doktoratomik
|
Re: Mystical, Academic or Aesthetic
Sep 06, 2006, 19:13
|
|
FourWinds wrote: Who decides what defines ''utterly outlandish"?
I thought "at odds with known history and physics" kinda covered it!
|
FourWinds
|
Re: Mystical, Academic or Aesthetic
Sep 06, 2006, 19:28
|
|
doktoratomik wrote: known history and physics
Known physics would rule out most earth energies stuff for a start. Some people don't accept what some scientists claim - they disagree with themselves all the time - so which version of 'known physics' do we take?
I'm not being pedantic here, just pointing out that it's impossible to give a brief set of criteria for such things.
|
doktoratomik
|
Edited Sep 06, 2006, 20:00
Re: Mystical, Academic or Aesthetic
Sep 06, 2006, 19:35
|
|
FourWinds wrote: Known physics would rule out most earth energies stuff for a start. Some people don't accept what some scientists claim - they disagree with themselves all the time - so which version of 'known physics' do we take?
Nah. Something like energy fields doesn't have to contradict known physics just coz it ain't understood (assuming it's real, which I'm not sold on). But the fact that we're having this conversation does kinda imply that some people feel there's stuff that is and isn't acceptable on to post on this site, which in itself suggests to me a clique. Who gets to make these decisions? Where are these rules written? Do you see what I mean? It seems as though, by default, a group of regulars is effectively dictating the rules of the forum. Not being shirty about it.... just explaining why it can make people feel a little uncomfortable and excluded.
|
FourWinds
|
Re: Mystical, Academic or Aesthetic
Sep 06, 2006, 19:42
|
|
doktoratomik wrote: doesn't have to contradict known physics just coz it ain't understood
Sorry, now I have to be pedantic :-)
If it didn't contradict known physics then it'd be understood. The thing in question might be valid, but not explainable by known physics. Even if valid it would still be ruled out by the 'known physics' criterion.
|
doktoratomik
|
Re: Mystical, Academic or Aesthetic
Sep 06, 2006, 20:02
|
|
FourWinds wrote: doktoratomik wrote: doesn't have to contradict known physics just coz it ain't understood
Sorry, now I have to be pedantic :-)
If it didn't contradict known physics then it'd be understood. The thing in question might be valid, but not explainable by known physics. Even if valid it would still be ruled out by the 'known physics' criterion.
How does that follow? If known physics doens't explain something, then how can we understand it? I'm having difficulty playing devil's advocate now coz I don't want to end up sounding like a tin foil hat wearer. :D
|
FourWinds
|
Re: Mystical, Academic or Aesthetic
Sep 06, 2006, 20:10
|
Something can be valid, but not explainable by 'known physics'.
Gravity has always been valid, but was not understood until relatively recently.
Splitting the atom has always been a possibility, but the science wasn't known until very recently. The atom, obviously, didn't suddenly gain the ability to be split in the 1940s.
The science behind the micro-processor has always been valid etc.
But, if you use "doesn't comply with known science" as a criterion for ruling something you rule out genuinely valid things that we don't understand yet.
I actually think "isn't too outlandish" is a far easier and more useful criterion to use :-)
|
Hob
|
Re: Mystical, Academic or Aesthetic
Sep 06, 2006, 20:32
|
Outlandish.
I Don't think outlandish stuff gets knee-jerked off this forum. For a while after Cropredy started posting his dowsing stuff, a number of people were quite open minded, even when it started to wear a bit thin, people tried to suggest ways in which he could get a bit more acceptance for his ideas by testing them.
But he never did, which is a bit of a shame.
'Cos phenomena do happen, and we ain't gonna ever understand them unless we start trying to appreciate them in a non-phenomenological way. Some people might not want to understand weird stuff, preferring to just bask in the strangeness. Personally, I ain't arsed either way, I'd rather think there's room in the world for both ways of seeing.
If the world were slightly more conducive to effective communication, this forum would be a place where the mystical, the academic and the aesthetic humorously blended together in a synergistic manner ;)
|
Paulus
|
Re: Mystical, Academic or Aesthetic
Sep 06, 2006, 20:47
|
< If the world were slightly more conducive to effective communication, this forum would be a place where the mystical, the academic and the aesthetic humorously blended together in a synergistic manner >
Totally! At megalithic sites across this and other countries, we have electromagnetic anomalies recorded at sites, many of which are the probable culprits to the altered states and visionary experiences reported by people from all walks of life. We know these 'earth energies' as they've become known, take place. What we don't fully know is why, or what triggers them. Then there's the obvious spin-off (a natural questioning, surely?) asking whether the folk who stood these stones up in the first place were also aware of these electromagnetic up's-and'down's. Highly likely.
Sadly it seems (and though I luv TMA way above all other megalithic websites), I've gotta agree with DokAtomic here about the cliquey disregard to such seemingly weird notions. I know that to many folk when the expression 'earth energies' appears, everyone shouts Mike Croley and lizards - which is damn irrational and utterly unscientific of those concerned!
Right - I'm gonna dig out a few ley-lines and add the decent ones to some of the sites! : ~)
|
FourWinds
|
Re: Mystical, Academic or Aesthetic
Sep 06, 2006, 20:51
|
Here's a question for you (for anyone actually)
Can you have a conversation where both parties are playing devil's advocate. The Doc says he was doing so while at the same time I was doing so. Surely one person has to mean what they're saying.
|
FourWinds
|
Re: Mystical, Academic or Aesthetic
Sep 06, 2006, 20:54
|
|
I am always banging on that most 'earth energies' things are probably the same energies and fields that are measured by modern geo-fiz devices. At some point other devices will be developed that detect some of the other 'energies' people say exist.
|
