• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Energy/Math Discussion

is that a direct consequence of the scientific institution or the misuse of technology/knowledge developed through science?

i know that a lot of pharmacutical products are overprescribed and in a way it's very similar to legitimized drug trafficking, but is this the result of science or unregulated markets(neoliberalism)?

science is involved in almost everything in the world around us and is also responsible for making a lot of the things that happen today possible. but just because someone drops an atomic bomb on a large civilian population doesn't mean nuclear research kills people. nuclear research has also produced a lot of good technological advances.

regarding the incident posted by CEX, i agree that that looks very bad for the physics community but hopefully no one is taking their research that seriously. the article in the register stated that they circumvented the peer-review process which is rare, but as long as they're exposed for the fraud they've committed future research won't be built upon their illegitimate papers. also, the way the academic/scientific institution is designed, even if they managed to get published in a few scientific journals, they will not be adopted into the mainstream body of knowledge without tens of thousands of scientists scrutinizing their work.
 
is that a direct consequence of the scientific institution or the misuse of technology/knowledge developed through science?
Click to expand...

Niether. Its a corruption of how the institution is intended to work when special interest money controls the direction and goals of scientific research, or when the media controls what scientific information is dessiminated to the public. The institution is essentially a human institution and subject to human fallibility like any other insititution.

is this the result of science or unregulated markets
Click to expand...

Its the result of scientific research being controlled by those who have the money and power do so.

just because someone drops an atomic bomb on a large civilian population doesn't mean nuclear research kills people. nuclear research has also produced a lot of good technological advances.
Click to expand...

True but this has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Were talking about those with alot of money and power funding research with an agenda, or propagandizing science.
 
so what would you suggest to solve this problem? i don't think the scientific process is at fault here. this seems mainly like a problem to do with the power structure in our society. capital is an essential resource for everything, including scientific endevors, thus the wealthy have a lot of power over what type of research will be conducted. i think that government subsidies and certain philanthropic institutions/individuals help balance this situation, and increasing reliance on this type of funding would probably combat corporate manipulation. reforming government policies to regulate private industries more closely would also deal with the problem of corporations gaining too much power. i don't really see any reforms that could be made within the sciences themselves that would address your complaints.
 
this seems mainly like a problem to do with the power structure in our society.
Click to expand...

It is. And in many ways scientific institutions have become power structures in themselves. To address this, we need to address the deeper human problems with heirarchical power structures and the human ego.
 
gloggawogga said:
To address this, we need to address the deeper human problems with heirarchical power structures and the human ego.
Click to expand...

haha? That's a problem? Humans can be ordinally ranked, and while that situation persists, hierarchical structures will also.

As for using science to sway the masses: I remain sceptical, for the laity do not understand 'science' and are only swayed because of their own predisposition to credulity and to unswerving acceptance of whatever 'scientists' (I use quotation marks to indicate the dubiousness with which I use the impossibly vague terms that the media prefers) have reported, except where it clashes with a political ideology, in which case it is to be ignorantly challenged. The laity is not concerned with actual 'science' any more than it is concerned with the moronic human-interest stories of the day. They occupy the same level of importance.

A more eloquent discourse of the phenomenon to which I refer is found here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/badscience/story/0,12980,1564369,00.html
 
michael said:
well, here's a real surprise. david's groundbreaking theory hasn't been published. i'm sure he'll pay up on the bet we made any minute now.
Click to expand...
Thanks for bumping this Michael :) A perfect example of David's self contradicting.

I did get an email from him in August
Here you go. http://www.scienceblog.com/light.html

BTW it has nothing to do with the Phase Velocity, and Group Velocity
BS. It's substantiated as being factual.

Can you start saying how religiously you have treated everything yet.


You're such an idiot, that you can't even see your' own flaws.
Click to expand...
I checked the link, but for a "science blog", it seems to have only 1 article on light (as per the url suggests) and I checked the journals the link claims will contain the research, nothing.

I did email David back, but I got an automated "Hi, I'm away in Iraq" response.

Perhaps he's waiting for a new version of Maple to come out, to complete his research ;), though he did say it was complete last May and people in his department (you know, the ones doing Game Design) had seen it and approved.

Or he's just a compulsive liar. But then there was never any doubt about that ;)
 
zorn said:
We don't really have much of a magnetic field. Anyways, I wouldn't really say that your 'energy' was affecting the needle. I will bet you what was going on was one of two things:

1) you had picked up a static charge someplace -- know how occasionally you'll touch a person or a metal doorknob or something and get a little shock? that's just from picking up a static electric charge -- and that induced charges in the needle or whatever other components.

2) your body, being mostly made up of water, is a pretty decent electrical conductor, and therefore can function as a crude antenna. You've probably noticed how touching a TV or radio antenna sometimes really improves (or messes up) the signal... that's your body acting as a crude antenna. Being close to the needle/toner arm would alter the composition of any fields it maybe generates by itself; alternatively by picking up some RF frequency and bringing it near the arm you might have caused some interference.

These phenomena, and the EM field in general, have nothing at all to do with the vague ideas about spiritual energy or emotional energy or psychic energy or auras etc you are talking about. There is a scientific definition of 'energy' which is technical and boring and has exactly nothing to with emotion, psychology, etc. You can call that other stuff "energy" too if you want, but keep in mind that it's totally unrelated to the scientific definition of energy.
Click to expand...


Try turning on a microphone thats hooked up to a PA system. Turn the volume of the microphone up on the mixing board its hooked up to. Now, go put your hand NEAR BUT NOT TOUCHING the microphone (the head of it that you speak into) and you will create feedback. Its one of the things you do when testing mics while doing feedback reduction on a PA system.
 
^^^ You get *feedback*, from just putting your hand near the mic? Does it not happen if you touch the mike? Does it depend on how your hand is oriented, ie whether it's cupped towards or away from the speakers? Does the same thing happen if you use something besides your hand?
 
^ i know most metal objects will also do the same, but they also have magnetic fields. And yeah, its just when you put your hand near a mic, ime at least. And yeah, the closer your hand is to the mic, the more feedback you get.
 
^^ It is just noise, or is it feedback specifically (the odd sound you get if you point the microphone at its own speaker? And you said metal objects will do the same? -- what about things made out of plastic, wood, cloth, etc?

I'm wondering what this effect is. It's not because of your body having a magnetic field, b/c it just doesn't. People don't have appreciable magnetic fields. You can pick up a decent-sized electric field from static electricity -- when you get shocked sometimes touching a door handle that's what's happened -- so maybe that's causing it. Or it could be the antenna effect, like I said before. But neither of those would cause *feedback*, just noise/distortions of some kind, I'd think. If it's some purely acoustic thing, though, just from having the nearby object reflecting sound, that could cause feedback.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top