Orgonomy: The Evidence
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-12-2011, 02:09 AM
RE: Orgonomy: The Evidence
Why post this here? I know this is a "science" thread, but it is nonetheless a science thread, not science publication. I'm familiar with Willhelm Reich and the story of his cloudbusting (I read it in a book called The 80 Greatest Conspiracies of All Time), but I don't hold a college degree in a scientific field. I'm not qualified to evaluate the truth of your claims. I'm not an "expert". Do we have any experts here that post regularly?

I read as much as I could before it became overwhelming and a little boring. There could be some real scientific truth here, but it smells to me like pseudoscience. Either way, I really just can't know, and I don't know why you'd expect any of us to be able to evaluate this. Try a science publication.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Starcrash's post
22-12-2011, 11:46 AM
RE: Orgonomy: The Evidence
(22-12-2011 02:09 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  Why post this here? I know this is a "science" thread, but it is nonetheless a science thread, not science publication. I'm familiar with Willhelm Reich and the story of his cloudbusting (I read it in a book called The 80 Greatest Conspiracies of All Time), but I don't hold a college degree in a scientific field. I'm not qualified to evaluate the truth of your claims. I'm not an "expert". Do we have any experts here that post regularly?
I believe that skeptical communities are something like spam filter of scientists. If I can pass through layman skeptical inquiry, I should be more likely to succesfully present the evidence in front of audience of experts.
However, skeptics should do their part too, namely, they should have some way of acknowledging that they found no fault with the claim and ideally to pass it upwards to some expert who might be interested in evaluating the claim.
And what the heck, I'd also love to be invited or talked about on Seth's show Big Grin

(22-12-2011 02:09 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  I read as much as I could before it became overwhelming and a little boring. There could be some real scientific truth here, but it smells to me like pseudoscience. Either way, I really just can't know, and I don't know why you'd expect any of us to be able to evaluate this. Try a science publication.
Well, of course it is boring. I can't go too far publically without paving the road with evidence. But what I explored ahead with personal evidence is absolutely fascinating.
As for pseudoscience, well, it's about invisible "living" stuff, no wonder it seems like one. Just don't let that close your mind. It's the method of research that makes science, not its object.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-12-2011, 12:20 PM
RE: Orgonomy: The Evidence
(22-12-2011 11:46 AM)Luminon Wrote:  As for pseudoscience, well, it's about invisible "living" stuff, no wonder it seems like one. Just don't let that close your mind. It's the method of research that makes science, not its object.

I hope it doesn't sound like I'm closing my mind. This is revolutionary, if true, and I haven't given up on wading through it. But it's difficult, and I hate to give an opinion on it knowing full well that I'm not educated enough to give it a proper review.

I may also be biased. I watched the recent BBC special hosted by Brian Cox on quantum physics, and he warned a couple times about not taking this view of quanta to explain "woo woo" or new age beliefs. As a skeptic, upon hearing all of this it sounds to me like exactly the sort of thing he was guarding us against.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Starcrash's post
22-12-2011, 03:00 PM
RE: Orgonomy: The Evidence
Picked up a random book in the science section of my local bookshop today - the orgasmatron. More or less seemed to be a biography of Reich but from a less sympathetic perspective than Luminon's. Didn't buy it...

Luminon, despite not yet having waded through your stuff in depth (I have skimmed it), and I promise that I will try, I really do get the same feeling as Starcrash - this feels very pseudosciency...

Apart from the orgone accumulator, what other instruments can you use to measure this stuff?

Hmm... can I say more without reading your stuff more carefully? The seeds in the orgone accumulator example... If you make an experiment where multiple reasons can explain why things are the way they are, to prefer one over the others, you must make a further experiment. Let's say I make an orgone accumulator box and indeed, the seeds perform better than the control. All I can really say is that the seeds in the box did better, not that orgone was the reason why. Now I theorise that orgone was the reason why, but bucky ball points out that electromagnetism may achieve the same effect. So I must design some *further* experiment which allows me to eliminate electromagnetism - or at least to determine how much of the effect is due to electromagnetism and how much due to my theoretical orgone.

This could be easy to do - just make a box which has similar electromagnetic properties but is not in the specific configuration of the orgone accumulator. Now see if the orgone accumulator box does better than the electromag non-accumulator box.

Not only must we do this for electromag, but *any other* effect that we can think of. And these kind of experiments can be very tricky to design - 'cos what if orgone is intimately bound up with electromagnetism?

Even then, if we successfully perform these extra experiments to remove the confounding variables, we're not done. 'Cos we've got this orgone theory but only one experiment that seems to maybe support it. So we must look at the other predictions of your theory. Like the nerve effects. The problem with these is that you say you don't know what these effects are - no way to design experiments around them then!

This is a lot of work, so before we do it we need to see a *need* to do it. You need a couple of clear experiments which *cannot* be explained in terms of the current theory but can be explained by orgone theory.

Not only that, orgone theory would be a lot more convincing if it not only made predictions but *quantifiable* predictions - that way we could measure some physical quantity which we do know how to measure, in an experiment set up to detect orgone, and say "holy crap, it's amazing, 6.091121, exactly the amount predicted by Professor Reich's theory!".

This is the reason quantum mechanics, relativity, thermodynamics etc. are beloved by scientists - they make beautiful, accurate, quantified predictions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
22-12-2011, 03:17 PM
RE: Orgonomy: The Evidence - NOT!
You haven't shown the existence of "orgone", or how to measure it, so what is an orgone accumulator accumulating and how do I know it's full?

This silliness has been around for many years and still no evidence.

You seem convinced of Orgonomy, but I'm still waiting for evidence.
You haven't provided any.

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
22-12-2011, 03:38 PM (This post was last modified: 23-12-2011 01:04 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Orgonomy: The Evidence
Magnetic plastic ? Heh heh.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
23-12-2011, 01:29 AM
RE: Orgonomy: The Evidence
(22-12-2011 11:46 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I believe that skeptical communities are something like spam filter of scientists. If I can pass through layman skeptical inquiry, I should be more likely to succesfully present the evidence in front of audience of experts.

I've read enough of it to know that it's just not scientific. While it may produce results, there's no connection between the perceived causes and effects. I'd go on, but morondog put all my thoughts down already (and then some things I didn't even notice).

But I should've known better as soon as I read the above line. You use the phrase "successfully present", but perhaps you meant "make it sound genuine". Why would anyone need to see how a layman perceives a scientific theory, unless hoping to refine an argument based on debate points rather than research?

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Starcrash's post
23-12-2011, 12:33 PM (This post was last modified: 23-12-2011 01:54 PM by Luminon.)
RE: Orgonomy: The Evidence
(22-12-2011 12:20 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  I may also be biased. I watched the recent BBC special hosted by Brian Cox on quantum physics, and he warned a couple times about not taking this view of quanta to explain "woo woo" or new age beliefs. As a skeptic, upon hearing all of this it sounds to me like exactly the sort of thing he was guarding us against.
Will watch it too. Examining woo beliefs is a double-edged weapon. Light of skeptical inquiry may take their ground away, but the very fact that scientists are interested in this is might give them more public attention than they deserve. And no attention at all may cause accusations of censorship and persecution. Quite a dilemma, isn't it?

(23-12-2011 01:29 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  I've read enough of it to know that it's just not scientific. While it may produce results, there's no connection between the perceived causes and effects. I'd go on, but morondog put all my thoughts down already (and then some things I didn't even notice).
If morondog's questioning is as good as yours, I think my answers are good enough. But you need to visit the links I post and read the articles. They describe tests and measured values. Repeating them should not be a problem.

(23-12-2011 01:29 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  But I should've known better as soon as I read the above line. You use the phrase "successfully present", but perhaps you meant "make it sound genuine". Why would anyone need to see how a layman perceives a scientific theory, unless hoping to refine an argument based on debate points rather than research?
Well, I could ask a question too. Why isn't the spontaneous heat production in orgone accumulator widely known and acknowledged? Why the Silvertooth experiment didn't gain worldwide acclaim? Why James DeMeo isn't featured on front page of Nature?

I believe that just like scientists need people who popularize the science and dumb it down for the masses, they also need their counterparts. People who sift the world of woo and find gems of real phenomena among quackery.
Their task is then to call scientific attention to fringe phenomena in such a way that they are not immediately rejected out of... conservative worldview (and blind skeptic rage as Bucky Ball shows) and without proper examination.
Fringe phenomena are tender things. They are not properly understood, so their positive values flicker like candle flame in wind of error margin. More research is needed to get them steadily reproductible. Many phenomena get rejected that way.
Fortunately, this is not the case of JDM and his research. (basically modern repetitions of Wilhelm Reich's work) His research is systematic and his results tangible and consistently reproducible. His problem is only little media coverage. Which is to be expected, some people (like the engineer and architect Jacque Fresco of the Venus Project) just can not get any media coverage in USA, though their work is worldwidely known and appreciated.

I'm not sure why, maybe because of business clique interesting in diverting state funds into their pockets. Your government wouldn't be the only one controlled (or de facto appointed) by lobbyists. Just remember last time when your goverhment did something for the people, instead of getting everyone in debt in favor of the military and bailing out greedy bankers. The point is, I've seen too much corruption in public and private sector to believe that science is immune to it.

(22-12-2011 03:00 PM)morondog Wrote:  Picked up a random book in the science section of my local bookshop today - the orgasmatron. More or less seemed to be a biography of Reich but from a less sympathetic perspective than Luminon's. Didn't buy it...
In this case, you might be interested in the critical review of this book on JDM's website.
Critical Review of Christopher Turner's Adventures in the Orgasmatron
A Defense of Dr. Wilhelm Reich and his Orgonomic Science
Against Renewed Sexual Slander and Defamation.
By James DeMeo, PhD

I'll look at it too, in a free moment.

(22-12-2011 03:00 PM)morondog Wrote:  Luminon, despite not yet having waded through your stuff in depth (I have skimmed it), and I promise that I will try, I really do get the same feeling as Starcrash - this feels very pseudosciency...
Thank you all for your attention and patience. Maybe we'll get somewhere. If anything, I need to learn what sort of doubts or alternative explanations there may be.

(22-12-2011 03:00 PM)morondog Wrote:  Apart from the orgone accumulator, what other instruments can you use to measure this stuff?
The orgone accumulator is not a measuring instrument, it's more like object of measuring. The only literal instrument (with exception of a standard neutron counter, see later) I know about that should measure it is the ELEFM:
The Life Energy Field Meter will, for example, respond strongly to the field from a nearby orgone energy blanket, or orgone accumulator, with a general indication of the relative strength of charge -- however, much research is needed before we can be too declarative, beyond these general statements. Consequently we consider it an experimental device. Several experimental applications are summarized here.

Apart from that, the effects can be measured indirectly. For example, water, namely measurable changes in water evaporation and surface tension due to orgone-charging, as well as plant growth-enhancement effects.

There is another rather large research report on a few more other means of testing the orgone accumulator. It includes measuring spontaneous heat production and anomalous blue glow. The blue glow (mentioned also in this article) is apparently linked to other phenomenon, auroras at the tree tops in polar regions.
But JDM goes further than that, he brings in neutron detector into the play and produces very interesting results. He might even confirm the part orgone plays in nuclear radiation! (could be Mr Creme right after all?) Well, the stuff that holds atomic core together, anyway. So guess what happens when someone flings a neutron at it and breaks the core, turning loose the orgone that was in it.

On the bottom there are Fitzroy tubes and effects of orgone charge on crystal growth.
There are these blankets that serve as a small portable orgone accumulator, or a material for building it. If they create an orgone concentration in anything we wrap them over, that is "strongly" measurable by the ELEFM, then arranging a test is a piece of cake.
And I am pretty sure this is far from the end of many ways how the etheric levels or orgone can be detected.

As for the enhancement of growth of seeds...
(22-12-2011 03:00 PM)morondog Wrote:  Hmm... can I say more without reading your stuff more carefully? The seeds in the orgone accumulator example... If you make an experiment where multiple reasons can explain why things are the way they are, to prefer one over the others, you must make a further experiment. Let's say I make an orgone accumulator box and indeed, the seeds perform better than the control. All I can really say is that the seeds in the box did better, not that orgone was the reason why. Now I theorise that orgone was the reason why, but bucky ball points out that electromagnetism may achieve the same effect. So I must design some *further* experiment which allows me to eliminate electromagnetism - or at least to determine how much of the effect is due to electromagnetism and how much due to my theoretical orgone.

This could be easy to do - just make a box which has similar electromagnetic properties but is not in the specific configuration of the orgone accumulator. Now see if the orgone accumulator box does better than the electromag non-accumulator box.

Not only must we do this for electromag, but *any other* effect that we can think of. And these kind of experiments can be very tricky to design - 'cos what if orgone is intimatelyOrgone is intimately bound up with electromagnetism?
Explain me something, please. What's so special about electromagnetism? I thought you thought it may enhance the growth, but the orgone accumulator doesn't produce any. It's a box with layered isolation, dielectric and metallic. Almost a Faraday cage or something.
What electromagnetism we're talking about, from the cosmos or sun? Is the cosmic radiation so deadly, that shielding seeds in a box from it for a while makes them grow better? That makes no sense, it's mainly outside where they do the growing. And the orgone-charged water should enhance plant growth outside, too.

Or do you resort to EM radiation as the only known active factor that can be present in the space around us?

(22-12-2011 03:00 PM)morondog Wrote:  Even then, if we successfully perform these extra experiments to remove the confounding variables, we're not done. 'Cos we've got this orgone theory but only one experiment that seems to maybe support it. So we must look at the other predictions of your theory. Like the nerve effects. The problem with these is that you say you don't know what these effects are - no way to design experiments around them then!
Only one experiment? Not anymore, I mentioned a few more of them. Particularly, the temperature anomaly and readings form an orgone-charged neutron counter.

Well, I know what these effects on nerve system are, but they're personal reports. Theoretically, sensitive people like me or Benjamin Creme should be able to tell easily if an orgone accumulator is a real one (with metallic layers) or a fake one. It's a part of daily feelings, like wind, sunlight or rain. Perhaps even some non-trained people should feel the difference.

If you want some objective readings, I have very good experiences with Voll's electro-acupuncture meter. Do you want to hear about it? It's another several paragraphs, I'd better ask you first.

(22-12-2011 03:00 PM)morondog Wrote:  This is a lot of work, so before we do it we need to see a *need* to do it. You need a couple of clear experiments which *cannot* be explained in terms of the current theory but can be explained by orgone theory.
To me it looks like you're taking it slow, one item at a time. I showed you the experiment with seed orgone charging. Now you need to look at the temperature anomaly, neutron detector measurement, Fitzroy tube and blue glowing orgone-charged vacuum tube. Maybe even these treetops with aurora. But I don't know how many such orgone-based effects you need to be convinced that something new is really going on.
But what the heck, one of these well-documented experiments should be enough. If they took a neutron counter into orgone room, charged it for a year and then found it it wildly reacting to presence of people (visiting scientists), storms and orgone blankets, that totally blows my mind. They turned a totally innocent scientific device into another orgone detector! I didn't know machines could be brainwashed Big Grin

(22-12-2011 03:00 PM)morondog Wrote:  Not only that, orgone theory would be a lot more convincing if it not only made predictions but *quantifiable* predictions - that way we could measure some physical quantity which we do know how to measure, in an experiment set up to detect orgone, and say "holy crap, it's amazing, 6.091121, exactly the amount predicted by Professor Reich's theory!".

This is the reason quantum mechanics, relativity, thermodynamics etc. are beloved by scientists - they make beautiful, accurate, quantified predictions.
Well, in that case you'd love the Silvertooth experiment.
Ernest Silvertooth basically repeated the Michelson Morley experiment, only with better technology and he made sure the light beam didn't get phase-locked between mirrors. And it was succesful, against the cosmic etheric flow he detected that Earth with solar system is moving towards the consteallation of Leo at the speed of 378 km/h. (search for Silvertooth experiment in this article for details) The result was soon confirmed by NASA's COBE satellite as 390 km/h, in the same direction.

Of course, Einstein's special relativity is not falsified, because ether is not a medium for light propagation nor the medium of space itself. It's probably just dark matter, that happens to be locally concentrated and partially dragged by gravity fields of Earth, sun and galaxy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2011, 01:55 PM (This post was last modified: 23-12-2011 02:08 PM by Luminon.)
RE: Orgonomy: The Evidence
(22-12-2011 03:38 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The thing is, there is NOTHING new here. This junk science has been around for 50-60 years, and thoroughly debunked many many times. It's a tired old story. But let's look at a few of the statements.

-----There is this Experimental life energy field meter.
****What does that even mean ? (Why is "Experimental" capitalized in that statement ?) Did he mean "experimental Life Energy Field meter"
The device is called experimental, because it measures on a relative percentile scale. There are not yet exact units of orgone, like "this man has aura of 225 miliReichs". More research is needed.

(22-12-2011 03:38 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  If there is an energy field called Life Energy, then what are it's field equations, and what are it's properties ? Does it's strength grow as one approaches "life", and drop off, (such as by the square of the distance or something)..such as other fields?
I believe the "field" is only a descriptive term. As such, orgone "field" is a local concentration of etheric (dark) matter, more akin to a snowdrift. (which is a visual metaphor) Apparently, this concentration is not much of a mechanical obstacle, our matter passes through it, so its behavior is best described and understood as a field. But it probably consists of atomic matter.

(22-12-2011 03:38 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  -----It projects a field of displacement current, the stuff that makes a wire move when put in it, I suppose. But it does more than that. It measures, how much the field drops.
****That is bullshit if I ever heard any. If there is a current, then what IS that, (ie what is the current comprised of) ? He need to define exactly what that is, and what that phenomenon arises from, (or is he just parroting BS that SOUNDS LIKE an electric current), without defining the properties involved, (where the current comes from, and what it is). It "sounds" vaguely "scientific", but it is really just a bunch of word crap, strung togther, which is actually meaningless.
My current understanding (forgive the pun) is, that the device projects electric displacement field and it is possible to change the strength of its displacement current just like with "decades" on an ohmmeter, to get more accurate readings. Both are legitimate electric phenomena and there is nothing strange about them. I think your skepticism is getting too much ahead.

(22-12-2011 03:38 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  ----The field happens to drop in presence of certain objects. Specially objects that are living organisms or had anything to do with life.
****What ? The Life Energy Field DROPS (??????) in the presence of life ??????? But he just said it causes a wire to be displaced when one puts it IN the box. That means the field is stronger when one is CLOSER to it. WTF ? So the closer one is to life, the weaker the field. OK then. (And the word is "especially", not "specially"). One starts to get the sense of the intellect we got going here. Either the current drops in the presence of life, or rises in the presence of non-living things. Which is it ?
----The more vitality, the greater is the field dampening and the greater value is displayed.
****If the Life Energy Field is being "dampened" in the presence of life, then does it, (the Life Energy Field), get STRONGER, (and by what measure), as one moves away from it ? If it's strength increases, the further one is from it, then it is not like ANY OTHER field known to man.
You have misread the statement. The displacement current field drops, not the "life energy field". The former is dampened by the latter. The ELEFM shows how much the electric field was dampened by the life field, hence indirectly the strength of the life field.
The distance of course matters too, this is why it must be kept constant and why there are other types of electrodes for different measurements. And there weren't any wires actually involved.

(22-12-2011 03:38 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  ----The ELEFM does not measure any known electro-magnetic values.
****Prove it. How do you know that ? How did you measure that ? Who ? When ?
Prof. James DeMeo makes that statement and he owns, uses and sells the device itself. Anyone can check that out. Anyway, he's been doing science for decades, do you think he wouldn't verify his own statements?

(22-12-2011 03:38 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  ----A piece of metal or plastic comb magnetized or unmagnetized, static-charged or uncharged should give the same value.
****What ? Magnetic plastic ? Heh heh heh. Obviously he doesn't even know what "magnetism" is, it's properties, or what causes it. That is just too stupid to merit a response.
Man, you are dumb or just too enraged in skepticism to read and think properly. You can't tell figures of speech from real statements and then use it as "arguments". If you think I'd ever make such a stupid mistake, you insult my intelligence and it is one of few things that really piss me off.
Obviously, first I mention materials (metal or plastic comb) and then mention their possible states (magnetized, static-charged or not) and expect the reader to make a proper connection. With the level of your arguments, you're probably about to accuse me of attributing citizenship to a plastic comb, because of the (boldened) word "states".

(22-12-2011 03:38 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  ---- Also temperature and so on.
****Another meaningless, unsupported statement.
----Orgone is not EM field.
****Prove it. How exactly do you know that ?
----It behaves more like a snowdrift in a snow storm on planetary scale.
****What does a "snowdfrift in a snowstorm" have to do with anything, and how exactly does it "act" ? Why would it not be a wave in the ocean ?
----Orgone flows or blows around, but if there is a sufficient trap for it, like orgone accumulator, it spontaneously accumulates within.
****Oh really ? Flows or blows ? But you just told us the field is weaker and stronger in certain places, now it just flows and blows ? Prove it's not "going" somewhere else ?
----Inside, there is a temperature change (which even modern instruments of today confirmed) and other measurable and/or visible effects on living organisms, water, vacuum tubes, zinc oxide sheets and so on.
****Prove it. When, where and by whom ?
Hey everyone, do you mind if I skip that stuff? He's obviously taking it out of context, catching me on words and using the good old "were you there?" argument. Furthermore, he supposes that JDM somehow in all these decades didn't try his own measuring device on everything possible around, including materials with and without magnetism or static charge. Does that need to be answered? I think he's just trolling.

(22-12-2011 03:38 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The fact is, living organisms are made of matter, and nothing else. If these people can PROVE there is another component to living things, then lets see it, and tell us where it comes from. This is just a huge pile of baloney, advocated by, (obviously), a non-scientist who thinks he "sounds" like a scientist because he throws around words that sound sort of "sciencey".
Nobody says that life is anything else but matter. Even this orgone is just matter, I suppose a local concentration of what scientists call dark matter. But the local variety of dark matter (or ether) was called orgone by Reich. Most of it is subtle, fluid like gas and blows around like wind, only globally. Some of this global "wind" gets trapped by orgone accumulator, how much, that depends on weather. Some of it is solid and bound in living organisms or in a lesser degree underlying all material objects. Most of it was either already bound in our material substance, or it was caught (or just slowed down) by Sun's and Earth's gravity field.

And by what you just showed, you can't handle basic sentence syntax and context, no wonder what you read gives no sense. Cool down, maybe it helps.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2011, 05:04 PM
RE: Orgonomy: The Evidence
Bucky,
Clearly he has no clue. "Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."

The angry gods require sacrifice. Now get outside and slay them a goat. Cadet in Terse But Deadly
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes San Onofre Surfer's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: