What do you think of Terrence McKennas theories about DMT and it's meaning?

[Journyman16]

Again, if a subject is 'discouraged' then researchers tend to stay away. There are many fakes and charlatans in the soft sciences such as ESP - that is not proof there is no such thing.

A couple of chemists dared to trespass into physics - their careers got destroyed and the main physics dept that destroyed them is now running a course in what they discovered and publishing headlines like "MIT discovers secret of cold fusion." I would think in at least some cases, there are severe penalties for daring to publish in a different field.

In fact, many of our discoveries come from 'outsiders' or even amateurs who chase down things the consensus types would never dream of trying.

Another possibility as to why ESP/Psi effects are maybe so difficult to reproduce, apart from the hostility of the epxerimenters, is that we might have a wrong definition of what it is to be human. If people are programmed all their lives to see themselves as a body and a brain, and are told all through that time that ESP and Psi are impossible, what would you think are the chances that the average person would ever exhibit such talents?

Small synchronicities are no longer such when the sample gets large. Ask around and you'll find virtually everyone has these small synchronicities happening to them, often regularly. From dreams that come true to having a sudden thought of someone just at the time they die through to seeing presences that others don't. Either everyone in the world is crazy or there is something going on that mainstream science will not investigate and anyone who does gets the kind of reaction you have to Sheldrake.

And believe me, Science is NOT all that accepting of theories and evidence that contradicts the field they are expert in. They get most upset by such things.

Max Planck said it best, "Science advances one funeral at a time"

 

[sekio]

A couple of chemists dared to trespass into physics - their careers got destroyed and the main physics dept that destroyed them is now running a course in what they discovered and publishing headlines like "MIT discovers secret of cold fusion."

You mean the guys who came up with the idea for bubble fusion, which was not reliably duplicatable and had much suspicious behaviour?
(Gedanken experiment: if they're teaching a course about How 2 Cold Fusion For Dummies, why are there no reliably operating cold fusion reactors? Even lab scale ones?)

Tsoukalas, head of the School of Nuclear Engineering at Purdue, and several of his colleagues at Purdue, had convinced Taleyarkhan to move to Purdue and attempt a joint replication. In the 2006 Nature report they detail several troubling issues when trying to collaborate with Taleyarkhan. He reported positive results from certain set of raw data, but his colleagues had also examined that set and it only contained negative results. He never showed his colleagues the raw data corresponding to the positive results, despite several requests. He moved the equipment from a shared laboratory to his own laboratory, thus impeding review by his colleagues, and he didn't give any advance warning or explanation for the move. Taleyarkhan convinced his colleagues that they shouldn't publish a paper with their negative results. Taleyarkhan then insisted that the university's press release presented his experiment as "peer-reviewed" and "independent", when the co-authors were working in his laboratory under his supervision, and his peers in the faculty were not allowed to review the data. In summary, Taleyarkhan's colleagues at Purdue said he placed obstacles to peer review of his experiments, and they had serious doubts about the validity of the research

Does that sound like someone who has strong evidence? I think it smells of cherrypicking myself.

In fact, many of our discoveries come from 'outsiders' or even amateurs who chase down things the consensus types would never dream of trying.

Well, by your logic, they couldn't, because you would obviously lose all credibility as a mathematician if you published a cookbook.

Another possibility as to why ESP/Psi effects are maybe so difficult to reproduce, apart from the hostility of the epxerimenters, is that we might have a wrong definition of what it is to be human. If people are programmed all their lives to see themselves as a body and a brain, and are told all through that time that ESP and Psi are impossible, what would you think are the chances that the average person would ever exhibit such talents?

Years ago it was "impossible" to run a four minute mile. People tried anyway. They improved and trained and got better and now it's no longer an "impossible" barrier.

People have been trying and trying and trying to expose or develop ESP but there is never even a clear, consistent, deviation from baseline.

And believe me, Science is NOT all that accepting of theories and evidence that contradicts the field they are expert in. They get most upset by such things.

Maybe you mistake Science for Dogma. Science is not some sort of Old Boy's Club where you are either in or out. You seem to be implying that you can't ever discover new things within the framework. You don't need to be vetted by the Catholic Church either.

To be correct, science is NOT all that accepting of theories and evidence that cannot be replicated reliably.

Here's another little story.

Scientists use X-rays sometimes to determine the structure of molecules. But to do so, you need to have a well-formed crystal, and those are difficult or impossible to get for certain compounds. Some scientists thought up a way around this, by "immobilizing" molecules in basically a molecular sponge. They published a procedure and structures of molecules that have never had X-ray spectra acquired. Other laboratories found that, following the same procedure, it worked reliably and they could duplicate the results. So now we have a new scientific technique at our fingertips.

The same happened with the discovery of X-rays. Scientists discovered mysterious energy waves that could pass through solid objects and create pictures of bone. The methodology was published and people could duplicate the results. So we have X-rays.

Small synchronicities are no longer such when the sample gets large.

The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.

Also, if you think that every single person duplicating Psi experiments since the beginning of time goes in with the attitude of "this is not going to work at all" (or does not publish the data, or is supressed by the Evil Gubbmint) you are quite the pessimist.

I find it much easier to view Psi effects at a psychosocial level, not as some deeper mystery of the universe, but more as an artifact of our ability to recognize patterns. Here's some further reading on the subject.

It's also important to remember: the easiest person to fool is yourself.

 

[Journyman16]

Here you go...

The Cold Fusion / LANR Colloquium at MIT was organized by Mitchell Swartz and Gayle Verner of JET Energy and held on the campus of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) March 21-23, 2014 on the 25th anniversary of the announcement of the discovery. LANR stands for Lattice-assisted nuclear reactions, and researchers from several countries met to brief each other on their latest results on generating excess heat and transmutations.

or how about the curriculum for the course?

The Cold Fusion 101: Introduction to Excess Power in Fleischmann-Pons Experiments course will run again on the campus of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) over the IAP winter break Tuesday through Friday Jan. 20-23, 2015.

Professor Peter Hagelstein of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at MIT, and Dr. Mitchell Swartz of JET Energy, Inc., will present the course with topics such as:


Excess power production in the Fleischmann-Pons experiment;
lack of confirmation in early negative experiments;
theoretical problems and Huizenga’s three miracles;
physical chemistry of PdD;
electrochemistry of PdD;
loading requirements on excess power production;
the nuclear ash problem and He-4 observations;
approaches to theory;
screening in PdD;
PdD as an energetic particle detector;
constraints on the alpha energy from experiment;
overview of theoretical approaches;
coherent energy exchange between mismatched quantum systems;
coherent x-rays in the Karabut experiment and interpretation;
excess power in the NiH system;
Piantelli experiment;
prospects for a new small scale clean nuclear energy technology.

And if you read about CF you will discover they don't actually NEED reactors - that was MIT's problem in the first place - they'd been hitting the American people for multi-millions and these guys were doing it on a desk AND SITTING IN THE ROOM! Instead of looking at what was happening they destroyed the guys by using MIT's reputation and claimed it couldn't be real because there were no neutrons.

Science would have gone, "that's funny" and we would have had a new energy science. Instead now it's all behind closed doors.

Would you accept NASA's attempts? http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...a-nuclear-reactor-in-every-home-car-and-plane

How about someone producing product? http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...-million-times-the-energy-density-of-gasoline

Are you beginning to see the problem? MIT saw millions of dollars vanishing and used their clout to kill it. The fact they made up results, cheated and lied and had to publish a retraction made no headway at all among the public. CF is dead is STILL what most of them think - and now it is being developed by people who only want to make billions from it.

That ain't Science.

And Science is EXACTLY an Old Boy's Club - that is almost a perfect definition for how peer review now works. Once upon a time it was about getting people to double check the work - now peer review journals don't even require the data to be provided and often the author gets to suggest the reviewers. Peer Review, AT IT'S VERY BEST these days simply tells us 3 or 4 people have looked at this and not seen a problem.

They have researched peer review in several different ways and it comes up lacking as a way to ensure good science is being done.

 

[sekio]

The MIT "course" is not for credit, just FYI.

Would you accept NASA's attempts? http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/1...-car-and-plane

How about someone producing product? http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/1...ty-of-gasoline

NASA's reactor doesn't reach breakeven. It's little better than a Tokamak or the National Ignition Facility. And Rossi is a real bag of jokes, with his apparatus that begs many questions (why so secretive about a power supply for a simple set of inductive heaters? Why do they never use a calorimeter, you know, the normal type of device to measure heat emission? Why did Rossi have to be the one to load and unload the reactor? Why, previously, was E-Cat claimed as non-nuclear, but it now generates nuclear ash? Why no emission of any radiation besides heat?)

Are you beginning to see the problem? MIT saw millions of dollars vanishing and used their clout to kill it. The fact they made up results, cheated and lied and had to publish a retraction made no headway at all among the public. CF is dead is STILL what most of them think - and now it is being developed by people who only want to make billions from it.

Maybe it's because MIT doesn't like funding projects nobody can replicate. At least in the case of Pons and Fleischmann they had the wherewithal to publish their experimental setup. Half a dozen other universities couldn't replicate the findings as described. However, the fact of the matter is, it still doesn't work or we'd have people actually mass manufacturing the stuff.

This will probably be my last post in this thread. I apologize for derailing it rather thoroughly.

 

[PORB]

we individually create our own meaning, meaning is not in this universe as a standalone thing. though i would think it could be harmonized with others meanings. either way we transcend our deaths on our own terms, the substances just assist in this. as for the situation were in, i like this idea.

the universe is a semi-liquid fluid that wraps around nothing and as nothing pours into it it inflates as an fractal out into something over time. and when the drop of universe hit the pool of nothing and began expanding into said universal bubble, it created waves in this pool of nothing than carried everything but the material of this universe out around the bubble, which harmonized in to a surrounding sphere around universe, and this is what is also called among other things the hyperverse. in a way you could see, as universe inflated with timelines running back wards forwards tho maybe not symmetrically, that humans from one timeline found a way to inhabit said hyperverse, what we see as aliens, on a mission for extradition, probably because the other time line has been thrown through a loop. i also think through nature consciousness is being used to archive this universe, like in the holographic universe theory. like, future us's are assisting in the off site archiving of thought patterns, that part that calls it self "i:", probably in said hyper-verse, so in case the body gets destroyed the "i" could be uploaded back to a body, so androids could be used to explore dangerous regions of space effectively. like a future for you jump from one to the other depending on what you want to do.