Jump to content

John Phoenix

Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by John Phoenix

  1. I'll open another one for your consideration. I don't know much about this subject and I haven't tried it. But for years the U.S. government military had a remote viewing program to try to find out what our enemies were up to and to help the guys in the field with their missions. Basic info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_viewing It seems to me that at some point there had to be real scientist who thought it was a good idea to try this stuff.. the Government just don't spend millions of dollars on a project that it feels is just a bunch of bull. I am sure the Government would have used and consulted the top scientist they could find. What do you think.. is there scientific evidence or at least good scientific theories for the existence of remote viewing?
  2. Jill, you haven't shown any evidence that supports your conclusion. I find your hypothesis very funny. A lot of people who have reported seeing ghost did not feel detached or anxiety, does not always happen in poorly lit conditions or in inclosed spaces. I have no idea where you get " or where observing visual illusory phenomena combined with an anxious instinctive reaction. This occurs in individuals, but tends to be more intense in small groups as each other's reactions seem to confirm each other's fear." from. What visual illusory phenomena combined with an anxious instinctive reaction are you referring to? Also many people who report seeing ghost have no fear at all about the experience. It seems to me your hypothesis is only based on personal belief as you clearly have not studied very many reported ghost sightings. Please give me references and resources that support your hypothesis. Hey, i'm just trying to look at this more scientifically as you folks would have me do. BTW, What ever happened to a hypothesis is supposed to be an IF THEN statement? Also I don't know how valid this is scientifically but here is an interesting article that talks about the science behind ghost hunting and it says there is scientific evidence for ghost and even valid scientific theories about ghost. : http://www.zerotime.com/ghosts/science.htm
  3. I dunno. I didn't claim to give a hypothesis. just throwing this out there. i want to see what other think. perhaps someone can come up with a hypothesis. <grin>
  4. I'm posting this here because it seems there is not a place for a scientific discussion of ghost above. I believe one day we will be able to scientifically prove the existence of ghost. I believe this because so many people have observed this phenomena over the years and there is some speculation if changes on the physical world that accompany the sightings of ghost can be measured. I would like to open a discussion on this, and where ghost may be/come from. If science allows for the existence of other dimensions or even parallel dimensions, could not ghost come from one of these? Even though ghost cannot be proven at this time with our present scientific understanding, what do you guys think could be a scientific reason behind ghost?
  5. Lets examine this. many doctors (scientist) who have studied the affects of drugs on the body know what they do to the body long term. To say that people are living longer due to drugs is fallacy because you are not taking into account other factors that may contribute to this, such as peoples general level of nutrition has gone up over the past 50 years. Your statement here proves my point, "People in the developing world who do not have access to drugs do not live as long as people in the developed world who do have access to prescription drugs." People in developing worlds also do not have anywhere near the level of nutrition in their bodies as we do. For the most part, pharmaceuticals are synthetic and our bodies are not designed to get rid of these poisons. Yes I said poisons because that's what they are. The body treats them this way. The second you put one into your bloodstream the body goes to work to reject and eradicate these substances. That's one reason they make drugs so strong. These pharmaceuticals build up in the tissues of the body and over time brings the body into a toxic state, which can causes disease. This is proven scientific fact. So the people are living longer due to nutrition but when they get sick many times it is due to disease caused by a toxic state which was caused by years of drugs building up in the body ( amoung other things like smoking). Yes drugs may save your life and have great short term benefits like pain killers for those with chronic pain, but the heath risk in the long term should be avoided at all cost. I agree that there are some times when a drug may seem to have greater benefit than a natural substance like during surgery but for almost all everyday use there is a natural substance that is just as effective as a drug, many times more so, and they do not build up in the body and cause a toxic state. All drugs are tested for safety. Are you serious? Do you not know that every drug comes with a list of side effects? Do you know any safety test is only done in the short term and does not take into account how in 50 or 60 years these substances react with other drugs in the body and often times mutate to form other substances and their effect on each patients body chemistry? No drug company ever does this yet there is growing evidence of disease caused by this. Tested for safety my foot! Do a search on all the law suits that have been against the drug companies who told the public their drug was safe and it was later found they lied and falsified the medical papers. This happens all the time. Do you not know anything about toxicity and how it's formed in the body and it's causes?.. not my ideas mind you, but established medical and scientific fact. Just research it. To All: I must apologize because when I posted this thread I did not know this web site had a medical forum. That is where it should have been posted. If you want you may move it.
  6. I don't want to discard correct scientific methodology. I just think it can't be done at this time because we lack information. But one day in the future it could. We have no scientific evidence that proves ghost do not exist as of yet. This tells me we need to study the phenomenon further and valid scientific discussion can take place. How can you wait until you already have "Until and unless objective evidence is presented that suggests "ghosts" " before you start looking for this same evidence? This makes no sense to me. You will never get that unless you discuss it and search for it. To say unless you have that "any discussuin about them is nothing more than fiction writing. All made up" is to say that Unless someone gives me evidence that the sun shines I refuse to believe it.. the only difference is the sun can be proven with science and ghost at this time cannot. What scientific methodology could you come up with to study the ghost phenomenon. I challenge you to try to see if you can do this. Then perhaps you may see that scientific discussion about ghost is valid. Yes I agree that a lot of ideas about ghost may fall into the pseudoscience category.. But they all do not have to be. What if you yourself were in control of those same experiments with the ghost hunter tools.. you know.. to be sure all strict methodology was followed.. would you agree that it's possible to have valid scientific discussion about ghost then? I think " any discussuin about them is nothing more than fiction writing. All made up." is more of a belief than based in fact simply because science cannot dis-prove the existence of ghost either.
  7. You are saying there can be no speculation based on observation? What about all the phenomena that occurs when people claim to see ghost, such as all the tools ghost hunters use.. temperature getting colder, images showing up on thermal scans, EM fields fluctuating, EVP recorders.. these are scientific devices that measure our surroundings. If a correlation is observed when these things happen and the time of seeing of ghosts is not that a good scientific place to start? How can you say there is only pseudoscience associated with this then? As INow mentioned, at some point there must be a time when pseudoscience takes on more validity and becomes science. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged You are right. According to Dr Baum's definitions I should have said complimentary medicine.
  8. Jill your point is taken. So, this forum is also labeled Speculation.. do ya think one could have a serious discussion about ghost here as long as one doesn't try to prove the existence of them with bad science? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged You point is also well taken. However I disagree with you about alternative medicine in a way. If you study the history of medicine you will find that treating illness by natural means is the norm and this business of treating illness with pharmaceuticals is the new guy on the block.. its the alternative medicine. This would really be classed as alternative medicine by your definition because drugs do the body more harm than by treating it with natural means. Even though both forms seem to be accepted by that standard I could consider the use of pharmaceuticals pseudoscience. Also by those same standards there are lots proven beneficial treatments out there that are still considered alternative medicine.. why hasn't the alternative been dropped yet? Acupuncture and acupressure are two such.. practiced and proven for thousands of years.
  9. I find Sayonara³'s discourse on Pseudoscience for the Responsible interesting. However this only fits the things that can be proven or dis-proven by current scientific methods. I believe it is possible for someone to have theories that cannot be proven or dis-proven by current scientific methods. Surely you scientist know of many things that you can't prove or disprove with science. This is why you are still trying to broaden your understanding of physics as we know it. These things that science has yet to understand or there is no current scientific method to prove or dis-prove them due to a lack of scientific knowledge, I maintain should not be put into the category of Pseudoscience . To do so would be mixing apples and oranges. I have read enough threads on this forum and for some, if the idea presented cannot yet be proven by our science, it is put down to be Pseudoscience. This does not make the idea untrue.. only that it cannot be proven or dis-proven by current methodology. I propose science comes up with another category to include these things as they clearly do not fit the description of what Pseudoscience is. There are many such things posted in this forum. Many things in our past may have been called a Pseudoscience such as electricity, before science had the ability to understand it through scientific means. For example. If I wanted to have a scientific discussion about the existence of Ghost, it would not be possible in this forum. Only because there is no established evidence one way or another to prove or dis-prove the existence of ghost and therefore would be shunned by the moderators. Does this mean that Ghost have no place is scientific discussion? No it does not. If we never ask the questions and explore the fine lines of the possibility of other dimensions and how matter or energy may exist in them in relation to ghost, we will never get around to proving or disproving them scientifically. We should have a forum for such things. Perhaps in 500 years science will have caught up and we will be able to do these things, and someone finds an archive of this web site stored in a computer in a time capsule, they may wonder why we didn't discuss such things.
  10. I understand why some metals spark. I'm trying to understand why some do not. I can have one pot the same size and shape made of steel and one made of Aluminum. (not aluminum foil). Or if not a pot, a steel can that is store bought. Sometimes I don't even bother with a pot you see, I just open the can and stick it in the Nuke-o-Matic (microwave). I worked for 20 years as an air conditioning and heating service man.. made a lot of duct work on a 9 foot break so I can tell the cans from aluminum easily. I thought to ask this because microwave manufactures are insistent that you should never put any metal in the microwave. But to me this is silly because steel works well in one. oh, my microwave is Not the type designed for metals.. it's just a regular old microwave.
  11. As a serious student of health and nutrition as a layperson for over 20 years I agree with most of the foods to avoid that you (he) list. Only ones I don't agree with are fruit juices, gains and fish.. all the rest on that list is garbage. I also agree 100 % with the first statement with exception about energy psychology. Taking prescription drugs are very bad for the body and in the long term cause toxicity and this leads to greater health problems such as cancers. Almost everything we can do with a drug can be done safely with natural means. ( with a few exceptions) Based on those two things I don't see any evidence for him being a 'medical crackpot'. The false alarm thing I have no knowledge of. I have learned you cant trust everything you read on wikipedia or quackwatch. Don't judge the content of the article by its author. Check out the references at the bottom on the web page. (I did not list them here) You will find most of his references sound. Here is one from a well known respected doctor. http://www.rense.com/general67/vacc.htm and his website http://www.russellblaylockmd.com/ He has really good info about vaccines on his Published Papers link. That being said, if you read the science behind the problem with vaccines. If not enough to down right scare you at least it would make you question their safety.
  12. I do understand your point because that's saying that you can technically know what color the sky is by measuring the frequency. The poster of the first thread says he maintains the sky is not blue. All i'm saying is that for him.. it may not be blue.. who knows.. perhaps he's color blind. I often wonder is an alien came to visit us that has eyes designed different than we do because of the conditions they evolved from, if they will see color the same as us.
  13. I just read the thread about the color of the sky not being blue. I was going to add this comment but the thread was closed. I am surprised that no one mentioned the fact that Yes, the sky may not be blue. Color is only what our eyes perceive because of the wavelengths being reflected back to our eyes from the object. Newton observed that color is not inherent in objects. Rather, the surface of an object reflects some colors and absorbs all the others. We perceive only the reflected colors. Thus, red is not "in" an apple. The surface of the apple is reflecting the wavelengths we see as red and absorbing all the rest. An object appears white when it reflects all wavelengths and black when it absorbs them all. If your eyes were made to perceive wavelengths differently, you may see the color of the sky as black, purple or green. Also it is entirely possible that people with color blindness may see the color of the sky as anything other than blue. Therefore the color of the sky is not an absolute but rather a function of the observer. This doesn't conflict with the findings of a spectrometer because isn't it correct that the device was designed to perceive color the same way a humans normal healthy eye does? I just thought this should be pointed out since no one mentioned it before the thread suffered it's untimely death.
  14. Why do some metals work in the microwave? Steel can be put in the microwave without the 'light show' as well as a few other metals. Whats the difference between these and aluminum?
  15. Here is the text of one article called Squalene: The Swine Flu Vaccine's Dirty Little Secret Exposed found here: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/08/04/Squalene-The-Swine-Flu-Vaccines-Dirty-Little-Secret-Exposed.aspx I copied this one for you because you can't read it from their site without joining. ( well you can if your fast enough.. I am not a member of this website but it pops up a popup frame after a few seconds to keep you from seeing the whole article. I simply copied the page before the popup could pop up. ) But there are many more pages with harmful examples such as this one. Squalene: The Swine Flu Vaccine’s Dirty Little Secret Exposed Posted by: Dr. Mercola August 04 2009 vaccine, swine fluBy Dr. Mercola According to Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, your children should be the first target for mass swine flu vaccinations when school starts this fall. This is a ridiculous assumption for many reasons, not to mention extremely high risk. In Australia, where the winter season has begun, Federal Health Minister Nicola Roxon is reassuring parents the swine flu is no more dangerous than regular seasonal flu. "Most people, including children, will experience very mild symptoms and recover without any medical intervention," she said.[ii] Sydney-based immunization specialist Robert Booy predicts swine flu might be fatal to about twice as many children in the coming year as regular influenza. Booy estimates 10-12 children could die from the H1N1 virus, compared with the five or six regular flu deaths seen among children in an average year in Australia.[iii] “Cure the Disease, Kill the Patient” Less than 100 children in the U.S. die each year from seasonal flu viruses.[iv] If we use Australia’s math, a very rough estimate would be another 100 children could potentially die of swine flu in the United States in the coming year. If children are the first target group in the U.S. per Sebelius, that means we’re about to inject around 75 million children with a fast tracked vaccine containing novel adjuvants, including dangerous squalene, to prevent perhaps 100 deaths. I’m not overlooking the tragedy of the loss of even one child to an illness like the H1N1 flu virus. But there can be no argument that unnecessary mass injection of millions of children with a vaccine containing an adjuvant known to cause a host of debilitating autoimmune diseases is a reckless, dangerous plan. Why are Vaccinations Dangerous? The presumed intent of a vaccination is to help you build immunity to potentially harmful organisms that cause illness and disease. However, your body’s immune system is already designed to do this in response to organisms which invade your body naturally. Most disease-causing organisms enter your body through the mucous membranes of your nose, mouth, pulmonary system or your digestive tract – not through an injection. These mucous membranes have their own immune system, called the IgA immune system. It is a different system from the one activated when a vaccine is injected into your body. Your IgA immune system is your body’s first line of defense. Its job is to fight off invading organisms at their entry points, reducing or even eliminating the need for activation of your body’s immune system. When a virus is injected into your body in a vaccine, and especially when combined with an immune adjuvant like squalene, your IgA immune system is bypassed and your body’s immune system kicks into high gear in response to the vaccination. Injecting organisms into your body to provoke immunity is contrary to nature, and vaccination carries enormous potential to do serious damage to your health. And as if Vaccines Weren’t Dangerous Enough on Their Own … … imagine them turbocharged. The main ingredient in a vaccine is either killed viruses or live ones that have been attenuated (weakened and made less harmful). Flu vaccines can also contain a number of chemical toxins, including ethylene glycol (antifreeze), formaldehyde, phenol (carbolic acid) and even antibiotics like Neomycin and streptomycin. In addition to the viruses and other additives, many vaccines also contain immune adjuvants like aluminum and squalene. The purpose of an immune adjuvant added to a vaccine is to enhance (turbo charge) your immune response to the vaccination. Adjuvants cause your immune system to overreact to the introduction of the organism you’re being vaccinated against. Adjuvants are supposed to get the job done faster (but certainly not more safely), which reduces the amount of vaccine required per dose, and the number of doses given per individual. Less vaccine required per person means more individual doses available for mass vaccination campaigns. Coincidentally, this is exactly the goal of government and the pharmaceutical companies who stand to make millions from their vaccines. Will There Be Immune Adjuvants in Swine Flu Vaccines? The U.S. government has contracts with several drug companies to develop and produce swine flu vaccines. At least two of those companies, Novartis and GlaxoSmithKline, are using an adjuvant in their H1N1 vaccines. The adjuvant? Squalene. According to Meryl Nass, M.D., an authority on the anthrax vaccine, “A novel feature of the two H1N1 vaccines being developed by companies Novartis and GlaxoSmithKline is the addition of squalene-containing adjuvants to boost immunogenicity and dramatically reduce the amount of viral antigen needed. This translates to much faster production of desired vaccine quantities.”[v] Novartis’s proprietary squalene adjuvant for their H1N1 vaccine is MF59. Glaxo’s is ASO3. MF59 has yet to be approved by the FDA for use in any U.S. vaccine, despite its history of use in other countries. Per Dr. Nass, there are only three vaccines in existence using an approved squalene adjuvant. None of the three are approved for use in the U.S. What Squalene Does to Rats Oil-based vaccination adjuvants like squalene have been proved to generate concentrated, unremitting immune responses over long periods of time.[vi] A 2000 study published in the American Journal of Pathology demonstrated a single injection of the adjuvant squalene into rats triggered “chronic, immune-mediated joint-specific inflammation,” also known as rheumatoid arthritis.[vii] The researchers concluded the study raised questions about the role of adjuvants in chronic inflammatory diseases. What Squalene Does to Humans Your immune system recognizes squalene as an oil molecule native to your body. It is found throughout your nervous system and brain. In fact, you can consume squalene in olive oil and not only will your immune system recognize it, you will also reap the benefits of its antioxidant properties. The difference between “good” and “bad” squalene is the route by which it enters your body. Injection is an abnormal route of entry which incites your immune system to attack all the squalene in your body, not just the vaccine adjuvant. Your immune system will attempt to destroy the molecule wherever it finds it, including in places where it occurs naturally, and where it is vital to the health of your nervous system.[viii] Gulf War veterans with Gulf War Syndrome (GWS) received anthrax vaccines which contained squalene.[ix] MF59 (the Novartis squalene adjuvant) was an unapproved ingredient in experimental anthrax vaccines and has since been linked to the devastating autoimmune diseases suffered by countless Gulf War vets.[x] The Department of Defense made every attempt to deny that squalene was indeed an added contaminant in the anthrax vaccine administered to Persian Gulf war military personnel – deployed and non-deployed – as well as participants in the more recent Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program (AVIP). However, the FDA discovered the presence of squalene in certain lots of AVIP product. A test was developed to detect anti-squalene antibodies in GWS patients, and a clear link was established between the contaminated product and all the GWS sufferers who had been injected with the vaccine containing squalene. A study conducted at Tulane Medical School and published in the February 2000 issue of Experimental Molecular Pathology included these stunning statistics: “ … the substantial majority (95%) of overtly ill deployed GWS patients had antibodies to squalene. All (100%) GWS patients immunized for service in Desert Shield/Desert Storm who did not deploy, but had the same signs and symptoms as those who did deploy, had antibodies to squalene. In contrast, none (0%) of the deployed Persian Gulf veterans not showing signs and symptoms of GWS have antibodies to squalene. Neither patients with idiopathic autoimmune disease nor healthy controls had detectable serum antibodies to squalene. The majority of symptomatic GWS patients had serum antibodies to squalene.”[xi] According to Dr. Viera Scheibner, Ph.D., a former principle research scientist for the government of Australia: “… this adjuvant [squalene] contributed to the cascade of reactions called "Gulf War Syndrome," documented in the soldiers involved in the Gulf War. The symptoms they developed included arthritis, fibromyalgia, lymphadenopathy, rashes, photosensitive rashes, malar rashes, chronic fatigue, chronic headaches, abnormal body hair loss, non-healing skin lesions, aphthous ulcers, dizziness, weakness, memory loss, seizures, mood changes, neuropsychiatric problems, anti-thyroid effects, anaemia, elevated ESR (erythrocyte sedimentation rate), systemic lupus erythematosus, multiple sclerosis, ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis), Raynaud’s phenomenon, Sjorgren’s syndrome, chronic diarrhoea, night sweats and low-grade fevers.”[xii] Post Vaccination Follow-Up Might as Well Be Non-Existent There is virtually no science to support the safety of vaccine injections on your long-term health or the health of your children. Follow-up studies last on average about two weeks, and look only for glaring injuries and illnesses. Autoimmune disorders like those seen in Gulf War Syndrome frequently take years to diagnose due to the vagueness of early symptoms. Complaints like headaches, fatigue and chronic aches and pains are symptoms of many different illnesses and diseases. Don’t hold your breath waiting for vaccine purveyors and proponents to look seriously at the long-term health consequences of their vaccination campaigns. What You Can Do Right Now The International Vaccine Conference is held about once every FIVE years. It is without question the single best conference on vaccines in the world. For every speaker that is speaking there are 5-10 others that were not able to speak. It is the best of the best speakers on this topic and I am VERY excited about attending. Washington DC is absolutely delightful in the fall and all the world class museums there are free. Visit the National Vaccination Information Center (NVIC) site and join in the fight against mandatory swine flu vaccinations. Educate yourself about influenza strains, vaccination risks, and the public health laws in your state that may require you or your children to undergo either mandatory vaccination or quarantine. Take care of your health to reduce or eliminate your risk of contracting the flu. The key is to keep your immune system strong by following these guidelines: * Eliminate sugar and processed foods from your diet. Sugar consumption has an immediate, debilitating effect on your immune system. * Take a high quality source of animal-based omega 3 fats like Krill Oil. * Exercise. Your immune system needs good circulation in order to perform at its best for you. * Optimize your vitamin D levels. Vitamin D deficiency is the likely cause of seasonal flu viruses. Getting an optimal level of vitamin D will help you fight infections of all kinds. * Get plenty of good quality sleep. * Deal with stress effectively. If you feel overwhelmed by stress, your body will not have the reserves it needs to fight infection. * Wash your hands. But not with an antibacterial soap. Use a pure, chemical-free soap. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged This may be true but that's not a good enough reason to discount the possibility of harmful effects out of hand. History is full of examples where the medical establishment ( or rather pharmaceutical establishment) has hidden the truth in the ' peer reviewed medical literature'. Therefore to blindly trust this literature all the time is fallacy. Here are another couple of examples in video format from 60 minutes ( the tv show) that talk about the dangers of swine flu vaccines. Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFcnneAqnTM Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9Bvf9AaC-4
  16. Here is the new site for one outspoken health advocate and its sister archived site: http://www.nocodexgenocide.com/nocodexgenocide.html and http://www.iahf.com/ I don't know how much info you will find on the site, as I generally just read the newsletter they send me in email. Also if you google: " swine flu vaccine harmful " you get tons of websites that talk about this issue.
  17. I get regular reports from various health advocates that claim that there is evidence that this swine flu vaccine has in the past and is now causing major health concerns. (many adverse effects to the drug has been reported, some crippling people for life.) It is suggested that while x number of people will die from swine flu, many more will certainly die from side effects of a swine flu vaccine if it is forced on Americas population. This number of deaths would greatly outweigh the normal deaths of swine flu victims who did not live through the treatments for the disease. ( sorry for the typos.. it happens cus i've been up all night) What have you head about this and what do you think about it?
  18. As Spock would say, "Fascinating". I never heard this about the brain before. I'm going to do a web search on this but in the meantime do you have any good links that talk about this? Remember folks the gist of my question allows for things that science cannot explain at the present time. I do believe however if something is real, science will one day be able to explain it. This includes proving the existence of God ( assuming there is a God for example) or even the possibility that there may be beings walking among us that exist in other dimensions that overlap our own like perhaps ghost. Things such as ghost may be considered pseudoscience now simply because we lack the ability to quantify them with a present scientific method. But I think if something is observed by so many people that tells us that the possibility they are real exist. We just have to wait till science catches up. I like this forum because it gives me a chance to pick the brains of the educated. I can have a discussion about ghost lets say on any old forum but to get opinions of scientist about whats possible or yet to be explained is really interesting. I have one. Many years ago I use to play with Ouija boards. Ouija boards have been a part of many cultures for centuries in one form or another. In fact their use dates back to many thousands of year BC. One day as a teen after a stint of playing with one for many hours a day, I was in the kitchen fixing lunch. I had fixed a bowl of green beans and set it on the counter at least 4 or 5 inches from the edge. I turned around and took a few steps toward the drawer that had the kitchen utensils to get a fork. This only took a few seconds. I heard THUMP and turned around to see my bowl of green beans sitting upside down in the middle of the kitchen floor. The beans did not spill but were all intact inside the bowel that was upside down. A check of the counter where the bowl was sitting revealed that there was no water or other substance on the counter that could have caused the bowl to slide off. The bowl was at least 3 to 4 feet away from where it was sitting on the counter to it's present position on the floor. The counter was about 4 feet high. Further more this counter was the type that had a slight hump on the edge to prevent things from sliding off of it. The only thing I could figure is there is no way this bowl could have traveled this distance, inverted itself and landed with beans intact under the bowl unless there were forces at work which I could not understand. This is why I attributed this happening to my use of the Ouija board. This was witnessed by myself and my mother who heard the thump and came to see what was going on. Needless to say it wasn't long after this I threw my Ouija board away.. you know.. just in case
  19. Oh wow.. I had read about this in a book years ago but the book didn't mention that the experiments were done as far back as 1907 or the fact that the scientist measured different amounts of weight loss. Well, thanks for the link.. I am almost sorry a thread was wasted on this. For he record, I do believe in the existence of the soul but I do not believe that the soul has weight and physical mass.. this does not make sense to me nor should it to even the most fundamental "believers".
  20. I too cannot answer the poll without clear definitions of magic or miracles. But I use this as reference. Magic is perceived as an action done by man to produce a certain outcome. Miracles are perceived as an action done by a being who is the divine all knowing all powerful creator of everything to produce a certain outcome. What method would man employ to preform magic? Does the voodoo doll or witchcraft use forces that we can measure and study scientifically? No. Does that mean they are not real? No. Magic could very well be real. Science can only say that they have not proven the existence of magic because there is no way to measure the forces involved. If a scientist states categorically that magic does not exist, that is only his opinion as he cannot prove that magic does not exist by his scientific method. The same exact argument can be made for miracles. I personally suspect that there could be miracles and even magic and that one day science will be able to measure the forces involved to determine this. However as of now science does not have the ability to do this because there may be laws of physics yet undiscovered. Science has tried to measure forces similar to magic in the form of measuring mental powers like telekinesis.
  21. This may not be valid anymore but I haven't heard anything on it in years. It was determined years ago that at the very exact moment of death a small amount of weight is lost. The scientist who studied this took into account every possible physical cause they could think of as to why this should be. Someone postulated that this unaccounted for weight loss is the human soul leaving the body. I know some scientist don't believe in the existence of the human soul. What do you think this weight loss represents if not the soul? Does anyone know of further research into this?
  22. So it would be true to say photons have no mass right? Then how do we study them outside of observations.. or do we? Light particles.. " don't have a size or shape in the conventional sense" yet they do posses a type of " finite energy " They must be some of the most awesome things ever discovered. How about a lil speculation on you guys part.. If not light speeds whats the closest humans or spaceships can get?
  23. Interesting. Light itself travels at the speed of light. Are you saying that our sun itself, sol is an infinite energy source? For that matter a light source such as a flashlight moves light at the speed of light and this can be done with a 1 volt battery. Perhaps what it really has to do with is the size and type of mass you are trying to move through space. How big are light particles? ( photons right?) What properties of light particles make them able to travel at these speeds? If you had a light particle the size and mass of let say a human how fast would it move through space? Would it still retain the same properties it used to travel at light speeds? In other words.. is there anything really special about photons themselves besides their size and mass that make them able to travel this fast? Aren't there other particles the same size or smaller that do not travel at light speeds? if so.. it must be some unique property of light itself.
  24. I would like to hear from scientist that has had personal experiences they could not explain through their current knowledge of science. This could be anything from perceived miracles to experiments under lab conditions. I just thought this would be interesting and fun.
  25. Interesting reading about the Carnot engine.. thanks. Klaynos, You mention "virtual particles, such as virtual photons and gravitons." I didn't get that far in my Physics for Dummies book yet. Can you define the use of the word ' virtual ' in this sense? What makes these particles ' virtual '? Any other folks want to try to answer the question: What's the closest thing science does agree on that is possible in terms of a machine that produces the most power ( or energy, ability to do work) for the least amount of energy put into it? What's the holy grail in terms of what is known to be possible?
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.