It's just a standard fallacy of equivocation: the statement that "energy cannot be destroyed" only applies to the physical definition of "energy", not the colloquial use that refers to a person's enthusiasm or motivation.

misterwiggly

Yep! It has been done, which is why it was a trick question. The hardest part of the experiment IMHO is the difficulty is making a slit. The neutrinos pass effortlessly through solid matter so making a slit is difficult, at best. Just looking for wave behavior is difficult.

The detector has already found evidence of exploding stars and helped separate the different types of neutrinos.

Fun things are happening in the world of physics.

Whoaaaaaaaaa ... deep. Genius. Ummmmmm ... not so much.

Fans of Bruce Lee are likely familiar with Jeet Kune Do, the style of fighting he developed in the 1960s. Lee felt there was too much wasted motion in most martial arts styles – there was a layer of ritualized and superfluous movements built up over the years. So he set out to strip away all the ritual and reduce martial arts technique to the minimal core movements that conveyed optimal function. The result was Jeet Kune Do.

It seems humans have a tendency to clog systems with ritual and fluff. In the cognitive sciences this fluff is often treated as “theory” and when interventions based upon the theory seem to work, proponents interpret this as validating the theory.

But in order to know that the theory is truly valid, variables need to be controlled to skeptically ask the question – is it the elements unique to the theory that are working, or the more basic elements of the intervention? For example, with eye-movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) therapists basically ask clients to ponder their fear or anxiety while they follow an object with their eyes back and forth. Proponents claim the eye movements affect the brain’s hardwiring, but they ignore the more basic elements of the intervention. First, there is the most basic and non-specific effect of introducing a novel technique into a therapeutic relationship – whenever you do anything new with a client, there will be a non-specific effect. Second, there may be an element of cognitive therapy involved. If you control for these variables, do the eye movements themselves add anything to the effectiveness of treatment? Probably not.

This basic concept of unnecessary ritual came up during an interesting conversation I had with Jamy Ian Swiss back stage at NECSS. It turns out he has experience working with wolves (who knew) and we were talking about an audience question about the dog whisperer. There are various competing theories within the world of dog training – Jamy brought up pack theory, which emphasizes the role of hierarchy in a pack of wolves and deals with issue like dominance and being the alpha male. Alternatively, we can view dogs as perpetual puppies (much of the evolution of dogs from wolves constituted neoteny, the maintenance of juvenile characteristics into adulthood). According to the neoteny approach, puppies should be treated like children who need parenting and approval.

So should we treat dogs like members of the pack or like children who need parenting? Does it matter? It probably does, in that an owner’s relationship to their dog will vary according to which theory they are following. But does one approach work better than the other? It seems that both approaches work sometimes and not others, but the real question is – when they do “work” what is it that is actually working? Regardless of theory, anytime you try to affect the behavior of an animal through a combination of reward and punishment you are using some form of conditioning (whether classical or operant). Therefore any claim that a theory of dog whispering is effective must first separate out the variables that are unique to the theory from those that are general to conditioning.

To give yet another example, I think dieting for weight loss also fits into this category of the unnecessary ritual. The evidence strongly suggests that all diets work (when they do) by reducing caloric intake – period. Everything else is the unnecessary ritual that derives from the dubious fluff “theory” that is used to market the diet. There are techniques that genuinely help people to control their caloric intake, like tracking their food intake and meal replacements, but theories about low carb, low fat, avoiding or eating specific foods, eating at times of day, etc. are all irrelevant variables.

Conclusion

The basic lesson from these examples is that there appears to be a tendency to burden theories and practices with unnecessary fluff. People are natural theorizers – we like to think we understand the underlying reason that things work the way they do. But we are not intuitive scientists or skeptics, that part has to be learned and requires vigilance and rigor. The result is that when we come up with a theory, or absorb one from the culture, confirmation bias is likely to convince us that the theory “works” (we will seek out, notice, and remember anything that seems to confirm the theory, and dismiss anything that contradicts it as the exception that proves the rule).

This process of confirmation bias leads to the ratcheting up of unnecessary ritual, like sports stars who develop an increasingly elaborate ritual of superstition they must go through before every game. Every time we try out a new element, it seems to work, so we add it.

Every now and then we need to clean house – to ask the scientific questions about which variables are actually working, and which ones are just illusion, and then strip away all the ritual and nonsense.

In other words, we could do worse than to listen to the wisdom of Bruce Lee. We need a Jeet Kune Do of counseling and dog whispering, and any other system weighed down by ritualized and superfluous movements.

So what would happen if one ran the slit experiment with neutrinos?


(trick question)

Claims to be the head Merck vaccine developer in interview. He claims to have warned of the potential of cancer. Describes the green monkey link in detail.

'Try' being the operative word. No cigar ...

Thank you, Ladylid2012, Jess642, and heavenlyboy34!!!

Unfortunately, the rest of you, guys, are too backward to comprehend!

Is the video fake? Is the guy not the real Merck researcher? Did they not use live virus vaccines mixed with inactivated wild strains?

Why has cancer exploded in recent decades?

Yes. We are energy. There is no 'death' ... there is only a transitioning to a higher plane of existence. My out-of-body experience in '72 taught me that we don't just 'cease to exist' ... we continue, and the 'skin suit' we walk around in now is left behind like the discarded skin of a cicada after it moults. 'Death' is the beginning - not the 'end'.

I don't think it has anything to do with our memories,
but with -- as much as I hate the word (because it carries religious connotations) -- the SPIRIT!!! (i.e. an all-inclusive essence of the personality)

I see you still haven't managed to figure out that 'global climate change' is (1) ALWAYS happening, and that (2) it's NOT the same as 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'. See, the difference is that 'climate' is what 'weather' does OVER TIME ... it's CYCLICAL ... we, as a species, are too weak and too stupid to cause anything to happen on a planetary scale that would effect something like 'global warming'. In case no one has told you, be assured that 'global warming' is a complete FRAUD. It's designed to (1) control you, and (2) relieve you of all your money you thought you had ...

Imagine a ring of car thieves lobbying the government to soften the laws against stealing cars. Don’t blame the thieves – people should be more responsible for their own cars, and that is just the chance you take when you own a car. Under the radar, without any comment by the media, in state after state they successfully lobby the legislatures to pass laws that make it more difficult to prosecute and punish car thieves.

Of course this is outrageous, but not just because it’s silly to consider that something like stealing a car should not be a serious crime. It is also outrageous for someone who is violating regulations to lobby for those very regulations to be weakened so that they can continue to break the regulations without fear of action being taken against them. At the very least such action should garner significant attention and debate, and lawmakers should consider carefully if the public’s best interest is being met, or simply the person who doesn’t want to be regulated.

This is exactly what is happening in many states with so-called “health care freedom laws” – practitioners of dubious treatments are lobbying state legislatures to weaken regulations against practicing dubious treatments. There are even specific cases in which an individual practitioner was found to be practicing below the acceptable standard of care, but was able to escape regulation because of laws specifically passed to protect substandard care. This is exactly what happened with Dr. William Hammesfahr – he was found to be practicing substandard care by the State of Florida, but was able to appeal and win on the grounds that his treatment was “alternative” and therefore magically exempt from the standard of care under Florida’s new health care freedom law.

The way I was using the term in this convo, those are two regions of the same spectrum - the spectrum of inclination to respond to a possible threat. Clearly, there is often an evolutionary advantage to not waiting until a threat is proven real before responding.

So how does one determine what is actually paranoia, and what is just normal concern?

The geology department of every accredited university in America begs to differ with you-earth is a closed system. (not sure about other countries, but my bio Prof was German and he agreed with what I am telling you) You won't find a credible author calling it otherwise except in very theoretical texts.

"How many legs does a dog have if you count the tail as a leg?

Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg"

-President Abraham Lincoln