Is there zero connection between String Theory and the paranormal?

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Dennis Tate, Mar 17, 2021.


Does String Theory help to explain... but not necessarily debunk some aspects of the paranormal?

  1. No

    2 vote(s)
  2. Yes

    1 vote(s)
  3. Maybe?????

    0 vote(s)
  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    There is an abstract common denominator involved, and that is spheres often seem to self-organize, from cells to stars.

    IMO that tendency is a natural way of finding the most efficiently balanced (mathematical) survival pattern possible.
    Dennis Tate likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Dennis Tate Valued Senior Member

    Thank you...... you were correct... .I loved it!
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Dennis Tate Valued Senior Member


    I've ran into testimonies about "orbs" from a number of different angles.

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    is there something behind methane based life forms ?
    rotting bodies in a grave yard producing methane ?(i am half making a joke and half making a point at the same time)

    orbs appear to be most common outdoors in grave yards and wooded bush like areas, occasionally open fields.

    the common denominators appear to be there must be living vegetation around and no wind
    you get much fewer inside houses

    note it appears older houses in lower ground levels appear to have a higher number.

    maybe there are some type of electro-chemical field caused by static electricity & a certain dust and particulate content
    (its not my area of interest or specialty)

    watching 1 of the videos Magical Realist posted a year or 3 ago
    comes to mind

    electrical field theory on quantum levels
    at string theory level
    interacting creating momentary events ...
    like micro black holes appearing and disappearing

    it is not outside basic logical theory of known unknowns

    a crystal can potentially store an energy pattern with no outside electrical support
    sound vibration carried into the crystal turned into some type of micro frequency that then requires almost no energy to be maintained for long periods
    then amplified again
    seems probabilisticly logically plausible

    american science is soo troubled though
    with all the religious indoctrination and creationism used to attack childlrens science education and undermine t for a few decades now
    plus private profit controlling science labs so the only research is performed for profit margins
    like the American national health system mental health system
    its in a state of crisis and partial collapse
    and the audience is not really capable of engaging in the conversation even if you could get past the moral brick wall of psychopathy
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Interesting point I picked up along the way.
    We often speak about waves as if they are physical objects, but they are not. The wave function is an emergent property of all dynamic fluid media and uses the same equation for all fluid media.

    The wave equation remains the same regardless of the medium, because it is not the medium that travels, it's only the wave.
    In water the water molecules do not move horizontally, but only move in vertical circles, when the wave passes by. That's really an interesting phenomenon.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Wave equation - Wikipedia

    Not to be confused with Wave function.
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2021
  9. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Wow, so now you want me to go and read every recent interaction you've had with this obvious crackpot? You can't even be bothered to read my direct replies to your own questions. Don't be a hypocrite, James. Crackpots are a dime a dozen. Why on Earth would I put effort into something I just inferred shouldn't require any? To be clear, I'm not criticizing you for refuting a crackpot. I'm wondering why you find shooting fish in a barrel to be so much fun. Where's the challenge or point? Have you made any headway at converting crackpots? Honestly, I use to think much more highly of you.

    With gems like "Within 50 years, maybe pigs will fly", it seemed like the bar for entering this particular thread was already quite low.
  10. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    What made you use the term crackpot? Any particular part of his philosophy that is obvious crackpottery?

    As host/moderator James is tasked with walking a fine line between critique and criticism.
    But if you accuse someone of crackpottery, you are tasked with proving your point. Ad hominem is never productive!

    Ad Hominem Fallacy
  11. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    I think there is a common misconception that quantum fields are "out there" somewhere in the universe.

    But "fields" are everywhere. They are properties of the spacetime fabric itself. We live inside quantum fields, we just don't notice it.
    RainbowSingularity likes this.
  12. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Why do you care? Are you his big brother?
    You're certainly the king of unproductive discussion. So your defense alone would be enough for me to consider my initial impression correct.

    But in general, trying to link hard science with the paranormal, especially without any specific, testable means of doing so, is a hallmark of crackpots.
    Seeing as you've repeatedly proven to share that sort of illiteracy of science, I'm not surprised you'd question the label.
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    No, I'm your big brother.
    Au contraire, this is your unproductive discussion as we speak. In general anyone that actually engages with me ends up in a very productive discussion.
    Is it? What do you consider paranormal? Can you definitively separate connections between String Theory and what is as yet "unknown".

    At one time the Higgs boson was considered paranormal, derisively dubbed the "god particle", until it was produced and is now part of mainstream science, no?

    Wouldn't it be nice to tell someone with a question about the paranormal, that; "This is not really paranormal, it is part the EM spectrum or of Field Theory." And then provide a link to a relevant starting point or scientist.

    Was David Bohm a crackpot? Is Roger Penrose a crackpot. Was Hawking a crackpot? Are all the scientists exploring the Theoretical sciences crackpots? Most of them have been called crackpot at one time or another, until they or someone else provided proof .
    Show me where I have argued against mainstream and I'll concede that point. Are you proposing you are more literate in the areas of science than the scientists which I quote are doing the serious research?

    WOW.......bring on Nobel....... we duly stand in awe . The OP question still stands and is being explored. Perhaps you can contribute?
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2021
  14. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Your problem here is that you thought you could jump in here just to take a quick shot at me, never intending to engage with the thread topic in any way. But it turned out that you were so desperate to have a jab at me that didn't do your homework first. And now it turns out that you're utterly clueless as to why I would want to interact with Dennis Tate.

    You really ought to try to find something better to do with your time, other than attempting to antagonise other people and establish what a big ego you have, Vociferous. I don't know who you're trying to impress, if that's the effect you're aiming for. Or is this you trying to prove to me that you have a bigger penis than I do, or something?
    I am under no obligation to reply to you, Vociferous. Given how toxic you are most of the time, is it any wonder when I don't choose to interact with you?
    It is quite clear that you don't understand what I have been trying to do in talking to Dennis Tate.

    Nobody asked you to get involved. If you want to put people into neat boxes which you can dismiss or ignore, that's certainly your prerogative. But get off your high horse and stop trying to tell other people that they have to act like you do.
    Consider that, just possibly, I am not trying to have fun by shooting fish in a barrel. Consider that I may have different aims to the aims you might have. I will leave my motivations a mystery for you to ponder.
    What makes you think I'm interested in trying to convert crackpots?
    You seem to have developed a mistaken impression that I care what you think about me. You seem like a humourless, dour kind of person who gets his kicks from belittling other people. I think I know everything about you that I care to know, by this point.
  15. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Reported for off-topic posting.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  16. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    i read a few books a few years ago
    so i have a bit of slight idea of the fringe science area on these aspects
    what is theorized and what is known are very far apart.
    more that what is obviously probable is vastly past current scientific comprehension

    given the massive amount of fake media & conspiracy's and nefarious intent i do not discuss it.

    i am\have always been fascinated with the subject.
    i spent years looking for rare books on specific subjects
    tracking them down in different library's
    i have spent countless hours over several years reading in library's reading on similar topics.
    i would find a vague reference to a theory by some person then locate their literature, read their personal accounts and opinions and their books even though i cant really follow the mathematics

    i managed to get hold of some books to read just before they disappeared for ever from library's
    & a lot of the books i managed to access were library only copies.
    after a few years they all vanished
    it appeared someone was removing the library only copies & the only copies of the books that were on loan never returned and were reported lost.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    i would quite like to openly discus such fringe science with you
    but i feel such open public access is not the place for it.
    we can see concerted effort by many groups to suppress certain levels of knowledge
    many of those driven by maniacal fear as their method to maintain their fascist like religiously framed control and power, so i steer clear of it generally.

    what i do notice is there appears to be some type of scientific focus to discredit such advanced fringe science theory's and attempt to smash discussion of the subjects and anyone taking part in them.
    i am not sure if that is some type of collective psycho-socio-cultural process of human foibles as a fear mechanism in a madding world, or if it has some nefarious collective push behind it(something which i do not pursue).
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2021
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    You think that a bunch of backyard conspiracy theorists is likely to do a better job of deciding what is "obviously probable" than scientists?
    Which books are you referring to? Books by whom?
    Which groups? What knowledge?
    What is "advanced fringe science theory"? I've never heard of that before.

    Fringe ideas are ... on the fringes. They have never been a scientific focus. Or maybe, more accurately, I should say that they have attracted enough attention from serious scientists in the past for them to be examined thoroughly enough to be confident in dismissing them as worthless, in many cases. Most fringe "investigations" lack anything reminiscent of scientific rigour or objectivity, so it doesn't take much time focusing on them to conclude that they are bunk.
  18. Write4U Valued Senior Member


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  19. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Five centuries ago was 1521. Magellan was sailing around the Earth at that time. Everyone thought he would make it back; no one thought he would "fall off the edge." His expedition returned the following year, in 1522, as everyone thought it would.

    Where do you get this stuff?
    Dennis Tate likes this.
  20. foghorn Valued Senior Member

  21. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    No, I've wasted tons of time trying to educate you on science you don't understand. You learned nothing. Completely unproductive.

    No, it wasn't ever considered paranormal. And it was never called the "god particle" derisively. It was always a scientific theory, postulating a mechanism for elementary particles to gain their masses. Oops, you got me wasting my time trying to teach you again.

    Another foray into the useless. The paranormal believer won't understand or will outright deny any scientific explanation.

    Theoretical science is not the paranormal.

    Already done, and you didn't. I'm proposing that I understand what science you cite better than you do. And I've proven that in past interactions with you.

    Nice little lecture in lieu of just telling me why you want to interact with him. Apparently, I don't have as much free time as you seem to. Sue me.
    I doesn't take much time to reply to you nowadays. And if you can't/won't tell me why you enjoy crackpots so much, why should I care?

    Absolutely. Including my post in this thread. But you felt the need to, as you imply, measure penises.
    What I was referring to was where you complain about what I haven't read, including whining about things I addressed in direct response to you, but you missed.

    And it's clear that you'd rather waste your time lecturing than simply telling me.
    Who said anyone asked me to get involved? Is this a debate thread, that requires an invite?
    Again, don't be a hypocrite, talking about neat little boxes you can ignore.
    Where did I say you should act like anything? It's actually you doing all the lecturing about how I should act. Quit projecting.

    Yes, aims you're all cagey about sharing. Like I said, maybe it is a challenge for you. I have no idea.

    Seems that would be the only worthwhile challenge involved. But again, maybe you find it plenty challenging/rewarding as it is.

    I don't expect you to care, but then I get these little lectures anyway. But thanks for so readily verifying your projection of putting "people into neat boxes which you can dismiss or ignore".
  22. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Where? And what is it that I did not understand and learned nothing?
    Slinging mud only makes your hands dirty.
    I see, it was called the "god particle" in earnest. And you call that scientific?

    p.s. I understand the principles of the Higgs field very clearly. The only thing you posted just now is the very definition and nothing about the mechanics.
    Perhaps it is your attitude that turns more spiritually oriented individuals off to your abrasiveness?
    I see, it's just "crack pottery" in your book.
    If you understand the science I cite better than I do, why are you rejecting my understanding and not the science I cite? I understand a paradox when I see it....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    And lets examine the productive content of this very post. Do you believe this exchange was productive? I don't!
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2021
  23. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Namely our whole interaction in:
    Where I tried to educate you that something you called merely a microtubule was in fact an organism, and even according to a video you cited.

    It was called the "god particle" by the media and not endorsed by most physicists. It comes from a book the author originally wanted to call "The Goddamn Particle". Go read up on the history.

    The paranormal? Yes. I'm a paranormal atheist. Show me actual evidence and I'll consider believing it.

    No, you don't. If a child cites the science of the water cycle to claim that the sky is blue because rain is, it's only the child's understanding that is flawed.

    I completely agree. There is no productivity to be found interacting with a person who lacks the necessary wherewithal. Hence my past wasted efforts with you.

Share This Page