The Science Establishing the Existence of a Life Force

originally posted by: ConnectDots

But the layman has a lot at stake in what mainstream science does or does not accept and follow up on for the common good.

Regular people have a lot of common sense.

No they don't. Example: Common sense dictated that Aristotle would be correct and that in regard to 2 balls of equal size weighing different weights, dropped at the dame time from the same height, the heavier object who fall to earth at a greater rate of speed than a lighter object.

That was common sense til Galileo showed otherwise. There is nothing common about common sense. The term is a misnomer and subjective to ones own viewpoint and cultural upbringing.

originally posted by: artistpoet
a reply to: GetHyped

I am not against the scientific method ...

That Intuition is a real thing that science is unable to measure

"But let me tell you about this feel good belief I have that is not in any shape or form scientific".

I know several scientists personally

I'm afraid I don't believe you one bit.

All you've done for the last 20 posts or so is try and justify feel-good truthiness, as if it has any scientific merit.

It doesn't, and I'm sorry if that poses a threat to your world view but there it is.

a reply to: GetHyped

So you believe that intuition does not exist?

I personally know it exists ... nothing to do with "feel good truthiness"
I am not that sort of person
If you think I am saying it from a scientific point of view you are mistaken
I am speaking from personal experience

I am not a liar but if you think I am fine

originally posted by: artistpoet
I am speaking from personal experience

When all the instruments in the world are used to do scientific research, and when all the data is in, it is still people who have to make the conclusions to be drawn.

a reply to: artistpoet

I don't know how much clearer I can make this:

Intuition is not credible as scientific evidence in any shape or form. It's nothing more than truthiness.

the quality of seeming or being felt to be true, even if not necessarily true

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: artistpoet
I am speaking from personal experience

When all the instruments in the world are used to do scientific research, and when all the data is in, it is still people who have to make the conclusions to be drawn.

Logical conclusions drawn from scientific data, not wishy-washy "I want this to be true because I like the feeling it gives me" or "this feels true because... feelings".

a reply to: ConnectDots

True ... and also what is done with scientific information / how it is applied

My friends great grandfather W.Astbury was the first person to discover DNA
There is a wing at Leeds University named after him

He made his own electron microscopes
Conducted his own experiments
He was a great humanitarian and had his own strong philosophy

There are talks that still discuss his work and the work of those that followed who fine tuned his findings
My friend attends often as respected guest

The Rockefeller Institute asked him to go work for them
But he refused ... He did not like the use to which his discovery was put ...Genetic Engineering

Science is a two edged sword like many proffesions
It can be used for good or ill
Leonardo understood this
I think Tesla did too

Unfortunately in an age of War some inventions and discoveries are used for ill
Hence my belief that some things are still out of the Public Domain

Sorry for rambling just thought it an interesting aside

I do believe there is an invisible force running through all nature btw... you call it life force

a reply to: GetHyped

Duh ... Say what you want

It does not matter to me if Intuition is not seen as credible by science

You cherry picked the meaning of Intuition
Here is the meaning

the ability to understand something instinctively, without the need for conscious reasoning.

What your quote shows is more akin to imagination

For sure Intuition can only be proven by the information recieved being validated in reality
I have done this and Yes it is not scientific but so what

Your turn

originally posted by: artistpoet

Here is the meaning

the ability to understand something instinctively, without the need for conscious reasoning.

My understanding is that intuition is associated with the right side of the brain, which is the creative side.

The left side is the technical side.

Both sides are needed to comprehend reality.

Additionally, the feelings we experience, as in the expression "I had a gut feeling," are valuable. They're trying to tell us something.

a reply to: ConnectDots

Yes so called gut feelings are rarely wrong in my experience

When I was very young and in school
The Maths teacher was in the process of writing out a mathmatical problem on the board

Maths was my least favourite subject back then and I often day dreamed my way through classes

Before the teacher had even got half through writing out the problem
My inner voice said "It is a quarter Mick"
I shot up my hand and said "Miss"
She turned around quizically and said Yes addressing me by my surname
I said it is a quarter Miss
Her face was a picture she looked kinda annoyed at me ... the maths dunce of the class
And barked "How did you know that"
I just did Miss I replied

These sort of incidents in my life have made me consider there is more at play in the world than what is obvious

This sort of thing is what I call Intuition

originally posted by: ConnectDots

That presentation took place in 2009.

At 16:33, he begins speaking about the fifty years of progress that has been made in Russia regarding torsion, the scientific term they use for the life force, which has many names referring to the same thing.

He points out that the Russians have developed:

1. equations
2. verification by many experiments
3. patents
4. industrial applications

He mentions torsion generators and quotes Nachalov from 2003.

He mentions Dr. Ivan Shakhparonov speaking in 2001 about his applied research in 1991 which involved the coordination of eight scientific teams.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

by using the words "Bound by the same laws of physics" it may give you a feeling of security or finiteness. Remember maths/physics are only an abstract man made phenomena.

I know, math doesn't exist in the real world, just a tool we use when we manipulate it. I am reassured by the constants I see as far as the Hubble can see.

The laws of physics as we know them are immutable, everywhere...

and you're right, we're just pecking on the surface.

originally posted by: artistpoet

Imagine a scientist life work and belief being shredded by new evidence

That's the nature of science. The very core. It's what distinguishes "revealed truth" belief systems like religion from "discovered truth" belief systems like science.

And while I'm sure it's rough if it's YOUR ox being gored, I don't know a serious engineer or physicist that doesn't live for the day that some major discovery overturns the current orthodoxy.

originally posted by: artistpoet

Intuition perhaps

Intuition is a horrible tool for finding the nature of things.

Intuition gives you geocentric universes and flat Earth. Mice being produced by grains of wheat in old shirts. That sort of thing. The nature of the scientific process is that you begin with inspiration/intuition, but then you endeavour to prove the veracity of that intuition by experiment, replication, falsification. Many, many, many intuitive guesses that seemed brilliant were absolutely incorrect.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: Bedlam

A much more accurate description would be suppressed science. Ridicule is a very common technique used to keep the implications of new findings from scientists that threaten the paradigm needed by those in control unexplored by the mainstream.

Too bad you didn't join ATS a few months earlier, you would have got a lot of support for these ideas from ATS member Mary Rose who used to say these same things and you sound just like her. But sadly your paths didn't cross, you only joined a few weeks after she left. I had asked her for an example of suppressed science at one point and the example she gave me was a guy with a youtube video. So the guy was on youtube and he's getting views, how is that being suppressed?

I don't suppose you have any better examples do you? There's no suppressed science in the book mentioned in the OP, in fact there's no science at all, because science is based on measurements and the author doesn't have measurements, talking about instrumentation not yet available to measure what he's talking about.

One professor uses the example of an invisible dragon in his garage. If you claim it's there but there are no instruments to measure it available yet, you can say science hasn't proven it's not there. People can make up endless numbers of such claims which cannot be disproven, but saying science can't disprove them hardly gives them credibility. It's absurd to call such things "suppressed science".

originally posted by: ConnectDots

I think Thomas Joseph Brown, who was Director of Borderland Sciences Research Foundation from 1985 to 1995, is a credible source; he certainly is aware of lost science from the past.

The reason that it's "lost" is that it was discovered to be "bogus". N-rays, for example.

In science, 'credible' comes from replication, careful experiment design, results that agree with other things we observe. Drown machines don't survive long against careful investigation.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: intrptr
Where it gets interesting is when one plays with the forces and energies that surround us. The choice is ours.

Science does that all the time. Where we diverge is the point where someone claims "I have discovered a force that can't be measured in any way, but I just know it's there, even though I can't come up with a reason to require this force to exist, nor can I replicate my data if it's done objectively"

Because then it's snake oil.

originally posted by: Bedlam
even though I can't come up with a reason to require this force to exist

I can come up with a reason to require the life force to exist: fear of death.

originally posted by: Astyanax
The laws of physics are changing. Pigs, for example, are no longer subject to gravity.

Yup, we pigs are definitively flying, OR can you really believe what you see, empirical evidence of such? Hmmm. Interesting point. I love when you get involved, Astynyax.

The distance between the Earth and the Sun has no influence on the decay rate of radioactive chlorine. You could ask: "And why should it anyway?", because it is well known that the decay of radionuclides is as reliable as a Swiss clock. Recently, US-American scientists, however, attracted attention when they postulated that the decay rate depends on the flow of solar neutrinos and, thus, also on the distance from the Earth to the Sun. Their assumption was based, among other things, on older measurement data of the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB). PTB researchers have now definitively refuted the assumption of the Americans.
The half-life of radioactive isotopes, i.e. the period in which half of all atomic nuclei have decayed, is regarded as invariably stable. In the case of the carbon isotope 14C, this period amounts, for example, to 5700 years. This property is, among other things, made use of for the dating of archeological findings. There was great excitement when a group of US-American scientists recently published measurement data of the radioactive isotope 36Cl which showed seasonal variations and explained this with the influence of solar neutrinos. All the more since billions of neutrinos from the Sun hit every square centimetre of the Earth every second and remain almost ineffective (they penetrate the Earth as if it weren't there).
Scientists of the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt have now carried out new measurements and have published their results in the journal "Astroparticle Physics". For three years, they checked the activity of samples with 36Cl in order to detect possible seasonal dependencies. Whereas the US-Americans had determined the count rates with gas detectors, PTB used the so-called TDCR liquid scintillation method which largely compensates disturbing influences on the measurements. The result: The measurement results of PTB clearly show fewer variations and do not indicate any seasonal dependence or the influence of solar neutrinos. "We assume that other influences are much more probable as the reason for the observed variations", explains PTB physicist Karsten Kossert. "It is known that changes in the air humidity, in the air pressure and in the temperature can definitively influence sensitive detectors."



Read more at: phys.org...

But yet, you can find varying information via neutrino effect and the inability to measure neutrinos in any way, and their effect on "realtime" radioactive decay" which is the standard of what REAL TIME, really means....as in the keeping of time depends upon the tracking of the half life decay of several radioactive elements, not solar or lunar effects....

A few years ago, the radioactive differential of decay was tracked as being anomalous, per the neutrino output of the sun, which even I find interesting, as they've said since 1962 they couldn't track nor measure neutrinos in any real way....

What's terribly interesting about this effect, is if it's real, it would flip the "standard model of physics" on its head.....


Melvin Schwartz and the Discovery of the Muon Neutrino
Resources with Additional Information


Melvin Schwartz
Courtesy
Brookhaven National
Laboratory
Melvin Schwartz was the co-winner of the 1988 Nobel Prize in Physics "for the neutrino beam method and the demonstration of the doublet structure of the leptons through the discovery of the muon neutrino". 'In 1962, Schwartz, with Leon Lederman and Jack Steinberger … discovered the muon neutrino at the Alternating Gradient Synchrotron (AGS), the then brand-new accelerator at the U.S. Department of Energy's Brookhaven National Laboratory. …

First coming to Brookhaven in 1955, Schwartz performed his Ph.D. thesis research through 1956 at the Laboratory's first accelerator, the Cosmotron. While finishing his thesis, he was employed by the Laboratory from 1956-58.

Returning to Columbia University, Schwartz continued to do research at Brookhaven, working at the AGS from 1958-63. After relocating to Stanford University in 1966, he maintained his research ties with Brookhaven.

In 1970, Schwartz founded a major computer-security company, Digital Pathways, Inc., in Mountain View, California. Later, Nicholas Samios, former Brookhaven Lab Director and currently head of the BNL-RIKEN Research Center, encouraged Schwartz to return to physics. He did so in 1991, returning to Brookhaven Lab as Associate Director for High Energy and Nuclear Physics. …

Melvin Schwartz was a member of the National Academy of Sciences and a fellow of the American Physical Society (APS). He received the Hughes Prize from the APS in 1964.'1

1 Edited excerpt Nobel Laureate Melvin Schwartz … Co-Discovered the Muon Neutrino at Brookhaven Lab in 1962
Top



This is the history of neutrino research.. And then:

I suggest reading these links: LINK
LINK

Just a few thoughts about how much of a handle we really have on the physical environs/universe, cause and effect. etc, time , gravity and our total understanding of said things......
regards,
tetra50

originally posted by: tetra50
Just a few thoughts about how much of a handle we really have on the physical environs/universe, cause and effect. etc, time , gravity and our total understanding of said things......
regards,
tetra50

Ignoring the fact that it's scientists that are researching and publishing data on things like this, did you even read the cite you posted? It turned out to be a measurement error. Not a mystic influence.

eta: Basically, it's a sort of paean to replication. You have to be able to measure, and others have to be able to do it also, in separate ways and different places with different personnel. It helps to get rid of things like this.