A Universe from Nothing?

[Ben Dhyan]

Here's a link to a Wikipedia discussion on whether or not Physics Essays even counts as a "journal", and there is some debate:

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skepticism/Pseudoscience/Archive 2 - Wikipedia

Using lots of woo-espousing sites to support your assertion that a particular journal (that has very little citation or reputation) has credibility doesn't help your argument. The Wikipedia article doesn't do a thing for you either.

Now there is irony for you.....to use Wiki as a credible source to call out Physics Essays peer reviewed journal as not being a credible source.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Now there is irony for you.....to use Wiki as a credible source to call out Physics Essays peer reviewed journal as not being a credible source.

Also the fact that I can't find almost any citations of it and it's not subscribed to by the vast majority of University science departments.

Also, are you aware that godnotgod used Wikipedia as a source repeatedly throughout his argument?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Also the fact that I can't find almost any citations of it and it's not subscribed to by the vast majority of University science departments.

Also, are you aware that godnotgod used Wikipedia as a source repeatedly throughout his argument?

Ok carry on...

 

[Polymath257]

OK, so we are just going to have to agree to disagree. There is a body of information on the net contradicting your position.

Cite one peer-reviewed journal that claims *changes* are instantly propagated. Measurements *after* changes will be correlated (if there is no previous measurement), but that is far from being the same thing.

 

[godnotgod]

I'm asking you for information regarding the credibility of a paper and its submittal for peer review. I did NOT say credentials aren't important in research, I said that they aren't relevant to whether or not there is credibility in a given paper or the statements you made about it.

Once again, this is you desperately scrabbling to distract from my simple requests. I really don't understand what you're trying so hard to not answer my questions when you made such a big song and dance earlier about how easily you could do that very thing.

The credibility of the researcher is an indication as to the credibility of his work. So I have answered your request in part for 'information regarding the credibility of the paper'.

It also appears that Physics Essays is peer-reviewed, so that satisfies the second part of your request.

As for the paper itself being credible, I have seen nothing to indicate that it is not. When papers are submitted to peer-reviewed journals, they become open to criticism from other 'peers', correct? From the information I have seen regarding papers with this type of content, they are simply ignored, which points to a pre-existing bias amongst mainstream scientists against such content.

 

[godnotgod]

Burden of proof is with you. Prove that they were submitted for peer review and have been replicated by other scientists.

As I said, I am satisfied as to the credibility of the research, and have provided you with information re: the replication of the experiment, eg Peter Fenwick, for one.

As for why I am satisfied, and without getting into the details, it has to do with the fact that these types of experiments only confirms my own direct experience of Reality, which came first, and because I trust Amit Goswami, who is a Quantum physicist who wrote a textbook on the subject, and because he has had spiritual experiences which match my own, resulting in pretty much the same view of Reality.

 

[YmirGF]

From the information I have seen regarding papers with this type of content, they are simply ignored, which points to a pre-existing bias amongst mainstream scientists against such content.

Or, mainstream scientists simply don't think that such papers are worthy of serious consideration. The lack of ground-breaking research here is pretty clear. If something truly interesting cropped up, other scientists would rush to the idea, en masse. That they are not taken in by this sort of research is telling.

 

[godnotgod]

Cite one peer-reviewed journal that claims *changes* are instantly propagated. Measurements *after* changes will be correlated (if there is no previous measurement), but that is far from being the same thing.

I'll see what I can find, OK?

 

[godnotgod]

Or, mainstream scientists simply don't think that such papers are worthy of serious consideration. The lack of ground-breaking research here is pretty clear. If something truly interesting cropped up, other scientists would rush to the idea, en masse. That they are not taken in by this sort of research is telling.

No, they ignore it because of the content. IOW, their bias is preconceived. And they feed off of each other. Any scientists venturing into these areas is immediately set apart and thought of as rather kooky by the rest. No one wants to risk their career, but Jacobo Grinberg did, and so did Amit Goswami, and Sir Roger Penrose, and many others.

 

[Regolith Based Lifeforms]

Well meaning scientists and university students become the ultimate dupes of totalitarian control of information as new students are banned from using Wikipedia and other "free" information as reliable sources, but it goes a little further than that. There is now a database that all universities are linked to and any research of material from outside that database is discouraged, claiming that it may have been altered and compromised. Research on any unapproved subject or project WILL result in withdrawal of funding. In case anyone hasn't heard what comes next, it's pretty much impossible to ever be taken seriously by mainstream scientists again, so lack of further employment is essentially ex-communication from the global academic science community. Check out for yourselves what is required for admittance to this database and how much money it costs.
Sound familiar?

Some claim this can be traced to the global banking system.
It doesn't matter to me WHO it gets traced to, it's F***ed and very familiar to me.
I ALWAYS got top grades in history and science classes in public schools.....
A strange foreboding i could never shake or explain at the time kept me far away from the universities, but I stayed close to science and the scientific method which existed before the cloistering of the universities.
The studies on those brainwave correlations WILL NEVER BE REPLICATED.

 

[Regolith Based Lifeforms]

Cite one peer-reviewed journal that claims *changes* are instantly propagated. Measurements *after* changes will be correlated (if there is no previous measurement), but that is far from being the same thing.

QM is either not real enough or not useful enough to bother with. Maybe it's a ruse by the bankers to keep the cloister in tact by intimidation AND enticement....
Oh LOOK !
A quantum superposition

 

[YmirGF]

No, they ignore it because of the content. IOW, their bias is preconceived. And they feed off of each other. Any scientists venturing into these areas is immediately set apart and thought of as rather kooky by the rest. No one wants to risk their career, but Jacobo Grinberg did, and so did Amit Goswami, and Sir Roger Penrose, and many others.

The point is that they have utterly failed to come up with anything even remotely close to being ground-breaking in their chase down this rabbit hole. There is no argument that Penrose, in particular, is not a brilliant scientist, but even his brilliant mind has not been able to make much progress into this area of speculation. Until that happens people will remain skeptical of their works.

 

[Polymath257]

QM is either not real enough or not useful enough to bother with. Maybe it's a ruse by the bankers to keep the cloister in tact by intimidation AND enticement....
Oh LOOK !
A quantum superposition

Not useful? I guess ALL of solid state physics, including what we know about semi-conductors isn't very useful. I guess what we know about chemical bonding isn't useful. Or about how light interacts with matter, or nuclear physics, or specific heats, etc, etc, etc.

 

[YmirGF]

Not useful? I guess ALL of solid state physics, including what we know about semi-conductors isn't very useful. I guess what we know about chemical bonding isn't useful. Or about how light interacts with matter, or nuclear physics, or specific heats, etc, etc, etc.

Oh, details shmetails...

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The credibility of the researcher is an indication as to the credibility of his work. So I have answered your request in part for 'information regarding the credibility of the paper'.

So you think a paper having a credible author automatically makes the paper credible regardless of content?

It also appears that Physics Essays is peer-reviewed, so that satisfies the second part of your request.

Not quite - see, I can't find any evidence of exactly who reviews it, and I have found plenty of sources which state that it is not widely circulated or cited.

As for the paper itself being credible, I have seen nothing to indicate that it is not. When papers are submitted to peer-reviewed journals, they become open to criticism from other 'peers', correct? From the information I have seen regarding papers with this type of content, they are simply ignored, which points to a pre-existing bias amongst mainstream scientists against such content.

Except you already posted a link to a site that clearly states that the paper was "heavily criticised", and have also stated clearly that the work was replicated elsewhere. If this is so, why can I not find a single citation of this paper in any other research, and where are the repeated experiments that verify this paper's findings?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

As I said, I am satisfied as to the credibility of the research, and have provided you with information re: the replication of the experiment, eg Peter Fenwick, for one.

And where can I find his research?

As for why I am satisfied, and without getting into the details, it has to do with the fact that these types of experiments only confirms my own direct experience of Reality, which came first, and because I trust Amit Goswami, who is a Quantum physicist who wrote a textbook on the subject, and because he has had spiritual experiences which match my own, resulting in pretty much the same view of Reality.

So you accept it because you feel it confirms your pre-conceived beliefs?

 

[godnotgod]

Here's a link to a Wikipedia discussion on whether or not Physics Essays even counts as a "journal", and there is some debate:
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skepticism/Pseudoscience/Archive 2 - Wikipedia

I looked at this, but there isn't much here of actual evidence to render Physics Essays as not being credible. Again, the author of this piece first sets up a straw-man and then proceeds to knock it down with denigrating labels. All he really does is to point to another discussion which talks about it as "whether it "counts" as a journal", but doesn't actually present any real facts. Then he goes on to say that: "I went ahead and made a Physics Essays article", but when you click on his link to his so-called 'article', you only find a brief description of Physics Essays, accompanied by the statement that:

The journal was abstracted in Current Contents/Physical, Chemical, and Earth Sciences and the Science Citation Index Expanded until it was dropped in 2015.[1] After re-evaluation, it is now included in the Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI), a new edition of the Web of Science.[2]

The journal is abstracted and indexed in:

• Chemical Abstracts Service
• China National Knowledge Infrastructure
• Scopus

So Physics Essays was dropped at one point, but then re-instated in the the publications mentioned. That means it was found to be a credible publication.

But the real issue here is not whether the journal that Jacobo and his team published in is credible, but whether he and his team employed acceptable scientific methodologies in the experiments submitted as a peer reviewed paper. That Physics Essays may have acquired a somewhat distasteful reputation amongst mainstream scientists is due to their bias against areas of research they consider to be fringe, by labeling such research as 'pseudo-science'. In this particular case, the original paper, which I provided several times, describes in detail the parameters of the experiments and their outcomes. So where do you see, if any, 'pseudo-science' being employed?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I looked at this, but there isn't much here of actual evidence to render Physics Essays as not being credible. Again, the author of this piece first sets up a straw-man and then proceeds to knock it down with denigrating labels. All he really does is to point to another discussion which talks about it as "whether it "counts" as a journal", but doesn't actually present any real facts. Then he goes on to say that: "I went ahead and made a Physics Essays article", but when you click on his link to his so-called 'article', you only find a brief description of Physics Essays, accompanied by the statement that:

The journal was abstracted in Current Contents/Physical, Chemical, and Earth Sciences and the Science Citation Index Expanded until it was dropped in 2015.[1] After re-evaluation, it is now included in the Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI), a new edition of the Web of Science.[2]

The journal is abstracted and indexed in:

• Chemical Abstracts Service
• China National Knowledge Infrastructure
• Scopus

So Physics Essays was dropped at one point, but then re-instated in the the publications mentioned. That means it was found to be a credible publication.

Not really. It means it may have credible articles in it.

But the real issue here is not whether the journal that Jacobo and his team published in is credible, but whether he and his team employed acceptable scientific methodologies in the experiments submitted as a peer reviewed paper. That Physics Essays may have acquired a somewhat distasteful reputation amongst mainstream scientists is due to their bias against areas of research they consider to be fringe, by labeling such research as 'pseudo-science'. In this particular case, the original paper, which I provided several times, describes in detail the parameters of the experiments and their outcomes. So where do you see, if any, 'pseudo-science' being employed

?

In the fact that I can't find a single scrap of evidence of anyone replicating their findings and no citation of the paper from anywhere, and the fact that it was only publishes in a journal known for publishing extremely fringe ideas and having a very little citation or credible standing among physics journals.

You have repeatedly stated that these findings were replicated elsewhere. Where were they replicated and what were their results?

 

[godnotgod]

So you think a paper having a credible author automatically makes the paper credible regardless of content?

You're putting words in my mouth. I never said that. The researcher's credentials are always considered when examining their research, and in this case, Mr. Zylberbaum has sufficient credentials to establish him as a bona fide researcher. Add to this the fact that a pretty renowned Quantum physicist, Amit Goswami, lent HIS credentials and title to the experiments lends even more credibility to the paper, not to mention the actual procedures of the experiment themselves.

Not quite - see, I can't find any evidence of exactly who reviews it, and I have found plenty of sources which state that it is not widely circulated or cited.

from the Wikipedia article you referenced:

The journal was abstracted in Current Contents/Physical, Chemical, and Earth Sciences and the Science Citation Index Expanded until it was dropped in 2015.[1] After re-evaluation, it is now included in the Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI), a new edition of the Web of Science.[2]

The journal is abstracted and indexed in:

• Chemical Abstracts Service
• China National Knowledge Infrastructure
• Scopus

Except you already posted a link to a site that clearly states that the paper was "heavily criticised", and have also stated clearly that the work was replicated elsewhere. If this is so, why can I not find a single citation of this paper in any other research, and where are the repeated experiments that verify this paper's findings?

Here's a lead for you:

Spiritual Science

and here:

How Quantum Activism Can Save Civilization

You might also be interested in this content:

journals.sfu.ca/seemj/index.php/seemj/article/download/154/119

Again, the mainstream scientific community generally ignores and/or avoids this type of content as they consider it to be in the realm of pseudoscience, and don't want anything to do with it. They consider association with such content to be putting their careers at risk.

 

[godnotgod]

Not really. It means it may have credible articles in it.

Well, DUH!