HOMER-16

But this is Pseudoscience and Speculations. Nothing is set in stone or supported here.

Btw, I never called this fact. To me, everything is 50:50.

ajb, we only have one sample of life to work with. Earth. So we can't use ourselves as a reliable example of what is essential for life. Like I said in my first post. The rock doesn't grow the moss, the moss grows around the rock.

What I mean by that is, life isn't here because water was here, life formed around what it had. Keep in mind the water covers most of our planet. So why not make use of it? Say for instance, there was another substance with simalar properties. Or even without. Life could still form based upon that substance. This planet is also rich with Carbon, Oxygen, and Nitrogen. And we need them all. Coincedence? I think not.

I also agree with walkntune, just give it up.

But first, walkntune,

I just hope that as you continue on your path of knowledge you will find a place to benefit others and not try to use knowledge as power and self glorification. If you do what a fruitless life!

I refer you to my signature. To me, life is all about what you want.

Theory as in the common use of the term.

An idea that may or may not be correct.

Once it is proven correct, then it becomes a fact.

In science, when proven and supported by data, then it becomes a scienific theory.

What I had meant by that quote was really, we can't use tests based on other planes of ex. because they have no connection what so ever with this one. Physics would have no say in them.

Insane, I would have to agree with that assesment. Because we have no proof of AP, RM, ghosts, etc, this would have to go into the junk pile. So... again... I rest my case. (So I guess it was a misuse of terms )

(I think this thread went off topic...)

Ajb, sorry, what I took as you saying as 'Earth' like was:

Has water

Oxygen

Earth like temperature

Earth like gravity

etc, etc.

But I do believe it would be hard for there to be life on gas giants unless they were smaller and had less gravity... but that's about it. Everything else would just be crushed.

Yeah well, you're right about that. Well, I guess I'll give it a bit of a rest.

Okay, and I do want to say I respect your beliefs with regards to these. What I am curious about though is: what basis did you use to come to those conclusions on those points?

 

You find shapeshifting improbable, and dismiss astrology despite the practice's long history - even Ronald Reagan consulted an astrologist during his presidency. Likewise you find the other points possible or "confirmed" with a 'yes' answer.

My point is, while I do honestly respect your beliefs, it appears to me that the basis of your beliefs have to do with personal experiences that can only be conveyed and shared with others as anecdotal evidence - the same classification of evidence that supports shapeshifting and astrology... yet you dismiss those.

 

How can any meaningful discussion occur on the validity of each of those points? No one has any evidence to support their individual positions, just a series of conclusions drawn from an idea of how the world works. These sorts of topics can be rather interesting, but they are not scientific unless there is a body of evidence up to scientific standards to evaluate.

I know that they can't be proven, we are not at the stage yet to test them or use what we know to support or disprove them. So yes, these can only be opinion questions, such is the nature of this section.

I said no to the astrology one because I do not know how the position of anything can predict future events.

And to people morphing into animals, I can't even begin to describe how it may be done.

Though I do think everything is possible. If you really think about it, the possibility of something is really 50:50. Imo.

All I can really say is, the rock doesn't grow the moss, the moss grows around the rock.

You don't need 'Earth' like planets for there to be life.

I had said this was a theory because it cannot yet be tested. We don't have the tools. Also I use theory because it is theoretical, it might be true, it might not.

This is mainly speculation and I was mainly thinking, 'you know, with things like AP and remote viewing as well as countless ghost and demon stories (some happened to my friend) what could possibly make them possible.

I thought they could not exist in this plane as they violate too many laws of physics. So that's when I thought, 'what if there is another plane overlaying this one?'

And for me that sold it. Since it was another plane of existance, it could have nothing to do with our laws of physics. Yet because the 'beings' on this plane could sometimes manipulate this one they had to be interconneted. That's when I remembered super string theory, where they think the big bang was started by two colliding planes.

And I think there is enough proof to take these things seriously. look at the 'sleeping' prophet, what many psychics claim to be ale to do, and countless encounters with ET.

Unfortunately, I don't things like planes of existanc can be tested with our scientific theory. Only, I guess logic. But that's of right now. Who knows, something might come up.

And I can't quite shake the feeling we're only a few steps away.

I never claimed this to be a scientific theory. Just a theory. I'll add more tomorrow...

Can I put in my two cents here?

Improbable.

Possible.

Close enough to say no.

Possible.

I'm going to have to say yes.

I have no clue.

Hey, 11th grade here. I would do what DJ and Tri suggested. Take as many AP courses as possible even if they don't pertain to science. They will win favor with colleges and universities where you can get a more advanced education on the topics.

Also, aside from actually learning the stuff, work on persentaion and debate skills. Alot of this is debating over a theory and if you can't effectively communicate your thoughts, it won't be pretty. (I have this problem ;D)

What I was refering to is your intuition claims.

You come across as very intuitive!(smiling)

consider myself an intuitionist!

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=45616

Why? We (as in every human) do this all the time, with an infinite number of possible subjects.

Well, you could do it but it doesn't make you correct.

No, it would not. "Closed minded" means rejecting ideas regardless of validity. I can easily say "Telepathy is bunk" while being open to changing that opinion if real evidence comes to light.

What I meant by it is if you just assumed just like that and was rejecting it no matter what like you said.

Which is true of everything, really. No one knows anything absolutely, even if they believe they do.

Fair enough. I agree whole heartedly.

The problem isn't what you believe to be true or not true, nor is it what anyone else believes or not. The problem is evidence, or in this case, the conspicuous absence of it.

 

Any hypothesis about the mechanism behind a phenomenon that has not yet been established is by nature untestable. Ignoring the important step of establishing the existence of a phenomenon before trying to understand the mechanism of the phenomenon makes for pseudoscience.

Yes, and until we can find and understand those mechanisms it will remain pseudoscience. But sometimes it is better to look ahead as it were to see what the next 'step' should be. Loosely said.

You could be right. Emphasis on could though. You need to get some raw data to prove this or a very logical theory based on existing truths or data. I do think everything is enery because energy can be transformed into matter and vise versa via E=MC2.

Now you said you were looking as to how this came into existance. Look at super string theory. You might be able to support your theorems with that field. I would also look to Noetics.

But I have to agree with Padren when he said science doesn't disregard anything as for all we know, all of this stuff is true. So if it is possible it still is true then we still must acknowlege it. But right now we cannot explain it or effectively test it without building on our current understanding of the universe. The time will come when those take center stage. Just be patient.

It's like learning a skill. You start with common sense stuff. Then you build and learn by practicing and using wat you learn to figure out more. And you keep building. evenually, you'll get to a point where you are finding things you didn't even think possible.

Not to worry. No hints at all. I'm being merciless with this because I've done it and redone it about 50 times to get to this level.

While as of right now we can't prove or disprove it, you cannot just say 'well, we haven't proven it so I'll say it's false'

To do so would be incredibly big-headed and close minded of you.

We cannot absolutely say ys or no on this issue.

I am inclined to think that telepathy is possible but not by brain waves.

Here I refer to my theory posted in this section. Now if (and I mean 'if') my theory is true then that could explain this.

Ahh so that's how, thans I was putting [hide]

And I agree with you but how are you implying our minds directly affect the physical world? What is your reasoning? Indirectly like the situation you just posted, yes, it can and everyone here will (or should) agree with that. But that only occurs because our minds control our bodies that can affect the physical world. So the mind, as we can conclude thus far, can only affect this plane through our bodies.

No, no. How do you post it?

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/365143

Try this flash. 110 questions and is by all means pretty much impossible. (Alright it is possible but not on your first try:eyebrow:)

Post your scores.

I've gotten to 102! With out using any skips.

This was too easy, please, post more.

Btw, how do you get the spoiler?

What you are refering to is the placebo effect right?

That, as far as we can tell, is just tricking your mind to feel a certain way, perform a certain task and whatnot.

As for the alternate universe thing, that happens all the time in every instant of time. Infinite possibilities ranging from the exact position of an atom to the random formation of a black hole.

The concept of your mind actually effecting your surroundings has not been proven yet and will not be proven in some time (if true at all).

As to the main purpose of this thread, I think it might. It might just be the tool needed to look past the appearence of super natural phenomenon and see the physics at play.

Think of it this way, if you were to print out a paper with green on it, a person who didn't know any better could say that green was its own color that could not be broken down.

Now there are two ways of proving this false and see the mecanics of this 'phenomenon'.

Experiment with paints to mix blue and yellow to create green.

Or Take a microscope to the paper to see dots of blue and yellow ink to make green.

Imo, the later way is science's way of proof. (In general I guess) And our 'microscope' to these phenomenon could be quantum physics.

The earlier though, would be the psycics, shamans, ect, way of proof. They 'experiment' and see the effects before finding the logic behind it.

Intuition does work. Not as proof but as a guide to the next supporting concept.

I use it to find what theory I should try next. And so far, both times I've tried it it worked for me. Once I have a concept to work on, I use reason to put together the rest. (Or try to at any rate)

Intuition can be a powerful tool, I've used it for things other than science.

I don't want to sound too 'out there' but I use it in a psychic style. And it has worked. (This much I have proof for myself at least)

I rest my case then. However just for finality I'll continue to attemp AP. If anything happens I'll let you know.