Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: What the bleep is going on

Expand Messages
  • bert blastoid
    Re: What the bleep is going on At the end of the MOvie they gie the bonafides of the experts . The Guy that says that we create our own realitites is the
    Message 1 of 11 , Nov 30, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Re: What the bleep is going on

      At the end of the MOvie they gie the bonafides of the
      "experts". The Guy that says that we create our own
      realitites is the trancendental psychologist with
      absolutely no physics background. No wonder he was so
      touchyfeely.

      Burt

      --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, Sheldon Warman
      <sheldon_warman@y...> wrote:
      > --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "long_boat_roz"
      > <Long_boat_roz@y...> wrote:
      > >
      > > Hi,
      > > The movie is supposed to be astounding. I
      haven't
      > seen it.I was thinking , movie or no movie , it
      will
      > be the more you know the more you don't know.
      > Somewhere that catch twenty two has to end for a
      real
      > breakthrough. Roz.
      >
      > Like ferinstance? If you are a physicist you are
      safe
      > assuming that no free energy exists. Strict
      > Mass-energy conservation is an important tool and
      has
      > proven to be quite usefull in making serious
      > predictions, like the Neutrino.
      >
      > Sheldon
      >
      >
      >




      __________________________________
      Do you Yahoo!?
      Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
      http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
    • long_boat_roz
      ... assuming that no free energy exists. Should we say If you are some physicists .People that generalize should never be trusted. They aren t thinking,
      Message 2 of 11 , Dec 1, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        >If you are a physicist you are safe
        assuming that no free energy exists.

        Should we say "If you are "some" physicists ".People that generalize
        should never be trusted. They aren't thinking, straight.I can think
        of a few PhDs that do think free energy could exist.Furthermore we
        won't be "safe" if we don't find something else, perhaps. PHD or
        not. History shows hunches and accidents can be good ways to find
        breakthroughs. You don't need PHDs to be good at that.Regards Roz.

        --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, Sheldon Warman
        <sheldon_warman@y...> wrote:
        > --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "long_boat_roz"
        > <Long_boat_roz@y...> wrote:
        > >
        > > Hi,
        > > The movie is supposed to be astounding. I haven't
        > seen it.I was thinking , movie or no movie , it will
        > be the more you know the more you don't know.
        > Somewhere that catch twenty two has to end for a real
        > breakthrough. Roz.
        >
        > Like ferinstance? If you are a physicist you are safe
        > assuming that no free energy exists. Strict
        > Mass-energy conservation is an important tool and has
        > proven to be quite usefull in making serious
        > predictions, like the Neutrino.
        >
        > Sheldon
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > __________________________________
        > Do you Yahoo!?
        > Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
        > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
      • David Thomson
        Bert, ... experts . The Guy that says that we create our own realitites is the trancendental psychologist with absolutely no physics background. No wonder he
        Message 3 of 11 , Dec 1, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Bert,

          > At the end of the MOvie they gie the bonafides of the
          "experts". The Guy that says that we create our own
          realitites is the trancendental psychologist with
          absolutely no physics background. No wonder he was so
          touchyfeely.

          Three of the physicists, according to the web site, were PhD
          physicists.

          Do you have a personal bias against touchy feely people? I suppose
          that's another one of your scientific observations? Just like the
          other self proclaimed skeptics, you are just a bigot.

          Dave
        • Gary S.
          ... Then why do you keep coming back here?
          Message 4 of 11 , Dec 1, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "David Thomson" <volantis@u...> wrote:

            > I'm really sick of the skeptics who continue to insult people, flash
            > their credentials, and speak with arrogance about the accuracy of
            > their knowledge, rather than investigate the science with an open
            > mind. Modern skeptics are nothing more than a priesthood selling a
            > dogma and punishing those who don't subscribe to it. They are no
            > different from the Inquisitors of the dark ages. Same shit, different
            > century.
            >
            > Dave

            Then why do you keep coming back here?
          • erickrieg@verizon.net
            Hey, sorry if some skeptics offend you on the list - they do represent the end of science that has a long consistent contribution to mankind. I found the web
            Message 5 of 11 , Dec 1, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Hey, sorry if some skeptics offend you on the list - they do represent the end of science that has a long consistent contribution to mankind.

              I found the web page on "what the bleep" to be interesting. The thing that scared me is that the list of luminaries started off with real physicists and people who make real contributions but then started down hill to include psychologists (not a hard science, but rather often just opinion) and woo woo people who want to believe in some kind of soul, but can't prove it. The one entry on the list that really disturbed me was the character "Ramtha" as channelled by the con woman, JZ Night. Channelling is just bad ventriliquism - it is a fast track for cult leaders. I've never heard of a disease cure or science breakthrough that came as a result of one of these goofy new age channelers giving wisdom from the beyond. There are a lot of interesting questions that science hasn't yet gotten to the bottom of - I'm happy for a movie to draw attention to them, but channelling is a bunch of mind-parasitic bunk.

              In other news, Jack Carey's rantings are for the most part filtered from this list. Anyone can easily get them direct by mailing Jack at jcarey9622@...


              >
              > From: "David Thomson" <volantis@...>
              > Date: 2004/12/01 Wed AM 08:44:14 EST
              > To: <free_energy@yahoogroups.com>
              > Subject: RE: [free_energy] Re: What the bleep is going on
              >
              >


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • David Thomson
              Gary, ... different ... To fix the problem and stand up for the advancement of science, naturally. Dave ... Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion
              Message 6 of 11 , Dec 1, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                Gary,

                > I'm really sick of the skeptics who continue to insult people, flash
                > their credentials, and speak with arrogance about the accuracy of
                > their knowledge, rather than investigate the science with an open
                > mind. Modern skeptics are nothing more than a priesthood selling a
                > dogma and punishing those who don't subscribe to it. They are no
                > different from the Inquisitors of the dark ages. Same shit,
                different
                > century.
                >
                > Dave

                > Then why do you keep coming back here?

                To fix the problem and stand up for the advancement of science,
                naturally.

                Dave



                ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                --------------------~-->
                Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
                Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
                http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/98XolB/TM
                --------------------------------------------------------------------~-
                >

                To drop of the list, send email to:
                free_energy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                Yahoo! Groups Links
              • David Thomson
                Hi Eric, ... represent the end of science that has a long consistent contribution to mankind. Don t be sorry that they offend me. Be sorry that they are
                Message 7 of 11 , Dec 1, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi Eric,

                  > Hey, sorry if some skeptics offend you on the list - they do
                  represent the end of science that has a long consistent contribution
                  to mankind.

                  Don't be sorry that they offend me. Be sorry that they are offensive.
                  Maybe with enough persistence in asking them to be rational, they'll
                  start getting back to science and truly live up to the ideal of a
                  skeptic. It's when they act like bullies instead of scientists that
                  they are offensive. There's nothing wrong with scientifically getting
                  to the truth of a theory or invention.

                  > I found the web page on "what the bleep" to be interesting. The
                  thing that scared me is that the list of luminaries started off with
                  real physicists and people who make real contributions but then
                  started down hill to include psychologists (not a hard science, but
                  rather often just opinion) and woo woo people who want to believe in
                  some kind of soul, but can't prove it. The one entry on the list that
                  really disturbed me was the character "Ramtha" as channelled by the
                  con woman, JZ Night.

                  I'll admit, this turned me off, too. But despite the fact that every
                  channeler I met eventually proved to me they delusional, putting a
                  channeler on the same show doesn't ruin the reputation or the science
                  of the three PhDs.

                  Also, one of the PhDs from Cambridge wrote a letter in the most recent
                  issue of Discover magazine distancing himself from the movie. He said
                  that of all the interview he gave they pulled out just the parts they
                  wanted to hear and made it sound like he said something altogether
                  different from what he believed.

                  But even in the magazine he didn't say what it was he did or did not
                  believe. So far I have heard oohs and aahs about the movie, but no
                  substance. It seems nobody can remember any facts or data that was
                  presented to support a quantum link between consciousness and physical
                  reality. Of course, it could be that none was presented. But so far
                  I haven't heard anything one way or another on this.

                  I touch on the actual link between consciousness and physical reality
                  in my book. I point to data from the neurosciences and the substance
                  of the quantum theory I present to show they are both related through
                  conductance. But, unfortunately, the book I ordered that I hoped
                  would have more data hasn't arrived yet so I won't be including more
                  data in the book. But if I find more data to support the theory, I'll
                  put it on the web.

                  If the movie presents data, then it is something I would like to
                  research more.

                  Dave
                • Budmont El Rayo Everest III
                  I have read material by most of the personalities presented in this film. Although the film s premises seem earth-shattering to the average man in the street,
                  Message 8 of 11 , Dec 1, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I have read material by most of the personalities presented in this film.
                    Although the film's premises seem earth-shattering to the average man in the
                    street, it looks like little more than a gee-whiz putup job to me.
                    Most theoretical physicists have a bagfull of remarks or observations that will sound
                    baffling to an ordinary person; indeed, most people.
                    Nearly any theory of 'how the mind functions' is pure speculation; beyond the basic
                    electrochemical interactions very little is known, and the brain's ability to rewire
                    iself to fit extenuating circumstances [such as injury, etc] throws a 'standard model'
                    of brain function right out the window.
                    cheers ---
                    BuddyRay
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.