Forbidden Science

[LostAngeles]

The LAPL has it in the central branch with a reference copy and a circulation copy, neither of which, at current posting, is checked out. However, they seem to have it under the title, "Alternative science : challenging the myths of the scientific establishment," from what it looks like on the cover and that's the title it came up under when I did my search.

Call # 501 M662 1996
Author Milton, Richard, 1943-
Title(s) Forbidden science
Alternative science : challenging the myths of the scientific establishment / Richard Milton.
Publisher Rochester, Vt. : Park Street Press, c1996.
Paging 264 p. ; 23 cm.
Notes Originally published: Forbidden science : Fourth Estate Ltd, 1994.
Includes bibliographical references (p. 248-254) and indexes.
Subject Headings Science Philosophy.
Fundamentalism.
Toleration.
Format qEnglish

 

[Ladewig]

The LAPL has it in the central branch with a reference copy and a circulation copy, neither of which, at current posting, is checked out. However, they seem to have it under the title, "Alternative science : challenging the myths of the scientific establishment," from what it looks like on the cover and that's the title it came up under when I did my search.

After nothing came up on a title search in the Houston library, I did an author search and all I found was: "Shattering The Myths Of Darwinism"

 

[Hawk one]

After nothing came up on a title search in the Houston library, I did an author search and all I found was: "Shattering The Myths Of Darwinism"

So, since the title can be interpreted two ways, did you check out whether it was debnking the silly creationism myths, or just repeating them?

 

[Dancing David]

Let me ask you this: If, as the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) team claims, some operators can affect a machine's otherwise random data output by about one or two parts in 10,000, how would that be proven scientifically?

Sorry Rodney , but one to two parts in 10,000 would most likely be impossible to discern from the random variation itself. Yo become statistical significan you have to have a mean/average and know what the usual variation of the evnt around the mean/average is, this is called the standard devaition, then you have to demonstarte that an events occurs beyond the standard deviation to demonstrate an effect.

I am sure that what you have decribed is statisticaly not meaningful, at least the way it is presented.

 

[Dancing David]

Thanks, I truely love fruitcake around the solstice.

alleged alterante science:

Strangely, the real facts of the Michelson Morley experiment are the very opposite of this oft-told seminal tale. Michelson and Morley did not in fact obtain a null result in their original experiment. They found a small, anomalous deviation from the expected value, but this finding was simply forgotten about. Few attempts have been made to replicate the experiment itself but several of them have also found experimental evidence for an ether. Most extraordinary of all is the series of experiments carried out over a 30 year period by Dayton Miller, from 1906 to the mid 1930s, using far more accurate apparatus than Michelson and Morley and which clearly and consistently showed an ether drift effect. But these results contradicted Einstein and Relativity, so they were first ignored and later, after Miller’s death, made the subject of a campaign of denigration.

http://www.alternativescience.com/ether.htm


They found a small, anomalous deviation from the expected value, but this finding was simply forgotten about.
no citations, no data just the raw assertions that this is so. MMMMM pecans.
but several of them have also found experimental evidence for an ether.
No citations , no studies , no data to examine. MMMMM Butter, sugar and eggs.
Dayton Miller, from 1906 to the mid 1930s, using far more accurate apparatus than Michelson and Morley and which clearly and consistently showed an ether drift effect.

MMMM dyed fruit!

I love fruit cake.

I am not sure about icing on fruitcake!

However, the effect Miller saw was tiny. In order for it to detect aether, the properties of aether drag would have to more pronounced. Furthermore, the measurement was statistically far from any other measurements being carried on at the time, fringe shifts of about 0.01 were being observed in many experiments, while Miller's 0.08 was not duplicated anywhere else -- including Miller's own 1904 experiments with Morley, which showed a drift of only 0.015. The measurements are perfectly consistent with a fringe difference of zero -- the null result that every other experiment was recording.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dayton_Miller

 

[Psiload]

Allow me to point out the following erroneous statement on Milton's "alternative Science" website:

http://www.alternativescience.com/

Under the heading of Censorship:

Jacques Benveniste was dismissed by his Institute for investigating homeopathy.

Uhh... no he was not. Jacques Benveniste was dismissed by his Institute for investigating homeopathy poorly.

Once again... this is an example of bad science, not forbidden science.

 

[Rodney]

Sorry Rodney , but one to two parts in 10,000 would most likely be impossible to discern from the random variation itself. Yo become statistical significan you have to have a mean/average and know what the usual variation of the evnt around the mean/average is, this is called the standard devaition, then you have to demonstarte that an events occurs beyond the standard deviation to demonstrate an effect.

I am sure that what you have decribed is statisticaly not meaningful, at least the way it is presented.

You might try reading the following paper:
"Correlations of Random Binary Sequences with Pre-Stated Operator Intention: A Review of a 12-Year Program"
by R. G. Jahn, B. J. Dunne, R. D. Nelson, Y. H. Dobyns, and G. J. Bradish

Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) School of Engineering and Applied Science, Princeton University

Abstract — Strong correlations between output distribution means of a variety of random binary processes and prestated intentions of some 100 individual human operators have been established over a 12-year experimental program. More than 1000 experimental series, employing four different categories of random devices and several distinctive protocols, show comparable magnitudes of anomalous mean shifts from chance expectation, with similar distribution structures. Although the absolute effect sizes are quite small, of the order of 10^–4 bits deviation per bit processed, over the huge databases accumulated the composite effect exceeds 7 sigma (p = 3.5 × 10^–13 ). These data display significant disparities between female and male operator performances, and consistent serial position effects in individual and collective results. Data generated by operators far removed from the machines and exerting their efforts at times other than those of machine operation show similar effect sizes and structural details to those of the local, on-time experiments. Most other secondary parameters tested are found to have little effect on the scale and character of the results, with one important exception: studies performed using fully deterministic pseudorandom sources, either hard-wired or algorithmic, yield null overall mean shifts, and display no other anomalous features.

See -- http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/2.html

 

[bruto]

I don't believe that vaccines make one healthier overall, anyway.

Of course vaccines don't make you "healthier overall." They prevent you from getting specific diseases. Until one is exposed to the disease, one is undifferentiated from unvaccinated people who are also unexposed. After I am exposed to the diseases for which I am vaccinated, I will be no healthier than I was before either. That's the point. I just don't catch the disease. That's what vaccines do.

 

[Rodney]

Thanks, I truely love fruitcake around the solstice.

alleged alterante science:



http://www.alternativescience.com/ether.htm


They found a small, anomalous deviation from the expected value, but this finding was simply forgotten about.
no citations, no data just the raw assertions that this is so. MMMMM pecans.
but several of them have also found experimental evidence for an ether.
No citations , no studies , no data to examine. MMMMM Butter, sugar and eggs.
Dayton Miller, from 1906 to the mid 1930s, using far more accurate apparatus than Michelson and Morley and which clearly and consistently showed an ether drift effect.

MMMM dyed fruit!

I love fruit cake.

I am not sure about icing on fruitcake!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dayton_Miller

You forgot to quote this:

"Other studies have instead concluded that the shifts in Miller's data are statistically significant. For example, A. K. Timiriazev, R. A. Monti (Physics Essays 9, 1996) and M. Allais (Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Sciences 327, 1999) later disproved Shankland's allegation. Dr. Maurice Allais statistical analysis of the thousands of interferometer measurements of Dayton Miller found a corresponding periodicity with the sidereal day, the equinoxes and other celestial events thus invalidating the Robert S. Shankland refutation of Miller's work. This analysis, if confirmed, either casts doubt on the second postulate of Special Relativity or opens possibilities for expansion of the theory. As of 2004, more of Miller's papers from the possession of R. S. Shankland have resurfaced and are awaiting future analysis."

 

[Ersby]

He talks about the remote viewing of URDF-3 too. At least he admits most of the stuff Pat Price "saw" was useless, he still falls into the old mistakes that people tend to make when talking about this.

http://www.alternativescience.com/remote_viewing.htm

shameless plug:

http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Remote_Viewing

 

[Dancing David]

You forgot to quote this:

"Other studies have instead concluded that the shifts in Miller's data are statistically significant. For example, A. K. Timiriazev, R. A. Monti (Physics Essays 9, 1996) and M. Allais (Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Sciences 327, 1999) later disproved Shankland's allegation. Dr. Maurice Allais statistical analysis of the thousands of interferometer measurements of Dayton Miller found a corresponding periodicity with the sidereal day, the equinoxes and other celestial events thus invalidating the Robert S. Shankland refutation of Miller's work. This analysis, if confirmed, either casts doubt on the second postulate of Special Relativity or opens possibilities for expansion of the theory. As of 2004, more of Miller's papers from the possession of R. S. Shankland have resurfaced and are awaiting future analysis."

And where was I supposed to quote that from? You could have said.

I reread the wiki article and I looked for peer reviewed papers concerning the alleged material that you quoted from the wiki article.

The only places that reference it are not in any journals or institutions that study astrophysics, they all seem to be linked to alterante science of speculation.

If the ether exist, it has not been demonstrated, since the stuff referenced to Maurice A is from 1955, I suspect that no one else has investigated it or if they have it has been found wanting.
So where is special relativity being modified?
Not because it is forbidden science but because it is non-productive. There is no conspiracy to suppress material, most scientists would love to be associated with something that overturns conventional science.
So unitil someone can show me material that shows that the ether exists, I say Fruitcake, tatsy but un-nouishing.

 

[Mojo]

Perhaps the most interesting story in the book is about Velikovsky. He actually made several bold predictions, that were regarded as impossible at the time. These predictions were later confirmed by science, yet his theories are still not generally accepted.

OK, name 10 predictions he made that you believe were in error, and let's discuss them.

I have a better idea, Love. Why don't you list 10 of his "bold predictions, that were regarded as impossible at the time" that "were later confirmed by science", And let's discuss those.

 

[Mojo]

That's not an argument, that's contradiction. The implied argument being Velikovsky is wrong because his theories contradict well-established facts?

Well, if a theory doesn't fit the facts, it has problems, doesn't it?

 

[Ladewig]

I have a better idea, Love. Why don't you list 10 of his "bold predictions, that were regarded as impossible at the time" that "were later confirmed by science", And let's discuss those.

Yes, some of us are having a hard time acquiring the book. Please list the predictions that were regarded as impossible but later confirmed.

 

[love]

Vaccines aren't meant to make you healthier...

That's right. That's why I don't take them.

Cutting my legs off at my knees would prevent me breaking my ankle. It just wouldn't make me healthier overall. So I don't do it.

The fact that the medical profession negligently ignores side-effects that don't directly kill you doesn't mean that this is remotely sensible.

 

[moopet]

That's right. That's why I don't take them.

Cutting my legs off at my knees would prevent me breaking my ankle. It just wouldn't make me healthier overall. So I don't do it.

The fact that the medical profession negligently ignores side-effects that don't directly kill you doesn't mean that this is remotely sensible.

Wearing shin-guards wouldn't make you healthier overall, but it would make you less likely to break your shins.

Admittedly, it would be a fashion faux-pas, but I'm terrible at analogies. It's still a hell of a lot better than your legs/ankle example.

 

[Ladewig]

That's right. That's why I don't take them.

Cutting my legs off at my knees would prevent me breaking my ankle. It just wouldn't make me healthier overall. So I don't do it.

The fact that the medical profession negligently ignores side-effects that don't directly kill you doesn't mean that this is remotely sensible.

A discussion of vaccines might make more progress in a separate thread. There are a lot of posters here who know a lot about that subject but they might not be watching the second page of this thread.

So, how's chances of seeing the list of predictions that were regarded as impossible but later confirmed?

 

[love]

I have a better idea, Love. Why don't you list 10 of his "bold predictions, that were regarded as impossible at the time" that "were later confirmed by science", And let's discuss those.

I am not certain Velikovsky made a lot of predictions, because I do not believe he had a "shotgun" approach as claimed by others.

I am however reading his original book (Worlds In Collision), and will get back to you on what predictions he makes.

In the meantime, I would be fascinated to know what the standard explanation is for the extent of the last ice age. In particular, how did it manage to extend down to Scotland, but fail to cover the much more northern Sibera?

 

[JamesM]

In the meantime, I would be fascinated to know what the standard explanation is for the extent of the last ice age. In particular, how did it manage to extend down to Scotland, but fail to cover the much more northern Sibera?

According to Wikipedia:

Despite having present-day climates similar to those of glaciated areas in North America, East Asia and parts of Alaska were unglaciated except at the highest elevations. This anomaly was caused by the fact that the ice sheets in Europe produced extensive anticyclones above them. These anticyclones generated westerly winds that were so dry on reaching Siberia and Manchuria that sufficient precipiation to form glaciers could never occur except in Kamchatka where these westerly winds lifted moisture from the Sea of Japan. The relative warmth of the Pacific Ocean due to the shutting down of the Oyashio Current and the presence of large east-west mountain ranges were secondary factors preventing continental glaciation in Asia.

 

[Ladewig]

I found a site that lists 7 of Velikovsky's prediction that were later determined to be true (although that first one seems a bit strange to me).

http://survive2012.com/pole_shift_2.php

In fact many of his radical ideas that orthodox science originally laughed at, due to their lack of scientific foundation, have become proven facts:


· Jupiter periodically becomes unstable and ejects excess mass.

· Jupiter emits non-thermal radio noise.

· Comets can be rich in hydrocarbons, with highly energetic electrical tails.

· The Moon has had recent surface melting, seismic and volcanic activity, none of which should be true for a body that had supposedly been dead for 4.5 billion years.

Velikovsky deduced each of these facts many years before mainstream science found ways to prove them. He also stated that after its close encounters with Earth, Mars and the Sun, Venus would have a much higher than expected temperature, would be enveloped in hydrocarbon clouds (remnants of its comet’s tail), and would have an anomalous rotation. The scientists’ predictions - a similar temperature to Earth, an atmosphere of carbon dioxide or water and standard rotation – have all since been shown to be wrong. Venus has a surface temperature of 750 degrees Kelvin - hot enough to melt lead. Its atmosphere is full of hydrocarbons and its rotation is in an opposite direction to all the other planets.

Still, even if he made only these seven predictions against orthodox science and these predictions are accurate, that doesn't mean that Venus was ejected from Jupiter, bounced around the solar system, passed close enough to Earth to alter its rotation, and then fell into an extermely regular orbit sometime in the past 6000 years.