mooeypoo

First off, Einstein said a lot of things. We don't follow what Einstein said, we followed the research he published, the one that has ample evidence and experimentation and proof. "God doesn't play dice with the universe" is a cool saying, but no one considers it scientific, and scientists are not in the habit of following a witty saying just because a published, famous and smart scientist uttered it. Not to mention that most of these quotes should come in context. The "playing dice with the universe" one, for instance, is used quite often to hint that Einstein was religious, when the exact opposite seems to be the case if you look at his entire life and his entire other quotes and actions. A person said something does not equal science. Yes. It's called "The Scientific Method", and it is a whole methodology on exactly how to approach these type of questions in a manner that would result in consistently describing phenomena. I don't quite understand the problem. I don't understand your point, I'm sorry. Scientists are interested in describing reality, not crushing people's inner belief systems. The fact that sometimes reality does that automatically is irrelevant. If you believe in all your heart that a ball will fly upwards to the moon if you drop it off a tall building, it's your choice. That doesn't mean this is what actually happens in reality. The way to understand and explain what ACTUALLY happens is by testing things as objectively as possible, devising a hypothesis, an experiment, a methodology of mathematics and predictions, and to make it consistently repeatable with the same results. That makes it universal, regardless of personal beliefs. That's what the scientific method is FOR.

The power of suggestion and the implication that someone was "susceptible" to hypnosis both hint that hypnosis only works on people who are susceptible to be convinced it works -- which makes it a not quite effective medical technique. Of course there's "something" in hypnosis, there's just no proof that this "something" is as powerful as you make it seem. Hypnosis is calming and relaxing and can be beneficial in psychotherapy -- mainly because of the above two effects. Relaxation and concentration, focus, etc, is always beneficial when you want to work on a specific problem or remember something specific. That does NOT make it effective in surgeries, though, and there's absolutely no proof that it can be used for that. Also, granadina, it's nice that you continue the debate, but there were questions raised for you to answer and supply evidence for. You shouldn't ignore them. ~mooey

Sorry, I don't understand what you're getting at. Einstein believed in experimentation, which strikes me as what he meant with this sentence. Part of the scientific method is that experiments and 'knowledge' in physics (new studies, etc) need to be repeatable. That means that they ARE shared with other people, otherwise they're considered a single-event thing which might be due to some error or fluke. I'm not entirely sure what you're asking.

Videos are a far cry from scientific evidence, which is what this forum requires. It's VERY easy to create a fraudulent video, whether it's on purpose with "magic" tricks or with CGI, or with hidden camera moves, or with things we just don't notice. That's why they're not evidence of anything. Ever. Case in point, here is a video proving James Randi is a psychic surgeon. If your video is evidence, this one is too. Remember: You made the claim, you need to supply evidence for it. Scientific evidence. Good luck.

You're shifting your arguments around. This is what you posted initially, so I'll answer that. That's because it's a technique. Tht's what PhDwannabe was trying to say. Hypnosis is used for specific things, and there's debate on how much it is benefitial for other things. It's not "a science". It's a technique. Some people claim it can do more than it is proved to be able to do, which is when actual scientists cry foul. Case in point: No, it wasn't verified to work in surgery. If you claim it has, you need to bring us references and evidence, otherwise you're just talking empty claims. If, then. But if not, then not. If you provide evidence and show that hypnotism can do what you claim it can, then we can discuss about what that means. Since there's no evidence to even remotely suggest that one can replace general anastesia with hypnotism, then your claim is moot. ~moo

! Moderator Note You wrote this knowing it's not. This is a mainstream science thread, and it will deal with mainstream science, not your own theory. Ending your off-topic posts with a disclaimer won't change the fact you're off topic and against the rules. Stick to your thread, owl. The rest, please get back on the original topic. If you want to discuss the implications of owl's theory, you can do so in the Speculation thread.

! Moderator Note Since the OP is not able to respond to posts anymore, this thread is closed.

! Moderator Note This (closed) thread: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/60646-dovadas-new-atomic-model/ was closed for a reason. Namely, you refused to participate in a proper scientific debate which requires you to put forth evidence for scientific claims *and* answer all the counter-claims that were posed to you. You were given ample opportunity to support your claims on that thread, and when it was clear it was going 'round and 'round in circles, it was closed. Closed threads are closed for a reason, and reopening a closed thread is against our rules, especially when you already ask another moderator and they say no. No only have you reopened this subject, but you did so by picking up where you left off, without a single shred of new (or old) evidence that support any and all of your claims. Thread closed. AGAIN. Do NOT open this again.

He might not be able to immediately understand what it does, but he would be able to (a) detect it exists, (b) figure out how it works, given time, even if it took him a bit, and © run tests that would let him understand, eventually, how it works. Telepathy is unable to produce any of the above, leading to the conclusion that there's nothing there. If and when actual evidence of anything like that exists, physicists will reconsider, research, and try to explain reality - as they always do.

! Moderator Note If it wasn't clear, my note might have pointed at a specific person, but it was meant for everyone. Baric, stop condescending. Mystery, tone things down. The rest of you, if you think someone is misbehaving, use the 'report' button so we can regain control in a civil manner rather than let the subject shift from the actual question posed to arguments about who has the biggest potty mouth. Get back on topic, guys, and be civil.

For your responsible use:

My requirement that you read and follow the rules was not a request. ! Moderator Note Greatest I am has had his posting privileges in the Religion, Ethics and Philosophy forums revoked due to his repeated disregard of our etiquette and rules of conduct, and insistence on preaching.

! Moderator Note Tone it down, physics student, you're not representing your community too well with this attitude. Nor are you in accordance with our rules.

! Moderator Note Moved to homework help, where it will likely get more attention and participation.

I actually know of a way to get into the test with Randi - he shifted the strategy a bit, seeing as a lot of bunk-claimers just wasted a LOT of his time - and now he has several approved groups to do the preliminary tests for him. This is a really easy thing to fix, Victor. Tell me which region of the world you are, I'll tell you who to contact, and you just tell me when you won the million dollars. Let's see who's the one who doesn't want to talk about real telepathy.

No, the best way to learn a rigid set of rules like science is to teach those rules to others (and even that you only do after you know the basics, and with some supervision to prevent teaching cr** to others). This isn't a scientific topic with a clear answer, this is a philosophical topic with many available possible opinions. The best way to learn each other's opinions is to listen. Stop preaching, Greatest I am. We've been giving you ample opportunity to tone things down, but you *are* going against the rules. We are here to debate, not preach. Ask questions and participate in a discussion. We tell that to theists and we tell that to atheists or agnostics or anyone else. Don't. Preach. ~mooey

To find out what kind of waves transmit telepathy you first need to prove telepathy exists. Go for it, and good luck. ~mooey

! Moderator Note Guys, please avoid getting into personal attacks. Explaining why a claim is wrong is good. Asking someone where his brain is while he writes his posts is not. Follow the rules, stay civil.

The same as what? In particle colliders, the collisions are at *incredible* speeds. The products are absolutely not the same as collisions in low velocity... I don't follow. Could you give us the reference you're using to say that both are 'the same'? I might be misunderstanding what you mean.

By the physical definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron Positron is the antiparticle to the electron, by definition. We detected 'something' (or rather, somethings ?) around the nucleus, we figured out it has quantized energetic "levels" (quantizes... quantum... quantum mechanics....) we called it electron. And then we decided that whatever is the anti particle, would be called a positron. In that aspect, it's by definition. As for what protons and electrons are made of, if one was matter and one was antimatter, they'd have annihilated themselves, isn't that the point? When we collide two particles together they annihilate themselves because of the extreme speeds, not because of matter/antimatter reaction. When atoms collide at lesser speeds they are just fine. In fact, in liquid or solid states, some materials exchange electrons when energy is given to the system, so electrons 'bounce around'. If they were the anti-particle of the nucleus, we'd have a pretty big boom every time we'd heat up a little bit of fluid. ~mooey

I have an idea about that, let me check if that's doable, I'll contact the admins with the suggested feature.

It's not a conspiracy, it's a revolution.

I am that good, baby.