Negative Time Dilation Eternal Photons and other speculation

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Serious Scientific Lessons from Direct Observation of Atoms through Clairvoyance

This link includes the illustrations, which are missing from the similar link I posted above. It's the same article from an earlier save by the wayback machine.
Serious Scientific Lessons from Direct Observation of Atoms through Clairvoyance

a reply to: Arbitrageur
The fundamental error is this debunking piece of misrepresentation and nonsense is the assumption that Besant and Leadbeater described atoms. As Stephen Phillips proved, what they paranormally observed was not these but the result of condensation of a quark-gluon plasma briefly created when, unknown to them, their focussing on atoms caused pairs of atomic nuclei to collide. This explains the amazingly high degree of correlation between their detailed accounts of the 111 "atoms" that they reported.
Dobbyns' comment on Phillips' research paper published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration and quoted in McBride's article:
"This is an invalid mode of argument. By accepting apparent successes as given, while explaining away failures by invoking new phenomena for which there is no other positive evidence, one can support any theory whatsoever.[D1 p. 528]"
is an inaccurate representation of Phillips' analysis that is typical of Dobbyn's appallingly sloppy and distorted critique of his research paper. First of all, Phillips pointed out in his two books:
smphillips.mysite.com...
and
smphillips.mysite.com...
(ch 1-4)
smphillips.mysite.com...&%20superstrings%205-6.pdf
(ch. 5-6)
that he found NO failures in the sense that Besant and Leadbeater's account was inconsistent with both nuclear physics and quark theory, once one has freed oneself away from the assumption that they had described atomic nuclei (something McBride fails miserably to do, thereby making all his criticisms of their work irrelevant). The minor discrepancies between a few details and theoretical expectation, based upon facts about atomic nuclei and quarks, were plausibly explainable in terms of occasional, random errors of observation (human beings CAN make mistakes). The fit to the large volume of data was statistically significant (p less than 5%). Secondly, Phillips did NOT invoke "new phenomena" to explain these supposed failures (actually, non-existent!). All he did was the normal scientific procedure of showing that the few small deviations from his theory's prediction fell well within the statistical range of random errors of observation. Dobbyn's comment is totally invalid and is typical of the scientifically inaccurate and illogical judgements that he made in his critique. Phillips' research was accepted by a Fellow of the Royal Society, a Nobel Prize winner in Physics, the associate director of an Indian government nuclear research institute and the Minister of Science in the Indian government, who was a distinguished scientist. They would simply laugh at the nonsense expressed in the "Serious Scientific Lessons ..." Even its title was wrong! Besant and Leadbeater did NOT make "direct observations of atoms", despite their claim to do so. Instead, they remote-viewed subatomic particles (quarks, subquark/superstrings) in dibaryons such as the deuteron and in compound nuclei that were created from pairs of atomic nuclei during the stage of preparation prior to sharp images becoming visible to their micro-psi vision. They never described the modern picture of the atom for the simple reason that they were studying an object formed from the nuclear fusion of two nuclei. The incorrect title is typical of the inaccurate discussion carried out by McBride in his article. His analysis and conclusions assumed that the "micro-psi atoms" that Besant and Leadbeater described were single atoms. Phillips proved beyond a shadow of doubt that this was not the case. Hence, McBride's conclusions are wrong because they were all based upon a completely wrong assumption that he stuck to throughout his article, even though he was familiar with Phillips' books, which proved that it was wrong, or at least their basic conclusion! His statement:
"N.B. this evidence is non-scientific because it involves exclusively past observations and makes no testable prediction for the future"
is also wrong because Phillips' research made many predictions that CAN be tested in the future, one of which is that quarks are not fundamental but composite objects that are composed of three E8xE8 heterotic superstrings. Indeed, as Nobel Prize winner Professor Abdus Salam commented to Phillips when he gave his support to Phillips' paper predicting the existence of subquarks and published in 1979 in Physics Letters, his derivation of the experimentally observed t^(-2) behaviour of the proton's electromagnetic form factor (F(t) as the modulus of t approaches infinity IS evidence of quark compositeness.

I would advise people here not to take seriously the article linked to above. It made a fundamentlaly flawed working assumption about the ESP obervations of Besant and Leadbeater, which means that its negative conclusions are equally flawed and not to be trusted (McBride is a chemist, not a professional particle physicist, as Phillips has been). If you want to examine for yourselves the REAL evidence (not even discussed in McBride's article!) for clairvoyant observation of subatomic particles (again note: NOT atoms, as McBride mistakenly assumed), visit the pages on Phillips' website at:
smphillips.mysite.com...
and
smphillips.mysite.com...
where he reveals the amazing degree of correlation between the observations made for the first 20 elements in the Periodic Table and the quark/subquark composition of pairs of atomic nuclei of these elements (the analysis is extended to 56 elements in his second book). If you have the knowledge and ability to follow all the details, you will come to no other conclusion than that Besant and Leadbeater did, indeed, remote view not atoms but all the subatomic particles making up pairs of their nuclei. Of course, if you are so biassed towards ESP and the paranormal that any such evidence will always mean nothing to you, then you will still go on bleating about the impossibility of it. If so, just remember: in science, evidence always trumps personal ideology.

originally posted by: micpsi
Even its title was wrong! Besant and Leadbeater did NOT make "direct observations of atoms", despite their claim to do so.

All other details aside, that single sentence shows even you agree that their claims of viewing atoms were not reliable, therefore we can't trust the claims of these "seers" any more than any others.

In fact what your statement shows is that real science confirmed that their claims of viewing individual atoms were false. I know there's a "yeah, but..." but that's the fact even you agree to.

As for the "yeah the psychics were wrong, but" argument, this is a huge flaw I see over and over in people trying to defend psychic phemomena. They will agree, like you did, that the psychic claims were definitely wrong, and then try to present some alternative argument like "what they said was X and X was wrong, but if you try you can re-interpret what they said as Y", and then that opens up a flood of accepting as verification of dubious claims, a whole universe of things that they never actually claimed.

It's like the "Staring at goats" example. The subject was trying to kill a goat by staring at it. The goat he was staring at never died, but another goat that he wasn't staring at died. And he wanted to take credit for killing a goat by staring at it, even though he failed to do that. It's this kind of denial of the failure of psychic phenomena and then claiming the failure was a success that makes interpretation of psychic phenomena so unreliable and you seem to want to fall into the same trap. Well at least you admit the psychics were wrong. And even if you don't agree with the skeptics, hopefully at least you can understand why once you admit the psychics were wrong, they are less interested in your excuses about why the experiment failed. I mean most of your criticism of the evaluation is for taking the psychic claims at face value! What a horrible thing to do, in your opinion, but yes that's science for you, you take the claims as they are, not what you try to reinterpret them as something else you think they meant.

Also I don't see where you addressed the issue raised by Besant and the Yale article that repeatability is one of the foundations of science, and Besant said that others should be able to repeat what she and Leadbeater did, but who ever repeated it?

Occult Atoms

As Mrs. Besant would write 14 years later in Occult Chemistry, a series of Clairvoyant Observations on the Chemical Elements (1909):

The method of examination employed was that of clairvoyance; there were only two observers - Mr. Leadbeater and myself - and it is very desirable that our results should be tested by others who can use the same extension of physical sight. The researches being carried on upon the physical plane - the forms examined being gaseous and etheric only - a very slight intensification of ordinary vision is all that is necessary, and many should, therefore, be able to test our observations. They cannot be regarded as established, by the outside world, until others have corroborated them; and we put them forward in the hope of stimulating work along this line, and of thus bringing to science, when its instruments fail it, the old, old instrument of enlarged human vision.

So it appears that Besant understood the importance of the repeatability aspect of scientific claims, and perhaps she would be dismayed to learn that nobody ever satisfied her condition that "They cannot be regarded as established, by the outside world, until others have corroborated them; and we put them forward in the hope of stimulating work along this line, and of thus bringing to science, when its instruments fail it, the old, old instrument of enlarged human vision."

So even the ultimate source says repeatability is needed to verify it as a scientific method, and since there has never been any such repeatability, the sources own test (which is the same test required by the scientific community in general) fails.

Of course, if you are so biassed towards ESP and the paranormal that any such evidence will always mean nothing to you, then you will still go on bleating about the impossibility of it.

Actually I would like for it to be true. I played with a Kreskin ESP kit and did ESP experiments with my siblings and friends. But wanting it to be true, and finding valid scientific evidence to support it are two different things. I think you're in denial of your own admission that the psychics were wrong about viewing individual atoms, and then you complain when a reviewer accepts the claims at face value and shows they are wrong.

"How do you know if you have Clairsentience or 'clear feeling'?"

quote:

www.psychicelements.com...

a reply to: Erno86
That's the same kind of flawed thinking and lack of critical thinking skills as happens with SLIders, the SLI referring to "Street Light Interference".

Many of us have walked past a street light and noticed it turned off right when we walked past it, I know I have.
The unscientific conclusion people come to is is that correlation equals causation, or since the street light went off when I walked past it, that means I have something to do with it.

But if someone wanted to instead take a scientific approach and collect some data, they could step back and watch the light and see if it turns on and off by itself when nobody is walking past it. Some lights in fact do this, but the people who think they are SLIders dont bother with such a scientific approach, but instead rely on their own, flawed, intuition. The same effect is at work in the article you cited, people think random coincidences have some meaning, just like the SLI phenomenon. They never bother to look at it scientifically in either case, even though it's really easy to do with the street lights, and find mechanical causes for why the lights turn off and on by themselves. That's discussed here:

The Curious Case of Street Lamp Interference

But if someone wanted to instead take a scientific approach and collect some data, they could step back and watch the light and see if it turns on and off by itself when nobody is walking past it.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I know what you mean and yes I have done so. It generally happens in timing. Every 30-60 seconds for example when the light or globe is failing (Ive always assumed) but nothing spooky to it. If however I was walking toward a street light and hadn't noticed any blinking or dimming prior to and after walking past for at least 2-3 minutes. That would be kinda spooky..

I think it's funny that a term was coined for them and it became a "phenomenon". I suppose statistically there are enough street lights and people for it to be common enough..

This thread has taken an interesting turn. So back to time anyone? That was one of my main points, time having a zero point. It would relate to C and the constant is that point or close to it. It would become a timeless moment when/where time stops and all become one. Our perceived resting state is quite fast, so even at zero point one may perceive or experience it as resting. Being able to traverse the known universe almost instantly without time passing locally but still being able to observe it in slower dilation points relatively. That would be one hell of a perspective. It would take the mystery out of many things.

It's strange, from there, putting the breaks on velocity, speeds up time in one direction as we know it, moving forward toward the future and if ever proven possible, increasing acceleration may roll time back on itself. This is where I hit a road block. Even the basic diagram that I sketched shows the wave function if you plot out multiple points in time over years. I'll upload a new diagram, very basic.