Explain the 3-Sphere to me.

[Tiki Tom]

Latest research study that supports the hypothesis that Remote Viewing is a genuine phenomenon. provocatively, the paper is titled “Follow up on the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency’s remote viewing experiments.”

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10275521/

The study is very academic and is filled with procedures, inputs, numbers, qualifiers, and statistical analysis.

To “cut to the chase” read (towards the very end) the two paragraphs immediately BEFORE the section titled “peer review.”

Given the above, it’s difficult not to wildly (?) surmise that —despite the cancellation of Star Gate— the program’s work probably continues under an even blacker USAP program somewhere.

It’s pretty to speculate about!

 

[Tiki Tom]

More on the same topic.
Again, disregarding the sensationalist aspects of the article, if ANY of this is true the very nature of reality is different than what most scientists believe.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...n-consciousness-Monroe-Institute-Gateway.html

Yes, yes. The article is in a tabloid. That said, the reporting is essentially on true/real stuff. How far you can take the conclusions is another matter.

 

[Tiki Tom]

Worth watching. It’s only 13 minutes long. It purports to show how the scientific acceptance of the anomalous nature of consciousness is slowly gaining traction. On the other hand, I recently had a discussion with a UCLA social scientist who essentially said “we have no model that might explain this, therefore it cannot be.”

 

[Tiki Tom]

So… Dark matter and dark energy might not be real after all. A bit of a surprise, that. Especially since they’ve been pushing these sci fi notions for decades. shrugs.

So why then does it appear that the universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate? It turns out that a far simpler explanation might be that time goes faster in empty space and slower where gravity is stronger. When we look at the universe through this time lense, we get the illusion that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate of speed. Simple!

https://www.sciencealert.com/dark-energy-may-not-exist-something-stranger-might-explain-the-universe

I think I like this theory better than dark matter/dark energy. Of course, we are venturing into an area where it’s hard to prove anything. Not to mention that it all apparently happened by accident. It all seems very fantastical.

 

[Leather_nube]

So… Dark matter and dark energy might not be real after all. A bit of a surprise, that. Especially since they’ve been pushing these sci fi notions for decades. shrugs.

So why then does it appear that the universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate? It turns out that a far simpler explanation might be that time goes faster in empty space and slower where gravity is stronger. When we look at the universe through this time lense, we get the illusion that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate of speed. Simple!

https://www.sciencealert.com/dark-energy-may-not-exist-something-stranger-might-explain-the-universe

I think I like this theory better than dark matter/dark energy. Of course, we are venturing into an area where it’s hard to prove anything. Not to mention that it all apparently happened by accident. It all seems very fantastical.

Seems like a more logical explanation that mystery matter.

 

[KILO NOVEMBER]

Karl Popper, an Austrian-born 20th Century philosopher, later a British subject and knighted, is well known (in circles where such things are known) for his proposition that in order for a proposition to be scientific, it must be, at least in theory, disprovable.

My corollary is that anything else is a matter of faith.

From that perspective, dark matter and dark energy (neither of which can't be observed in any way) are articles of faith. Far more of what passes as science than scientists would willing to admit, is faith.

I remember a 1950's sci-fi movie where a UFO flew over a town and crashed, the townspeople were mystified and a little scared when one said, "Professor so-and-so is fishing up at the lake. Let's ask him. He'll know!"

I chuckled to myself and wondered how the scene would have played out if it had been set in medieval Europe and not 1950's USA. I'm sure that instead of asking the professor they would have run to the village priest.

 

[Leather_nube]

I'm sure that instead of asking the professor they would have run to the village priest.

Likely. Many were the scholars of their time.

This guy was one of the founders of scholasticism I think.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas

 

[Tiki Tom]

Wasn’t the Big Bang theories developed by a Belgian catholic priest who was also an MIT trained physicist?

 

[KILO NOVEMBER]

Wasn’t the Big Bang theories developed by a Belgian catholic priest who was also an MIT trained physicist?

It's one of those Newton vs. Leibnitz controversies. It seems that Alexander Friedmann (born in imperial Russia, died in the USSR) and Georges Lemaître, Belgian priest, came up with the theory independently.

Two scientific notions that were once accepted the way dark matter and dark energy are now, were phlogiston, and aether, proposed by James Clerk Maxwell.

Skepticism, and not faith, is the mark of real science. Much of what is accepted as science by the poorly-educated could do with a good dose of skeptical thinking. It brings to mind a popular three-word phrase often heard in recent years.

 

[Benny Holiday]

Back in May 2004, in New Scientist Edition 182, science writer and plasma researcher Eric Lerner wrote an article about 33 leading scientists who had written what they termed an 'open letter to the scientific community.' The letter included the following statements from those scientists:

"The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed—inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory."

"But the big bang theory can’t survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation. … Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory’s explanation of the origin of the light elements."

"In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory [emphasis in original]."

So those scientists were saying just what Kilo November has stated, that many cosmological principles taught as fact are really articles of faith and note borne out by observational science at all. Dark matter, they claimed, is in reality nothing more than a fudge factor to prop up the tenets of the Big Bang Theory.