my ignorance

[anart]

[...]
do remember to cool yourself before posting anything that does not comply with the rules of this forum.

I do apologize for my foul "mouth". I know. Methinks sometimes righteous anger may dictate taking people like him out into the back yard and rubbing their face in the dirt. As written: If you going to play in the dirt, you're going to get dirty. Reminds me of another thread about calling a spade a spade.

Al, the point is that your little display here was completely uncalled for and we expect more of you than that. That is not how we treat people in this house - period. You seem to think that anyone at all is actually taking Aaron seriously here - how could he be taken seriously when he is mechanical, insincere and nonsensical? Your emotions ran away with you and you forgot yourself and you should know better.

 

[AaronAgassi]

Gonzo, even from the front page of this forum, there is quite enough appeal to the authority and cache science, even the display of credentials. Then again, you also seem to want exemptions when science becomes demanding. If all your activity is after all as unscientific as it might seem, then what's the point and how should it be deemed credible? Where is the pursuit of truth? What is the point? For that matter yes indeed Gonzo, what exactly has been requested of me since I stumbled onto this forum?

 

[Al Today]

[...]
Your emotions ran away with you and you forgot yourself and you should know better.

Yes I should. I should open a thread to get out this growing anger, this depression. The world as it is, people as they are, what I've been through. etc, etc., etc. ... I can logically, reasonably explain away how and why I am where I am right now. I know the path that led me here. And still, yes, I am tired of people getting away with "stuff".

 

[Jacques]

Yes I should. I should open a thread to get out this growing anger, this depression. The world as it is, people as they are, what I've been through. etc, etc., etc. ... I can logically, reasonably explain away how and why I am where I am right now. I know the path that led me here. And still, yes, I am tired of people getting away with "stuff".

Good idea. I encourage you to do so.

 

[John G]

Gonzo, even from the front page of this forum, there is quite enough appeal to the authority and cache science...

Well then you need to look at the science itself. First of all you have to understand that science at this point includes math that goes beyond where experiments can go hence they are not testable yet. Brian Greene works on the math of strings even though there is currently no way to experimentally tell if strings actually exist. You just have to accept that is the way science works. Ark simply works on an alternative to string theory for explaining reality. Channeling is producing results useful for things like the alternative news site (SOTT.net) that Laura and Ark own. It's simply useful. One could say the hypothesis being tested by channeling is that channeling is useful. It is also something Ark can look at with respect to his mathematical physics ideas.

Below is an introduction from one of Ark's papers this year. This is what you need to understand before you even begin to question what Ark is doing; questioning is OK but you really aren't even close to being in a position to question the details behind Ark's ideas. It is math at this point and for better or worse math is ahead of where experiments can go for everybody working on unifying gravity and quantum physics. Channeling is more something that might be consistent with Ark's math; it is not supposed to be a detailed test of those math ideas.

William Kingdon Clifford speculated [4, p. 22] that the curvature of space is responsible for all motions of matter and fields - the idea that has been taken over by Albert Einstein in his theory of gravitation, through with the extra assumption of the weak equivalence and general covariance principles. P. A. M. Dirac, originally impressed by General Relativity Theory, later on had his doubts about the validity of general covariance, when the lessons of quantum theory are taken into account. He tried to revive and reformulate the old idea of aether [5]. The idea that an alternative to Einstein’s gravity is needed in order to reconciliate, somehow, classical geometry with quantum theory is, at least, an interesting one. In the present paper we study gravitational fields that are space/time imprints of coherent quantum states on a homogeneous complex domain for the conformal group. We start with the simplest toy case of the Poincar´e disk that is a homogeneous space for the group SU(1; 1): It’s Shilov’s boundary - cf. [7] (and references threre) is just the unit circle, which plays the role of the compactified Minkowski space in this case. Since the circle is one–dimensional, Riemannian metrics on such a space are easy to describe - they are represented by positive functions on the circle. Using Cayley’s transform the circle (minus one point) is mapped onto R: We study a particular family of quadratic functions over R (a special family of parabolas) and show that they are generated by coherent quantum states on the unit disk. Then we move to the case of interest, namely the complex homogeneous bounded domain D = SU(2; 2)=S(U(2) x U(2)) and study a particular class (transitive under the action of SU(2; 2)) of coherent states on D: In this case Shilov’s boundary of D is the compactified Minkowski space, and we show that the imprints of these stats on the boundary can be interpreted as gravitational fields in the conformal class of the Minkowski metric. In fact, we show that what we get is a family of de Sitter type metrics.

 

[Gonzo]

Gonzo, even from the front page of this forum, there is quite enough appeal to the authority and cache science, even the display of credentials. Then again, you also seem to want exemptions when science becomes demanding. If all your activity is after all as unscientific as it might seem, then what's the point and how should it be deemed credible? Where is the pursuit of truth? What is the point? For that matter yes indeed Gonzo, what exactly has been requested of me since I stumbled onto this forum?

Ah, but you misunderstood what I was saying. Just because I said "The Cassiopaean Experiment" is not a scientific experiment does not mean that whatever is occurring here is unscientific. Many hypotheses are in varying stages of development and testing.

Would you walk into a university and ask for the singly hypothesis from all of the various faculties and disciplines? If so, you'd probably get responses similar to what you're getting here.

The Cass Experiment provides seeds of information that are then taken by various members of the forum in various directions, some of which become inspirational to scientific inquiry, others for personal inquiry and some just can't be dealt with, considering our current frames of reference.

Gonzo

 

[RedFox]

Yes, what are the current hypotheses about the paranormal? And where does Ark feel that they fail? But more than this, what actual need for any of it? Where do the most prosaic explanations fail? Science seeks to explain the unknown in terms of the known, whereas religious mysticism strives at the very reverse.

This can easily be answered by watching Ark's recent presentation on that subject in Barcelona.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3gnV09j3Vc&feature=channel_video_title

Gonzo, even from the front page of this forum, there is quite enough appeal to the authority and cache science, even the display of credentials. Then again, you also seem to want exemptions when science becomes demanding. If all your activity is after all as unscientific as it might seem, then what's the point and how should it be deemed credible? Where is the pursuit of truth? What is the point? For that matter yes indeed Gonzo, what exactly has been requested of me since I stumbled onto this forum?

And..

Being unfamiliar with any science of channeling, I have the standard questions as to the science: What is the hypothesis being tested by the Cassiopeia Experiment? What would be the conditions of refutation? What are the test groups and what are the control groups?

I'll start with your initial question. Firstly it has become obvious to me reading this thread your question cannot be answered in the way you find satisfactory, simply because your initial question assumes the point of view of specific conditions/specific context. This is why you where directed to read the link provided, and why people have referred to your question as vague.

So in order to answer your questions, additional data is required in order to gauge the correct frame of reference. Without a common frame of reference all there can be is discord and confusion. Without the context your question assumes being spelled out, this thread both you and everyone else are doomed to repeat themselves ad infinitum.
So to your initial questions:

What is the hypothesis being tested by the Cassiopeia Experiment?

This can be answered with a question to you. What is the hypothesis the scientists at CERN Laboratories are hoping to answer by building there particle accelerator? Notice I said hypothesis exactly as you did in your initial question, not hypotheses.

What would be the conditions of refutation?

This can be answered again with a question to you. What are the conditions of refutation for the scientists experiment at CERN?

What are the test groups and what are the control groups?

This can be answered again with a question to you. What are the test groups and control groups used by the scientists are CERN in testing there hypothesis?

Please take your time to consider these. I look forward to your answers.

 

[SeekinTruth]

OK, here's a very important hypothesis: AaronAgassi is so repetitious that there is scarcely any difference between he and a broken record.

If, for instance, he had gone to the Victor Zammit link, he would be reading a whole lot of details about the hypotheses, conditions of refutation, the methods of control, etc for these types of phenomena and be reading for quite some time. In fact, there's a condensation of over 150 years of scrupulous study and experimentation by some of the most remarkable and well-known scientists of their times.

A condition of refutation of the above hypothesis would have been AaronAgassi giving some clear examples of not being a broken record. That the hypothesis is being ever increasingly corroborated is evidenced throughout this thread by his posts.

SeekinTruth, I fully accept they hypothesis that I am capable of repeating myself.

Indeed, to be honest, I do not want to read anything that does not actually begin by explicitly stating it's central question, problems, hypothesis and conditions of refutation. Also experimental controls, as applicable. I wouldn't be interested in the details otherwise. As the saying goes, don't burry the headline!

So you refuse to read the links to get some answers to your questions? Then I think it would be fair if we all stop reading your babbling on this forum and do something more productive.

As far as what the mainstream materialistic science fails to explain: there's so much that volumes can be written. So I'll just make it short and say everything. The explanations of life arising from all the accidental events in mainstream theories and cosmologies is so improbable that it is really curios how any truly scientific approach would choose that explanation over something more probable. Any honest mathematician or statistician would admit this.

Modern, mainstream science can't explain much because it is corrupted to the core as well as a dogmatic hierarchy being imposed on honest and talented scientists whose funding will be immediately cut and they will be black listed from being published even on such self publishing sites as arXiv.org if they do not toe the official line. The power and social structure of science is like that of everything else. And the main line of force is to use the talents and abilities of working scientists to come up with more and more ways to weaponize everything to be used against the human population at large, so as to better control them. Everything is used as a weapon, including the food we eat/dietary recommendations we receive, etc.

The "Climategate" fiasco is just one example among innumerable examples of the corruption of science and it's politicized use as a weapon upon the masses. There are too many other examples of manipulating and faking data to list here, but it is becoming more widely reported even in mainstream media.

The theory of evolution is useful as far as it goes, but it's certainly not a "theory of everything" and has quite a limited domain of application. Heck, Darwin's theory can't even properly account for the arising of modern humans on this planet. Furthermore, the dominant materialistic scientific ideology and culture, insisting that matter is the only thing that exists, that all things are composed of matter and all phenomena, including consciousness, are a result of material interactions is pretty much untenable. That matter is somehow the root of existence and consciousness just a byproduct of material interactions is, quite frankly, laughable and explains nothing. There is a great deal of evidence that refutes this nonsense, including people who have most of their brain missing but their mind still works as if they had an intact brain.

All I can say is that for militant materialists that insist there is nothing higher -- no Universal Mind or Consciousness that organizes everything, that consciousness is not the fundamental Oneness from which all else, including matter, springs/emanates -- are so mechanical, are so limited, that they cannot conceive of anything higher than matter following mechanical laws like those, including many very talented and renowned scientists, who are not so limited.

I think I've wasted enough time on this thread as your malfunctioning tape recorder routine is completely unproductive, and I'll probably not post on this thread anymore.

 

[Laura]

I don't know why anybody is even responding to Aaron since he can't manage to write coherent sentences expressing clear ideas. I have neither the time nor the inclination to diagram his sentences for him to show him that this is true - scientifically, as it were - because I long ago learned that if a person cannot even manage the words they express, they certainly cannot assimilate words directed at them.

Aaron, go play with the little kids please, and leave the adults alone. Quit pretending that you are able to keep up your end of a discussion.

The rest of you, please note that you are mainly "filling in the gaps" and assuming what Aaron means since there is no real meaning in any sentence he has written thus far.

 

[Gonzo]

Geez, and I was thinking something horrible happens in the future rendering this artificial intelligence forum bot from the future incapable of forming coherent, complete sentences. I also considered it was due to the native language of the original programmers not being English. My bad.

You'd think that if they were going to send in a bot to our present time to discredit the work of the forum, they'd at least ensure the darned thing worked.

Do you think they have AI repairmen (or repairbots) in the future?
:)

Perhaps this thread will end up getting moved to baked noodles as a cautionary tale while we try to develop criteria to discern how much is too much and protocols to avoid over investments of valuable energy toward useless goals.

Gonzo

 

[AaronAgassi]

Gonzo, even from the front page of this forum, there is quite enough appeal to the authority and cache science...

Well then you need to look at the science itself.

Well, any science would begin with what I keep asking for and have yet too see. The rest of yours is unintelligible to me.

 

[Laura]

Well, any science would begin with what I keep asking for and have yet too see. The rest of yours is unintelligible to me.

You are as unintelligible to us as we are, apparently, to you. That can only mean one thing: different species. No point in continuing because there is no language colinearity.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

This discussion has been going around in circles. Within the first few replies on the thread, Aaron's questions were answered. That is, they were shown to be misguided in the first place, i.e. 'not even wrong.' Yet Aaron has responded with nothing but poorly constructed sentences with words bigger than he is able to wield and that have amounted to little more than hair-splitting. Even though the assumptions in his posts have been pointed out repeatedly, Aaron ignores all this and repeats his questions like a broken record. That says more than enough. The image of the Yezidi in a circle comes to mind.

 

[Palinurus]

I don't know why anybody is even responding to Aaron since he can't manage to write coherent sentences expressing clear ideas.

Well, apart from answering direct questions - I thought it could have been worthwhile since the subject matter as such certainly has merit. I mean these are huge questions which were debated over centuries...

Roughly speaking, science as a concept has a broad and a narrow interpretation and besides that there is the difference between 'hard' science and 'soft' science. AaronAgassi turned out to be a downsized type of the narrowest version of 'hard' science 101 in Reader's Digest format with a very rigid attitude about it to boot as well. Thusly all efforts ran astray...

Karl Popper was mentioned, but the wikipedia page dealing with him and his works has many nuances pertinent to this discussion which got completely lost in AaronAgassi's superficial version of it. To give just one example of missed opportunities.

Nevertheless, I think this thread has the benefit of giving an overview of where we stand collectively vis a vis his tenacious attempt at discrediting the standards we try to uphold and as such wasn't a total waste of time and efforts. Wish he would have shown himself a more capable and more knowledgeable opponent for the purpose of learning.

 

[A.K.]

Aaron,

When you state that you were invited to come here and assess what was going on, I assume whoever sent you was not associated with this network, otherwise you might have been better briefed.

However, I don't feel safe in assuming the desired purpose or results of whoever sent you nor why you were chosen. Unfortunately, you have come her thinking that the Cassiopaea Experiment is a scientific experiment, which it is not, and, due to your preconception, keep looking for the single hypothesis behind this alleged experiment.

This is akin to a man bursting into a house, demanding where his treasure is and the homeowner explaining she has no idea what he is talking about. And yet the man persists in wanting to know where his treasure is. The man is assuming the treasure exists and has closed his mind so that he is not able to hear anything that does not fit his expectation.

This is mechanical behaviour. I am beginning to wonder if you are Aaron's computer in the future sending messages to the past to taint Aaron's reputation as a logical person (although I would have expected artificial intelligence to have advanced further).

If you genuinely want to serve your master on this errand, maybe it would be useful for us know who sent you and specifically what they asked you to accomplish, since we might be able to provide you with specifics to take back. I am concerned that you are interpreting, assuming and filtering the request. That is, unless someone sent you here to appear illogical and to feed yourself on the energies and attention of others.

However, if this is not possible for reasons of national security or some other compelling reason, then perhaps you could merely report back that the term experiment is used in the broader sense, that channeling using a board-type instrument provides inspiration for lines of inquiry which may result in the formation of hypotheses and testing.

Gonzo

Right on the money Gonzo! :D

I still can't comprehend? AaronAgassi, normally you join a forum because you can get along with persons of the same interests. Not trying real hard to debunk something that is undeniable. Now with your intelligence, you'll no doubt have a place in political or mainstream scientific forums where your brilliance can really shine. But you behave like an attention seeker! Or something within you resonates with this new information from the Cass. that you cannot denial it but clashes with what you have been told so far.