owl

It doesn't. It asks how curved spacetime (sans any ontology of what it is) is vital to relativity's very accurate predictions of the curved paths of objects (and light) around other masses. In other words, you still did not answer my direct question above: "yet you do not address the question"... So your opinion about spacetime as a vital coordinate system/model for GR theory refuses to address "what it is," which, in my opinion is a vital component of understanding the proposed theory of gravity, the mechanics of how it works in the natural world... what "guides" objects in curved paths.

I am "walking on eggs" here vis-a-vis the warning above. There is a very clear difference of *opinion* here. You go ahead and speak of "spacetime" being curved as quite well established by the math in the context of the model, but yet you do not address the question, as I stated it above, "Isn't the question 'what curves besides the obvious paths of objects around other objects?'... a valid question?" Is there not a very obvious *bias* against ontology here... that "what it is" does not matter? This just happens to be a very clear *example* of the theme question, "What if personal opinion really didn't matter?"

A clarification: I said, He said: I meant to say "my examples... as differences of opinion among gravitational theorists..."... not that "Swansont replied... as differences of opinion" as if he thought they were differences of opinion. My meaning was not very clear. To make my point more clearly, GR theorists 'like' mass curving space as the 'mechanics' of how gravity works, while QM theorists 'like' an equally mysterious mechanism or agent of gravity, the graviton. This appears to be a difference of opinion as to how gravity works. So the popularity of GR here does not make it the "accepted" theory of gravity. (My bold)

How is the above nit picking about the finer points of statistical analysis on topic as above strictly mandated? Hypervalent_idodine: Further, Swansont replied to my examples of GR vs QM gravitational theories... as differences of opinion among gravitational theorists, but I am not allowed to reply. Likewise to the example of M-theory as, "math/physics with nada for 'observable referents in the world"... as per the opinion that math trumps meaning, no observable referents required. If the above gag rule applies to me it also applies to swansont and others. Ps: Just wondering how the judgment "ad naseam" is not a personal opinion. No answer required to any of the above. It would be off topic.

Of course all experience is ultimately subjective, but the challenge of objective science is to minimize bias based on personal opinion. The latter is better understood through a thorough understanding of epistemology, both a-priori (what we already know) and a-posteriori empiricism, both parts of "the scientific method." A forum which encourages respectful disagreement means, to me, not automatically assuming that "mainstream science" is correct and minority criticism automatically wrong ("crackpot"... etc.) Respectful debate is essential to science, and the more both sides transcend mere personal opinion the better for the discussion and for science. Which is correct gravity theory, GR or Quantum Theory of gravity? The jury is still out, but this forum is gung ho for GR, because the math is in fact such an improvement over Newtonian, and no more debate is allowed as to what exactly it is that "curves" in GR.... and who knows what QM's "graviton" is? (No more on that... just a mention for example.) I have great respect for scientific skepticism about speculation... therefore requiring experimental/observational verification. But having a math model or framework for the math does not make it valid. Math requires observable referents "in the world." That is why I used the M-Theory example. It has plenty of complicated math/physics with nada for 'observable referents in the world.' Yet quite well respected science in the "popular science" realm. It's all about credentials and popularity. Yes. I've emphasized your point (*...*) above as very important. I'm curious how you see M-Theory in that context.

Yes. But theoretical speculation, a vital part of science, does not require evidence. It's speculation in hope of future verification in many cases. Most cosmologies will never be verified or subjected to falsification. Like M-theory. "Respected" science or totally metaphysical speculation? Do 'they' provide evidence for the 11 dimensional universe of membranes made of assorted kinds of strings? No. But they are such well credentialed physicists. There is a double standard in effect in this forum... mostly based on "credentials" and mostly biased toward physicists opinions about ... most generally... 'the nature of things', and 'how objective are those opinions?' is the subject of this thread. But that is just my opinion. I invite unbiased science transcending opinion, if such exists here.

Just a whim. Everybody here has an opinion. What if science were totally objective in the sense of no personal opinions about what is correct science?... Just the most classical epistemology of what we know and how we know it? That would be a whole new 'science forum', and I have never seen one that was impersonal, beyond opinion, and encouraging *civil* discussion of all science, including all disagreements. Alternative titles were 'subjective vs objective' science and 'what is objective science?' I've seen no transcendence of personal opinion yet in this forum. This discussion can become more specific, but I'll leave it open for now. I'm not allowed to discuss my favorite subjects here anymore. It could have been put in the philosophy section, but my threads are usually moved to the "pseudoscience" section anyway, because I'm usually too radical in my criticisms of mainstream science.

How does that work? How do they remain parallel if they intersect, if you accept the challenge to make sense here. First, "curved spaces" are theoretically assumed after Euclidean space is discarded, without addressing the transition or its validity. "Equal constant first derivatives" is evasive lingo avoiding any explanation of non-Euclidean "intersecting of parallel lines." From Wikipedia on parallel geometry: The last quoted sentence above is non-Euclidean b.s. asserting a lame metaphysical/mathematical conjecture, "in the limit of infinity" depending on assuming theoretical "curved space" and the mystical math of infinity, all of which is derived from rejecting the 5th postulate in the first place and 'making the lines intersect', i.e., no longer "parallel." "Would have been false?" I granted "could have been." I also gave good reasons why that was unlikely, given immediate documentation in one case, agreeing with my memory as shared here, and corrected memory in the last case, already detailed in depth. In your own terms, reversed, 'you still have yet to give any reason to think the memory has been altered.' You claim to falsify my testimony. The burden is on you to give reason that it is false... and calling me a liar (perhaps just implied) or demented, without reasonable memory capacity would not be a good "reason." To my: "Please be more specific. How do you think "those questions" have already been answered?"... You broad-brush-stroke it away with a gross generalization: ... You call my well credentialed sources "idiots" in general. You take science very personally, attacking whomever disagrees with you, and all answers must agree with your own biases. I was a psychologist, not a psychiatrist, which most everyone knows, requires a medical degree. You were confused (or didn't know the difference) in your eagerness to discredit me.

I will let others here decide whether or not you did any of that. More personal insults... all you have to show here so far... no serious argument on the points of dispute. Was that where you didn't know the difference between psychology and psychiatry, or was that someone else? That was your argument, that memory can be wrong. True, it can. So, your argument goes, therefore my memory of the event might be wrong. True, but it wasn't in this case. The context and private documents verify the accuracy of my account here.. Your disbelief, or more directly, your conviction that I am a liar does not invalidate the truth of the account as I gave it. Please be more specific. How do you think "those questions" have already been answered? The elitism of hiding behind 'You don't know the math' does nothing to address the issues I've raised here. How about those intersecting "parallel lines" for openers? Too much philosophy, or do you have an answer to how parallel lines somehow intersect in the 'new geometry' of math's "infinite?"

Modest too! (Me neither.) Physicists like to "diss" philosophy as irrelevant to science with a strawman argument that philosophy is all personal opinion about stuff like "the meaning of life." Whereas the contemporary philosophy of science considers such things as the ontology of space and time and 'what curves?' in the GR theory of gravity. Or "Are the orbital paths of the planets really 'straight lines through curved space' or, as empirically observed, actually curved (elliptical) orbits?"

Will do. Didn't intend to "hijack"... Thought I was on topic. Not sure whether your judgment ,"ontological nonsense" is scientifically valid (re: 'what do we know about time' and 'what is time?',) or just your personal judgment, but I'm outta this thread. Got the warning.

Michel, You nailed it saying: But then you go on to say: How can we even speak intelligently about time if we rule out the ontological (philosophical) question, “what is it?” As things move (and everything moves) we say “time elapses” as an object moves through space from point A to point B. Anything beyond that is “making something of it.” That includes “weaving it together with space” and calling spacetime “something” more than just a coordinate system designating “at that place at that time” or “moving from here to there during this period of time” (in conventional ‘time units’) Your quote of Etienne Kline also demonstrates “making something of it” as in: Likewise the common reference to the “arrow of time” as if it were an entity with a directional component. Of course we can speak metaphorically of the future “passing through” the present and becoming the past.... or time “flowing” from future to past... as long as we don’t take the metaphor too literally. Likewise with the “block universe” theory in which everything that has ever existed or will ever exist, in some sense exists now. That is where the famous light cone *model* takes us. Here is Wiki on Eternalism (my bold): Of course I always advocate the latter view. The "existence" of future *whatever* is nonsense. Future events no not obviously already exist, nor do past events still "exist." And "what exists" (in the present) does not depend on when we know about it, i.e., travel time for light/info to travel through space. Finally, you say, ...”the entire reality passes through, and not time itself.” “Passes through?” Reality happens (*is happening.*) Things move. It “takes time.” Seems like much ado about nothing to me, ever since we conceptually merged time and space and then mistook this very useful coordinate system for Reality.

"Non-local consciousness" in Bohm's model IS his "implicate order" in which consciousness itself *transcends" the limits of of individual consciousness. That would explain telepathy. Continuing with your *quite off-topic* tirade against chiropractic, you pretend medical expertise as follows: Thank you, Doctor. My neck vertebrae were whacked out of alignment when I fell. One or both of my two vestibular (balance) nerves was pinched between two dislocated (out of alignment) vertebrae. It was painful and I was staggering with impaired balance. The chiropractor fixed it. The result was immediate. I am now done with this off topic distraction. She had the pictures but, yet again, my father did not see them until the experiment was over. Your options are to believe it or not, and, as I've said repeatedly, I really don't care that you choose "not." The way I know that she didn't show him the pictures is that we were all honest people with full integrity in our intent to do this honest investigation, this experiment in telepathy. Therein was the "control" that they were not deceitful in this experiment. You believe they were. See above. End of conversation.

iNow: Sorry to have annoyed you with questions like “What is it?,” while relativity, for example, has no use at all for the ontology of “What is time... or space... or spacetime?” ... as long as the conceptual framework, the coordinate system, works to support the math and the ‘new,' conceptual geometry/cosmology where parallel lines cross and the shortest distance between two points is no longer a straight line ('extrinsic curvature' and all.) View PostA Tripolation, on 17 March 2012 - 06:33 PM, said: How about, the question, "Does reality depend on observation or does the world exist ‘as is’ on its own?" Too philosophical for science? If the former, lengths and distances depend on observation and vary accordingly. If the latter, varying measurements do not indicate varying distances between things, or lengths of things (like earth’s diameter or atmosphere thickness). It is a very important philosophical distinction between “everything is relative” (to frame of reference) and “everything is as it is, regardless of frame of reference." (No absolute implied in the latter. Just science’s challenge to “see” things as they are, from the most accurate position for observation... At rest with observed object or distance.)

_your post was quite negative. Instead of putting new information, you are destroying the few we have. Please do not automatically include me in your “know one exactly knows” assumption above. I did not intend to be “negative”, and my information (and "knowing") about time is not “new.” I am not “destroying” anything but only questioning your assumptions about time.

No one is saying that "space itself is conscious." If consciousness is "non-local" as used in Bohm's sense, that would help explain telepathy. Of course it's all still speculative, but that doesn't make it all wrong. About my pinched nerve. You are in serious denial of the facts. I'll fill in more detail. I had fallen off a scaffolding (a plank broke) and hit the ground hard, racking the hell out of my neck. The third cervical vertebra was pinching a nerve, very painful, and my balance went way off. After a couple of days, I went to a chiropractor. He saw and felt that the above vertebra was physically out of alignment. He did what he was trained to do, gave it a jerk ("cracked my neck") and the pain went away; and my balance was restored. Your prejudice against chiropractic does not make all of that wrong, nor does your prejudice in general against the topic of this thread make the whole field just a bunch of crackpot crap. As I've said repeatedly, I do not expect to persuade skeptics out of their skepticism. I am just telling the truth about what happened. You still don't get the controls. My father never saw the pictures until after the experiment was over. My mother saw them, and I "sent" them. It is true that she could have been "sending" the images telepathically too. So there was no control to isolate which "sender" (or both) was his source for the images he "saw." Either way, telepathic transmission of the images was confirmed.

michel, I am sorry if my post of 3/20 intimidated you. I thought you were serious about discussing "what we know about time," and I considered each of your points respectfully. I really wish you would reply to my post. Tell me how you think I am wrong at least. This is a scientific discussion of what we "know" about time, is it not?

Exactly! “What happens when we let parallel lines cross” is that we mentally kick off a whole new *model* of reality called “non-Euclidean geometry” and its resulting cosmology. (Not arguing with the math here.) Then parallel lies do cross in a mental mathematical “infinity.” (Ignore that if they cross they are not parallel.) And, even more fundamentally, the distance between two points is no longer a straight line but a conceptual line on a curved model’s surface, no longer straight because, of course, it is “drawn” on the curved surface of a conceived sphere. No more straight lines. Even planets’ elliptical (curved) orbits, *as empirically observed,* are now conceptually, 'intrinsically' straight lines in an 'extrinsically' curved *conceptual* “manifold”... of various descriptions... parabolic with negative or positive curvature, or the good old sphere as a model of space. ... “curved space”... curved empty volume... quite a concept! (No arguing with Einstein or Minkowski allowed.)

With all due respect for your wish to keep this inquiry scientific and avoid philosophy/onbtology of time, I must disagree with some of your "we know" assertions above. #1; check. Agree. Regarding #2: We know that higher gravity fields make clocks oscillate ("tick") more slowly. This is what we observe, which is the essence of empirical science. But your statement: ...Goes beyond what we observe empirically, as I said above, and asserts that time 'itself' ('an entity') has a "rate and that 'it' "flows" slower where gravity is stronger. 'It' must be an entity of some kind to "have direction." The commonly used phrase, "arrow of time" is a misleading metaphor which supports the *assumption* that time is "something" that is going somewhere in a certain "direction." "Related" how? Are you assuming that time is an agent of causation rather than a description of what "elapses" (in various conventional time units) as things move? And how does light traveling at 'c' become an agent of cause? What do you mean by "linked to space?" We all know that "it takes time" for light and info to travel through space and for all things to move, so I'll go with that as a "link" without the reification factor, making "something" of time. Given that "spacetime" is a coordinate system, a model that works for relativity, I must ask what you mean by the ontological assertion that it "exists" (other than as a model or map.) You are claiming that "we know" that time and space can be interchangeable for different "observers." Since ontological discussion of what time and space *are* is not allowed, being merely philosophical, how can you seriously assert that "they" are interchangeable "for" different observers, whom, of course have different realities depending on their different perceptions... no 'cosmos as it is' independent of observation allowed here as an alternative "what we know." As you can see, I took your invitation seriously, told you what I know about time, and corrected your *assumptions* about time which you assert as proven knowledge, "what we know."

No, it's not like that at all. The inquiry into consciousness acting at a distance using Bohm's theory of "an implicate order" based on a possible quantum field beyond individual consciousness... is nothing like creationists asking evolutionists to disprove god. So... theoretical speculation on how consciousness might reach across space, a non-local phenomenon based on a variation of the quantum model has no place in science? You say: I went to a chiropractor with a pinched nerve causing severe pain and he “cracked my neck”, the “adjustment,” and that relieved the pressure on the nerve; and the pain went away. In what universe is that not evidence to support it? Your last rely to my description of the above was, “Regression to the mean.” Well, that sure explains it! About the family telepathy experiment shared above; (For the general reader who may have been confused by my memory lapses revealed in detail above...): I am sorry that I remembered some details wrongly between my writing about it around '00 and my re-telling here. Before we began ( first getting me hypnotized and then Dad into receptive trance) I would browse through a few magazines which Dad had never seen and dog-ear ten pages which had images which I thought would be unambiguous to send. Mom would tear out the pages so I would not need to flip through 'zines while hypnotized to find my selected pages. Dad never saw the 'zines or the pages until after the ten trials were over. I would sit in my bedroom beside the door and go into deep hypnosis under Dad's guidance. He would then go into the living room and also go into deep trance, helped by Mom as previously explained. When ready, she would slip a page under the door and knock to make sure I was attending. I would knock back when I was well focused on the image. She would then go to Dad, say, "ready," and record what he spelled out on an alphabet board, as already explained. I have already explained the results of one such set of ten trials, in which we got 10 hits out of 10 trials (if you count a soapbox with the wrong brand name, both starting with "F.") I have already addressed the "trickery" issue. There was no trickery involved, no "audience" to trick, and no reason for them to trick me. We were serious if "home grown" investigators of telepathy. I seriously don't care who believes it or not. As I said, I have utmost respect for the role of skepticism in science, and you are all welcome to it. That factor does not intimidate me, and I have told it truthfully as best I remember it, being open to correction, as above. (I had not read my original account for 12 years or so.) As I have already mentioned, one of the "standard procedures" for this kind of image sending experiment under lab conditions involves several geometric figures. So depending on how many figures, the odds that the subject would be able to guess which by chance alone is 20% for each trial if five figures, etc. I consider our experiment "extraordinary" beyond the above statistical standard because of the "astronomical" odds of guessing accurately on each trial from all possible images in a magazine. The 100% run of hits speaks for itself. I'll leave it there for now. Just felt the need to clear it up because of my previous memory lapses.

Ringer: Just skimming before the traditional party. Wondered, off the top, what "problems" those were, in your mind. I'll get back to you soon. Not gone for the weekend after all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicate_and_explicate_order_according_to_David_Bohm An “Amazon” intro to his book: Another on “Bohm’s Gnosis: The Implicate Order” http://www.bizcharts.com/stoa_del_sol/plenum/plenum_3.html You: If it turns out that the brain works like a quantum computer it would have "game changing" implications for consciousness studies. How that might integrate into the field of the transpersonal psychology of consciousness remains to be seen. (me): You: Let me get this straight. If lots of experiments are done with people with no 'psi gifts', and the null hypothesis is confirmed (no psi effects evident), that would "damage the validity of your data of the previous experiment" where there was excellent evidence* of his gift. (*My memory lapse was about mechanical details of image source media and my state of mind as sender, not the essence of the experimental evidence.) I don't think so. I'm not saying that such an experiment could not be faked; only that it wasn't in our case. We had no credentials other than my dad's local renown, and we did not submit the results for publication. It remains an anecdote. I do want to clear up one more detail that my memory got wrong. After review of the original account some 12 years ago (quoted by md), I still said: "They (ed: the mag pages) were both dog-eared (pre-selected) and then torn out for easy access as a stack of ten pages on my table." Not a "stack of ten pages on my table," but given to me one at a time. I knocked on the door when focused and "sending." Could have been but wasn't. We took both demonstrations of hypnosis and experiments on telepathy very seriously. Sorry you can not verify that. It doesn't. It has to do with what I've been saying and the difference between anecdotes or even anthropological studies ('not evidence') and "hard core" extremely rigorously controlled lab experiments ('good evidence.') Cap 'n R pointed out early that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, especially in light of the pitfalls of statistical analysis he pointed out. I offered the above experiment as an example of extraordinary evidence. I pointed out the difference between statistical analysis of "standard procedure" image "sending" experiments, some using just a few geometric figures, and ours, in which the "odds" against guessing the images I sent would be "astronomical" in the first place... and that we had near perfect results. My memory lapses revealed above were trivial to the essence of the experimental results... unless you believe that my being hypnotized was for the purpose of my parents' deceiving me. I don't think the argument, 'What if they were frauds'?... (or even just playfully screwing with my mind)... is a good one. (And hypnosis as in the earlier demonstrations of the power of consciousness to "re-create reality" for the subject is not usually considered "lying") My previous account with my son had been documented in my journal soon after the incident, and the essentials were the same as told here.

I just reviewed my website piece from which md was quoting and comparing versions of the telepathy experiment in question. I think I wrote the original version (above) around 2000 when I first put up my website. (No reference offered... a spiritually focused site... no need to bring on more heat in a science forum.) My memory has clearly eroded since then, as that was the accurate version. I was in hypnotic trance for the "sending," not in a normal state of consciousness, as posted above. I was hypnotized to be a totally focused transmitter of images. The confusion lies in the following quote from my site: I would browse the magazines ahead of each experiment session and dog-ear pages with images that appealed to me for easy focus. As it turned out, Mom would tear out the pages and put them on my table. They were both dog-eared (pre-selected) and then torn out for easy access as a stack of ten pages on my table. I think one of my five sibs still has the records of those experiments, including the sets of magazine pages, each with Moms record of Dad's "spelling it out." I'm going to find out who has those archives and review them. How do you see that as different from telling it as I see it as best I can remember it? It depends on what we agree to accept as evidence, doesn't it? None of the results of our image sending experiments, "fit into accepted theories." That was our intention in that series of experiments, repeating the results several times (not all 10 out of 10.) I can think of no other possible explanation of the results than that he "saw" what I "projected" without any known means of communication. If I may substitute "transpersonal" for "parapsychological" (a more contemporary field of psychology), both our telepathy experiments and my "seeing/feeling" my son's urgent crisis were not just individual psychological effects but clearly transpersonal.

(me) md: (see his post above) And this is called a science forum. .. 'no, I haven't read it, but...' Yes, you were wrong. Read the thread before you continue to spout off. Note: There are distortions of my memory of the above episode. ( Edit: I was only 6 or 7 yrs old at the time of the hypnosis demonstration. I was around 12 during the telepathy experiment. The details change in my mind... quite true... but the overall experiment was as I said. Dog-eared or torn out... damn! Set aside for sure.) md is right to show the discrepancies in my memory and accounts. (He seems to have stalked me for a long time. Not an accusation, just my perception of him.) I'm 66 and losing some memory pieces. It's all true as I remember it. Not great evidence for science, but true testimony... with obvious memory glitches. There it is. The "fight" over it isn't really worth it. Materialists will remain materialists, and there is no reason (for them) to "believe" otherwise. Having (having had, technically) the gift makes me a target for skepticism, and many 'sharp-shooters' are gunning for psi frauds. Skepticism is a very good thing for science. I'm a bit weary with the battle. I'll see how it goes after the weekend.

It is true that I was given a "post hypnotic suggestion" to forget what happened under hypnosis, as my father thought it my be difficult for me to integrate into 'normal life.' My brother, however, sometimes "filled me in," though I don't presently remember him using "hushed tones" ( perhaps more fabrication as if it was all a very sinister endeavor.) You say: Yes. The way hypnosis works is that, once hypnotized, the subject is in a state of "suspended disbelief" and accepts what the hypnotist "suggests" as "reality." That is the only way hypnosis can work. It is false to call these principles of hypnosis 'trickery' in the sense of some shady or sinister motive, as to imply a lack of integrity in the demonstration. Here you again assert the intentional obfuscation to confuse the two situations above. Same applies to your: Have you read the thread? Must I keep repeating? The study of consciousness has many fronts including theories of the individual brain as a quantum computer and theories of "transpersonal consciousness" based on variations of the QM model (physics.) I've had a lot to say about how a very well controlled lab environment and/or a harshly critical environment can disrupt or "blow away" some of the more "sensitive" requirements of psi phenomena, as they often depend on a supportive environment. (Not conspiracy, but, being among "friends" often helps.) In these cases, anthropology is more productive at "sifting the wheat from the chaff." The elitist attitude of the 'physics department' here doesn't have much use for science other than physics, as I see it. If I am wrong... fine. It's a peripheral point anyway.