Orgonomy: The Evidence
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-12-2011, 05:28 PM
RE: Orgonomy: The Evidence
"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."

There ya go folks. First he says it's Dark Matter. Then he says it's atomic matter.
Done in with his own words. The end.

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
23-12-2011, 11:41 PM
RE: Orgonomy: The Evidence
Hey Luminon

Argh, we're getting back into super long post territory Sad I'm afraid I can't help it, I *will* skim long posts - actually I lie, I won't if they interest me. And this one has got rather long itself Sad

Anyway, lemme just make one comment here before going back to read everything *again* (weeps quietly). I believe that you are sincere in your attempt to understand nature *but* here's the rub, you haven't quite got the hang of the scientific method. Before you get annoyed Wink please bear with me while I explain.

First off, scientists per se never start out with a theory before *any* observations. The way science works is not as follows: "Einstein thinks of the theory of relativity. Then he goes out and tests it to see if it works. He gathers more evidence that it works. He shows other scientists his findings. They give him the Nobel prize".

When you come up with a theory, you don't gather evidence to *prove* it. You try as hard and as honestly as you can to *disprove* it. In the initial theorizing step, sure, go wild. But the most important process in science is trying to prove that you're *wrong*, not to prove that you're right.

Would you mind reading my post again, the one before this? I'm really quite proud of it. I'm reading all yours again so I think it's a fair trade. Forget about the electromag. I used it only as an example, since *apparently* the same effect as your orgone could be got from it in the one experiment. As such, this *one experiment* is worth nothing in the hunt for orgone until we have eliminated the confounding variables. Which might be anything from the shape of the box to the metal it's made of or a thousand other things.

Sure, maybe other experiments point to orgone. The problem is this: orgone theory is an *interpretation* of the data. It's saying "the data is doing this, and orgone is the reason why". Before I accept that statement, I have to eliminate other things that could be the reason why. I have to verify that the currently accepted theory does not explain these results. The problem that I have is that you are asserting the truth of the theory before the checking - you 'ave put ze cart before ze 'orse m'sieu.

For example, the Michelson experiment. Have you ever used an interferometer? I have. They're beautiful instruments. You can measure distances at nanometer scales. Absolutely ingenious. Bitch to use though. I have spent literal hours counting the rings, desperately trying to verify that I haven't missed one, squinting into that little view-finder. Retaking measurements to try and guarantee that I'm at least counting correctly on average. Trying to keep my hand steady as I turn that &%*&^ knob. I think more expensive, better ones than the one I had to use have much finer gearing.

The classical theory of how they work is straightforward as far as I recall. I haven't looked at your link, but they're *simple* instruments. For thousands of working scientists using these things to not notice a fundamental flaw in the setup over the century that it's been in use - I think the reason the experiment you quote is ignored is because rather there is a fundamental flaw in *his* reasoning. However, in the spirit of keeping an open mind, I will check out the link and try see if I can spot it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-12-2011, 01:08 PM
RE: Orgonomy: The Evidence
(23-12-2011 11:41 PM)morondog Wrote:  Would you mind reading my post again, the one before this? I'm really quite proud of it. I'm reading all yours again so I think it's a fair trade. Forget about the electromag. I used it only as an example, since *apparently* the same effect as your orgone could be got from it in the one experiment. As such, this *one experiment* is worth nothing in the hunt for orgone until we have eliminated the confounding variables. Which might be anything from the shape of the box to the metal it's made of or a thousand other things.
OK, I've re-read it. Looks like I made an assumption, for once. I made an assumption, that Wilhelm Reich already did all this work of checking and trying to disprove himself. He observed some weird phenomena, tried to explain or reproduce them otherwise and failed. So he started to call them orgone. And I don't really know if he did that. I know Commies and Nazis breathed on his neck and then after he fled, FDA succeeded where they failed. But I can't tell if during all this running he did or didn't put the cart in front of horse.
So what sould I do? Are origins of a research more important than the research itself? Do you want some evidence on early beginnings of the orgone theory?

(23-12-2011 11:41 PM)morondog Wrote:  The classical theory of how they work is straightforward as far as I recall. I haven't looked at your link, but they're *simple* instruments. For thousands of working scientists using these things to not notice a fundamental flaw in the setup over the century that it's been in use - I think the reason the experiment you quote is ignored is because rather there is a fundamental flaw in *his* reasoning. However, in the spirit of keeping an open mind, I will check out the link and try see if I can spot it.
Well, you better don't. I see you're an expert, so I better link you to some expert sources.

I found what I searched for some time. Gregg Braden. This guy shows a Japanese clinic where they filmed some pretty impressive energy healing. But that's not the point. He then tries to "explain" this by scientific ideas like Planck's field. That's not the point either, I think he's way too simplistic here.
But if you skip to 12:10, he mentions the Michelson-Morley experiment repeated again, this time in 1986, funded by U.S. Air Force. And this time with opposite result, thanks to better technology. Aether exists, he says. This is supposed to be published in the Nature journal #322, from August 1986, page 590. The man who did the experiment was Ernest Silvertooth.

But Silvertooth is not he only one. This article might interest you, you'll find find him under the Galactic drift section.

I could throw around other names like George Sagnac, Herbert Ives, Pappas and Graneau, Ishii and Giakos, Enders and Nimtz, Sherwin and Rawcliffe, Van Flandern and Vigier, but I've got no idea.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-12-2011, 02:04 PM
RE: Orgonomy: The Evidence
(24-12-2011 01:08 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(23-12-2011 11:41 PM)morondog Wrote:  Would you mind reading my post again, the one before this? I'm really quite proud of it. I'm reading all yours again so I think it's a fair trade. Forget about the electromag. I used it only as an example, since *apparently* the same effect as your orgone could be got from it in the one experiment. As such, this *one experiment* is worth nothing in the hunt for orgone until we have eliminated the confounding variables. Which might be anything from the shape of the box to the metal it's made of or a thousand other things.
OK, I've re-read it. Looks like I made an assumption, for once. I made an assumption, that Wilhelm Reich already did all this work of checking and trying to disprove himself. He observed some weird phenomena, tried to explain or reproduce them otherwise and failed. So he started to call them orgone. And I don't really know if he did that. I know Commies and Nazis breathed on his neck and then after he fled, FDA succeeded where they failed. But I can't tell if during all this running he did or didn't put the cart in front of horse.
So what sould I do? Are origins of a research more important than the research itself? Do you want some evidence on early beginnings of the orgone theory?
No, origins aren't that important, unless we're trying to understand the originator's thought process. But the checking etc is. You are reasonable in assuming that it has been done - as I do for countless other facts. There's just not time to check them all. Just if you want others to buy into this stuff, like me, then you must at least be able to point to a study in which it *was* done.

Quote:
(23-12-2011 11:41 PM)morondog Wrote:  The classical theory of how they work is straightforward as far as I recall. I haven't looked at your link, but they're *simple* instruments. For thousands of working scientists using these things to not notice a fundamental flaw in the setup over the century that it's been in use - I think the reason the experiment you quote is ignored is because rather there is a fundamental flaw in *his* reasoning. However, in the spirit of keeping an open mind, I will check out the link and try see if I can spot it.
Well, you better don't. I see you're an expert, so I better link you to some expert sources.
Nope I ain't an expert. I was a student. It was a student experiment - not to do with ether measurements, but wavelength of light. One that I'm proud of having done correctly Smile Hence a teeny bit of ego-inflation from me Tongue Sorry 'bout that. But that experiment was a fucking bitch to get right.

Quote:I found what I searched for some time. Gregg Braden. This guy shows a Japanese clinic where they filmed some pretty impressive energy healing. But that's not the point. He then tries to "explain" this by scientific ideas like Planck's field. That's not the point either, I think he's way too simplistic here.
But if you skip to 12:10, he mentions the Michelson-Morley experiment repeated again, this time in 1986, funded by U.S. Air Force. And this time with opposite result, thanks to better technology. Aether exists, he says. This is supposed to be published in the Nature journal #322, from August 1986, page 590. The man who did the experiment was Ernest Silvertooth.

But Silvertooth is not he only one. This article might interest you, you'll find find him under the Galactic drift section.

I could throw around other names like George Sagnac, Herbert Ives, Pappas and Graneau, Ishii and Giakos, Enders and Nimtz, Sherwin and Rawcliffe, Van Flandern and Vigier, but I've got no idea.
Argh Tongue More links Smile Please realise I'm also no expert, got no idea same as you. I'm hoping that I can explain why my bullshit meter is on red alert for this... that's all I hope to achieve. And maybe rock your bullshit meter a little Wink I *can't* follow too many links or think too hard about this - I gots stuff to do too Smile But I will do my best, and it is a pleasant exercise in critical thinking, so thank you Smile

One more thing: the main reason my bullshit meter is off the scale is that the theory has been around for so long but mainstream science hasn't picked up on it. Wilhelm Reich is at least well known as the popular biographies show. If his stuff had merit, I would expect scientists to pick up on it rather quickly - as quickly as quantum theory or relativity were picked up...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-12-2011, 02:28 PM
RE: Orgonomy: The Evidence
(23-12-2011 12:33 PM)Luminon Wrote:  ... 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?
No dilemma; once the evidence is gone, so is the interest.
Quote: Well, I could ask a question too. Why isn't the spontaneous heat production in orgone accumulator widely known and acknowledged?
No one but the very few committed orgonomy proponents acknowledge this.

Quote: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.
This is sounding like conspiracy theorizing - the usual hallmark of woo.

Quote: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.
This is definitely not objective evidence.

Quote: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.
This, too, is definitely not objective evidence.

Quote: 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.
This experiment has been examined by physicists and shown to be in error. The constellation Leo does not have a defined distance or velocity - it is made up of stars that aren't even close to each other, as are most constellations.

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
25-12-2011, 05:45 AM (This post was last modified: 25-12-2011 06:56 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Orgonomy: The Evidence
(24-12-2011 02:04 PM)morondog Wrote:  Argh Tongue More links Smile Please realise I'm also no expert, got no idea same as you. I'm hoping that I can explain why my bullshit meter is on red alert for this... that's all I hope to achieve. And maybe rock your bullshit meter a little Wink I *can't* follow too many links or think too hard about this - I gots stuff to do too Smile But I will do my best, and it is a pleasant exercise in critical thinking, so thank you Smile
You're welcome Smile Maybe I should warn you in advance. I do have a bullshit meter, but it's not the popular model. I am physically sensitive to etheric phenomena, they're tangible to me, since some early memories. And over the years I've seen the ether acting objectively. For me the question can never be if, only how. It takes some extra mental gymnastics to imagine an objective view, hell, if I'm a walking phenomenon I'd have to imagine my non-existence Tongue

(24-12-2011 02:04 PM)morondog Wrote:  One more thing: the main reason my bullshit meter is off the scale is that the theory has been around for so long but mainstream science hasn't picked up on it. Wilhelm Reich is at least well known as the popular biographies show. If his stuff had merit, I would expect scientists to pick up on it rather quickly - as quickly as quantum theory or relativity were picked up...
The problem is, everywhere I look, ether/orgone is portrayed as the arch-enemy of Einstein's special relativity. Maybe this is the reason why it's not popular, many people think the world is not big enough for both ether and Einstein. But that needs not to be true forever. Dark matter probably is what ether was all along and AFAIK it's not an obstacle for Einsteinian theories.


(24-12-2011 02:28 PM)Chas Wrote:  This experiment has been examined by physicists and shown to be in error. The constellation Leo does not have a defined distance or velocity - it is made up of stars that aren't even close to each other, as are most constellations.
What??? It's the other way around, the Silvertooth experiment found out the direction and velocity of our solar system, not of the constellation of Leo. Have you been hanging out with Bucky Ball? Tongue

And it is a fact that we are indeed moving towards the constellation of Leo. The Leo's star Regulus has the least radial velocity, so it was the best candidate as a reference point to measure the Zodiac. For historical reasons (probably a bull worship cult gaining the upper hand) astronomers used the star Arcturus in Taurus, which was a bad choice, it lies sideways to our movement and moved quite a lot over the ages.
If Silvertooth experiment would show that we move in any other direction than towards Leo, it would be proven false.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-12-2011, 01:06 PM (This post was last modified: 25-12-2011 01:09 PM by Chas.)
RE: Orgonomy: The Evidence
(25-12-2011 05:45 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(24-12-2011 02:28 PM)Chas Wrote:  This experiment has been examined by physicists and shown to be in error. The constellation Leo does not have a defined distance or velocity - it is made up of stars that aren't even close to each other, as are most constellations.
What??? It's the other way around, the Silvertooth experiment found out the direction and velocity of our solar system, not of the constellation of Leo. Have you been hanging out with Bucky Ball? Tongue

And it is a fact that we are indeed moving towards the constellation of Leo. The Leo's star Regulus has the least radial velocity, so it was the best candidate as a reference point to measure the Zodiac. For historical reasons (probably a bull worship cult gaining the upper hand) astronomers used the star Arcturus in Taurus, which was a bad choice, it lies sideways to our movement and moved quite a lot over the ages.
If Silvertooth experiment would show that we move in any other direction than towards Leo, it would be proven false.

No, we're not moving toward the constellation Leo. That is a virtually meaningless assertion. Leo is made up of several unrelated stars, at distances of 8 to 35 light years, with various relative motions, and Leo spreads across forty degrees of the sky.

"Moving towards the constellation Leo" an unscientific, fuzzy, silly statement.
You have bought in to this pseudo-science. You are looking at assertions made by a very few people in a closed circle of delusion.

Your statements regarding "many scientists/researchers" are mistaken. There are only a handful, and they only talk to each other.

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
25-12-2011, 01:42 PM
RE: Orgonomy: The Evidence
(25-12-2011 01:06 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(25-12-2011 05:45 AM)Luminon Wrote:  And it is a fact that we are indeed moving towards the constellation of Leo.

No, we're not moving toward the constellation Leo. That is a virtually meaningless assertion. Leo is made up of several unrelated stars, at distances of 8 to 35 light years, with various relative motions, and Leo spreads across forty degrees of the sky.

Just to be clear on this. The stars in Leo appear to be in Leo just because we happen to view them from that angle. The statement that we are moving towards Leo is fuzzy but based on the statement that we *appear* to be moving towards a point *apparently* located in Leo - I'm just quoting off the top of my head from a book I read way back, published in the 70s or 80s I think. Should be easy to verify. So yes, to move towards Leo is meaningless, since Leo's stars are only related to each other by their closeness *in the night sky*. But we *are* moving towards a point, whose *apparent* position is located in the constellation Leo. (I think, I thought it was Sagittarius?) Sure wikipedia will be more clear than me Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-12-2011, 01:46 PM
RE: Orgonomy: The Evidence
(25-12-2011 01:42 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(25-12-2011 01:06 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(25-12-2011 05:45 AM)Luminon Wrote:  And it is a fact that we are indeed moving towards the constellation of Leo.

No, we're not moving toward the constellation Leo. That is a virtually meaningless assertion. Leo is made up of several unrelated stars, at distances of 8 to 35 light years, with various relative motions, and Leo spreads across forty degrees of the sky.

Just to be clear on this. The stars in Leo appear to be in Leo just because we happen to view them from that angle. The statement that we are moving towards Leo is fuzzy but based on the statement that we *appear* to be moving towards a point *apparently* located in Leo - I'm just quoting off the top of my head from a book I read way back, published in the 70s or 80s I think. Should be easy to verify. So yes, to move towards Leo is meaningless, since Leo's stars are only related to each other by their closeness *in the night sky*. But we *are* moving towards a point, whose *apparent* position is located in the constellation Leo. (I think, I thought it was Sagittarius?) Sure wikipedia will be more clear than me Tongue

Yes, I thought that was obvious from my statements. But my point is that the statement that "we are moving toward Leo" is so fuzzy that it is not scientific; it can't be used to prove or support anything.

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
25-12-2011, 02:16 PM (This post was last modified: 25-12-2011 02:17 PM by morondog.)
RE: Orgonomy: The Evidence
(25-12-2011 01:46 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(25-12-2011 01:42 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(25-12-2011 01:06 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(25-12-2011 05:45 AM)Luminon Wrote:  And it is a fact that we are indeed moving towards the constellation of Leo.

No, we're not moving toward the constellation Leo. That is a virtually meaningless assertion. Leo is made up of several unrelated stars, at distances of 8 to 35 light years, with various relative motions, and Leo spreads across forty degrees of the sky.

Just to be clear on this. The stars in Leo appear to be in Leo just because we happen to view them from that angle. The statement that we are moving towards Leo is fuzzy but based on the statement that we *appear* to be moving towards a point *apparently* located in Leo - I'm just quoting off the top of my head from a book I read way back, published in the 70s or 80s I think. Should be easy to verify. So yes, to move towards Leo is meaningless, since Leo's stars are only related to each other by their closeness *in the night sky*. But we *are* moving towards a point, whose *apparent* position is located in the constellation Leo. (I think, I thought it was Sagittarius?) Sure wikipedia will be more clear than me Tongue

Yes, I thought that was obvious from my statements. But my point is that the statement that "we are moving toward Leo" is so fuzzy that it is not scientific; it can't be used to prove or support anything.

Just explaining your statement a bit Chas Wink Not bein' all pedantic... just this is one of those easily overlooked imprecisions of speech which lead to misunderstanding of the science, so I thought worth expanding on.
Luminon's statement, that is Smile Sorry Luminon. Judged and found guilty by a jury of one without trial. You should sue me, but I'm the judge for that case too Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: