluded themselves from any rational person's attention. Known location of etheric vortexes became tourist destination of groups of "energy feelers" who invented quite an elaborate tales as to their meaning. Once people are introduced into this business it all gets even weirder, because such locations are frequent sites of crop circles or similar formations in soil or grass. Maybe some of these tourist groups take a spade along with them Smile


My study of sociology also introduces me to the deep roots of distrust in human nature in American society. America was founded by a few deist guys in the government, but all the citizens were Puritan fundies (or Catholic immigrants) who believed the flesh is sinful and corrupted. Among teachers, businessmen and politicians, also American scientific world leadership retained this view in secular form, that people's senses can not be trusted and only reading from instruments is acceptable.

The problem is, we are here dealing with another cathegory of matter. Instruments made of ordinary matter will not react consistently to etheric matter, unless you know exactly what you're looking for. (for example, ether drift on Earth changes direction due to Earth rotation, so measuring it steadily is not simple)
On the other side, human (or any other living) body has an underlying vital counterpart of etheric matter and with due training or inborn anomaly it may serve as a natural detector. If that is so, etheric matter is something that influenced us all along and its influence was already included into other scientific explanations or excluded in mistrusted cultural ideas. There however always was a lot of fringe science on that which didn't make it into the mainstream.
The narrowly materialistic science is prone to distrust human reports and to consider dark matter as something intangible, distant, dead, inert and therefore impossible to have anything in common with situation here on Earth. That is an assumption we subconsciously make and which we feel justified in. I say, if ether exists, we must get rid ourselves of such assumptions and examine the world regarding all possibilities. As dark matter behaves in vacuum of outer space in span of light years may be quite unlike inside an orgone accumulator on planet Earth, where's a lot of things to interact with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2011, 10:37 AM (This post was last modified: 18-12-2011 10:45 AM by Chas.)
RE: Orgonomy: The Evidence
(18-12-2011 10:24 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(17-12-2011 01:36 AM)morondog Wrote:  What I'd like to know is, what can you predict with orgonomy? So far it seems you can predict long posts and accusations of bias.
We can predict that there is this "energetic" substance called orgone (ether) in cosmos and on Earth which participates on living organisms (specially nerve and endocrine system) and weather. It also interacts with nuclear fission and in a limited way with non-living materials.

Is this is a problem of wording or understanding? When asked for predictions, what is meant is "What testable, falsifiable predictions does this theory make?"

You didn't answer that question.
(18-12-2011 10:24 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(17-12-2011 01:36 AM)morondog Wrote:  4. What does it add? What can you predict with it? To continue the relativity analogy, with relativity you can predict planetary orbits, you can predict behaviour of particles, there's a nice tie in with electromagnetism... So: what field of scientific study will benefit from Orgonomy theory?

You didn't answer the question. What testable predictions does this theory make?
Quote:
My study of sociology also introduces me to the deep roots of distrust in human nature in American society. America was founded by a few deist guys in the government, but all the citizens were Puritan fundies (or Catholic immigrants) who believed the flesh is sinful and corrupted.

No one except a handful of founders were deists? Nonsense. The founders were a small fraction of the men of their class, many or most of whom were deists.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: