Question regarding James Randi and Gary Schwartz

[Rodney]

So, even if Cayce had mentioned that the death ray that would be discovered would be called a laser, you would still score that as a miss?

Yes!

Are you denying that a laser can be used as a death ray?

 

[bookitty]

So, even if Cayce had mentioned that the death ray that would be discovered would be called a laser, you would still score that as a miss?

Do you have any proof that he specifically called it a laser? I looked and can not find any.

Are you denying that a laser can be used as a death ray?

Of course not. But that is the least of the laser's modern applications.

 

[Czarcasm]

How about x-rays?
Or gamma rays?
Or James Earl Ray?

 

[Moss]

Do we have working weaponized laser technology in 2010?

 

[dasmiller]

Do we have working weaponized laser technology in 2010?

if "working" means "deployed, then AFAIK, no. As others have pointed out, there's been a lot of money spent and a lot of work done, but I don't know of anything deployed. There are rumors, of course.

If working means "has anyone destroyed something that might look like a military target with a laser" then, yes, lasers have been occasionally shooting down target drones for 3 decades.

Now, as to how the modern laser fits the "death ray" description - AFAIK, nobody's ever been killed by a laser, so "death ray" isn't too applicable 67 years after Cayce's prediction.

However, as I read Cayce's text, the whole "Death" part seems to be a red herring. Frankly, I'm having a lot of trouble following Cayce's description, but it doesn't seem to discuss much killing with the "death ray." Instead, it was used to "alter or change the ENVIRONS" needed by the "enormous animals that once roamed the Earth." As others have noted, the "Death Ray" or "super cosmic ray" was sent out from "various central plants." The upcoming discovery of the "death ray" was associated with the stratosphere or cosmic rays.

So, the predicton was a "Death Ray" that could be used to change the natural environment to drive "enormous animals" extinct, emanated from various central sources, associated with cosmic rays and the stratosphere, found by 1958.

Frankly, the *only* connection between this and the laser was the patent date of the laser and, arguably, the word "ray."

 

[madurobob]

Are you denying that a laser can be used as a death ray?

He may not be, but I am. Please show me your evidence of a laser being used as a "death ray".

Nest, show me how that was "discovered" in the 25 years between 1933 and 1958.

 

[Rodney]

He may not be, but I am. Please show me your evidence of a laser being used as a "death ray".

I did not say that a laser has been used as a death ray, but it clearly can be. Again, more than 37 years ago, Time stated this: "TRW Systems in Redondo Beach, Calif., for instance, is working on a portable chemical laser (which produces a beam from the energy released in the reaction of two or more chemicals) that could be carried into battle by a unit of only three men. Aimed like a rifle, it would silently burn a fatal, quarter-inch-wide hole in the body of an enemy soldier up to five miles away." As dasmiller and dlorde point out, the reason we don't have a clearly-identified laser death ray owes to cost considerations, not the laws of physics.

Nest, show me how that was "discovered" in the 25 years between 1933 and 1958.

I'm Rodney, not Nest. But, really, you're just nit-picking here.

 

[madurobob]

I did not say that a laser has been used as a death ray, but it clearly can be. Again, more than 37 years ago, Time stated this: "TRW Systems in Redondo Beach, Calif., for instance, is working on a portable chemical laser (which produces a beam from the energy released in the reaction of two or more chemicals) that could be carried into battle by a unit of only three men. Aimed like a rifle, it would silently burn a fatal, quarter-inch-wide hole in the body of an enemy soldier up to five miles away." As dasmiller and dlorde point out, the reason we don't have a clearly-identified laser death ray owes to cost considerations, not the laws of physics.

Time magazine has said a lot of things over the years. Doesn't make them true; nor evidence. what would be evidence would be an actual working death ray. I'm still waiting.

 

[dasmiller]

I did not say that a laser has been used as a death ray, but it clearly can be. Again, more than 37 years ago, Time stated this: "TRW Systems in Redondo Beach, Calif., for instance, is working on a portable chemical laser (which produces a beam from the energy released in the reaction of two or more chemicals) that could be carried into battle by a unit of only three men. Aimed like a rifle, it would silently burn a fatal, quarter-inch-wide hole in the body of an enemy soldier up to five miles away."

Which bears little resemblance to the device described by Cayce. To the earlier question about whether Cayce using the term "laser" would have been a hit, well, let's suppose that he'd changed "Death Ray" to "laser." Then his prediction would have been that by 1958 we would find (his word) a "laser" or "super cosmic ray" that could be "sent out from various central plants" to "alter or change the environs" needed by enormous beasts.

I would absolutely call that a miss.

ETA - CFCs would actually fit the description better, since they damage the ozone layer (not tecnically the stratosphere that Cayce mentions, but not too far off), which in turn damages the environment needed by the enormous beasts. Or the small and middle-sized beasts, for that matter. CFCs could be sent from a central source, though, of course, that's not how we do it. Of course, human manufacture of CFCs predates Cayce's predictions, and their impact on the ozone layer wasn't known until the 1970s, so it's still a pretty thorough miss

 

[BobR]

Those are indeed intriguing but raise many questions. What is the source of those quotes? Is it possible to prove that they were written before the fact? Or were they gleaned from something written after the dates mentioned?

Well, no it isn't possible to prove that, any more than (as I have said elsewhere) it's possible to prove that the sun will rise tomorrow. On the other hand, all of Cayce's readings (except the very earliest ones) were transcribed by one person who dated all of them and is as credible as anyone. So your hypothesis is unlikely in my mind.

In the source for those quotes, how many other predictions were given that were wrong? If these 3 are the only correct out of say, 200 predictions, they are far less impressive. Remember, Cayce was incredibly prolific. With so many predictions to choose from it would be nearly impossible to not get some right from chance alone.

The question of statistical significance is important here, that is how far the body of correct answers deviates from expected random answers that are correct. Most of the most sophisticated argument around Cayce has to do with the criteria for verifiability, any alterations to which will greatly alter the statistics.

 

[BobR]

But so many of his trance-induced readings are obvious fantasies - Atlantis, talking to Jesus, being an ancient priest.

By the way, this is a fine example of the "argumentum ad populum" logical fallacy.

 

[Dr H]

How about x-rays?
Or gamma rays?
Or James Earl Ray?

Not to mention Alvino Ray.

 

[Rodney]

Time magazine has said a lot of things over the years. Doesn't make them true; nor evidence. what would be evidence would be an actual working death ray. I'm still waiting.

According to the May 14, 2010 USA Today article titled "'Star Wars' meets reality? Military testing laser weapons" --

Are we finally witnessing the dawn of the "death ray"?

Five decades after the creation of the laser, the ubiquitous technology of the modern era may be ready to serve up that Star Wars science-fiction staple: the laser blaster.

Advances in the technology have made it possible for military testers to shoot down incoming mortar rounds with land-based lasers, and military commanders are on the verge of being able to fire laser blasts from the air that could be aimed at tanks or mines.

See http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2010-05-14-1Adeathray14_CV_N.htm?csp=hf

 

[catsmate]

I did not say that a laser has been used as a death ray, but it clearly can be. Again, more than 37 years ago, Time stated this: "TRW Systems in Redondo Beach, Calif., for instance, is working on a portable chemical laser (which produces a beam from the energy released in the reaction of two or more chemicals) that could be carried into battle by a unit of only three men. Aimed like a rifle, it would silently burn a fatal, quarter-inch-wide hole in the body of an enemy soldier up to five miles away."

And despite nearly forty years of research there is still no personal laser weapons deployed, beyond dazzling and blinding systems. There are still experiments in air defense (which I'm reliably told have more to do with inter-service rivalry than anything else) and the HEL deployed to Iraq for bomb disposal (inferior to a .50 rifle). Handheld laser weapons capable of challenging projectile weapons are a long way off.
Though the wireless taser will probably arrive soon.

As dasmiller and dlorde point out, the reason we don't have a clearly-identified laser death ray owes to cost considerations, not the laws of physics.

Really? So you know how to improve the efficiency of high powered solid-state lasers? Develop batteries with storage densities equal to chemical explosives? How to create reliable, compact and safe burst energy systems? De-toxify chemical laser fuels? Persuade air, mist and dust not to asborb and dissipate laser pulses? I know several physicists and engineers who'd like to know this..........

 

[Ashles]

So, even if Cayce had mentioned that the death ray that would be discovered would be called a laser, you would still score that as a miss?

Are you denying that a laser can be used as a death ray?

I read the OP and then jumped to the top of the third page and read this post.

I am excited to go back and see how we got from the OP to death rays in just two pages.

Although part of me wants to simply leave it as a little mystery.

 

[dafydd]

His 1934 prediction that Hitler would rise to power in Germany is pretty impressive as well, having been made about a year after Hitler became Chancellor.

Churchill knew it too,but he was a voice in the wilderness in British politics at that time.Are you claiming pyschic powers for Winnie too?

 

[madurobob]

According to the May 14, 2010 USA Today article titled "'Star Wars' meets reality? Military testing laser weapons" --

Are we finally witnessing the dawn of the "death ray"?

Five decades after the creation of the laser, the ubiquitous technology of the modern era may be ready to serve up that Star Wars science-fiction staple: the laser blaster.

Advances in the technology have made it possible for military testers to shoot down incoming mortar rounds with land-based lasers, and military commanders are on the verge of being able to fire laser blasts from the air that could be aimed at tanks or mines.

See http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2010-05-14-1Adeathray14_CV_N.htm?csp=hf

Even IF the LASER ever becomes something we can call a "Death Ray" you'll have to move the goal posts quite a bit to ever consider that a "hit" for Cayce. That'd be like claiming the microwave oven was invented in 1888 by Heinrich Hertz.

 

[dasmiller]

According to the May 14, 2010 USA Today article titled "'Star Wars' meets reality? Military testing laser weapons" --

Are we finally witnessing the dawn of the "death ray"?

To the extent that the military lasers in that article would be would be "sent out from various central plants" to "alter or change the environs" needed by "enormous beasts," yes, it's a perfect match to Cayce's death ray.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Whoa! Zombie Thread Redux.

Oh, it's you, Rodney.

 

[Mojo]

Churchill knew it too,but he was a voice in the wilderness in British politics at that time.Are you claiming pyschic powers for Winnie too?

No, and neither am I claiming that the ability to read a newspaper is a psychic power. "Predicting" something like this after it had already happened would appear to indicate that, far from having psychic access to hidden information, Cayce actually had access to less information than he could have been expected to have simply by buying a daily newspaper.

I very much doubt that anyone involved in British politics would have failed to notice that Hitler had become Chancellor in 1933, and I suspect that most of them would have been aware of the Enabling Act of the same year. Where Churchill differed from most other commentators of the time was in his assessment of the implications of this, not on whether it had actually happened.