Large Hardon Collider

[Chun Liroy]

Yeah... I saw a large paragraph on this page but figured it was space mumbo jumbo and went back and read what I missed. I was very disappointed. Woulda been more interesting if you were talking about how scientists are trying to make ways for human brains to communicate without speech body language and over long distances.

[Pirian]

No old scientists are refuting you, and nothing is impossible - merely mathematically improbable.

Little late, but nonetheless. Such a bad movie, but whenever someone says this the first thing I think:

Spoiler: show

lol
http://analogmedium.com/blog/2008/04...mariobros2.jpg

[Mizango]

What the hell happened to this thread in the past few hours?

And why do we have to disprove that this psi crap isn't real? I'm pretty sure the burden of proof is on you to provide irrefutable (hey, that's the key word here) evidence that it exists, not some stat like "60% of Americans think they had a paranormal event". Most off those people say that because they know someone else who saw something, and when you ask that person they say they heard it from someone else.

lol exactly my position.

[Kryssan]

Little late, but nonetheless. Such a bad movie, but whenever someone says this the first thing I think:

Spoiler: show

lol
http://analogmedium.com/blog/2008/04...mariobros2.jpg

I always think of this whenever Clarke is brought up:

Spoiler: show

Loved this book.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...a_Revealed.jpg

And I always think of these when I use the mathematically improbable quote:

Spoiler: show

http://img1.fantasticfiction.co.uk/images/c0/c832.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...tion_cover.jpg

[Pirian]

Has more to do with seeing that movie a billion times when I was 6 while bored at my grandmothers, so the whole thing (for better or worse) is etched into my brain. When I was 6 it was an awesome movie. Oh how naive I was.

[Kryssan]

How how naive I was.

Yes, we can see the permanent effects.

[Pirian]

Yes, we can see the permanent effects.

Damn it! I thought I had deceived you all

Meant to write "Oh" but my dyslexic brain decided I was going to write "how" instead

[Woozie]

The hell is going on here? You should all be ashamed of yourself for arguing with him for a page and a half. You should have just given him the and moved on to a new topic after just a few posts. That crap doesn't belong in this thread.

[Kuya]

No one has even answered my questions about how they think our brains produce our minds/experience/thoughts. They wanted to argue about psychic powers instead

[Psion]

I gotta admit, I was expecting ridicule without even examining both sides closely, but I am still disappointed in all of you saying it's a load of crap without even checking all the data that shows anomalies that shouldn't be there. (note that I didn't say it's proof of psi, but something odd is going on that methodical errors can't explain away.)

Keeping an open mind to data regardless of what you "know" should be an important tool for all scientists, but I'm not seeing this as being the case...

[Kaylia]

The hell is going on here? You should all be ashamed of yourself for arguing with him for a page and a half. You should have just given him the and moved on to a new topic after just a few posts. That crap doesn't belong in this thread.

I just need an excuse to not work on this homeworks. ;( Everything but this....

But seriously, I was curious to see the "serious" paper on the subject. Seeing bad science in action help me understand how people can believe this garbage, and how easily they are tricked by fake information. Nearly every papers I've seen had major flaws (not really surprising) in the experimentation or protocole, and we arent even talking about bias, and fake data yet...which is pretty common.

[Kuya]

I gotta admit, I was expecting ridicule without even examining both sides closely, but I am still disappointed in all of you saying it's a load of crap without even checking all the data that shows anomalies that shouldn't be there. (note that I didn't say it's proof of psi, but something odd is going on that methodical errors can't explain away.)

Keeping an open mind to data regardless of what you "know" should be an important tool for all scientists, but I'm not seeing this as being the case...

They must not be real scientists, but rather, angrious nerds who are trying to hide facts because it goes against their pre-conceived notions.

[Woozie]

I gotta admit, I was expecting ridicule without even examining both sides closely, but I am still disappointed in all of you saying it's a load of crap without even checking all the data that shows anomalies that shouldn't be there. (note that I didn't say it's proof of psi, but something odd is going on that methodical errors can't explain away.)

Keeping an open mind to data regardless of what you "know" should be an important tool for all scientists, but I'm not seeing this as being the case...

If you really want to discuss this, go to another thread or make your own. I don't go in sports threads and get mad because they don't talk about science there. Sports people don't go into movie threads and get mad because they don't talk about sports.

We don't want to talk about this here. End of discussion.

[Eliseos]

^

See, engineers and scientists can get along just fine!

[Psion]

If you really want to discuss this, go to another thread or make your own. I don't go in sports threads and get mad because they don't talk about science there. Sports people don't go into movie threads and get mad because they don't talk about sports.

We don't want to talk about this here. End of discussion.

While it is debatable, parapsychology is, by definition, a subset of psychology. It has had quite a few controversies to be sure, but each time it gets criticized for lack of controls or possible flaws, the controls get tightened, and examined by critics of the field as well as stage magicians to make sure nothing is done wrong... yet the overall results still remain consistently above chance expectation. Considering they experiment, make theories, test things, etc I would say they could be considered science, and would technically belong in this thread along with other science. However, if no one is willing to discuss it, then that is your right, though I hardly think it's scientific of them. Just browsing the internet though, here's a couple more links for fun:

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Parapsychology

http://www.scientificexploration.org...2_mousseau.pdf

If you guys want to talk about it more, then that's fine by me. If you don't want to talk about it, I'll be sad, but again, that is your choice.

[Woozie]

Like I said, make another topic about it. None of us feel that this is appropriate for this particular thread. If you disagree, then I'm sorry, but we do not want this here.

[Eliseos]

I hate hate hate statistical mechanics, probably because I hate hate hate statistics. I have absolutely no idea how to work with summations anymore, because all the classes I've taken previously to this changed summations into integrals by making the displacement be infinitesimal. Things like (from our notes):

http://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?...28ln%20Z%29%29

where

http://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?...lon_%7Bi%7D%7D

Is there any site that I can go to that goes over things like this?

EDIT: And latex looks horrible using this black skin, sorry about that.

[Woozie]

I don't know if any site. When I took thermal physics, our book was such a horrible book that I went to the library and got a bunch of other books on thermal physics/statistical mechanics.

[Eliseos]

"Using" this book right now, "using" because my teacher usually lectures off of his own notes and doesn't really use examples from the book:

http://www.amazon.com/Classical-Stat...1635229&sr=8-1

It does a lot of the same simplifications my professor uses in his notes, like the one I posted above. It also doesn't show how it derived certain equations. They start off the statistical mechanics section of the book with an example about coin flips, then they start giving all these equations with no mention how they got them.

I don't know if it's the teacher, the book, or the subject in general, but the average on the last exam was a 42%, with the highest being somewhere around 60%. My classical mechanics class on the other hand (4 or 5 of the same people are taking that class with me, with like 10 students in each class) averaged around a 75% on the last exam. I've never felt as bad about my math skills as I have in this class.

EDIT: Also, 100 bux for an extra weight added to my backback.

[Kaylia]

Do what Woozie said and make another thread. This shit has nothing to do with sciences in the first place. Not until people can actually reproduce their results.

While it is debatable, parapsychology is, by definition, a subset of psychology. It has had quite a few controversies to be sure, but each time it gets criticized for lack of controls or possible flaws, the controls get tightened, and examined by critics of the field as well as stage magicians (lol?) to make sure nothing is done wrong... yet the overall results still remain consistently above chance expectation. Considering they experiment, make theories, test things, etc I would say they could be considered science, and would technically belong in this thread along with other science. However, if no one is willing to discuss it, then that is your right, though I hardly think it's scientific of them. Just browsing the internet though, here's a couple more links for fun:

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Parapsychology

http://www.scientificexploration.org...2_mousseau.pdf

If you guys want to talk about it more, then that's fine by me. If you don't want to talk about it, I'll be sad, but again, that is your choice.

Stop posting link without mathematics, no one want to read 15 pages of bullshit. It's easy to argue against result expressed with mathematics with clear methods, but pretty hard to comment on a text that mean absolutely nothing. Most scientific papers talks about more usings 4 times less ink...I wonder why.

And stop saying their flawed experiments are done seriously. They are testing telepathy, but not once did they check what the result would be if there was only a single person in the room. Also, was the experiment truly random, or b) simply came up more often than other, and people are more likely to pick it.