Wednesday, September 6, 2017

Science again shows us that our current understanding of the physical world is very limited and biased............. 
Many more things are possible than we can even begin to imagine.......

http://www.iflscience.com/physics/time-crystals-how-scientists-created-a-new-state-of-matter
Exciting New Article By Fiona MacDonald:

Forget what you know about crystals.............

Researchers Just Proved Crystals Can Bend, 

Flipping Chemistry on Its Head


"Researchers have shown that crystals can be so flexible they can be bent repeatedly and even tied up in knots, overhauling our current understanding of the structures, and challenging the very definition of a crystal.
As we learnt in school, crystals are brittle and inelastic - if you try to bend a crystal of rock salt or quartz, for example, it will break. But this new research shows that crystals can actually be made to bend, opening up a whole new class of materials that could revolutionise electronics and technology."
Read all about this EXCITING discovery at the link here:
And some additional new finding about crystals are linked here:  

Time Crystals: How Scientists Created A New State Of Matter


http://www.iflscience.com/physics/time-crystals-how-scientists-created-a-new-state-of-matter/



AN EXCELLENT MUST READ!



The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality
The cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman uses evolutionary game theory to show that our perceptions of an independent reality must be illusions.

"As we go about our daily lives, we tend to assume that our perceptions — sights, sounds, textures, tastes — are an accurate portrayal of the real world. Sure, when we stop and think about it — or when we find ourselves fooled by a perceptual illusion — we realize with a jolt that what we perceive is never the world directly, but rather our brain’s best guess at what that world is like, a kind of internal simulation of an external reality. Still, we bank on the fact that our simulation is a reasonably decent one. If it wasn’t, wouldn’t evolution have weeded us out by now? The true reality might be forever beyond our reach, but surely our senses give us at least an inkling of what it’s really like."

"Not so, says Donald D. Hoffman, a professor of cognitive science at the University of California, Irvine. Hoffman has spent the past three decades studying perception, artificial intelligence, evolutionary game theory and the brain, and his conclusion is a dramatic one: The world presented to us by our perceptions is nothing like reality. What’s more, he says, we have evolution itself to thank for this magnificent illusion, as it maximizes evolutionary fitness by driving truth to extinction."


LISTEN TO DR. HOFFMAN BELOW:


Tuesday, October 6, 2015

A LITTLE REMINDER OF WHAT SCIENCE IS ALL ABOUT......

Sunday, June 5, 2016

ON MY MIND RIGHT NOW:  A Fascinating read - The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality (The cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman uses evolutionary game theory to show that our perceptions of an independent reality must be illusions)  
More from QuantaMagazine Here


Our Universe May Exist in a Multiverse, Cosmic Inflation Discovery Suggests:


"The new research also lends credence to the idea of a multiverse. This theory posits that, when the universe grew exponentially in the first tiny fraction of a second after the Big Bang, some parts of space-time expanded more quickly than others. This could have created "bubbles" of space-time that then developed into other universes. The known universe has its own laws of physics, while other universes could have different laws, according to the multiverse concept."

- Miriam Kramer Read the whole article here!




_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Tuesday, October 6, 2015

As a scientist, I can state unequivocally that if we never discussed anything just because we had no "proof", then we would never get anywhere, in any scientific field... 

The FUNDAMENTAL basis for science is OBSERVATION. From observation come ideas and hypothesis and THEN hopefully someday the repeatable confirmation of our idea/hypothesis which will constitute proof.

But the FIRST step is the SHARING of observation and experience.  It is an invalid circular argument by the NON-scientists who make up the majority of the self proclaimed "Flesh & Blood" Bigfoot "Research" crowd that anyone attempting to discuss an experience or observation that CURRENTLY cannot be explained or proven by known scientific techniques are hoaxers, delusional, or worse, and do not belong in the realm of what they think is "true research".


Science is built on anecdotal evidence.  

And when one throws out anything that does not fit into their preconceived paradigm they are not practicing pure science, they are practicing censorship and creating a biased set of data.....

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but "That's funny" 
- Isaac Asimov

"Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing" 
- Wernher von Braun

THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD:



Observation/Question – “The question can refer to the explanation of a specific observation, as in "Why is the sky blue?", but can also be open-ended, as in "Does sound travel faster in air than in water?" or "How can I design a drug to cure this particular disease?"

Research – “This stage also involves looking up and evaluating previous evidence from other scientists, as well as considering one's own experience. If the answer is already known, a different question that builds on the previous evidence can be posed.”

Hypothesis – “An hypothesis is a conjecture, based on the knowledge obtained while formulating the question, that may explain an observed behavior of a part of our universe. The hypothesis might be very specific, or it might be broad”  Sometimes a Null Hypothesis is used for statistical comparison of the hypothesis, or to show that there is no relationship between two objects of study.

Experimentation – “The purpose of an experiment is to determine whether observations of the real world agree with or conflict with the predictions derived from an hypothesis. If they agree, confidence in the hypothesis increases; otherwise, it decreases. Agreement does not assure that the hypothesis is true; future experiments may reveal problems.”

Conclusion – “This involves determining what the results of the experiment show and deciding on the next actions to take. If the evidence has falsified the hypothesis, a new hypothesis is required; if the experiment supports the hypothesis but the evidence is not strong enough for high confidence, other predictions from the hypothesis must be tested. Once a hypothesis is strongly supported by evidence, a new question can be asked to provide further insight on the same topic. Evidence from other scientists and one's own experience can be incorporated at any stage in the process.”

Read more about the Scientific Method in my February 2, 2013 article Here: "What is Science and....."

And How Science Works from UC Berkeley


Thursday, March 5, 2015

April 5, 2015

Howdy Friends, just a quick update:


You all have probably noticed that I have not contributed here much lately. This is due to a couple of factors:  Not much of real substance happening in the world of Bigfoot Research lately; the increasing demands of my personal life, including my recent move back home to San Diego to help take care of my Dad after my Step-Mothers sudden passing last year from cancer; and my diminishing belief that there will ever be any actual scientific evidence, i.e. DNA, of a resident population of undocumented North American Hominid, because there most likely isn't actually any flesh and blood population of North American Hominid to draw this from. 

You may ask, what about all the witness accounts, the overwhelming amount of corroborating physical descriptions from these encounters, the foot print analysis and hair samples of unknown origin?  Do I no longer believe the stories of the many friends I have met over the last 5 years who have experienced this phenomena for themselves?  Well let's just say that for those of you whom I have met in person, and grown to know and trust, YES I believe you when you tell me what you have witnessed.  I believe the shock and awe you felt during and after your encounters, I believe the life changes you went through that have led you to unquenchingly pursue this subject for numerous personal reasons: data collection for proof or protection; spiritual fulfillment; the need to understand or experience again what it was that you saw. But at this time, whatever it is that you witnessed and encountered, I can honestly say that I no longer believe it qualifies for the pursuit of scientific  biological analysis.  At least in the current state of scientific understanding as it exists today.

I do hope I am wrong, but as it stands right now, I can't help but believe that whatever this mysterious phenomena is that we call "Bigfoot" it will go on being an unsolvable conundrum for the generations to follow. And perhaps that is how it is supposed to be.........

I will however be posting here from time to time, in the vein of my "On My Mind Right Now" page, to make note of things I feel are legitimately important to the pursuit of truth in this matter:

April 5, 2015

My thoughts on Professor Sykes sudden seaming claim that the ubiquitous "Zana" may now in fact be an example of an actual Yeti: "Russian 'apewoman' could have been a yeti, according to DNA tests"  

You know, AFTER, his recently discredited claim that he had discovered a new hybrid species of bear in the Himalayas, and that it was most likely responsible for all those centuries of stories and sightings of something unbear-like, and AFTER he dismissed Zana as 100% human in his recent Icon Films debacle of a "documentary" (As I unfortunately played a small role in the production of that "documentary" you can read my thoughts about it HERE........) 



Looks like I am not the only one who now has serious doubts about the Scientific Standing of Professor Sykes:

"A GENETICIST at Oxford University whose new book claims to offer “the first scientific evidence on the survival ” of apemen such as the yeti and Bigfoot, has been attacked by colleagues who say the claims are nonsense and his research institute does not exist."  More HERE:  Sykes' Reputation And His Yeti Project Get Slammed

____________________________________



March 5, 2015

Coming Soooooon.......
What Is A Visual Hallucination, And Could Bigfoot Be An Illusion? 
Separating Fact From The Matrix Of The Mind
Stay Tuned............
I actually had someone take the picture above, after I had posted it in a Facebook group, gray out the captions and then claim there was an ACTUAL Bigfoot visible inside the YELLOW circle in another Facebook group 
I guess they thought that if they made the circle yellow, 
instead of red, it was valid..........