Is there zero connection between String Theory and the paranormal?

[Write4U]

An orange and the planet Mars roughly share a similar shape or outward appearance. So via the same standards for thought, various paranormal hypotheses may have espoused associations with any number of physics products. But the kinship is not reciprocated by the other party.

There is an abstract common denominator involved, and that is spheres often seem to self-organize, from cells to stars.

IMO that tendency is a natural way of finding the most efficiently balanced (mathematical) survival pattern possible.

 

[Dennis Tate]

Dennis, I think you'll like this movie "Frequencies"

It is an excellent movie with the theme that people resonate with certain frequencies and that frequencies are not always compatible. It is science fiction but has some very interesting underlying premises which I believe are right up your alley.

Thank you...... you were correct... .I loved it!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequencies_(film)

 

[Dennis Tate]

There is an abstract common denominator involved, and that is spheres often seem to self-organize, from cells to stars.

IMO that tendency is a natural way of finding the most efficiently balanced (mathematical) survival pattern possible.

I've ran into testimonies about "orbs" from a number of different angles.

Please explain about orbs.

Consider how we each have a microcosm of billions of intelligent cells that exist within our human bodies. These cells are in constant union and communicating with each other and because of this we are able to physically survive, thrive and rebuild ourselves on a cellular level. Well, I believe we exist spiritually as a kind of cell within the body of God. I also know and believe that there are many orbs and cells of many different kinds and types of life out there in our Universe and within the multiple dimensions that surround us.

The science of physics tells us that an object which takes on the form of a circle uses up less energy to maintain its self and can do so infinitely. I find that very interesting, because even today (during my more clairvoyant moments) out of no whereI will see colorful orbs or sparks of light zipping by me or hovering near other people. Perhaps you have seen (or 'thought' you have seen) them yourself? It is not at all uncommon for people (who consider themselves to be non-clairvoyant) to see these amazing demonstrations coming from the supernatural world. In fact, many are starting to notice orbs surface more and more in their own personal pictures, especially when taken with a digital camera. When you pay closer attention to your digital photos you will more than likely see an orb hovering over someone's head or they will be in the upper corner of a room, sometimes leaving a trail of light as they they put themselves in motion. If you train yourself to watch out for orbs, eventuallyyou will likely see them.

So are these orbs ghosts?

No, I would not call them thatbecause I do not believe they are here to haunt or even follow us around long-term. I would venture to say that these emanations are merely spiritual beings traveling between dimensions in the Astral Realm. " (Christian Andreason, chapter 2)
http://www
.allaboutchristian
.com/spirituality/

 

[RainbowSingularity]

There is an abstract common denominator involved, and that is spheres often seem to self-organize, from cells to stars.

IMO that tendency is a natural way of finding the most efficiently balanced (mathematical) survival pattern possible.

is there something behind methane based life forms ?
rotting bodies in a grave yard producing methane ?(i am half making a joke and half making a point at the same time)

orbs appear to be most common outdoors in grave yards and wooded bush like areas, occasionally open fields.

the common denominators appear to be there must be living vegetation around and no wind
you get much fewer inside houses

note it appears older houses in lower ground levels appear to have a higher number.

maybe there are some type of electro-chemical field caused by static electricity & a certain dust and particulate content
(its not my area of interest or specialty)

watching 1 of the videos Magical Realist posted a year or 3 ago
comes to mind

electrical field theory on quantum levels
at string theory level
interacting creating momentary events ...
like micro black holes appearing and disappearing

it is not outside basic logical theory of known unknowns

a crystal can potentially store an energy pattern with no outside electrical support
harmnics
sound vibration carried into the crystal turned into some type of micro frequency that then requires almost no energy to be maintained for long periods
then amplified again
seems probabilisticly logically plausible

american science is soo troubled though
with all the religious indoctrination and creationism used to attack childlrens science education and undermine t for a few decades now
plus private profit controlling science labs so the only research is performed for profit margins
like the American national health system mental health system
its in a state of crisis and partial collapse
and the audience is not really capable of engaging in the conversation even if you could get past the moral brick wall of psychopathy

 

[Write4U]

electrical field theory on quantum levels
at string theory level
interacting creating momentary events ...
like micro black holes appearing and disappearing

Interesting point I picked up along the way.
We often speak about waves as if they are physical objects, but they are not. The wave function is an emergent property of all dynamic fluid media and uses the same equation for all fluid media.

The wave equation remains the same regardless of the medium, because it is not the medium that travels, it's only the wave.
In water the water molecules do not move horizontally, but only move in vertical circles, when the wave passes by. That's really an interesting phenomenon.

https://www.ck12.org/book/ck-12-fourth-grade-science/section/2.11/

Wave equation - Wikipedia

The wave equation is an important second-order linear partial differential equation for the description of waves—as they occur in classical physics—such as mechanical waves (e.g. water waves, sound waves and seismic waves) or light waves. It arises in fields like acoustics, electromagnetics, and fluid dynamics.

Historically, the problem of a vibrating string such as that of a musical instrument was studied by Jean le Rond d'Alembert, Leonhard Euler, Daniel Bernoulli, and Joseph-Louis Lagrange.[1][2][3][4][5] In 1746, d’Alembert discovered the one-dimensional wave equation, and within ten years Euler discovered the three-dimensional wave equation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_equation

Not to be confused with Wave function.

A wave function in quantum physics is a mathematical description of the quantum state of an isolated quantum system. The wave function is a complex-valued probability amplitude, and the probabilities for the possible results of measurements made on the system can be derived from it. The most common symbols for a wave function are the Greek letters ψ and Ψ (lower-case and capital psi, respectively).

The wave function is a function of the degrees of freedom corresponding to some maximal set of commuting observables. Once such a representation is chosen, the wave function can be derived from the quantum state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function

 

[Vociferous]

This thread does not contain the only recent interactions I have had with Dennis Tate. Far from it.

It's not hard to see the lack of effort you have put in.

Why did you feel the need to insert yourself into this thread?

Wow, so now you want me to go and read every recent interaction you've had with this obvious crackpot? You can't even be bothered to read my direct replies to your own questions. Don't be a hypocrite, James. Crackpots are a dime a dozen. Why on Earth would I put effort into something I just inferred shouldn't require any? To be clear, I'm not criticizing you for refuting a crackpot. I'm wondering why you find shooting fish in a barrel to be so much fun. Where's the challenge or point? Have you made any headway at converting crackpots? Honestly, I use to think much more highly of you.

With gems like "Within 50 years, maybe pigs will fly", it seemed like the bar for entering this particular thread was already quite low.

 

[Write4U]

Wow, so now you want me to go and read every recent interaction you've had with this obvious crackpot?

What made you use the term crackpot? Any particular part of his philosophy that is obvious crackpottery?

As host/moderator James is tasked with walking a fine line between critique and criticism.
But if you accuse someone of crackpottery, you are tasked with proving your point. Ad hominem is never productive!

Ad Hominem Fallacy

Ad hominem means “against the man,” and this type of fallacy is sometimes called name calling or the personal attack fallacy. This type of fallacy occurs when someone attacks the person instead of attacking his or her argument.

Person 1: I am for raising the minimum wage in our state.

Person 2: She is for raising the minimum wage, but she is not smart enough to even run a business.

Check out Dr. Fallacy as he tries to get away with this type of fallacy. Thankfully, Captain Logic OWL saves the day!

In this example, Dr. Fallacy doesn’t address the issue of minimum wage and, instead, attacks the person. When we attack the person instead of tackling the issue, our audience might think we don’t understand the issue or can’t disprove our opponent’s view. It’s better to stick to the issue at hand and avoid ad hominem fallacies.

https://owl.excelsior.edu/argument-...gical-fallacies/logical-fallacies-ad-hominem/

 

[Write4U]

electrical field theory on quantum levels
at string theory level
interacting creating momentary events ...
like micro black holes appearing and disappearing

I think there is a common misconception that quantum fields are "out there" somewhere in the universe.

But "fields" are everywhere. They are properties of the spacetime fabric itself. We live inside quantum fields, we just don't notice it.

 

[Vociferous]

What made you use the term crackpot? Any particular part of his philosophy that is obvious crackpottery?

As host/moderator James is tasked with walking a fine line between critique and criticism.
But if you accuse someone of crackpottery, you are tasked with proving your point. Ad hominem is never productive!

Why do you care? Are you his big brother?
You're certainly the king of unproductive discussion. So your defense alone would be enough for me to consider my initial impression correct.

But in general, trying to link hard science with the paranormal, especially without any specific, testable means of doing so, is a hallmark of crackpots.
Seeing as you've repeatedly proven to share that sort of illiteracy of science, I'm not surprised you'd question the label.

 

[Write4U]

Why do you care? Are you his big brother?

No, I'm your big brother.

You're certainly the king of unproductive discussion. So your defense alone would be enough for me to consider my initial impression correct.

Au contraire, this is your unproductive discussion as we speak. In general anyone that actually engages with me ends up in a very productive discussion.

But in general, trying to link hard science with the paranormal, especially without any specific, testable means of doing so, is a hallmark of crackpots.

Is it? What do you consider paranormal? Can you definitively separate connections between String Theory and what is as yet "unknown".

At one time the Higgs boson was considered paranormal, derisively dubbed the "god particle", until it was produced and is now part of mainstream science, no?

Paranormal

Proposals regarding the paranormal are different from scientific hypotheses or speculations extrapolated from scientific evidence because scientific ideas are grounded in empirical observations and experimental data gained through the scientific method.

The standard scientific models give the explanation that what appears to be paranormal phenomena is usually a misinterpretation, misunderstanding, or anomalous variation of natural phenomena

Wouldn't it be nice to tell someone with a question about the paranormal, that; "This is not really paranormal, it is part the EM spectrum or of Field Theory." And then provide a link to a relevant starting point or scientist.

Was David Bohm a crackpot? Is Roger Penrose a crackpot. Was Hawking a crackpot? Are all the scientists exploring the Theoretical sciences crackpots? Most of them have been called crackpot at one time or another, until they or someone else provided proof .

Seeing as you've repeatedly proven to share that sort of illiteracy of science, I'm not surprised you'd question the label.

Show me where I have argued against mainstream and I'll concede that point. Are you proposing you are more literate in the areas of science than the scientists which I quote are doing the serious research?

WOW.......bring on Nobel....... we duly stand in awe . The OP question still stands and is being explored. Perhaps you can contribute?

 

[James R]

Wow, so now you want me to go and read every recent interaction you've had with this obvious crackpot?

Your problem here is that you thought you could jump in here just to take a quick shot at me, never intending to engage with the thread topic in any way. But it turned out that you were so desperate to have a jab at me that didn't do your homework first. And now it turns out that you're utterly clueless as to why I would want to interact with Dennis Tate.

You really ought to try to find something better to do with your time, other than attempting to antagonise other people and establish what a big ego you have, Vociferous. I don't know who you're trying to impress, if that's the effect you're aiming for. Or is this you trying to prove to me that you have a bigger penis than I do, or something?

You can't even be bothered to read my direct replies to your own questions.

I am under no obligation to reply to you, Vociferous. Given how toxic you are most of the time, is it any wonder when I don't choose to interact with you?

Crackpots are a dime a dozen. Why on Earth would I put effort into something I just inferred shouldn't require any?

It is quite clear that you don't understand what I have been trying to do in talking to Dennis Tate.

Nobody asked you to get involved. If you want to put people into neat boxes which you can dismiss or ignore, that's certainly your prerogative. But get off your high horse and stop trying to tell other people that they have to act like you do.

To be clear, I'm not criticizing you for refuting a crackpot. I'm wondering why you find shooting fish in a barrel to be so much fun. Where's the challenge or point?

Consider that, just possibly, I am not trying to have fun by shooting fish in a barrel. Consider that I may have different aims to the aims you might have. I will leave my motivations a mystery for you to ponder.

Have you made any headway at converting crackpots?

What makes you think I'm interested in trying to convert crackpots?

Honestly, I use to think much more highly of you.

You seem to have developed a mistaken impression that I care what you think about me. You seem like a humourless, dour kind of person who gets his kicks from belittling other people. I think I know everything about you that I care to know, by this point.

 

[exchemist]

Wow, so now you want me to go and read every recent interaction you've had with this obvious crackpot? You can't even be bothered to read my direct replies to your own questions. Don't be a hypocrite, James. Crackpots are a dime a dozen. Why on Earth would I put effort into something I just inferred shouldn't require any? To be clear, I'm not criticizing you for refuting a crackpot. I'm wondering why you find shooting fish in a barrel to be so much fun. Where's the challenge or point? Have you made any headway at converting crackpots? Honestly, I use to think much more highly of you.

With gems like "Within 50 years, maybe pigs will fly", it seemed like the bar for entering this particular thread was already quite low.

Reported for off-topic posting.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

I think there is a common misconception that quantum fields are "out there" somewhere in the universe.

But "fields" are everywhere. They are properties of the spacetime fabric itself. We live inside quantum fields, we just don't notice it.

i read a few books a few years ago
so i have a bit of slight idea of the fringe science area on these aspects
what is theorized and what is known are very far apart.
more that what is obviously probable is vastly past current scientific comprehension

given the massive amount of fake media & conspiracy's and nefarious intent i do not discuss it.

i am\have always been fascinated with the subject.
i spent years looking for rare books on specific subjects
tracking them down in different library's
i have spent countless hours over several years reading in library's reading on similar topics.
i would find a vague reference to a theory by some person then locate their literature, read their personal accounts and opinions and their books even though i cant really follow the mathematics

i managed to get hold of some books to read just before they disappeared for ever from library's
& a lot of the books i managed to access were library only copies.
after a few years they all vanished
it appeared someone was removing the library only copies & the only copies of the books that were on loan never returned and were reported lost.

i would quite like to openly discus such fringe science with you
but i feel such open public access is not the place for it.
we can see concerted effort by many groups to suppress certain levels of knowledge
many of those driven by maniacal fear as their method to maintain their fascist like religiously framed control and power, so i steer clear of it generally.

note
what i do notice is there appears to be some type of scientific focus to discredit such advanced fringe science theory's and attempt to smash discussion of the subjects and anyone taking part in them.
i am not sure if that is some type of collective psycho-socio-cultural process of human foibles as a fear mechanism in a madding world, or if it has some nefarious collective push behind it(something which i do not pursue).

 

[James R]

what is theorized and what is known are very far apart.
more that what is obviously probable is vastly past current scientific comprehension

You think that a bunch of backyard conspiracy theorists is likely to do a better job of deciding what is "obviously probable" than scientists?

i managed to get hold of some books to read just before they disappeared for ever from library's
& a lot of the books i managed to access were library only copies.
after a few years they all vanished
it appeared someone was removing the library only copies & the only copies of the books that were on loan never returned and were reported lost.

Which books are you referring to? Books by whom?

we can see concerted effort by many groups to suppress certain levels of knowledge

Which groups? What knowledge?

what i do notice is there appears to be some type of scientific focus to discredit such advanced fringe science theory's and attempt to smash discussion of the subjects and anyone taking part in them.

What is "advanced fringe science theory"? I've never heard of that before.

Fringe ideas are ... on the fringes. They have never been a scientific focus. Or maybe, more accurately, I should say that they have attracted enough attention from serious scientists in the past for them to be examined thoroughly enough to be confident in dismissing them as worthless, in many cases. Most fringe "investigations" lack anything reminiscent of scientific rigour or objectivity, so it doesn't take much time focusing on them to conclude that they are bunk.

 

[Write4U]

What is "advanced fringe science theory"? I've never heard of that before.

Blushes.......

 

[billvon]

My impression at this time is that intelligent people fear the implications of String Theory much as gifted people of five centuries ago feared the implications of a round earth.

Five centuries ago was 1521. Magellan was sailing around the Earth at that time. Everyone thought he would make it back; no one thought he would "fall off the edge." His expedition returned the following year, in 1522, as everyone thought it would.

Where do you get this stuff?

 

[foghorn]

This detail from a 1533 painting shows a rather good globe for the time.
Painting ... ''The Ambassadors'' .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ambassadors_(Holbein)

Globe detail...
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...Map_ambassadors.jpg/600px-Map_ambassadors.jpg

 

[Vociferous]

In general anyone that actually engages with me ends up in a very productive discussion.

No, I've wasted tons of time trying to educate you on science you don't understand. You learned nothing. Completely unproductive.

At one time the Higgs boson was considered paranormal, derisively dubbed the "god particle", until it was produced and is now part of mainstream science, no?

No, it wasn't ever considered paranormal. And it was never called the "god particle" derisively. It was always a scientific theory, postulating a mechanism for elementary particles to gain their masses. Oops, you got me wasting my time trying to teach you again.

Wouldn't it be nice to tell someone with a question about the paranormal, that; "This is not really paranormal, it is part the EM spectrum or of Field Theory." And then provide a link to a relevant starting point or scientist.

Another foray into the useless. The paranormal believer won't understand or will outright deny any scientific explanation.

Was David Bohm a crackpot? Is Roger Penrose a crackpot. Was Hawking a crackpot? Are all the scientists exploring the Theoretical sciences crackpots? Most of them have been called crackpot at one time or another, until they or someone else provided proof .

Theoretical science is not the paranormal.

Show me where I have argued against mainstream and I'll concede that point. Are you proposing you are more literate in the areas of science than the scientists which I quote are doing the serious research?

Already done, and you didn't. I'm proposing that I understand what science you cite better than you do. And I've proven that in past interactions with you.

Your problem here is that you thought you could jump in here just to take a quick shot at me, never intending to engage with the thread topic in any way. But it turned out that you were so desperate to have a jab at me that didn't do your homework first. And now it turns out that you're utterly clueless as to why I would want to interact with Dennis Tate.

You really ought to try to find something better to do with your time, other than attempting to antagonise other people and establish what a big ego you have, Vociferous. I don't know who you're trying to impress, if that's the effect you're aiming for. Or is this you trying to prove to me that you have a bigger penis than I do, or something?

Nice little lecture in lieu of just telling me why you want to interact with him. Apparently, I don't have as much free time as you seem to. Sue me.
I doesn't take much time to reply to you nowadays. And if you can't/won't tell me why you enjoy crackpots so much, why should I care?

You can't even be bothered to read my direct replies to your own questions.

I am under no obligation to reply to you, Vociferous.

Absolutely. Including my post in this thread. But you felt the need to, as you imply, measure penises.
What I was referring to was where you complain about what I haven't read, including whining about things I addressed in direct response to you, but you missed.

It is quite clear that you don't understand what I have been trying to do in talking to Dennis Tate.

Nobody asked you to get involved. If you want to put people into neat boxes which you can dismiss or ignore, that's certainly your prerogative. But get off your high horse and stop trying to tell other people that they have to act like you do.

And it's clear that you'd rather waste your time lecturing than simply telling me.
Who said anyone asked me to get involved? Is this a debate thread, that requires an invite?
Again, don't be a hypocrite, talking about neat little boxes you can ignore.
Where did I say you should act like anything? It's actually you doing all the lecturing about how I should act. Quit projecting.

Consider that, just possibly, I am not trying to have fun by shooting fish in a barrel. Consider that I may have different aims to the aims you might have. I will leave my motivations a mystery for you to ponder.

Yes, aims you're all cagey about sharing. Like I said, maybe it is a challenge for you. I have no idea.

What makes you think I'm interested in trying to convert crackpots?

Seems that would be the only worthwhile challenge involved. But again, maybe you find it plenty challenging/rewarding as it is.

You seem to have developed a mistaken impression that I care what you think about me. You seem like a humourless, dour kind of person who gets his kicks from belittling other people. I think I know everything about you that I care to know, by this point.

I don't expect you to care, but then I get these little lectures anyway. But thanks for so readily verifying your projection of putting "people into neat boxes which you can dismiss or ignore".

 

[Write4U]

write4u said ; ↑ In general anyone that actually engages with me ends up in a very productive discussion.

No, I've wasted tons of time trying to educate you on science you don't understand. You learned nothing. Completely unproductive.

Where? And what is it that I did not understand and learned nothing?
Slinging mud only makes your hands dirty.

At one time the Higgs boson was considered paranormal, derisively dubbed the "god particle", until it was produced and is now part of mainstream science, no?

No, it wasn't ever considered paranormal. And it was never called the "god particle" derisively. It was always a scientific theory, postulating a mechanism for elementary particles to gain their masses. Oops, you got me wasting my time trying to teach you again.

I see, it was called the "god particle" in earnest. And you call that scientific?

p.s. I understand the principles of the Higgs field very clearly. The only thing you posted just now is the very definition and nothing about the mechanics.

The Higgs boson is named after physicist Peter Higgs, who in 1964 along with five other scientists proposed the Higgs mechanism to explain why some particles have mass.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson

Wouldn't it be nice to tell someone with a question about the paranormal, that; "This is not really paranormal, it is part the EM spectrum or of Field Theory." And then provide a link to a relevant starting point or scientist.

Another foray into the useless. The paranormal believer won't understand or will outright deny any scientific explanation.

Perhaps it is your attitude that turns more spiritually oriented individuals off to your abrasiveness?

Was David Bohm a crackpot? Is Roger Penrose a crackpot. Was Hawking a crackpot? Are all the scientists exploring the Theoretical sciences crackpots? Most of them have been called crackpot at one time or another, until they or someone else provided proof .

Theoretical science is not the paranormal.

I see, it's just "crack pottery" in your book.

Show me where I have argued against mainstream and I'll concede that point. Are you proposing you are more literate in the areas of science than the scientists which I quote are doing the serious research?

Already done, and you didn't. I'm proposing that I understand what science you cite better than you do. And I've proven that in past interactions with you

If you understand the science I cite better than I do, why are you rejecting my understanding and not the science I cite? I understand a paradox when I see it....

And lets examine the productive content of this very post. Do you believe this exchange was productive? I don't!

 

[Vociferous]

Where? And what is it that I did not understand and learned nothing?

Namely our whole interaction in: http://sciforums.com/threads/are-we-made-in-gods-image.163113/
Where I tried to educate you that something you called merely a microtubule was in fact an organism, and even according to a video you cited.

I see, it was called the "god particle" in earnest. And you call that scientific?

It was called the "god particle" by the media and not endorsed by most physicists. It comes from a book the author originally wanted to call "The Goddamn Particle". Go read up on the history.

I see, it's just "crack pottery" in your book.

The paranormal? Yes. I'm a paranormal atheist. Show me actual evidence and I'll consider believing it.

If you understand the science I cite better than I do, why are you rejecting my understanding and not the science I cite? I understand a paradox when I see it....

No, you don't. If a child cites the science of the water cycle to claim that the sky is blue because rain is, it's only the child's understanding that is flawed.

And lets examine the productive content of this very post. Do you believe this exchange was productive? I don't!

I completely agree. There is no productivity to be found interacting with a person who lacks the necessary wherewithal. Hence my past wasted efforts with you.