Originally posted by daskakik
In the case of RS one thing must be kept in mind, this is a theory which also explains the material world. This means that, just like other physics
experiments, they should be repeatable by anyone anywhere. You don't need fancy equipment to drop two objects with different mass and see that they
fall at the same rate. You could search online for physics experiments for children and find hundreds. If RS has merit then there should also be
explanations according to that system of these observations.
Some people seem to be quite happy for it to just be a 'mind-opening' exercise as to possibilities, they really don't seem bothered whether it's true
or not, which I find strange. It's like a pseudo-scientific backing for a spiritual belief they happen to have that interprets the universe a certain
way, so it's okay with them. And there's no precision in it so no possibility of it clashing with their spiritual belief.
Except where of course you have so rightly pointed out the inconsistencies with Monroe and Castaneda, but they'll probably be happy not to quibble
over such disparities, because it's 'science proving... (belief X)'.
... The explanation of photons moving apart at the speed of light being two units apart after one unit of time doesn't really go against the
theory of relativity. I'm not sure why this is offered as proof of it being wrong.
Probably just for the emotional need to prove Einstein, (hence 'the establishment'), wrong.
Einstein was once outside that establishment, I wonder if psuedo-scientists of the time used his new and radical theory to claim proof of their own
work, until his work became accepted into the main body of physics but theirs didn't and they turned against him?
Now today's psuedo-scientists are seeking to overturn the 'mainstream' legend of Einstein, using half-understood theories (quantum, string, parrallel,
etc) that their audience will be sufficiently dazzled by yet unable to confirm for themselves, to do so. (I'm particularly susceptible to this, I have
no way to check the maths myself and am impressed by anyone who seems to be able to string tricky words and equations together.)
It would be nice to see some highly original work being done by someone who didn't need to fufill some hero's myth of the lone romantic maverick
overturning established science, someone who was just genuinely curious and brilliant, and actually correct.
(edit.. just to make clear, I think there's a difference between fringe science and psuedo-science - fringe science will still adhere to scientific
principles and approach, psuedo-science will just pretend to in order to trick people.
As to whether this is one or the other I don't know enough to tell, but those who do seem to think it's the latter.)
edit on 17-11-2012 by
delusion because: (no reason given)