He was mystic, some time even Grand Master of a secret society. Their Society of Science was first underground, later got Royal status, i.e. state protection from Church.
Yes, if British Imperial measures don't take over because their supporters claim that they are more natural and derived directly from God's work. 🙂
Here is an example:
Units of Measure: The Origin of Imperial Units & the Earth Form
Wikipedia is helpful: no evidence of this, although there is speculation. My impression is that Newton's views would have been considered more normal in his day than a similar person today; we (mostly) assume some form of secular rationalism (except in audio) but they did not. His main deviation from the mainstream was his anti-Trinitarianism.Wavebourn said:
Search for "Tube Sound" in Wikipedia, you will be surprised to know what it is. 😀
Like this from your link:
😀 😀 😀
Any Rosicrucian would cry aloud laughing when reading this.
Last edited:
Since the head of state (monarch) is head of Church Of England it was protection by the church and state from the church and state. In one shot Science became better than just respectable.
Done deal.😀
This is one of the reasons England shot ahead in the 18th century.
And thus the name which can be read difficultly means something to somebody here? Withdrawn of course me.
Wikipedia said:
Yes, so would any Christian.Wavebourn said:
Better stop here, as I can feel the mods getting twitchy!
Inquisition is immortal. 😉
Nobody got baked on a stake anymore for herersy, but scientists still are afraid to touch on puiblic some topics unexplainable without involvement of mental faculties. 😀
Unfortunately, you should look at the news from several parts of the world where "my way or the highway" is still taken to unfortunate extremes. This of course is a social statement on humanity, not political. 😉
A second issue is the bias in scientific circles if you dare not to study the prevailing theory. Funding is so political, you can only do research on what everybody thinks. Billions to find Higgs, because we are pretty sure it is there. How much for theories that don't need a "god" particle? Zip.
If we can't find the Higgs, then we may have to adopt a theory which doesn't need it. If we knew for certain we would find it then there would be little point in looking, except to satisfy those who would assume a cover-up if we didn't look for it. As it is we didn't know exactly where it would be, and it wasn't in the mass region we first expected to find it. The places where it could be are getting quite small, so it is good that at last it may have begun to appear.
It is a truism to say that something is always in the last place you looked, as once you find it you stop looking. However, in the case of the Higgs it has been like searching a room for a lost item. You check each drawer and cupboard in turn, starting with the most likely places. In the case of the Higgs we are now rummaging at the back of the last drawer, so if it isn't there maybe it really isn't in the room at all. It now seems to be in the shadow at the back of the drawer, which should soon be confirmed.
It is a truism to say that something is always in the last place you looked, as once you find it you stop looking. However, in the case of the Higgs it has been like searching a room for a lost item. You check each drawer and cupboard in turn, starting with the most likely places. In the case of the Higgs we are now rummaging at the back of the last drawer, so if it isn't there maybe it really isn't in the room at all. It now seems to be in the shadow at the back of the drawer, which should soon be confirmed.
Even if somebody studied well all underlying theories, but got experimental data that can't be explained using existing theories, and have no clue how to explain the phenomenon that can be, and had been, repeated in controlled experiments, such results as if don't exist. Scientific community prefers to ignore such facts. The more of researchers are getting such results, the more of them are in the list of charlatans or veirdos. I applaude Dean Radin, he is brave man! 😉
http://www.amazon.com/Entangled-Min...6778/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1330730656&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Entangled-Min...6778/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1330730656&sr=8-1
Last edited:
I may have to check Dan out. I have seen things that don't make sense by our normal expectations. I have a big problem with both remote viewing and precognition, but I have seen direct evidence.
It's a good idea to understand how magicians do this. No area has more fakery than this, and a good magician can flummox you. Especially when he insists that he's not a magician (see: Geller, SRI, John Taylor- and Geller isn't even a very good magician)
Most people are good at ignoring things which clash with their world view. They don't even realise they are doing it. Much of the time this is a wise thing to do, as it saves the time it would take to have to falsify every daft idea which comes along. The problem comes when the world view is wrong in some respect. Then valid ideas get filtered out too.
That may be because your world view does not allow for 'non-physical' events? Of course most are nonsense or trickery, but to a monotheist like me there is always the possibility of alternative explanations.
Yes, I'm not the most spiritual person out there. 😀 But so far, every purveyor of paranormal stuff either refuses to be tested with competent magicians present, or has been and then exposed as a fake. It doesn't fill me with optimism that any paranormal stuff will ever pan out.
I cynically note that transubstantiation could be objectively tested, but I suspect there's no grant money available for that.
I cynically note that transubstantiation could be objectively tested, but I suspect there's no grant money available for that.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.