Major UK & International author forced to self-publish in States

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Ransom

Care to elaborate on how since the observation device is well out of the way of the particle gun?

The act of detection implies interaction with the particles.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by DMB

I went to a talk given by Wiseman last year. I haven't read any of his books, but he is a most entertaining speaker and I can imagine he'd write well.

His writing might be good, but is it useful? He is a university professor, people are supposed to expect a certain level of professionalism from him. If the examples in the book are as the review said, only things that have been repeatedly disproven, this might just be the reason why the book was rejected.

[Ransom]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

The act of detection implies interaction with the particles.

It does? If I see an airplane fly overhead, does that mean I'm interacting with it?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Ransom

This is exactly what was going through my mind. I'm guessing that American publishers demanded better provenance for poorly substantiated claims and more hard science than he had to give.

I was going to say that this was wishful thinking but since your scientific claims have been was totally discredited maybe it was a rhetorical trick instead.

[Ransom]

So you're what? Five years old or six?

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Ransom

It does? If I see an airplane fly overhead, does that mean I'm interacting with it?

What you see is the light reflected off the plane, and your eyes are interacting with it.

[garygibsonsf]

Originally Posted by Ransom

It does? If I see an airplane fly overhead, does that mean I'm interacting with it?

All this could be understood with a little time browsing pop science sites or wikipedia. When people refer to indeterminacy - the inability to accurately measure the movement or motion of particles due to the effect of observation - it is specifically in reference to objects on the minutest scale possible, from atoms on down. An airplane is a macro object, and therefore not subject to determinacy. The whole point about quantum mechanics, which deals with such phenomena, is that what works for objects on the macro scale (you, me, airplanes) does not necessarily work on the quantum (ie micro) level, and this has been proven countless times since.

When you observe a quantum-level object - an atom - you cannot help but affect it through the act of observation, since by 'shining a light' on it, as it were, you are affecting something which is extremely sensitive to changes around it. Therefore you cannot help, by the act of observation, but to affect it.

Consider also that physics experiments have relentlessly shown that particles also cannot be accurately measured in terms of their position etc. due to their annoying habit of behaving like a wave of energy under some circumstances, and like a particle in others.

[DMB]

I'm very sceptical about OBEs. I've had two myself, so I know they are experienced, but what is moot is what is going on when you have them. Professor Susan Blackmore did a lot of research on OBEs and NDEs.

[Ransom]

Originally Posted by garygibsonsf

All this could be understood with a little time browsing pop science sites or wikipedia.

Or we could stay away from the idiotnet and encyclopedias written by children and use common sense. My looking at a plane does nothing whatsoever to its course of flight. An observation device well out of the way of a photon gun has no effect on the photons in any world that isn't a dream world. Duh....

[Elfwreck]

I could see a case for "US publishers that have ties with with his normal UK publisher wouldn't accept it without major edits, and most small publishers wouldn't accept the limited geo restrictions, and it wasn't worth bothering with the other ones."

And I could see a situation for either "we can't sell outright skeptic stuff to our normal audience" or "the book says it disproves things and all it does is show how many of these effects can be created by chicanery; that doesn't disprove anything." (Showing how to use Photoshop to create "lights in the sky" on a picture doesn't mean there are no aurora borealis.)

[Ransom]

Originally Posted by DMB

I'm very sceptical about OBEs. I've had two myself, so I know they are experienced, but what is moot is what is going on when you have them. Professor Susan Blackmore did a lot of research on OBEs and NDEs.

She completely ignores evidence and falsifies data at will. Her idea of a study is to do things she already knows ahead of time can't be done. The only person I've ever heard of who claimed to be able to control where he went during an OBE state was Robert Monroe, but she never bothered to include him in any studies. (He coined the term "out of body experience.") So instead she demands that people actually hit a prepared target, such as being able to read a sign atop a ceiling fan or something, and if they can't, she considers that a failure even though she knows ahead of time that they won't be able to control where they go. There are hundreds of cases like the one I mentioned where people have seen and heard things during an OBE that could later be verified, but you'll never hear her mention them. The OBE state simply cannot be studied through controlled testing, and it's positively silly to try and do so.

The vast majority of what's often regarded as "historical fact" is nothing but anecdotal "common knowledge" that's been passed down. I have no problem accepting as fact people's stories about OBE events when they are corroborated by others. It's the best we can do.

[Bilbo1967]

Originally Posted by Ransom

The OBE state simply cannot be studied through controlled testing, and it's positively silly to try and do so.

How convenient

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Ransom

Or we could stay away from the idiotnet and encyclopedias written by children and use common sense. My looking at a plane does nothing whatsoever to its course of flight. An observation device well out of the way of a photon gun has no effect on the photons in any world that isn't a dream world. Duh....

Yeah...what has science ever brought us anyway?

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Ransom

Or we could stay away from the idiotnet and encyclopedias written by children and use common sense.

But cartoons made to explain science to children are allowed?

Originally Posted by Ransom

An observation device well out of the way of a photon gun has no effect on the photons in any world that isn't a dream world. Duh....

I was under the impression that a photon gun will emit photons under a pretty narrow angle. An observation device well out of the way of a photon gun would have no effect on the photons, because it wouldn't be close enough to detect them.

[Ransom]

Originally Posted by Bilbo1967

How convenient

How is it convenient? Do you know what the word means? Not being able to test a phenom has nothing in common with anyone's convenience. It helps no one.