and when?
I think healing energies that can be transmitted from person to person will be validated by science within 20 years.
BWHAH-WHAH-WHAH-WHAH-WHAH-WHAH!!!
Funniest thing I’ve read today. (But the day is still young…)
I’ll repeat here what I said in an earlier thread. Searching for truth in the vast sea of fringe theories is nearly impossible. Strap on your healing magnets, consult the stars, listen to Art Bell all you want. I’ll go to the doctor or examine a legitimate study in my quest for truth.
berdollos: What evidence, currently available, draws you to conclude that the existence of “healing energies” will be validated inside of 20 years?
Dowsing is real, and I can prove it.
Give me a driver and a golf ball. If there’s water within about 220 yards, I’ll find it every single time!
I’m just sayin’, is all.
“Which fringe science theories will be proven true?”
Well, disregarding for the moment the inaccuracy of the term “proven true” as applied to scientific thinking, any correctly formulated theory (i.e. falsifiable and all the rest) has the potential to be provisionally accepted as “true” by the mainstream if the hypothesis is methodologically sound, if the evidence is solid and experimentally repeatable, and if it meets all the other requirements of a legitimate scientific proposal.
Fringe theorists do not meet these requirements. That’s why they’re fringe, and that’s why they get laughed at by the establishment, because what they’re doing can’t even loosely be termed science.
Tell the fringe types to act in a scientifically responsible manner, and then maybe their theories will get taken more seriously. Unfortunately, if you apply solid science to the fringe claims, they evaporate rather quickly. Obviously, that explains why the fringe types don’t do real science; their cashflow relies on the credulity of the Average Joe to continue buying their non-peer-reviewed mass-market paperbacks.
Hey, speaking of which: I’m about to self-publish a book describing my theory that posting on message boards makes you smarter and enlarges your penis. Only ten bucks. You interested? 
Hmm, well, Im kind of biased on this one. (being a rational person and all) So im going to go with D: none of the above.
Just a scam to make money in my eyes.
I mean that in my eyes, It is nothing more than a scam to make money, though you might see money signs in my eyes. =)
Einstein used to be a “fringe” scientist btw. My grandfather had a library of Anti-Einstein periodicals and books “proving” him wrong. One physicist said he can’t figure out how or where but this theory of relativity is just a Jewish trick.
Unfortunately, the library did not survive Hitler…
I should add, neither did my grandfather but my Dad made it through to tell us about it…
I guess heresy runs in my family. My father and grandfather were heretics in favor of Einstein back then and today Einstein is mainstream as Velikovsky will be with my grandchildren.
And your grandchildren will never know that Velikovsky was a heretic just like you don’t know that Einstein was. And my grandchildren will be there to remind yours. But they will be heretics and your grandchildren won’t listen to them. 
Another Heretic - I’m going to have to differ with you there. Rabid Anti-Semites who published tracts claiming to disprove Einstein were not scientists, they were politicians and demagogues. In the general scientific community Einstein was certainly taken seriously because he followed established scientific procedure. The fact that some people disagreed for ulterior motives does not put him on the “fringe”.
I knew that was going to be the story a mainstreamer would come up with and hesitated giving you the Jewish side of it…
The “Jewish trick” was only one comment. Most of it had nothing to do with Anti-Jewish sentiment. He was most certainly a Heretic. With Jewish scientists and non-Jewish scientists alike.
I mean, when you read his theory of relativity and understand the climate when he came up with it, you have to understand OF COURSE the physicists thought he was crazy. And guess what, plenty of people still do. I think it was hawking who said that he gets mail on a regular basis from scientists who say this Theory of Relativity CAN’T be true, to THIS VERY DAY.
But like I say, you see the world through different glasses. Max Planck is the reason Einstein was accepted. If not for him and him alone, Einstein’s work would not have seen the light of day and instead of saying “What are you, an Einstein” you’d be still be saying “What are you, a Newton” like they did in those days.
Do some research before you “differ” with me. You may even learn something from a Heretic!
Einstein? Sure. Then so were Bohr and Pauling and Pastuer. I mean, if having some scientists disagree with your theory is all that’s required to put someone on th efrings, then every scientist is a fringe scientist.
Therefore, I predict that the fringe science of Mars not having been the seat of an advanced, monument building civilization will be validated within 20 years.
For those of you who don’t know, Immanuel Velikovsky put forth the theory that the planet Venus was expelled from the planet Jupiter and that it subsequently careened through the solar system like a beach ball at Dodger Stadium during a day game. He claimed that Venus missed the Earth by only a few thousand miles causing various catastrophes (including the parting of the Red Sea during the Exodus) and that it subsequently (miraculously?) ended up in its current orbit.
Oh, yeah, THAT’s plausible. :rolleyes:
His theory made similar claims for Mars.
I read Worlds in Collision when I was in junior high. I wish I knew then what I know now… :o
Einstein’s theories concerning gravity and relativity were radical but they were accepted when experimentation showed them to be accurate. Velikovsky’s theories have yet to meet this rigorous standard of proof. Read “The Top 10 Reasons Why Velikovsky is Wrong.”
There’s disagree and disagree. Einstein working in the patent office had no chance of getting heard if not for Planck. One person made the difference. If Planck did not stand behind him he was dead in the water. Period.
You guys talk as if YOU had the same library in your grandfather’s house. Now you’re denying that he was a Heretic. You just don’t know. If Einstein was willing to give Velikovsky a chance to visit his house, it was because Einstein knew what it meant to be outcast unfairly. If his relationship lasted longer than one visit and Einstein wrote the letters he did, then there was a reason too. Again, why are you smarter than Einstein? If Einstein viewed Velikovsky’s work seriously enough why can’t you be so generous? I guess you’re too smart?
Funnily enough, the only place Arp is welcome is in the Max Planck institute. You mainstreamers haven’t commented on Arp’s inability to get a paper published unless he toes the line. He certainly has more credentials than anyone here.
Are you talking about whathisname that guy , dam forgot his name. Flandern, that’s it. Flandern is a very smart guy. But I don’t think even he believes the Mars stuff. I put him in the same category as Von Daniken and Sitchin. Trying to make a few bucks…
If you want an opponent of Einstein to give a synopsis of the theory of relativity that is a lot stranger than your synopsis of Velikovsky it would be easy. Same for the Big Bang. Just watch Star Trek/ Star Wars etc… That was not serious.
No point having a discussion with you because your mind is made up. You are notably absent in explaining why Einstein bothered to read Velikovsky’s books, like Ages in Chaos, 3 times…He said the astronomers make a mistake not reading him. So, let’s hear your excuse. I guess Einstein found some value in it. You will not grant a single point or admit you are wrong in any way shape or form. You are biased. If I make a mistake, I’ll admit it. That is where we differ.
Did you actually READ anything I said? Einstein said clearly to Velikovsky that he needed a prediction to base his theory on. He was pretty strong about it. Velikovsky said if he had to stake it on one thing, it would be radio noises from Jupiter. These were found. I guess that isn’t rigorous enough for you…you’re a mainstreamer, nothing will be rigorous enough for you…It takes a lot of balls to base your life’s work on ONE prediction like that. You don’t even acknowledge that this prediction was made. That argument passed through you as if it wasn’t made. That is serious BIAS my friend.
To open-minded people (jab you can ignore this), understand that everything is “relative”. It’s a matter of perspective. Put yourself in the shoes of astronomers in 1953 who all thought that there was order to the heavens, that “collisions” didn’t happen in space. Uniformitarianism. If you had told astronomers in 1953 that catastrophism would be all the rage in the year 2000 and that in the 90’s debris from a COMET would hit Jupiter in over 21 pieces, they would tell you both that you’re crazy and that’s Velikovskian and inside they would know that Velikovsky would like a big hero. Little could they know that in the 90’s COMETARY debris did smash into Jupiter in a way that if something similar happened on Earth it would be catasrophic. And Catasrophism is all the rage today.
But you guys squirmed out of responsibility for being wrong in 1950 and will have excuses for everything…even if a comet takes orbit as a planet you’ll still say Velikovsky was wrong and is a Von Daniken etc…
I read a version of this a couple of years ago. I don’t think even a guy like tracer will be impressed. I remember Ellenburger when he was a fan of Velikovsky. Now he’s a fan of the other side. He isn’t serious at all.
Top 10? You call that science? He’s doing a letterman joke. He knows the answer to the question. He’s cherry picking. And the version of this list that I saw had plenty of obvious errors.
If I understand the Einstein-Velikovsky correspondence correctly, I think our heretic may be confusing “taking a theory seriously” with politeness.
According to this article in Scientific American, Einstein scrawled such words as “nonsense” and “wild fantasy” in the margins of his copy of Worlds in Collision.
I haven’t read the entirety of the correspondence (i.e. I’ve spent about 45 seconds on it) but select quotes follow:
From Einstein’s first letter:
“Your arguments in this regard are so weak as opposed to the mechanical-astronomical ones, that no expert will be able to take them seriously.”
From his last:
"I have already carefully read the first volume of the memoirs to “Worlds in Collision,” and have supplied it with a few marginal notes in pencil that can be easily erased. I admire your dramatic talent and also the art and strightforwardness of Thackrey who has compelled the roaring astronomical lion to pull in a little his royal tail without showing enough respect for the truth. I would be happy if you, too, could enjoy the whole episode from its funny side. "
http://www.varchive.org/cor/einstein/
Great research. But not good enough. I have personally bought a copy (now in storage) of that Scientific American (remember the Wright Brothers ). I really checked the arguments PRO and CON so that I would not be biased. And over the years I’ve had my doubts both ways and kept studying… But there is a retraction I believe a tiny letter published a few months later… That is not the whole story. It’s been over ten years since I read about that story so I don’t want to give you misinformation, but I can tell you that it was misleading.
A lot of people read that but not too many read the retraction and the full story. Indeed, at first Einstein did not take the theory seriously, but over time the tone of his letters changed. That is my opinion. Read the archives and decide for yourself…
BTW, thank you for looking into it, I hope in an honest unbiased way, but keep at your research, this isn’t a simple case…
I don’t expect to convince you of anything, but if you have an open mind and actually do some research, at least I can respect the criticism you have to offer…
And btw, I respect tracer from what I’ve seen so far because he clearly is interested in research and checking his sources. And has kept out of personal attacks pretty much.
I don’t mind agreeing to disagree, but I hope for mutual respect even though it won’t always happen.
No. Amateurish research. Took 5 minutes.
Actually, the article is from 1996. Follow the link. (There may have been an older article though.)
Gotta run. Owen Gingerich. I remember that name and the name of the article. I think there was an older article. But that link doesn’t tell the whole story either. Read the V-Einstein correspondence. VERY few people in the world have read it and even for Einsteinian history you may find it worthwhile…