The Campaign For Philosophical Freedom??

[Jono]

For you who might have a different insight to these subjects, what is your opinions of the site http://www.cfpf.org.uk
and it's many pro-survival statements and claims of psychic phenomena being sanely explained by the field of subatomic physics?
They quoate a few astrophysics and have a strong tendency to be that of brining up research by Sir William Crookes and hotly demanding this attention.

It is for me interesting as well as amusing to see that on the pro-survivalist side there is almost an outcry for justice in the imbalanced political and scientific world, as the also quote Carl Sagan (??) as statement pressure.
And on the sceptic scientific side and forth there is perhaps not always an outcry but a strong desire that looks mirror-imaged from the other perspective, asking for sanity.

I invite you to look through this site forementioned and read a bit from it, what do you make of it per se?

 

[vbloke]

from http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/background/scientificproof/scientificproof1.html

WHAT IS MEANT BY SCIENTIFIC PROOF?
This must consist of repeatable experiments backed up with a theory that has a mathematical base.

I wasn't aware that proof had to be mathematical as well.

THE EXPERIMENTAL PROOF OF SURVIVAL AFTER DEATH
We have had the experimental proof of survival after death ever since Sir William Crookes published the results of his experiments in the leading scientific journal of his day - The Quarterly Journal of Science - in 1874.

and then it doesn't actually say what this experiment was or how it was proved.

the whole article here seems to boil down to the fact that radio and television rely on parts of the electromagnetic spectrum that we cannot see, hear, touch or smell, therefore, life after death must also exist as we cannot see, hear, touch or smell the dead (as spirits - you have dirty minds if you thought what I suspect you just though)

so, according to this article, if I've read it right, since radio and TV exist, so must the afterlife.

So, why can't we tune in our TV's to heaven?
Maybe the afterlife doesn't broadcast in FM.

Einstein's Theory of Relativity cannot match the experiment where people who once lived on earth come back and prove they are still alive, because this theory is incompatible with even the very existence of an ether. Ronald Pearson's Theory of the Ether most certainly does. It shows the ether having a complex structure, intelligence and conscious, to be the core ingredient.

so, according to this, Einstein was wrong? People CAN come back from the dead? There really is an Ether?

Hmm, just because a theory fits some of the facts does not make it true. The ether was pretty thoroughlt debuked a long time ago as it didn't stand up to scrutiny - it was superseded by a better, more accurate theory of how the universe behaves.
Why, it looks like the sun orbits the Earth, why not ressurect that theory too? after all, I can't go against the evidence of what I can see with my own eyes...

I've not gone through the rest of the site in detail, but if this sample is anything to go by, I think that it can be reasonably dismissed as a load of oven-ready badgers.

 

[AngrySteve]

The guy behind that site is called: Michael Roll

I heard him on The James Whale show last year in the Uk

Laughably he talked about getting Professor Richard Dawkins over to his way of seeing things.

Anyone that knows anything about Richard Dawkins would know it is extremely unlikely that he would endorse this sort of material

Michael Roll has also talked about actually seeing the dead materialise at past sessions. It apparantly requires the right type of spiritual medium

 

[Jono]

I appreciate the input as always vbloke.

There are quite a few (loads) of material that I've read with a pro-survivalistic theme.

Since I'm not a scientist myself I would be glad to post any questions about experiments and researchers/scientists on this forum to be able to get a clear opinion from people with honestly investigative and inquisitive conduct of thought.

I spend about equal time discussing and reading pro-paranormal issues with pro-survivalists as I do with conventional sceptics as I prefer to get at least three sides to every story, though I of course faulter with that too sometimes.

I agree with AngrySteve that Michael Roll would likely have a slightly better chance in getting James Randi "to his way of seeing things" than Richard Dawkins. Not that anyone of the above would be "easy" without hardcore scientific evidence.

 

[Open Mind]

Einstein was wrong?

Impossible, how can a man with a pipe for concentration and thought experiments possibly fail? Even his hairstyle said 'genius', he didnt wear socks either ....... I'm testing my theory now as I type.

Hmm, just because a theory fits some of the facts does not make it true.

Doesn’t that mean Einstein could be wrong too?

The ether was pretty thoroughlt debuked a long time ago as it didn't stand up to scrutiny

From what I can tell only one type of ether theory was thoroughly debunked, other modified ether theories are still alive and are planning to come back for revenge Even old Lorentz Ether Theory made similar accurate predictions to Einstein’s special relativity … but he wore socks

Einstein’s relativity is often defended as beyond questioning with the comments like ‘The satellite Global Positioning System would not work if relativity wasn’t correct’ …… from what I can tell, this is not quite true, it just means Newton’s socks are not precise enough, other alternative ether theories could also make accurate predictions. ……. For example Ronald Hatch (30 year career in satellite navigation systems) decided to write a book called ‘Escape From Einstein’ and has his own Modified Lorentz Ether Theory.
http://www.egtphysics.net/

And there are other ether theories too….. but none of the alternatives have quite the right hairstyle for much published peer review

 

[Ersby]

Actually, Einstein wasn't the one to say there was no ether. Who was it? Michelson or something. He won the nobel prize. I don't know if he smoked a pipe or wore no socks.

As for the cfpf site, I think it's very funny.

 

[Open Mind]

Actually, Einstein wasn't the one to say there was no ether. Who was it?

I don't know either A guy with one sock?

Michelson or something. He won the nobel prize. I don't know if he smoked a pipe or wore no socks.

Sorry I don’t know if Michelson/Morley smoked pipes either. Their experiment ruled out one type of ether, apparently leading to Einstein's special relativity where light travels through no background medium ether, socks or pipes…. however Einstein still believed in aether/ether, just not the type of ether also ruled out by Michelson/Morley

'The aether of the general theory of relativity is a medium without mechanical and kinematic properties, but which codetermines mechanical and electromagnetic events."
Einstein
Also ........

"More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it, i.e., we must by abstraction take from it the last mechanical characteristic which Lorentz had still left it... [There] is a weighty argument to be advanced in favor of the ether hypothesis. To deny ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever. The fundamental facts of mechanics do not harmonize with this view... According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there would not only be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense."

Einstein

 

[Kopji]

They quoate a few astrophysics and have a strong tendency to be that of brining up research by Sir William Crookes and hotly demanding this attention.

I own a lovely book containing the actual 'spirit photographs' that Crookes took. There are several pages dedicated to his 'proof'.
"Ghosts in Photographs" By Fred Gettings 1978
Harmony Books ISBN 0-517-52930-0

I highly recommend this book if you can find it. It is written by a true believer and makes a case for disbelief better than any "skeptic" could.

Crooke's family destroyed almost all the "Katie documentation" of materialized spirits after his death. Their reasoning was to preserve his memory as a good scientist. I think his family was both wise and kind to his memory.

 

[Dr Adequate]

What a bunch of idiots.

The Ether Is An Explanation For How Everything Works

They're just another pack of woowoos crying out "quantum mechanics/the ether/vibrations/whatever makes our favorite bit of woo possible, as we've proven by saying so several times (maths is hard) therefore our favorite bit of woo exists, QED."

Now in this particular case, the word they've chosen which will "explain" their bit of woo is "ether", by which they mean, well, nothing from which you could derive any predictions. However, they are claiming that something called "the ether" exists. Whereas Einstein showed that a well-defined entity called "the ether" did not exist. Therefore, in addition to "explaining" their favorite bit of woo, they've also proved Einstein's relativity wrong! How clever! And all this without doing one single experiment within the scope of what the the theory of relativity predicts, and finding it contradicted by the facts. That would be hard. How wise of them not to try!

Pathetic dolts.