The Reality of Psi: Leading Journal Publishes Paper Revealing the Evidence

originally posted by: Woodcarver
Oh yeah, it’s my fault there’s no evidence for this.

There also seems to be no evidence for a physical world out there that is independent of consciousness.

a reply to: TheBandit795

New video related to this.

a reply to: TheBandit795

Just thought I'd add this in here rather than start a new topic.

Over the weekend, I was out watering the lawn and a bright green and shiny wasp landed on my arm. I flicked it off before it could sting me, but it was enough out of the ordinary that I took note of it. I don't ever remember seeing a green wasp, and I certainly wasn't thinking about one. But since we had been talking about coincidences and synchronicities, I made a mental note of it. Remember "green wasp" when it pops up again.

A couple of hours later I was watching some YouTube videos and I was glancing through the "recently uploaded" videos for something interesting. And sure enough, about 5 links in, there was a picture of a bright green wasp emerging from the body of another insect host. I had not been searching for wasps or anything earlier. The channel was one I had never seen. It was recently uploaded, and wasn't there the previous day, so I didn't see it before.

I had to laugh. Green wasp. One thing I thought was interesting about it was that it wasn't my idea. The wasp landed on me. I didn't seek it out, and it wasn't one of the random thoughts I generate during the day. It was a real physical thing that was imposed on me.

What does it mean? I have no idea. But it involved two completely disconnected events (streams of information?) that shared a thing that was unusual enough for me to notice.

a reply to: Blue Shift

Here's one of my more memorable experiences with this phenomenon:

I travel about 400 miles round-trip to another city in my state every few weeks. There's not much traffic during the middle of the night when I travel. So, I listen to the regular FM broadcast radio and let my mind wander about any number of different topics.

A couple of years ago, I was making the trip at night, as usual. One of the things on my mind was the events happening in Germany. It was around the New Year when the foreign refugees sexually molested a number of German women.

I studied the German language for several years in school. The event wasn't being covered in the US media too well, so a couple of the sources that I had reviewed prior to my trip were written in German. Chrome's automatic translation was good. But I noticed some loss of fidelity with the way it translated a couple of adverbs.

While I was remembering some of the language basics, the thought came to me about a song from 1984 by the German band Nena called "99 Luftballons". The English version of the song was called "99 Red Balloons." I remember thinking that "I bet I'll hear this song on the radio in the next day or two."

Once I reached my destination, as I was about to turn off the car, the German version of the song came on the local radio station. It was a most satisfying feeling. I don't necessarily attribute this sequence of events to any paranormal phenomena. I simply accept it as a gift from the Universe as it once again shows me the beautiful harmony of creation.

I can understand the reasoning of those who demand a testable explanation for such a phenomena. However, due to a vast number of hidden variables, and the stochastic nature of the occurrences, it's not testable. For my part, with respect to this phenomena, I'll accept its existence without having a firm understanding of the underlying mechanisms. By realizing that nobody has all the answers, I can appreciate the beauty and mystery of the unexplainable.

-dex

originally posted by: surfer_soul


He was awarded the Nobel prize not for relativity which he is most famous for but for his paper on the photoelectric effect because it was decided by the Nobel committee that citing his less contested theory would gain more acceptance by the scientific community. So his genius was hardly recognised early on as you have it.

That's not true---EInstein was recognized as an important scientist and major contributor. The award was to "services to theoretical physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect".

General relativity was not completely proven rigorously experimentally by 1921 (it is exceptionally difficult to measure). However, the revolution in quantum mechanics was in full force and Einstein's contribution was critical to show the relationship between quantum mechanics & photons. In effect, Einstein invented the photon, and that's no consolation prize for the Nobel. The point of the photo electric effect was not merely that Planck's trick for the blackbody spectrum was a mathematical curiosity, but apparently a radical statement about physical reality.


Einstein continued to work on early quantum mechanics, groping at the underlying physical truths long before the final correct formulation came many decades later with Dirac and later QED and quantum optics field theory.

web.ihep.su...

If beam of radiation has the effect that a molecule on which it is incident
absorbs or emits an amount of energy hν in the from of radiation by means
of an elementary process, then the momentum hν/c is always transferred to
the molecule, and, to be sure, in the case of absorption, in the direction of
the moving beam and in the case of emission in the opposite direction. If the
molecule is subject to the simultaneous action of beams moving in various
directions, then only one of these taken part in any single elementary process
of incident radiation; this beam alone then determined the direction of the
momentum transferred to the molecule.
If, through an emission process, the molecule suffers a radiant loss of
energy of magnitude hν without the action of an outside agency, then this
process, too, is a directed one. emission in spherical waves does not occur.
According to the present state of the theory, the molecule suffers a recoil of
magnitude hν/c in particular direction only because of the chance emission
in that direction"

There you go, Einstein invented the photon.

Einstein also invented the primary theory for the laser, long before it was experimentally realized.

originally posted by: TheBandit795

originally posted by: Woodcarver
Oh yeah, it’s my fault there’s no evidence for this.

There also seems to be no evidence for a physical world out there that is independent of consciousness.

What? You’re going to need to explain that one in detail.

a reply to: Woodcarver

Bernardo Kastrup explains it in detail in the following article.

Thinking Outside the Quantum Box

The problem is that quantum theory contradicts our intuitive understanding of what “real” means. According to the theory, if two real particles A and B are prepared in a special way, what Alice sees when she observes particle A depends on how Bob concurrently observes particle B, even if the particles—as well as Alice and Bob—are separated by an arbitrary distance. This “spooky action at a distance,” as Einstein called it, contradicts either local causation or the very notion that particles A and B are “real,” in the sense of existing independently of observation. As it turns out, certain statistical properties of the observations, which have been experimentally confirmed, indicate the latter: that the particles do not exist independently of observation. And since observation ultimately consists of what is apprehended on the mental screen of perception, the implication may be that “the Universe is entirely mental,” as put by Richard Conn Henry in his 2005 Nature essay.

The problem, of course, is that the hypothesis of a universe whose very existence depends on our minds contradicts mainstream scientific intuitions. So physicists scramble to interpret quantum theory in a way that makes room for a mind-independent reality. A popular way to do this entails postulating imagined, empirically unverifiable, theoretical entities defined as observer-independent. Naturally, this goes beyond mere interpretation; it adds redundant baggage to quantum theory, in the sense that the theory needs none of this stuff to successfully predict what it predicts.

Btw. He goes on to explain why this does not mean it's solipsism.

It's also explained in the videos I posted earlier. Each of them have the links to the publications they reference to below the video.

a reply to: mbkennel

Not in 1905 he wasn’t, when he was working as a clerk at a patent office, and working on the papers he published that same year in his spare time. Apart from the first line of your post I fail to see how the rest contradicts what I said.

Read the link I provided or check another source. Or better yet read A brief history of everything I highly recommend it.

BTW as genius as Einstein was I’m fairly sure he discovered the photon as opposed to inventing it!

a reply to: surfer_soul

BTW as genius as Einstein was I’m fairly sure he discovered the photon as opposed to inventing it!

Actually, it was Planck who first invented the notion of quanta. Einstein took it somewhat further and came up with a good model. But neither one actually discovered the photon, both invented math to describe it.

It was Gilbert Lewis who invented the word, btw.

a reply to: Phage

Interesting I assumed it was the ancient Greek’s they were good at inventing things including words.

a reply to: surfer_soul

The word is from the Greek, indeed. But it is not Greek.

"I therefore take the liberty of proposing for this hypothetical new atom, which is not light but plays an essential part in every process of radiation, the name photon."

-Gilbert N. Lewis, 1926

www.nobeliefs.com...

a reply to: reject

I know what happens. It creates a barrier that makes it harder for me to move the wheel. Moving something with your mind is not easy, and there are ways to eliminate external forces that do not require creating obstacles for whatever energy is created/manipulated/transferred.

And I don't need your validation. I did it to see for myself what is possible. I put in the time and effort and verified (to myself) beyond all doubt that psychokinesis is possible.

I don't claim to understand it or know how it works. What I do know is that what I was doing was not a result of any sort of air movement. Try it for yourself. My guess is that you won't and you'll stay closed-minded... Good luck with that.