On Feb 23, 11:01 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.
I have taken this incident and other cold reading incidents to different NG?s and they have reacted just like BJACOBY explains. ?? 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.?
Frankly speaking I was expecting much of the same coming here and was quite surprised that BJACOBY nailed it on the head. Some things are just beyond our current physics to explain.
Quantum Theory can account for the random possibility but not for the repeated accuracy concerning this and I would have to presume other psychic?s cold readings. And by cold reading I mean he NEVER asks you a question. It isn?t the con of those who presume the role of psychic and proceed to fish for an answer by asking you question after question before the reading. He would just tell you what was coming up with almost 100% accuracy.
This in not to suggest that science will never come up with an answer. It just hasn?t caught up to what the Mystics knew and what this psychic explained to me in a private consultation. That being, there is a thin veil that separates this 3D reality from the astral dimension. This thin veil is constantly penetrated and the astral bleeds through so to speak, hence all the reported paranormal events.
In reference to this psychic and his methodology, he explained that he is able, in trance, to travel out of body to the Akashic Record (a record of time past, present and PROBABLE FUTURES) view them and correlate what is coming up next for you based on your previous causes and effects. He also prefaced this by saying that EVERYTHING is recorded. All your thoughts, words and deeds. I would assume there is some scientific correlation to this.
Now, who am I to argue with someone who made such an indelible impression by making actuate predicts that extended 40 years into my future. They certainly can be debated and doubted by naysayers but not dismissed as Graham Cooper suggests and explained away with ?Macro Quantum Entanglement is the mechanism for all paranormal, obviously.?
Is protecting the current scientific paradigm so important to negate the obvious?