and you'll never have an electronic thumb, no matter how hard you imagine you have one.
How to spot quantum quackery
- Thread starter Grat3fulh3ad
- Start date
a phonon is the quantum of sound, as far as I can remember.
The explanation for the sound therapies and for most everything we can observe is not explained by quantum mechanics.
I think much of the speculation about quantum mechanics is based on not understanding the basics of quantum mechanics...
to an electronic thumb?
btw, just ftr, Douglass Adams is on my top list of favorite people.
scientific speculation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NMqPT6oKJ8&feature=player_embedded
quantum quackery:
http://www.quantumjumping.com/lp/subconscious?sr=1&gclid=CJWv-sDTmaQCFQ8E5QodlxKtDg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NMqPT6oKJ8&feature=player_embedded
quantum quackery:
http://www.quantumjumping.com/lp/subconscious?sr=1&gclid=CJWv-sDTmaQCFQ8E5QodlxKtDg
Weird, I will admit a tendency among some of the regular posters in these threads to discuss topics that some of our membership will not fully comprehend when reading about them for the first time. Some members here have an interest in certain areas that gives them a baseline understanding of the topics before opening the thread, and using this understanding to discus the topics in a way that requires that understanding to fully interpret the posts in the way they were designed to be interpretted. If someone else wishes to get into the discussion, especially when they have a background that has generated opposing views to those already held by the core posters in such threads, it can become confrontational, but that is rarely the intention of most members. Rather than stating that what is posted is wrong, someone who doesn't have the background necessary could perhaps ask for an explanation of what they dont understand, and perhaps some of those core posters could approach the topics of spirituality with more compassion, I realise that I myself am guilty of not doing so. However you must realise that discussing spirituallity and scientific approaches to the same subject in the same thread is difficult, as the starting points are completely different. Spirituality uses an approach that can be refered to as a sophists approach, it tells a story that seems to explain why that which we dont have an understanding of, is. It is designed to generate an income for the story tellers, as the sophists would charge for this service. (The sophists were a bunch in ancient greece that socrates used to enjoy arguing/ discussing with). Science does not seek to impose the story of scientific theory, it simply states what has been seen, and says when we see or do this, then in each and every event, this happens. Therefore there is a link between the 2 things. Now if someone doesn't want to accept that, they are free to turn away and say I don't believe you, but that doesn't affect what happens when it is done again. It is provable and not a story once told by someone in order to generate an income for themselves or their group. Now in the strictest sense, psychology is not science, however when dealing with physics, we are clearly in the realm of science and not the realm of the sophist movement. So while you may look at quantum mechanics as another story that can be argued, it is actually just the reporting of what happens to A when you do B. Some people find that interesting, as they have a curiosity as to how things work and getting a glimpse of something new is interesting to them. Some sophists find it irritating to have their story proven false as it reduces both their credability and their income. Some even go so far as to attack scientific findings as being nothing more than the opposing team of sophists. When those who are interested in scientific findings/observations are faced with someone who does not approach life from a scientific point of view, it is tempting to dismiss them too easily. However in practice it is very hard to convert a sophist into a curious scientist, as there is so much which must be proven to be false before that conversion can take place. But if you genuinely have an interest in any particular conversation, but feel that it is outside of your experience/expertise, say so as you did in your recent post rather than dismissing the science outright to begin with. As when you dismiss science, those who follow science will follow your lead and dismiss your sophistry, even if it has genuine merit to those who follow it. I am willing to admit that in the past, it has had a great deal of benefit, however I am of the view that in this day and age, we have the ability to move forwards and leave it behind. Perhaps I am wrong in that, perhaps those who still follow it are wrong, or perhaps there are those who no longer need it and those who still do. All I can say is that while I do not hold any respect for sophistry in any form, if asked outright for an explanation for my beliefs I will try to explain them, as I'm sure any other poster would unless their beliefs are based on sophestry, as in this case there is no explanation other than "its what I have been told to believe" which in a great many cases, and I will be quite frank here, is the case in many scientific beliefs too. However the difference, and why some of us feel justified in dismissing those who believe because they were told to, while believing because we were told to, is that in our case, the basis for believing that scientist is that they conducted research and found it out, rather than they made it up to make a quick buck.
sound is different, you see where as light is both a particle and a wave, sound is nothing more than a wave. Its like whipping a towel at someone, rather than throwing something at them. For light to travel, a light photon is created and sent along its path, for sound to travel, nothing is generated, just the molecules that already exist in the air/water/matter around that which generates the sound, are moved, vibrated to be exact. The particular speed of the vibration generates the pitch, the faster the vibration, the higher the pitch of the sound. When you hear something, that is just the engery of the first vibration having been passed down the line of molecules between the source of the sound and your ear drum. Like those swinging steel balls on an executives desk. Nothing has left the sound source and entered your ear other than energy waves, whereas when you see light, something has left what you see and entered your eye.
phonon |ˈfōnän|
noun Physics
a quantum of energy or a quasiparticle associated with a compressional wave such as sound or a vibration of a crystal lattice.
noun Physics
a quantum of energy or a quasiparticle associated with a compressional wave such as sound or a vibration of a crystal lattice.
lol
quasiparticle–noun Physics .
an entity, as an exciton or phonon, that interacts with elementary particles, but does not exist as a free particle.
this could get tricky quickly
in physics, a disturbance, in a medium, that behaves as a particle and that may conveniently be regarded as one. A rudimentary analogy is that of a bubble in a glass of beer: the bubble is not really an independent object but a phenomenon, the displacement of a volume of beer by carbon dioxide gas, but, because of the characteristics of the surface of liquid in contact with the gas, the bubble retains a certain identity as it rises and floats. It, like a quasiparticle, carries properties characteristic of objects, such as size, shape, energy, and momentum. Two bubbles can bounce off each other; quasiparticles, too, undergo collisions. Some specific quasiparticles are the exciton, phonon, magnon, and polaron
quasi-
a combining form meaning “resembling,” “having some, but not all of the features of,” used in the formation of compound words: quasi-definition; quasi-monopoly; quasi-official; quasi-scientific.
quasi (ˈkweɪzaɪ, -saɪ, ˈkwɑːzɪ)
— adv as if; as it were
quasiparticle–noun Physics .
an entity, as an exciton or phonon, that interacts with elementary particles, but does not exist as a free particle.
this could get tricky quickly
in physics, a disturbance, in a medium, that behaves as a particle and that may conveniently be regarded as one. A rudimentary analogy is that of a bubble in a glass of beer: the bubble is not really an independent object but a phenomenon, the displacement of a volume of beer by carbon dioxide gas, but, because of the characteristics of the surface of liquid in contact with the gas, the bubble retains a certain identity as it rises and floats. It, like a quasiparticle, carries properties characteristic of objects, such as size, shape, energy, and momentum. Two bubbles can bounce off each other; quasiparticles, too, undergo collisions. Some specific quasiparticles are the exciton, phonon, magnon, and polaron
quasi-
a combining form meaning “resembling,” “having some, but not all of the features of,” used in the formation of compound words: quasi-definition; quasi-monopoly; quasi-official; quasi-scientific.
quasi (ˈkweɪzaɪ, -saɪ, ˈkwɑːzɪ)
— adv as if; as it were
Well darn..I thought for sure this thread had to be about the bullshit I spew out everyday...
GMT I am 55 and I think I've learned more from the threads and posters such as you and H3ad here at IC than I did in high school, and I was just experimenting with weed back then. Thank you guys for that...DD
DD thankyou, thats really nice of you to say, I must admit when I saw a mod enter the thread my heart sank a little expecting it to be shut down.
lol head, yeah complication is to be expected. And that phaser, wow another star trek fantasy being turned into reality lol. Though I suspect as with so many of these things, the implications for a weapon is plain to see. Crowd control, or in more serious cases, on the battlefield, the ability to burst the ear drums of your enemy would Im sure be seen as an advantage. Interesting though, while scary.
lol head, yeah complication is to be expected. And that phaser, wow another star trek fantasy being turned into reality lol. Though I suspect as with so many of these things, the implications for a weapon is plain to see. Crowd control, or in more serious cases, on the battlefield, the ability to burst the ear drums of your enemy would Im sure be seen as an advantage. Interesting though, while scary.
Last edited:
I admit I am an oddity
I am a intellectual and spiritual
let me explain in regards to modern medicine
PHds is a common level of education in my family with 3 generation of surgeon (no im not a rich privileged or a trusty i abandoned the paradigm of standard education)
I have been afforded the best in medical care including a year inpatient and decades of pharmaceuticals
and I am still intelligent to understand the dynamics of modern medicine
But at the base of my being, below my operational intellect I felt the differential in my being when i used marijuana opposed to american pharmaceuticals
my spirituality was expressed in a non-intellectual internal observation that trumped the physiological, social and intellectual paradigms that were built and were :enslaving: my potential
this spirituality lead me to build a relationship with a plant that led to believing in what I sense balanced against the intellectual
in this manner I have found it easier to disseminate someone who is lying to you for their own benefit, because often my "gut" reveals an "instinct" or "feel" that betrays my intellect
i have found that my intellect is no match for the magnificence of the whole of my being, that i cannot comprehend life better than it is represented in the grand design of the human body
this said I feel that I can "understand" at a higher level than I can express with my intellect
its the understanding of this phenomenon that normally forces me to interact in debates like this
not that quantum mechanics cant exonerate some of the alternative healing philosophies teachings, but the article was written from an presented IMHO as a piece that dismisses the whole of alternative non-scientific mainstream medicine and I think that while there is a benefit to knowing what is real or not, the way it is being presented frowns upon people looking outside the corrupt mainstream for solutions
there is nothing fundamentally wrong with science or spirituality just the application there of
and that application as seen in the buddhist perspective might be considered karma
that is my contention, not with the intellectual of IC mag, but with the presentation of information that would alienate a segment of our diverse community
my name is weird, I hope that sets the expectations I have for everyone
really i bring no judgement i just wish for harmony among us as we celebrate our differences because that is where you build strength in community
well the truth is that medicine is not truly scientific in itself. whereas one atom of iron will always react the same way as another atom of iron, one persons body will not react the same way as the next. Therefore medicine works on the principle of what NORMALLY works. Its history is one of anecdotal evidence, ie, a patient who got well, would say this doctor is skilled, and a patient who dies doesn't say anything, therefore the reputation of doctors throughout history has been as skilled physicians. Having said that though, I would rather go with what has been medically scientifically proven to work, combined with what I can say works for me, than rely on someone else's belief system to magically cure an ailment. And some will say that this or that belief system works for them, and if they feel that, good luck to them, but someone who has a broken leg will normally get it put in plaster and wait for it to heal, than wave a feather over it and hobble around as if it feels fine. But due to this being about physics rather than medicine, I'm leaving that one there.
This is from a couple of years back, but seemed topical since both quantum physics and douglas adams were being discussed.
likewise for me.
To be or not to be, that is the question.
If Shakespeare had reflected, he might have indicated the "question" is a start, not a finish.
Some folks' reality isn't necessarily with the grain. At some point it becomes necessary the separate wheat from chaff.
