ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags dark matter

Reply
Old 21st July 2016, 01:00 PM   #281
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
I'm still waiting for the answer:
imagine you observe this same spinning galaxy from the event horizon of a black hole. Your clock is going very slow (relative to our clock here on Earth). So your observation of this distant spinning galaxy must be different from our observation on Earth of this same distant spinning galaxy, not? Because you have a totally different time rate passage.
Yes, and General Relativity predicts this.
Of course you might be guessing that there is a different difference than GR determines.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st July 2016, 01:07 PM   #282
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
It all depends on your definition of the concept 'supernatural'.
Einstein called entanglement 'spooky' action at a distance.
The question is: when will a sceptic person call an existing phenomenon 'supernatural'?
Under what conditions will an existing phenomenon get the status of being 'supernatural'?
Any phenomena that has been observed and documented objectively in a reproducible experiment is by definition natural.
'Spooky' does not make it supernatural. It makes it unexplained, in much the same way that firearms would have been spooky and frightening to Central American natives when the Spanish moved into the neighbourhood. A generation later they might still fear firearms but would have had an idea of how they worked.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 21st July 2016 at 02:08 PM.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st July 2016, 02:00 PM   #283
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 38,512
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Ok, possible. But imagine you observe this same spinning galaxy from the event horizon of a black hole. Your clock is going very slow (relative to our clock here on Earth). So your observation of this distant spinning galaxy must be different from our observation on Earth of this same distant spinning galaxy, not? Because you have a totally different time rate passage.
And the observed speed of the stars in the distant galaxy would still be higher that the effect produced by the visible matter.

Even when your observation is slowed down.

You measure the speed of the stars around the core of the galaxy (for a very long time) and the motion of the stars around the core will still be higher than expected.

You would in this situation have to observe for a very long time to detect their motion
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st July 2016, 02:01 PM   #284
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 38,512
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
I'm still waiting for the answer:
imagine you observe this same spinning galaxy from the event horizon of a black hole. Your clock is going very slow (relative to our clock here on Earth). So your observation of this distant spinning galaxy must be different from our observation on Earth of this same distant spinning galaxy, not? Because you have a totally different time rate passage.
Yes, it means that you will have to observe for an extended period to determine teh motion of the stars in the spinning galaxy
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st July 2016, 03:03 PM   #285
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,140
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Science must be taken seriously: when the theory is been falsified by the experiment, one has to accept that one was wrong.
You need to read and understand the science, Maartenn100.
The theory that has been falsified by the LUX experiment is that specific dark matter particles exist that can be detected by the LUX experiment. Everyone accepts that !

The LUX experiment does not invalidate the strong evidence that dark matter exists.

Last edited by Reality Check; 21st July 2016 at 03:08 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st July 2016, 03:06 PM   #286
RussDill
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Charleston
Posts: 5,385
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Because, according to my theory, the field of gravity of the observer is like a 'lens' through wich you observe an amount of dark matter or an amount of expansion of space. And this lens determines the amount of dark matter/dark energy you observe. It gives you a relativistic observation.
Ah, so if we did observations in a weaker gravitational field, we would observe different things. Too bad we don't have an observatory that is in a weaker gravitational field, floating out in space or something.
__________________
The woods are lovely, dark and deep
but i have promises to keep
and lines to code before I sleep
And lines to code before I sleep
RussDill is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st July 2016, 03:14 PM   #287
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,140
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
The 'missing mass'-interpretation is actually caused by an observation of relativistic gravity. ...
That is an alternate fantasy about an imaginary "relativistic gravity", Maartenn100.

There is an actual relativistic gravity called General Relativity which cannot explain the existence of dark matter. This is why some scientists are trying to modify GR to explain dark matter !
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st July 2016, 03:20 PM   #288
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,140
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
The fact that everything, even you, is 'propabilistic' until being detected is supernatural to me.
An ignorant (wave functions are deterministic and give probabilistic detections in some interpretations) opinion about QM, Maartenn100.

In the real world, science is judged by its results. QM is one of the best tested theories in physics.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st July 2016, 03:31 PM   #289
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,140
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
But imagine you observe this same spinning galaxy from the event horizon of a black hole.
But also imagine that you know about the physics of black holes, Maartenn100 ! That observer will know that they will measure a different rate of time from a different observer.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st July 2016, 04:26 PM   #290
RussDill
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Charleston
Posts: 5,385
Which leads to an interesting physics question, it's well understood what you see if you observe someone falling into a black hole. And what you observe when you fall into a black hole. But what do you observe if you watch someone falling into a black hole while you are falling into a black hole?
__________________
The woods are lovely, dark and deep
but i have promises to keep
and lines to code before I sleep
And lines to code before I sleep
RussDill is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd July 2016, 03:30 AM   #291
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,091
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Ok, from your perspective, it's as you describe it.

I interprete this as: falsification of dark matter theory.

It's a matter of interpreting the results.
No. You may not like it, but the WIMP theory has not been falsified because the WIMP theory covers more energy ranges than what is tested.

The dark matter theory is more than WIMP, because dark matter can consist of non-interacting massive particles, so the dark matter theory cannot be falsified by these kinds of experiments at all.
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd July 2016, 05:58 AM   #292
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 19,126
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Ok, from your perspective, it's as you describe it.

I interprete this as: falsification of dark matter theory.

It's a matter of interpreting the results.
No it's not; your assertion (that the Dark Matter hypothesis has been disproved) is simply untrue.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd July 2016, 05:59 AM   #293
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 19,126
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
By the way stronger field of gravity and weaker field of gravity can be expressed mathematically. It represents an amount of gravity. So, there is your math.
Still dodging I see.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd July 2016, 06:01 AM   #294
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 19,126
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Your theory seems to be whatever you need it to be to fit whatever you are claiming is evidence this week.
Exactly.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd July 2016, 06:02 AM   #295
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 19,126
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
The fact that everything, even you, is 'propabilistic' until being detected is supernatural to me. It cannot be explained with what we know about nature.
Entanglement can't be explained either with the laws of nature as we know it.
Therefore, we can can give quantumphysical phenomena the status of 'supernatural phenomena'. Phenomena which cannot be explained with our best scientific knowledge about nature.
So we can keep Quantum Mechanics on the (long) list of things you don't understand.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd July 2016, 06:21 AM   #296
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
But also imagine that you know about the physics of black holes, Maartenn100 ! That observer will know that they will measure a different rate of time from a different observer.
"Standing" on the event horizon of a black hole, wouldn't all the stars be blue shifted due to the gravity well?
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd July 2016, 02:30 AM   #297
TheAdversary
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 1,548
Originally Posted by Maartenn100
I'm still waiting for the answer:
imagine you observe this same spinning galaxy from the event horizon of a black hole. Your clock is going very slow (relative to our clock here on
Earth). So your observation of this distant spinning galaxy must be different from our observation on Earth of this same distant spinning galaxy,
not? Because you have a totally different time rate passage.
You don't seem to understand the concept of invariance. The laws of physics should be formulated in such a way that all observers agree,
regardless of their frame of reference which includes time as a dimension. In Newtonian mechanics time is considered an absolute,
the same for each observer but in GR time can be different for different observers. That's why they talk about 'proper time' which all
observers can agree upon. Following GR, the most invariant theory of all, it doesn't matter that you're within the event horizon of a black hole,
the theory breaks down at the singularity. But even though this model has been proven to be very accurate, it still cannot explain the motion
of spinning galaxies properly. Dark matter or some kind of modification to the theories are reasonable options.
TheAdversary is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd July 2016, 02:58 AM   #298
TheAdversary
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 1,548
All the theories predict a much more spread out pattern, not the much more beautiful swirly pattern we all know and love. Maybe Nature just prefers Aesthetics in this case?
TheAdversary is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd July 2016, 08:57 AM   #299
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,091
Originally Posted by TheAdversary View Post
Following GR, the most invariant theory of all, it doesn't matter that you're within the event horizon of a black hole, the theory breaks down at the singularity. But even though this model has been proven to be very accurate, it still cannot explain the motion of spinning galaxies properly. Dark matter or some kind of modification to the theories are reasonable options.
Correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand it, dark matter is not a correction to GR, and GR has no problem with the spinning of galaxies. The problem arises with the standard model of physics because the dark matter that can be observed by applying GR to the observed motions of galaxies has no known place in the standard model.
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd July 2016, 09:32 AM   #300
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 11,973
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
Correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand it, dark matter is not a correction to GR, and GR has no problem with the spinning of galaxies. The problem arises with the standard model of physics because the dark matter that can be observed by applying GR to the observed motions of galaxies has no known place in the standard model.

Well that's the dark part, that the mass we can observe (by electromagnetic radiation) doesn't match the mass we observe by the rotational motion (GR). It is referred to as dark or weakly interacting becouse it doesn't appear to interact or only interacts very weakly with the electromagnetic force. That is if my memory serves me.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd July 2016, 09:36 AM   #301
TheAdversary
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 1,548
Originally Posted by steenkh
Correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand it, dark matter is not a correction to GR, and GR has no problem with the spinning of galaxies.
The problem arises with the standard model of physics because the dark matter that can be observed by applying GR to the observed motions of galaxies
has no known place in the standard model.
You can say the same thing about Newtonian mechanics. If you apply Newtonian mechanics to the spinning of galaxies, the theory starts predicting
large quantities of mass to account for the fact that the stars futher away from the center have a much lower orbital velocity than the theory
predicts using the amount of mass we can observe. So either the theory needs to be modified, or more mass is needed. Mass that, for some reason,
we haven't been able to detect. The fact that tried and tested theories point in this direction counts as scientific evidence then.
Candidates for dark matter could be the mass of neutrinos. But it could also be non-baryonic completely.
There is an observed gravitational effect. What that is and whether it fits the standard model or not are further questions.
TheAdversary is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th July 2016, 01:42 AM   #302
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,091
OK, so either GR is wrong because there really is only the mass that we can observe with EM radiation, or the standard model needs to describe how the relationship is between EM, and the mass.
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th July 2016, 12:55 PM   #303
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,386
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
OK, so either GR is wrong because there really is only the mass that we can observe with EM radiation, or the standard model needs to describe how the relationship is between EM, and the mass.
Hmmm ...

How about "GR is extremely good, but not good enough", similar to "Newtonian gravity is extremely good, ..."? There have been several GR extensions/replacements proposed; so far none really cuts the mustard (AFAIK).

"standard model" is ambiguous; it can refer to the Standard Model of particle physics (electrons, quarks, Higgs, etc), and also to LCDM (Lambda Cold Dark Matter) cosmological models.

While the former seems to be extremely good - not much hint of any BSM (Beyond the Standard Model) physics - there are mysteries, such as neutrino masses. Various SM extensions/replacements do include weakly interacting - even sterile (interact with other particles via gravity only) - stable particles (by definition, they are electromagnetically neutral), but only a tiny fraction of the "space" for these has been explored so far (though for WIMPs it's looking bad, per the latest LUX results).

The worst/best possibility might be BOTH a modification/replacement of GR AND a heavy, sterile particle produced by symmetry-breaking at energies just a tad below Planck!
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2016, 01:43 PM   #304
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 38,512
Originally Posted by TheAdversary View Post
You can say the same thing about Newtonian mechanics. If you apply Newtonian mechanics to the spinning of galaxies, the theory starts predicting
large quantities of mass to account for the fact that the stars futher away from the center have a much lower orbital velocity than the theory
predicts using the amount of mass we can observe.
They have a higher orbital speed than predicted, as though there was unseen mass accelerating it.
Quote:
So either the theory needs to be modified, or more mass is needed. Mass that, for some reason,
we haven't been able to detect. The fact that tried and tested theories point in this direction counts as scientific evidence then.
Candidates for dark matter could be the mass of neutrinos. But it could also be non-baryonic completely.
There is an observed gravitational effect. What that is and whether it fits the standard model or not are further questions.
Also neutrinos are leptons and therefore non-baryonic, the dark matter could be like them or an unknown baryon.

I could be totally wrong as well

__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar

Last edited by Dancing David; 26th July 2016 at 01:45 PM.
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2016, 01:46 PM   #305
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 38,512
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
OK, so either GR is wrong because there really is only the mass that we can observe with EM radiation, or the standard model needs to describe how the relationship is between EM, and the mass.
Psst, the standard model allows for WIMPs as dark matter , like neutrinos...

__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2016, 02:43 PM   #306
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 54,715
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
"Our theory suggests that the age of the universe could be infinite," said study co-author Saurya Das, a theoretical physicist at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada.

http://www.livescience.com/49958-the...-big-bang.html

I agree. A relativity of time (age) is not compatible with an idea of a fixed age of the universe.
But not in the mainstream of universe ideas, nor remotely proven. And you simply do not have the physics background needed to have the opinion you have on it. Their theory is unproven so far. And, thus unaccepted. If that changes we can look at/use it here, but otherwise, not really.
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2016, 02:46 PM   #307
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 54,715
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
But also imagine that you know about the physics of black holes, Maartenn100 ! That observer will know that they will measure a different rate of time from a different observer.
That would be a big imagine!!!!!!!
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2016, 03:59 PM   #308
Maartenn100
Illuminator
 
Maartenn100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,025
Masaru Emoto was right, study shows

"The hypothesis that water “treated” with intention can affect ice crystals formed from that water was pilot tested under double-blind conditions. A group of approximately 2,000 people in Tokyo focused positive intentions toward water samples located inside an electromagnetically shielded room in California. That group was unaware of similar water samples set aside in a different location as controls. Ice crystals formed from both sets of water samples were blindly identified and photographed by an analyst, and the resulting images were blindly assessed for aesthetic appeal by 100 independent judges. Results indicates that crystals from the treated water were given higher scores for aesthetic appeal than those from the control water (P = .001, one-tailed), lending support to the hypothesis."

http://www.explorejournal.com/articl...327-2/abstract

So, end of discussion: intentions can influence the physical structure of matter i.c. the structure of water. We exist of water, we influence the health of our physical body by our intentions. So prayer etc. influences the world. That's a logical conclusion based on this scientific study.
__________________
spacetime exists 'outthere'. It's all events together.
We, minds, experience moment by moment the unfolding of events. But that's not how the phenomena exist outthere. In spacetime all events already exist simultaniously. Only the interaction with a mind, establishes the experience of time

Last edited by Maartenn100; 30th July 2016 at 04:09 PM.
Maartenn100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2016, 04:09 PM   #309
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 14,155
"...assessed for aesthetic appeal by 100 independent judges. Results indicates that crystals from the treated water were given higher scores for aesthetic appeal.."

That's not a study, that's a poll.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2016, 04:12 PM   #310
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
I always think hateful thoughts when I piss, but I see the changes that have happened in the world in my lifetime and think maybe I should stop that.
Jrrarglblarg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2016, 04:26 PM   #311
Maartenn100
Illuminator
 
Maartenn100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,025
So, only accept the results of scientific study when it fits with my prejudiced wishfull thinking as a sceptic? I get it.
__________________
spacetime exists 'outthere'. It's all events together.
We, minds, experience moment by moment the unfolding of events. But that's not how the phenomena exist outthere. In spacetime all events already exist simultaniously. Only the interaction with a mind, establishes the experience of time
Maartenn100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2016, 04:31 PM   #312
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 62,509
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
"The hypothesis that water “treated” with intention can affect ice crystals formed from that water was pilot tested under double-blind conditions. A group of approximately 2,000 people in Tokyo focused positive intentions toward water samples located inside an electromagnetically shielded room in California. That group was unaware of similar water samples set aside in a different location as controls. Ice crystals formed from both sets of water samples were blindly identified and photographed by an analyst, and the resulting images were blindly assessed for aesthetic appeal by 100 independent judges. Results indicates that crystals from the treated water were given higher scores for aesthetic appeal than those from the control water (P = .001, one-tailed), lending support to the hypothesis."

http://www.explorejournal.com/articl...327-2/abstract

So, end of discussion: intentions can influence the physical structure of matter i.c. the structure of water. We exist of water, we influence the health of our physical body by our intentions. So prayer etc. influences the world. That's a logical conclusion based on this scientific study.
First, I highlighted your logical non sequitur. If studies of intercessory prayer show no affect, why would this support the effects of prayer?

Second, there are flaws in the study itself.

It was a pilot study meaning until it is repeated on a larger scale or at least by a separate researcher, you got nothing.

Their objective measure of "affected" was a subjective crock.
Quote:
To assess the aesthetic appeal of these 40 crystals,
a group of 100 volunteers were recruited over the Internet to blindly
and independently rate each crystal, one at a time, on a scale from
zero to six, where zero meant “not beautiful” and six meant “very
beautiful.” (The ratings were collected via a Web site programmed
in Perl/CGI by the first author.) Beautiful crystals were defined as
symmetric, aesthetically pleasing shapes.
Since they had a more objective measure one wonders why they then used "aesthetics"?
Quote:
The specific claim is that positive intentions tend to produce symmetric, well-formed, aesthetically pleasing crystals, and negative intentions tend to produce asymmetric, poorly formed, unattractive crystals
The samples were not treated the same as the controls.
Quote:
The treatment bottles were placed inside a double-steelwalled,
electromagnetically shielded room
(Series 81 Solid Cell;
Lindgren/ETS, Cedar Park, TX) at the Institute of Noetic Sciences
(IONS) in Petaluma, California. This room was used primarily
as a convenient, limited-access location in which to place
the bottles during the remote treatment period. The control
bottles were placed in separate cardboard boxes and stored on a
desk in a quiet location on another floor of the building
that
housed the shielded room. D.R. and G.H. did not inform the
third or fourth authors (M.E. or T.K.) about the existence of
the control bottles until after the treatment period was completed.
They claim the placement was merely a convenience, while they ignore the fact the controls were not treated the same.


IMO there's only one thing this waste of research time is good for: teaching people how to spot the problems with this research.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2016, 04:34 PM   #313
Maartenn100
Illuminator
 
Maartenn100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,025
I don't see any convincing argument here against this study.
__________________
spacetime exists 'outthere'. It's all events together.
We, minds, experience moment by moment the unfolding of events. But that's not how the phenomena exist outthere. In spacetime all events already exist simultaniously. Only the interaction with a mind, establishes the experience of time
Maartenn100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2016, 04:58 PM   #314
Steve
Master Poster
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 2,918
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
"...assessed for aesthetic appeal by 100 independent judges. Results indicates that crystals from the treated water were given higher scores for aesthetic appeal.."

That's not a study, that's a poll.
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
I don't see any convincing argument here against this study.
I don't see a study.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2016, 05:05 PM   #315
Maartenn100
Illuminator
 
Maartenn100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,025
You see what you want to see... Wishfull thinking.
__________________
spacetime exists 'outthere'. It's all events together.
We, minds, experience moment by moment the unfolding of events. But that's not how the phenomena exist outthere. In spacetime all events already exist simultaniously. Only the interaction with a mind, establishes the experience of time
Maartenn100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2016, 05:08 PM   #316
shemp
a flimsy character...perfidious and despised
 
shemp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: People's Democratic Republic of Planet X
Posts: 25,143
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
So, only accept the results of scientific study when it fits with my prejudiced wishfull thinking as a sceptic? I get it.
How would that change anything?
__________________
"Shemp, you are the one fixed point in an ever-changing universe." - Beady

"I don't want to live in a world without shemp." - Quarky

"I'll teach your grandmother to suck eggs!"
shemp is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2016, 05:13 PM   #317
Vermonter
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,017
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Ice crystals formed from both sets of water samples were blindly identified and photographed by an analyst, and the resulting images were blindly assessed for aesthetic appeal by 100 independent judges.
This is not a study. "Assessed for aesthetic appeal" is a subjective event, not objective. Where's the control? What variables did they eliminate? Salt water, tap water, distilled water, pond water, urine? Temperature of freezing? Shaken, not stirred?

Absolute garbage.
__________________
A question is asked of a scientist and a woo peddler: "Why does this do that?"
The scientist responds, "I don't know, let's find out," and begins observing.
The woo peddler responds, "It must be mystical in nature," and declares victory.
Vermonter is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2016, 05:36 PM   #318
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
... That's a logical conclusion based on this scientific study.
No, it is illogical as it is irrational.
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2016, 05:46 PM   #319
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
I don't see any convincing argument here against this study.
I don't see any convincing argument here supporting this 'study'.
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2016, 05:53 PM   #320
Magrat
Mrs. Rincewind
 
Magrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Lancre Kingdom/Adirondack Mountain Region, NY
Posts: 3,897
I keep focusing positive vibes towards the internet but I saw this post so, study shows no evidence of intelligence.
__________________
The poster formerly known as RogueKitten!
Magrat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:17 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.