Saint Germain

No, I am answering the initial question. If I wanted to convince you, I'd publish results of studies, but this is not my prerogative. I wouldn't be so sure that it's only misinterpretations, and that the only scientific instrument used was an analytical balance. The facts and interpretation are a bit distorted. Especially with the "incompetent chemist", and the direct link with the pyramids - very well put, and I'm sure it will give a good laugh to the "oh come on, this is crap, everyone knows this, because if it were true, everyone would know about it" people, those who trust that the majority is right and well-informed. Many years have passed since Hudson, and many more studies have been performed. I know for a fact that the people at www.treasurealchemy.com will publish something in the near future, including results of spectrography analysis (I think this is a first time studies of this type will be published). You're right, this discussion has lasted long enough, we're going in loops of repetition. All the best to all of you, have a great holiday time with your loved ones. For the last time, Saint Germain.

We have to separate the analysis from the use. We know pretty much all traditions had knowledge about this powder, its use and its effects of humans. It doesn't mean they knew all the results of all the measurements that can be performed on it. One does not need to have measurements to engage in the use. Yes, you could do that, but it gives you only relations for specific weight relative to the temperatures. With TGA - you get the evolution of the weight when the temperature changes. And besides this, I don't know about the levitation of the powder - I have not personally witnessed it, or heard such a thing from someone I know. I wouldn't be surprised if it were true, but I can't give you comments of this from my experience.

Yes, this has been measured with TGA (thermogravimetric analysis).

I'm glad that you also trust how perfect and complete your worldview is to be able to call things "big brown pile" with such certitude. No, did not mention that. I'm actually curious about this, how can you calculate this required energy? (really) Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Mistake from me then - I probably meant "absolute time and absolute space" Where did I say different versions of reality? Although some serious scientists do support the multiverse theory. When I mean by subjective is that it is - to a degree - dependent of you (the observer) - not independent. Most scientists agree that it has no sense to separate the observer and the observed. In other words, observing isn't innocent or passive, it is active. We can even go further and say that what you think matters - and experiments made from labs such the PEAR (Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research) show a very direct example of this when they clearly demonstrated that intention influenced Random Event Generators working with quantum processes. They did their research for more than 25 years, and eventually PEAR closed its doors in Feb 2007 "If people do not believe the results already, it's unlikely they ever will. It is time for this work to be continued by a new generation" said the leaders of the program Drs Jahn & Dunne Scientists like David Bohm (originator of the holographic model) - suggests there is a need of a new order - and that we shouldn't try to accommodate Quantum Theory with classical physics (the same way accommodations were made with Ptolemaic epicycles). This is explained here from an excerpt of the book "wholeness and the implicate order"

The assertion was about objective reality - not absolute. Objective being independent of the observer. I agree with your remark if one uses strictly relativity - in which "what happens" is the same (although this is disputable as sequences of events are not the same) - and what changes is sequence (time), measures (space), and also masses. It's mainly quantum theory that suggests that reality is - to a certain degree - observer-dependent. As already suggested: "The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment." - Bernard d'Espagnat "Observation plays a decisive role in the event and . . . the reality varies, depending upon whether we observe it or not." - Werner Heisenberg "Every interpretation of quantum mechanics involves consciousness." - Euan Squires "When the province of physical theory was extended to encompass microscopic phenomena through the creation of quantum mechanics, the concept of consciousness came to the fore again: it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness." - Eugene Wigner "The idea of an objective real world whose smallest parts exist objectively in the same sense as stones or trees exist, independently of whether or not we observe them ...is impossible” - Werner Heisenberg

Hahaha, true.

I must say I don't know about Karl Popper - so I googled "positivism Karl Popper" and this page came out. This is a page from Trinity College - and it looked reliable. The same page states: He articulated his own view of science, and his criticisms of the positivists, in his first work, published under the title Logik der Forschung in 1934. The book - which he was later to claim rang the death knell for logical positivism - attracted more attention than Popper had anticipated, and he was invited to lecture in England in 1935. If you provide another link with another explanation, I will read it, promised. I did, very interesting. Definition of positivism: A philosophy asserting the primacy of observation in assessing the truth of statements of fact and holding that metaphysical and subjective arguments not based on observable data are meaningless. I actually feel good about not needing data or proof to deal with the world. I deal a lot with intuition, which also works in the absence of proof or data. Again, positivism is a philosophy, a way of approaching the world to study it - not a scientific truth to convince all. So I don't see why this is a problem at all besides difference of opinion. Yeah, I'm not familiar with English grammar, thank you for pointing this out. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Well, I find it fascinating that things happening in one perspective can be perceived differently in another. There is a good illustrated example here Otherwise, yes, the math is complex.

Not sure they'd agree on what A is experiencing, since the notion of time also changes things like simultaneity - but if they sit down and "translate" one's experience from A to B - they will understand the other's perspective (if it's what you meant by "as long as they know how relativity works"). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity Experience still depends on one's reference point.

I agree. I'm sorry, but I do not follow what you mean about "the first one" - you mean my friend working in cyclotrons and needing to deal with high speeds, therefore relativity?

If the notions presented to you are too strange for you to accept, there is no problem about that at all, they are strange. If by that you judge that stating that those strange facts are true is misrepresenting reality, are you implying that your view of reality is so perfect that you can tell what is a correct interpretation and what is not?

It seems this is not the case. Here: http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/phil/philo/phils/popper.html Popper was heavily critical of the main tenets of logical positivism, especially of what he considered to be its misplaced focus on the theory of meaning in philosophy and upon verification in scientific methodology. He articulated his own view of science, and his criticisms of the positivists, in his first work, published under the title Logik der Forschung in 1934. So permit me to drop the rest of your argumentation on this point. Actually, science has no clear strict definition. From wikipedia: Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is, in its broadest sense, any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome. In this sense, science may refer to a highly skilled technique or practice. There, we find what you seem to suggest. In its more restricted contemporary sense, science is a system of acquiring knowledge based on scientific method, and to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research. "In its more restricted contemporary sense" - contemporary means "now", implying that it is somewhat different than "before" - the objective is gaining knowledge - no more to predict. So it seems your opinion that you insist is correct - is no longer valid. So yes, in that sense, if you state that on a public forum, and people believe you, and adopt this definition, what you and many others will think of science is public opinion. Telepathy or other so-called "psychic phenomena" are NOT unfounded claims since many studies strongly suggest that they exists. Dean Radin's book "The Conscious Universe" is a presentation of collections of such studies (and be reassured, they have been peer-reviewed). Then ok, let's say this is true. Why is something useless if no theory to describe it exist? The real value is in its use, not the knowledge (as I have stated many times). I suggested this approach, that it is not to be understood in the context of science (= no theory exists) - but the use is the real goal. You could still use it. The knowledge about how fire starts doesn't burn, doesn't cook, doesn't warm you in the winter. The use of fire does. And there is no need to know the theory for fire to burn, and use its heat. I agree it is true that the more we know, the better we can use, but it is not necessary to know about to use. Look, it is clear that our opinions are different - but just because I do not agree with you, and justify my answers doesn't mean that I "talk down on you". I respect opinions, and I provide justifications to explain why I might not agree with some. I apologize if you feel that way, but before making such a request, maybe you could check what you write yourself. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged First of all, I formulate arguments to illustrate why I tend to not agree with a particular opinion, not to formulate arguments "against you" - there is no need take things personally. Then, if we take a definition of positivism: A philosophy asserting the primacy of observation in assessing the truth of statements of fact and holding that metaphysical and subjective arguments not based on observable data are meaningless. - it is clear that I do not agree with this philosophy. And it is a philosophy, a point of view, not science. I don't see why we should restrict our understanding to only what can be proven? Now don't get me wrong, it is nice when something can be proved (or disproved) by experiments, it allows knowledge to progress, but in the end, I will not tag something as meaningless because it has no proof. Yes, I must confess, this is true. In my covered attempts to answer a question asked by a member (not even by you) of this forum, in the attempt to know people's opinion about a subject - and who was receiving such detailed and documented answers such as All that I wanted was to formulate arguments against you. You got me. You want a hug? (now I'm a bit cheeky ;-) ) More seriously, unlike some here, I do not consider this as a fight that must be resolved with my opinion winning. There is no need to become angry because things are taken personally. I have offered information - I have spoken about my experience - and if I am firmly grounded in my position, it is because I speak from experience, not speculation.

Ok, why can't we ask of science to make an attempt to describe the nature of the world in the most accurate way possible? Who/what is the authority that can limit science to "predict outcomes accurately", and determine we can and what we cannot ask of science? There is none, only public opinion of what "science should be" make them act as if they were the authority. Where does the idea of "science needs to predict" comes from? It is rooted (again) in determinism - in the clockwork universe, which the idea that if one could know the state of the universe at a given time, one could in principle predict the future and reconstruct the past. This has been a central tenet of science, ever since Laplace's time. But again, this idea has been obsolete for quite some time (we have been aware of this through scientific and mathematical theories such as quantum theory and chaos theory). In an often quoted lecture to the Royal Society, on the three hundredth anniversary of Newton’s Principia, Sir James Lighthill even made a collective apology for science having promoted such ideas: ”We are all deeply conscious today that the enthusiasm of our forebears for the marvellous achievements of Newtonian mechanics led them to make generalizations in this area of predictability which, indeed, we may have generally tended to believe before 1960, but which we now recognize were false. We collectively wish to apologize for having misled the general educated public by spreading ideas about determinism of systems satisfying Newton’s laws of motion that, after 1960, were to be proved incorrect.” And again, this mindset thinks in absolute, true and false, possible and impossible, and so allows the dogmatic attitude to forbid and limit someone in its scientific thinking with ideas such as No one is to be blamed for thinking this way though, this is not the people's fault. Many of us are still being educated with these old mindsets, I know I have been trained to think this way by my University, and I would still be thinking that if I had not decided to expand my understanding of Nature a bit. It takes time for new ideas to permeate society, especially in the domain of science.

Actually, there is no consensus on the process of observation. Some say consciousness collapses the wave-function, you seem to prefer the interpretation that interacting is observing. I'm not sure you can reduce observation with interaction. Observation to me means interaction and perception of some form of information. Anyways, quantum physicists tend to agree that observation and observer are inseparable, which is the point I was trying to make. Of course it's the same underlying reality - but perceptions are observer-dependent.

On the contrary, observers ARE human. "The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment." - Bernard d'Espagnat "Observation plays a decisive role in the event and . . . the reality varies, depending upon whether we observe it or not." - Werner Heisenberg "Every interpretation of quantum mechanics involves consciousness." - Euan Squires "When the province of physical theory was extended to encompass microscopic phenomena through the creation of quantum mechanics, the concept of consciousness came to the fore again: it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness." - Eugene Wigner Oh, ok, I didn't know there were things on which one can speculate, and things on which one can not You see, this is what I mean by knowing that things are relative, context-dependent. Different things are true in different contexts, so one can only speak in relative, not absolute. Of course, in the objective reality world, things are absolute, so they true or not. In this world, speculations can be rejected, and claims can be termed silly - because there is the belief of absolute rightness. And again, this powder is not meant to become a scientific truth - the desire is to know about the powder, not convince. Here, you have my best guess. Will you allow me to make it? One more thing, scientists who make a publication attach their credibility with the paper they publish - not so many are ready to put their reputation on the line for such strange phenomena. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Who said dualism is materialistic? It is what has originated the idea that Nature could be studied as an absolute, totally independently of the mind. I am not a specialist there, but my understanding is that an electron can be used as a means to make the observation. In the end, the observer is still human. I have a friend who works in cyclotrons - he deals with high speeds, and therefore needs to include relativity. He has told me that when he works with two different referentials, and needs to make conversions from one system to another, everything is different big time. The point being that there is no such thing as absolute reality, no absolute time, no absolute space, ...

Not with this definition of science - forged in the 1600s, which is based on a hypothetical reality, independent of the "I". This mindset was initiated by Descartes to allow science to progress free of religious dogma. This was called dualism. Now, this hypothesis has been revealed as applicable only within a limited domain - and is not the nature of reality. What has been called the observer effect shows that it has no sense to separate the observation, and the observer - and relativity shows that everything is different when looked from different referentials. So science is a way to discover nature, but you work differently if you decide to look honestly at Nature, or if you work only within the "objectivity" of the world - since there is now a conflict between the two. Anyways, what I meant to communicate with this idea is that I respect that one might not be inclined to accept it because it doesn't fit in their perspective, especially with the belief that reality is objective - but in my perspective, it is true. Just like someone might reject the principle of satellites turning around the earth when living with the belief that the earth is flat. The two ideas don't fit together. This is true, he is making the claims, and not the PhD guy. About the paper, I don't know if such a paper has been published for peer-review, as again, it is not meant to shine as a scientific truth. One can also speculate that results need to be interpreted, and no such satisfactory explanation motivated a paper.