On Feb 24, 2:01 pm, "BJAC...@teranews.com" <b...@iwaynet.net> wrote: > On 2/23/2012 6:48 PM, Graham Cooper wrote: > <somebody wrote> > > > > > > > > > > >>> Dear Fabrizio, > >>> Please apply your mathematic to the following events. I have a number > >>> of people who would like an answer other than it being otherworldly. > > >>> This event was the result of a first encounter with a psychic. He was > >>> lecturing in an upper floor meeting hall ?in and old building in NYC . > >>> The room was filled with rows of fold up ?chairs 75-100 facing a > >>> raised platform with a podium. An effeminate ?man in his mid thirties > >>> dressed impeccable in a suit and tie walked in ?from a side door > >>> accompanied by an assistant. > > >>> When I arrived he was about to commence with a lecture on ?numerology > >>> and the significance of the number 3. I hurried to take my seat > >>> never saying a word and listened. After the lecture was finished > >>> there was a ?short break and you could feel the anticipation in the > >>> packed house as they ?knew what was to happen next. During the break > >>> idle conversations were heard. I listened and did not speak. > > >>> When he returned from an adjoining room he walked up to the first row > >>> and in semi-trance began to tell each person seated, one by one what > >>> was coming up next in their lives. This was absolutely meaningless > >>> to ?me but by the expressions on peoples faces, intriguing. Row after > >>> row ?would leave after they got their personal reading with only a > >>> few ?staying on to watch it all. > > >>> When he finally got to me he pointed at me with closed eyes and said, > >>> I see an older women who is upset with you. She is upset over your > >>> work. You will have a ?to do?, ?words? over your ?. Job. He > >>> turned ?as if to go on to the next person when something drew him back > >>> to me. ?Pointing once again to me, he said, and I see this women upset > >>> over ?another women who is much older than her. He paused as if he > >>> was ?seeing something?..She fell and broke her arm. That was it . > > >>> Around 10:00 or 11:00 PM. that same evening the phone rings, it is my > >>> mother. She goes off on a rant over the fact that I was quitting my > >>> job. Ira, my boss gave her an ear full saying I was leaving him in a > >>> lurch and my mother of course sided with him and was reprimanding me > >>> about my decision to quit. But that is not what raised the hairs on > >>> the back of my neck. I was about to end the conversation when my > >>> mother blurts out? and give your grandmother a call. She slipped on > >>> the ?ice, and broke her wrist. > > >>> How would you account for the accuracy of the psychics cold reading > >>> mathematically? This in not a trick question but an actual event. I > >>> must stress that I had not spoken before or during the reading and had > >>> no prior knowledge of my grandmother?s accident. > > >>> Richard Travisano > > >> Your absent reply suggests you are of the opinnion it cannot be > >> calculated mathematically and is "other worldly". > > >> Thank you.... > >> RT > > And your reply implies what? I don't know. > > > Macro Quantum Entanglement is the mechanism for all paranormal, > > obviously. > > > Chaos theory, events diverge. > > > Anti-Chaos theory, events converge (symbolically) > > > You can't break the laws of physics, but you can break the laws of > > probability. > > And this reply is even worse! What a meaningless jargon word salad! Just > throw all those bogus terms around and everyone will think how "smart" > you are. What have you really said? Nothing as far as I can see. > > The story above exemplifies the problem of physics facing a topic on the > "fringe". Difficult subjects are viewed as best studied by ignoring them > and making fun of them and pretending they don't really exist. There is > even a journal (The Journal of Irreproducible Results) created > specifically to make fun of these topics and insure they are not taken > seriously. > > The point as you can see in the story above, has to do with > reproducibility. Science and physics in particular has taken to > demanding that all "facts" be reproducible on command. Sure it's great > that Maxwells equations tested today will be the same as tested tomorrow > and one can count on similar results each time. But is that all there is > to life? Hardly. > > Perhaps you've seen me here making this point with satire posts with a > lampooning of Lightening I assert is a hoax because it's not > reproducible at will. Hence just like psychic phenomena it must be > simply a hoax and not exist! > > Anyone who's seen REAL psychic phenomena in action (like the above > story) knows that trying to explain the results by chance or probability > or fraud or other skeptical arguments is simply scientific nonsense. > Ignorance codified as an argument. The probabilities of results being > "luck" are astronomically small. Faced with that, most "skeptics" simply > withdraw into accusations of lies and hoaxes as if a real scientist were > too dumb to know the difference. And then as icing on the cake there are > personal attacks on the sanity of the witnesses to insure that nobody > has the balls to press the issue further. > > Obviously all this is the height of anti-science. All of which is made > all them more interesting by the very fact that while traditional > establishment "science" works hard to "debunk" such phenomena, the very > people paying the establishment for their time (government) is also > spending millions (probably much more) to actually investigate practical > applications of the phenomena for spying and other purposes. (remote > viewing) It's obviously all hypocrisy, with politics polluting real > science. > > So what is the answer? Well, I suggest some real scientists with actual > interests in these phenomena could start by growing a set of balls.