Skeptico

Victor Senchenko – Time Does Not Exist

I received an email last week from Victor Senchenko (website: VictorSenchenko.com). He has written the book Revelations of a Human Space Navigator that appears to make some pretty bold claims, such as:

• Proves that god – any god – does not physically exist.
• Proves that “time” does not physically exist.
• Reveals who and what humans are, and why they behave as they do.
• Reveals of what everything that is physical is physically made of.
• Reveals why there are human male and female homosexuals.
• Explains what gravity actually is.
• Explains the “meaning of life”.
• Provides an equation for “everything”.
• Explains the ONLY method by which “happiness” can be experienced.
• Reveals many other factors that are currently unknown or misunderstood.

Wow - the meaning of life and an equation for everything. Everything! I say again – wow!

Generally speaking, we should be wary of anyone making grandiose claims, especially ones that appear to contradict much of established science. In addition, such grandiose claims presented in a book rather than in peer reviewed scientific journals, should be subject to extra skepticism. The scientific method, with its critical questioning, peer review and replication, tends to weed out nonsense before it gets taken too seriously. There are exceptions, of course, but even so, most false ideas get found out reasonably soon. By contrast, the lone iconoclast, working in isolation, rarely has his ideas questioned seriously before publication the way real scientists do. This means that errors are more likely to be built into the theories that are developed, and therefore they are more difficult to dislodge from the mind of their inventor when he has finished. The above problems don’t necessarily mean the ideas presented are wrong, but they should at the very least make you skeptical of what you are being told. Victor’s website and email had all the outward signs of the crank, especially the grandiose claims, and I did wonder whether it was worth trying to discuss it with him. But I decided in the end to give it a try, to see if there really was anything behind what Victor was selling. The email exchange below shows the result, and I think you’ll find they say quite a lot about Victor and his “theories”. In any case, I hope you’ll find it entertaining. I know I did.

In what follows, I have edited Victor’s emails down considerably. In total, his emails amounted to over 5,000 words, most of which didn’t add anything of substance, and I thought I’d lose most of you if I published the lot. (I’m trying to make this interesting.) However, to be fair to Victor, I have published the full email exchange on a separate page: Email exchange with Victor Senchenko. If you have the time, I encourage you to read Victor’s complete emails and my complete replies and form your own opinion about whether I have been unfair to Victor in what I left out of this main post.

Here goes then. From Victor’s initial email, I decided to focus on his claim that time doesn’t exist, and an experiment that he said would prove it.

1) Original email from Victor’s “Media Team”

[Snipped 1,000 plus word preamble.]

Were ‘time’ to physically exist, then, a simple experiment would have long ago provided physical proof to physical existence of ‘time’. That experiment would consist of a refrigerating unit standing exposed to the Sun and the elements of the weather, and of two leaves being removed from the same branch of a tree. One of the two leaves would be placed on top of the refrigerating unit, exposed to the Sun and the elements. The other leaf would be placed inside the refrigerating unit. Were ‘time’ to exist, then the two leaves, few centimeters or inches apart (one on the outside and one on the inside) would be affected at a similar rate by the surrounding-them same speed of ‘time’. As ‘time’ does not exist, but the physical process of change does, the exposed leaf on top of the refrigerating unit would soon disintegrate – disperse – while the leaf incased in the refrigerating unit would remain virtually unchanged indefinitely, for as long as the refrigerating unit continues to function, despite that the refrigerating unit itself is exposed to the Sun and the elements.

[Snipped 500 words on the flaws and delusions of science and sales patter for book.]

2) Skeptico’s reply #1 (In full)

Victor:

You wrote:

Were ‘time’ to exist, then the two leaves, few centimeters or inches apart (one on the outside and one on the inside) would be affected at a similar rate by the surrounding-them same speed of ‘time’.

Surely this doesn't show that time doesn't exist? Surely this just shows that organic matter takes less time to rot in sunlight than it does in the fridge?

Best regards,

Richard aka Skeptico

3) Victor’s reply #1

According to Einstein’s “theory of relativity”:

A. nothing, supposedly, moves faster than light.

B. A body or an object is supposedly experiencing a slowing down of “time” with increase of speed

[Snip]

Now then, if the speed of light is a benchmark to “time”, then light itself must be the point of the slowest “time”. Therefore, if light is a physical entity with the point of slowest “time”, then, were “time” to exist, anything that light would physically cover with itself would be subject to experiencing slower “time”. To experience slower “time” would mean to retain its contents for a longer duration without loss (that is, not to age). After all, if each and every physical atomic particle, chemical, nerve, muscle, organ and tissue of a human body is supposedly dependent on “time”, and if the region of slowest “time” is the physical light itself, then light - as THE source of slowest “time” - would need to physically slow down the process of growing and aging of all life forms it shines upon. That would mean that all that the sunlight contacted on Earth during daylight hours would be slowed down in growth and deterioration during that period, and accelerate their growth and deterioration only at night.

[Snip]

Let that sink in for a minute. Now, I’ve noticed before that when debating cranks, woos and pseudoscientists, they frequently don’t define their terms. Quite often, certain words or phrases they use can have specific meanings to them that are not obvious to others, and these definitions can often be self serving and/or circular. Part of the skill in trying to discuss things with people like this is in getting them to define their terms in ways that do not assume their conclusions and cannot be subsequently shifted with a bit of equivocation. In any case, it’s certainly a good idea not to assume you know what special definition that are using in their argument. With this in mind, I needed clarification of a couple of terms Victor was using, so I wrote back:

4) Skeptico’s reply #2 (in full)

What does “the speed of light is a benchmark to time” mean?

And what does “light itself must be the point of the slowest time” mean?

Admittedly short, but not, I thought, rude. Victor’s reply was quite telling about how familiar he is with being questioned on his work:

5) Victor’s reply #2 (in full)

Oh, yes! Richard by name; skeptic by self-presumption; child by choice with a typical childish behavior: anything explained to be questioned "why?", without any conscious intent to work out for oneself the information presented. Simply continue to ask "why", or "what does that mean?", as a substitute for reasoning.

Well, Richard, I shall quickly indulge your whim for questioning. But after this assistence from me you may have to read the book to obtain all the answers to your questions.

Your question 1: What does “the speed of light is a benchmark to time” mean?

A. "speed of light" - relates to the presumed speed at which light travels. If I were you, I would have hundreds of critical questions - and I do - as to current understanding of light, such as:

all that physically moves in space and vacuum space has an impetus of physical casting off - which is a cause for an instant of acceleration. In vacuum space this acceleration is ongoing and neverending, as vacuum space has no physical restrictions of any kind, by being a nothingness. So then, why does light not accelerate from a standing start: that is: incrementally increase its velocity, rather that being always constant at its speed?

(This is explained in the book).

B. "benchmark" represents a standard or point of reference against which things or functions may be compared or assessed.

C. "time" represents averything that humans currently relate to an unexplainable entity that supposedly has a physical effect on all that physically exists.

Ergo: "What does 'the speed of light is a benchmark to time' mean?" means that according to the 'theory of relativity' light is the standard or point of reference of speed, against whose speed speeding objects and bodies are presumably affected by experiencing the slowing down of 'time'.

Your question 2: And what does “light itself must be the point of the slowest time” mean?

Well, Richard, let's reason out this question together. If in trying to reach the speed of light supposedly means experiencing slower 'time' then that would equate to: the faster the speed the slower the 'time'. So if the fastest physical entity is light, then light, by all reason, should be expected to possess the slowest 'time' from possessing the fastest speed.

Quite a meltdown. Remember the context: I hadn’t contacted Victor and questioned his book or his website; he had contacted me, out of the blue and with no solicitation on my part. And yet he blew up at only the second, mildly questioning, email from me. Any real scientist reading this will probably be shaking his or her head in amazement now, considering the questioning that they have to endure every step of the way in their work. Also, Victor’s protestations that I would have to “read the book” if this explanation wasn’t enough was as lame as it was disingenuous – he had started this communication with me, and if he was incapable of explaining the basic concepts in his email then I see no reason his book would be any better. He wrote, in total, over 5,000 words in these emails remember? If he had concentrated some of these words instead into explaining his ideas rather than in blowing up and insulting me, perhaps he would have been able to actually answer my questions. Or perhaps not.

Also, I began to see where his argument was coming from. He had started from Einstein’s insight that for objects traveling at light speed, time stands still, and (I think) concluded that somehow light “possesses” the property of stopping time. Therefore, anything bathed in light must be experiencing stopped time. Therefore time doesn’t exist. Or something. It’s hard to be sure, and if he hadn’t made it clear that no more questions were to be allowed, I might have prodded him further. However, I realized based on this initial meltdown, that further discussion would not elicit any rational response. I replied:

6) Skeptico’s reply #3 (In full)

Oh dear.  I guess you're not used to being questioned on your brilliant, new, earth shattering theory then?  Of course, a mark of the crank is that he develops his ideas in isolation, away from critics or anyone who would ask awkward questions, and so his theory, untested, is usually garbage.  As I am afraid yours is.  In asking my two questions, I thought maybe I was missing some profound point that would justify the conclusions that followed, and so instead of dismissing your wording as sophistic drivel, I asked you to explain what you actually meant.  In other words, I gave you the benefit of the doubt.  But your petulant response showed my instinct was right - your words are just empty drivel.  All you were doing, in the bits I questioned, was restating a conclusion of relativity, namely that time slows down as speed approaches light speed.  That you were unable or unwilling to do this in clear and unambiguous language is hardly my fault.  But even then, you misstate relativity.  What you should have said is that for objects traveling at light speed, time stands still.  (Or, the objects experience the slowest time, if you like.)  But saying this is the "point" of slowest time is meaningless.  Time is not a point.  Nor is light.  Of course, an open minded person would ask you what the "point" of time means, to see what you really meant by that, but as that would probably elicit another meltdown from you, I'll content myself by just saying it means nothing.

I also see now the error in the rest of your logic.  You think that if light "covers" an object then that object is somehow speeded up to near light speed and experiences slower time.  But that is nonsense.  Light bounces off us or is absorbed, and we stay at the same speed.  (Well, with no measurable difference, anyway.)  Light is not the source of the slowest time, does not "possess the essence of the slowest time"  (which is more meaningless sophistic drivel anyway), nor does light slow things down.  Time just slows down for things that approach the speed of light.  And that would be true even if there were no light present.  Light doesn't make it happen.  And unfortunately this rather obvious blunder you have made invalidates everything else that follows. 

And you found a publisher for this drivel?  I hope for your sake it sells well and you make enough money to purchase the psychological help you so obviously need.  If not though, it hasn't been a complete waste of time - your flawed arguments and spectacular meltdown will at least provide me with material for one new blog post.

Victor sent me a further two emails, totaling nearly an additional 2,000 words. In those emails he complained about skeptics, called me an intellectual coward, indignant, abusive and threatening, and wrote that I only want to listen to myself and that I did not have the ability to apply logic. In the process he also managed to compare himself to Copernicus, Galileo and Columbus, while comparing me to Mugabe. (A new one, even for me.) He called Nobel Prizes “bullshit”. He also accused me of savaging his book without reading it, although I had in fact just pointed out the errors in his emails to me, and had not referenced his book at all. However, in all of those 2,000 words, there was nothing to clarify or justify any of his claims. Although he found the time to repeat many of them. There was a frantic and barely comprehensible defense of his “point of slowest time” wording, but that was it. Again, please read the full Email exchange with Victor Senchenko for the verbatim account, to see if you think I missed anything of value.

I was reminded of some common characteristics of cranks, who generally:

1. Overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts,
2. Insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important,
3. Rarely if ever acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial,
4. Seriously misunderstand the mainstream opinion to which they believe that they are objecting,
5. Compare themselves with (sic) Galileo or Copernicus, implying that the mere unpopularity of some belief is in itself evidence of plausibility,
6. Claim that their ideas are being suppressed by […] groups which, they allege, are terrified by the possibility of their allegedly revolutionary insights becoming widely known,
7. Misunderstand or fail to use standard notation and terminology,
8. Ignore fine distinctions which are essential to correctly understanding mainstream belief.

We saw all of those from Victor, even the Galileo and Copernicus comparisons.

One more thing. As I wrote in Why I won’t read your book, I don’t have to read every book someone tells me about if I don’t think the book’s premise makes sense. Victor had his chance. In over 5,000 words he was incapable of expressing in any coherent fashion, any reason why his book would be worth considering. On the contrary, he exhibited virtually all the signs of the crank with nothing worthwhile to offer. It is not intellectual cowardice to refuse to waste any more time investigating further what is clearly worthless. But don’t take my word for it – read the book if you want. Just don’t say I didn’t warn you.

I’ll end with a delicious quote from Ben Goldacre, who wasn’t writing about Victor, but who could just as easily have been:

We should be glad that there are individuals out there with such esoteric views. We should respect and admire their tenacity and self-belief, if not their ability to provide us with actual data.

Quite.

PostScript

After writing the above, I Googled Victor. Imagine my surprise to learn I was not the only blogger to have benefited from Victor’s spam mails. Victor I’m hurt – I though I was special.

Email exchange with Victor Senchenko

The following is a complete record of my recent emails with Victor Senchenko. For an explanation and my comments on this exchange, please visit my main post on this subject: Victor Senchenko – Time Does Not Exist.

Please Note - Victor’s original emails came with many weird tags such as ‘time’ and “theory of relativity” –. I assume that Victor compiled his emails in something like Word, and then copied them into a browser email front end. This frequently converts characters such as “ and ” and – to the odd characters shown. Victor’s emails were quite difficult to read like this, so I edited out the tags so that (for example) ‘time’ became “time”, and “theory of relativity” – became - “theory of relativity” - . Likewise, some of his emails had line breaks in odd places, again making his email difficult to read. I also edited these line breaks to make his emails easier to read. I’m pretty sure I didn’t edit anything incorrectly, but if I did I’m sure Victor will let me know and I will immediately correct any errors.

That said, here are the email exchanges, without any additional commentary from me.  Please leave any comments you might have on the main post.

1) Original email from Victor’s “Media Team”

Greetings,

Looking over your website, you seem to present yourself as a rational thinker with liberal, humanist views. It is for this reason that the following Press Release may be of interest to you.

In your personal pursuit of knowledge, you may have come across an interesting phenomena: every year there are millions of children born, of whom many parents become aware that their children are very intelligent. These smart children are often given the chance – by either their parents or the society in which they live – to develop that intelligence, so that it could be used to enhance and improve human existence. This has been occurring, more or less, throughout human existence. Currently we find that never before in human existence has literacy been so wide spread. Never before in human existence have humans possess so much knowledge on how to communicate, heal, and duplicate. Never before in human existence have humans achieved feats of intellectual brilliance and physical endeavors, such as that of a space program, and sending of probes to other planets, so as to learn exactly what our Solar System comprises of. And yet, for all the widespread literacy, numeracy, and vast range of intellectual application advances in all forms of industries and fields of research, a simple but irrefutable fact remains: that humans, as a species, are no more humanely civilized today than they were thousands of years ago.

Human species, made up of races and societies, remains divisive, unjust and ignorant – prone to inflict suffering both on humans and other species – due to human selfishness, greed, and love of brutality. Take a random look at any part of this planet today, and there shall be a presence of human misery: death from hunger; suppressions and oppressions by military juntas and dictators; revolutions; mindless wars waged by bully nations – including those that claim to be democracies – and other military aggressions; retaliatory terrorism; crime with or without violence; degradation and theft of natural resources by desperate or greedy individuals; destruction and pollution of environment by uncaring populations and business companies. Lately, such human behavior has been so bad it has resulted in a vast and rapid degradation of living conditions on this planet, not just for humans but for all life forms.

So how can it be that at the period of being so intellectually advanced in knowledge of technical and chemical applications, this, the very brightest and the most educated generation of humans have brought upon themselves the most dangerous situation concerning their existence, the likes of which had never occurred to any earlier human generations?

The reason for this current human dilemma is that humans replicate the behavior and thinking of those before them. A younger generation accepts the teachings of the older generations, who teach the younger generation what they themselves had experienced at the hands of their own older generation who taught them. In this way, a perpetuation of the ideals held by older generation is guaranteed, so that when an older generation embraces lies, prejudices, and delusions, these lies, prejudices, and delusions are certain to be passed on to the younger generation, who then shall pass the very same lies, prejudices, and delusions onto their own offsprings. In this way, no matter how clever, smart, or intelligent the young generation may be, they are sure to be no wiser than their predecessors.

Needless to say, there are many well-intentioned humans who claim to seek the truth through reason, by exposing human misguided notions of superstition and other delusions connected with religions. The irony is that these individuals are also participants in delusions, without even being aware of this. This occurs because current humans, irrespective of their intellectual pursuits and endeavors, continue to accept the erroneous notions they were taught by their teachers; the very same erroneous notions their teachers were taught by those before them: notion based on misconceptions and fabrications rather than physical reality, but which they all accepted as being factual, and therefore, presumably requiring no examination. This is exactly how science became, and remains flawed: where principles invented by someone, continue to be accepted with no authentication by others.

Take ‘time’, for example. ‘Time’ was, and remains, an early human invention: a notion intending to explain the physical process of change, which inevitably includes a deterioration – or ‘dispersal’ – of every physical object or body. This includes a physical process that can be observed in humans as an aging of the body, leading to death. This physical process of change can also be witnessed in the continuous rotation of Earth on its axis (by that producing a day and night effect), and the planet’s ongoing orbit of the Sun (producing seasons on Earth’s surface). But instead of understanding that change physically occurs from all the surrounding physical influences of all the surrounding objects and bodies, early humans gave in to a presumption that change was caused by an unseen and unfelt force of mysterious ‘time’. A supposedly, powerful, mysterious entity very much like those of gods; an entity capable of manifesting itself in all that it influences to age and deteriorate.

With the development of science, scientists did not bother to examine the notion of ‘time’ seriously. They simply accepted it blindly. After all, were they not taught to accept ‘time’ to be an integral companion of space: a togetherness of time-space continuum? From that blind acceptance, the non-existent entity of ‘time’ had become a valuable commodity to aid the expanding imaginations of scientists and academics. So instead of ‘time’ being simply a ‘measure’ of any duration of the physical process of change, (not unlike a mile or kilometer being merely a measure of distance between two separate points in space, or on Earth’s surface) ‘time’ had been awarded flexible qualities, making it supposedly capable, in its own mysterious way, of fracturing, warping, accelerating and slowing.

Oh, yes, there have been some paltry experiments conducted to establish the physical existence of ‘time’, by examining the effects produced on some elements with a constant rate of decay. But all that these experiments could show, if examined properly, is that physical change can and does occur according to the levels of physical influence imposed upon the decaying elements, causing a speeding-up or slowing-down of decay. This does not, in any way, shape, or form, provide any physical proof to existence of ‘time’, but mere that physical change occurs from other physical change.

Were ‘time’ to physically exist, then, a simple experiment would have long ago provided physical proof to physical existence of ‘time’. That experiment would consist of a refrigerating unit standing exposed to the Sun and the elements of the weather, and of two leaves being removed from the same branch of a tree. One of the two leaves would be placed on top of the refrigerating unit, exposed to the Sun and the elements. The other leaf would be placed inside the refrigerating unit. Were ‘time’ to exist, then the two leaves, few centimeters or inches apart (one on the outside and one on the inside) would be affected at a similar rate by the surrounding-them same speed of ‘time’. As ‘time’ does not exist, but the physical process of change does, the exposed leaf on top of the refrigerating unit would soon disintegrate – disperse – while the leaf incased in the refrigerating unit would remain virtually unchanged indefinitely, for as long as the refrigerating unit continues to function, despite that the refrigerating unit itself is exposed to the Sun and the elements.

There are other such flaws to the current understanding of science. But despite them being flaws, delusions, or simply lies, it will not be easy for current humans – be they also scientists and academics or not – to acknowledge them as such. Having based their sciences on such delusions, the full scope of human knowledge depends for those non-existent entities to exist. So much like theists depending on their non-existent gods to exist. For that reason, blinded by their faith – despite proclaiming their allegiance to logic and reason – those in sciences shall (and do), belligerently refuse to admit their delusions, just like theists who refuse to acknowledge the non-existence of their gods.

Despite such opposition to physical reality, sooner or later humans will have to recognize and admit that their current delusions apply not just to religions, but to sciences as well. They shall also be required to admit that the reason why they find themselves, as a species, in such dire straits, is totally due to them structuring ABSOLUTELY ALL of their societies on their flawed, erroneous, and deluded perceptions of themselves and all that surrounds them, despite of their individual high intelligence. Humans had devised their societies according to their own, flawed perceptions of physical existence, rather than doing so based on absolute rational of reason.

There is, however, an alternative to this situation. It is now possible for anyone to learn all there is to know about humans, the reasons for their behavior, and all that physically surrounds them. A book, “Revelations of a Human Space Navigator", by Victor Senchenko, discloses all the human delusions, which continue to afflict human existence. This book reveals the very basics of who and what humans actually are, and why they behave as they do. It explains exactly from what all that is physical is physically made of, and why in the process of being they produce resultant physical functions, such as gravity and electromagnetic fields. By providing all this information, it becomes quite simple to understand exactly why ‘time’ and gods not only do not physically exist, but exactly why they cannot physically exist.

Of course, there is no compulsion for you to either accept the claims made in the book, or to purchase the book. The only important factor is that of your awareness: should you ever choose to acquire the knowledge humans had always claimed to want, without any illusions, delusions, fabrications and lies, then you should know that such information is available to you.

Furthermore, in defending the uniqueness and originality of the information presented in the book, the author issues a challenge to Any and Every person on the planet who purchases this book: were that person to provide the author with a physical proof that his revelations had already existed at any period of the Human Age, (as knowledge not derived or sourced from this book), then the author, himself, will refund that person the full purchase price of the book.

For any additional information, please visit http://www.victorsenchenko.com

Media Contact:

VictorSenchenko.com Media Team,

[Email address removed]

2) Skeptico’s reply #1

Victor:

You wrote:

Were ‘time’ to exist, then the two leaves, few centimeters or inches apart (one on the outside and one on the inside) would be affected at a similar rate by the surrounding-them same speed of ‘time’.

Surely this doesn't show that time doesn't exist?  Surely this just shows that organic matter takes less time to rot in sunlight than it does in the fridge?

Best regards,

Richard aka Skeptico

3) Victor’s reply #1

Hi Richard,

My media team had passed on your questions.

“You wrote:

Were “time” to exist, then the two leaves, few centimeters or inches apart (one on the outside and one on the inside) would be affected at a similar rate by the surrounding-them same speed of “time”.

Surely this doesn't show that time doesn't exist?  Surely this just shows that organic matter takes less time to rot in sunlight than it does in the fridge?”

Please understand that in the book I do not use just logic to explain why “time” does not physically exist, but also explain exactly what all that is physical is physically made of, and why from that it all physically behaves as it does. This explanation makes it relatively easy to grasp the understanding of the non-existence of “time”.

Meanwhile, I’ll endeavor to use the very suppositions made by Einstein, in his “theory of relativity” - on which the current “quantum” theories are based, and which all current physicists embrace - to explain why, were “time” to physically exist, the two leaves (one exposed to sunlight and one hidden in a refrigerating unit) would disperse at a similar rate.

According to Einstein’s “theory of relativity”:

A. nothing, supposedly, moves faster than light.

B. A body or an object is supposedly experiencing a slowing down of “time” with increase of speed, so that a human high-speed space traveler would return to Earth from a long journey a younger person to that of an identical twin, who remained on Earth. Furthermore, according to the same theory, a space traveler moving faster and faster than the speed of light would become younger and younger, because beyond the speed of light “time” supposedly moves backwards. In other words, according to current scientific principles, a physical body or an object not only experiences slowing down of “time” with higher speed but can experience a physical reversal of “aging” by moving faster than the speed of light. Therefore, it is accepted by current humans that “time” has a direct physical effect on each and every physical atomic particle, chemical, nerve, muscle, organ and tissue of a human body; a body (or a leaf) that can be made to function for longer periods if influenced to function at a slower rate over longer period.

With me so far, Richard? Good.

While I could make many inferences on the subject of “time” - for instance: what is the “standard” “time” in the first place? Is it the day-night sequence of Earth rotation on its axis? Who has ever given or received proof of this? - I shall instead come right to the point.

First, however, let us agree that light is a physical entity. (While this is acknowledged to be true by current physicists, if you would care to know exactly what light is, and why, this is explained in the book.)

Now then, if the speed of light is a benchmark to “time”, then light itself must be the point of the slowest “time”. Therefore, if light is a physical entity with the point of slowest “time”, then, were “time” to exist, anything that light would physically cover with itself would be subject to experiencing slower “time”. To experience slower “time” would mean to retain its contents for a longer duration without loss (that is, not to age). After all, if each and every physical atomic particle, chemical, nerve, muscle, organ and tissue of a human body is supposedly dependent on “time”, and if the region of slowest “time” is the physical light itself, then light - as THE source of slowest “time” - would need to physically slow down the process of growing and aging of all life forms it shines upon. That would mean that all that the sunlight contacted on Earth during daylight hours would be slowed down in growth and deterioration during that period, and accelerate their growth and deterioration only at night.

So that is my point, Richard. Were “time” to physically exist, any light would be a rejuvenator or at least a slower-down of dispersals, because being light - traveling at the ultimate speed of light - light would possess the essence of the slowest “time”. But as “time” does not physically exist, the rate of speed of sunlight is inconsequential to the level of deterioration it produces, only its quantity, and the lengths of duration, even if all levels of heat radiation (also light in their own right) were to be removed from sunlight.

It is for this purpose I had stated in my imaginary experiment that were “time” to physically exist, then an object exposed to sunlight and the one hidden would have to maintain an equal parity in their individual rate of dispersal. As this does not physically occur, then even by simplest of logic it’s possible to show that “time” does not physically exist, and is merely another invention humans use to delude themselves in their, so-called, sciences.

The reason that there would be a difference between the two leaves’ levels and rates of dispersal is purely physical and nothing to do with any non-existent “time”. This applies to all physical change that occurs to all physical objects and bodies. It is all a physical process of change occurring due to physical contact between all the physical objects and bodies, no matter how large and how small and how numerous. Without a direct physical contact no physical change can take place. This applies even to the existence of gravity and the so-called electro-magnetic fields, which are no great mysteries if one knows exactly how, and why, all that physically exists operates upon physical principles of attraction and repulsion.

And while this physical truth can be ignored, and even ridiculed, by humans who prefer to imagine that physical change can take place without a physical contact - presumably due to their gods being able to “create” all in existence out of nothingness, or due to influence of “time” whose physical presence no-one has ever physically seen or felt (so much like that of their gods) - nothing in all physical existence can alter physical truth; for it, as a physical process of change, is a constant that’s eternal.

Kind regards,

Victor Senchenko

4) Skeptico’s reply #2

What does “the speed of light is a benchmark to time” mean?

And what does “light itself must be the point of the slowest time” mean?

Best regards,

Richard aka Skeptico

5) Victor’s reply #2

Oh, yes! Richard by name; skeptic by self-presumption; child by choice with a typical childish behavior: anything explained to be questioned "why?", without any conscious intent to work out for oneself the information presented. Simply continue to ask "why", or "what does that mean?", as a substitute for reasoning.

Well, Richard, I shall quickly indulge your whim for questioning. But after this assistence from me you may have to read the book to obtain all the answers to your questions.

Your question 1: What does “the speed of light is a benchmark to time” mean?

A. "speed of light" - relates to the presumed speed at which light travels. If I were you, I would have hundreds of critical questions - and I do - as to current understanding of light, such as:

all that physically moves in space and vacuum space has an impetus of physical casting off - which is a cause for an instant of acceleration. In vacuum space this acceleration is ongoing and neverending, as vacuum space has no physical restrictions of any kind, by being a nothingness. So then, why does light not accelerate from a standing start: that is: incrementally increase its velocity, rather that being always constant at its speed?

(This is explained in the book).

B. "benchmark" represents a standard or point of reference against which things or functions may be compared or assessed.

C. "time" represents averything that humans currently relate to an unexplainable entity that supposedly has a physical effect on all that physically exists.

Ergo: "What does 'the speed of light is a benchmark to time' mean?" means that according to the 'theory of relativity' light is the standard or point of reference of speed, against whose speed speeding objects and bodies are presumably affected by experiencing the slowing down of 'time'.

Your question 2: And what does “light itself must be the point of the slowest time” mean?

Well, Richard, let's reason out this question together. If in trying to reach the speed of light supposedly means experiencing slower 'time' then that would equate to: the faster the speed the slower the 'time'. So if the fastest physical entity is light, then light, by all reason, should be expected to possess the slowest 'time' from possessing the fastest speed.

I trust I had resolved the quandries you had regarding my previous communiqué.

Kind regards

Victor Senchenko

6) Skeptico’s reply #3

Oh dear.  I guess you're not used to being questioned on your brilliant, new, earth shattering theory then?  Of course, a mark of the crank is that he develops his ideas in isolation, away from critics or anyone who would ask awkward questions, and so his theory, untested, is usually garbage.  As I am afraid yours is.  In asking my two questions, I thought maybe I was missing some profound point that would justify the conclusions that followed, and so instead of dismissing your wording as sophistic drivel, I asked you to explain what you actually meant.  In other words, I gave you the benefit of the doubt.  But your petulant response showed my instinct was right - your words are just empty drivel.  All you were doing, in the bits I questioned, was restating a conclusion of relativity, namely that time slows down as speed approaches light speed.  That you were unable or unwilling to do this in clear and unambiguous language is hardly my fault.  But even then, you misstate relativity.  What you should have said is that for objects traveling at light speed, time stands still.  (Or, the objects experience the slowest time, if you like.)  But saying this is the "point" of slowest time is meaningless.  Time is not a point.  Nor is light.  Of course, an open minded person would ask you what the "point" of time means, to see what you really meant by that, but as that would probably elicit another meltdown from you, I'll content myself by just saying it means nothing.

I also see now the error in the rest of your logic.  You think that if light "covers" an object then that object is somehow speeded up to near light speed and experiences slower time.  But that is nonsense.  Light bounces off us or is absorbed, and we stay at the same speed.  (Well, with no measurable difference, anyway.)  Light is not the source of the slowest time, does not "possess the essence of the slowest time"  (which is more meaningless sophistic drivel anyway), nor does light slow things down.  Time just slows down for things that approach the speed of light.  And that would be true even if there were no light present.  Light doesn't make it happen.  And unfortunately this rather obvious blunder you have made invalidates everything else that follows. 

And you found a publisher for this drivel?  I hope for your sake it sells well and you make enough money to purchase the psychological help you so obviously need.  If not though, it hasn't been a complete waste of time - your flawed arguments and spectacular meltdown will at least provide me with material for one new blog post.

Best regards,

Richard aka Skeptico

7) Victor’s reply #3

Thanks for another response, Richard, and may I say that you do amuse me, even if your previous and latest communiqués were both standard issue for people who claim to be skeptics. They pretend to be knowledgeable and shrewd, but in fact they are just like those of other humans: intellectual cowards. As with the rest of humanity, skeptics love to quarrel and reject, but constantly do so without having examined for themselves the full scope of any newly presented information, such as mine. They consider themselves so clever, they dismiss any notion foreign to them without actually examined that notion. That is, they are apt to savage a book without actually having read the book.

Instead, they - as you - often become indignant, abusive and threatening - simply because, as humans, they hold onto what they had been taught by their teachers. No different to theists being taught to accept religion and then defending it. It is for this reason that humans have remained their own worst enemies, despite having the largest numbers of educated in all of human existence.

But what is the essence of my amusement you may ask? It is your inability to comprehend what I had written to you, due to your insistence on altering what was written to your own interpretation.

For instance, in all that I had written to you (and please do reexamine my emails), you shall not find me stating that “time” had a point. What I stated, and I repeat: were “time” to physically exist, light itself would be the point of the slowest time. Unlike your assertion that: “Time is not a point.  Nor is light.” a light stream does have a point of a beginning and an end-point. For example, an electric flashlight emits no light when switched off. Once it is switched on, there is a definite point - if unseen by humans - when light is emitted by the electric globe of the flashlight, with the beginning of the light stream moving forward, and in moving forward temporarily filling space with its presence, which previously it did not fill. When the same flashlight is switched off, the stream of light moves on, with the cut-off point to the steam of light being the end-point to the light stream. If the speed of light is supposed to be the benchmark (point of reference against which things or functions may be compared or assessed) of slowest “time”, then light (which physically moves at a supposed speed of light) is the only physical entity that could possibly experience the slowest “time”.

(Incidentally, your presumption that: “What you should have said is that for objects traveling at light speed, time stands still.” would have meant that if time was to stand still at the speed of light, then light itself would not move forward but would stand still at a point of its release, as a standing-still-”time” would not permit it. That is why I did not say this.)

Of course, I could go on with this discourse, but what’s the benefit? You only want to listen to yourself, in the process accusing me of saying what I do not, because of your inability to apply logic, and belittle me and my knowledge: something that you did not even bother to examine in full. So like a skeptic.

But what do you actually know, Richard?

- Do you know exactly of what all that is physical is physically made of? No? I do.

- Do you know exactly why all that is physical physically behaves as it does? No? I do. This includes gravity, and all else that currently baffles the so-called physicists.

- Do you have any notion of three-dimensional thinking? No? I do.

- Do you know who and what you are as a human? No? I do. I know exactly why humans behave as they do in all that they do humanely and inhumanely. I even know why you behave as you do, way beyond any psychobabble and chemical influences.

I know why humans have caused the current havoc on Earth, and why they shall continue to, until they learn who and what they are. To do that, however, they shall first need to obtain some intellectual courage. This means: don’t throw stones just because you are able; examine information before making an INFORMED decision; ask questions not as a child but as an astute adult, and digest the answers rather than spitting them out because they are either complex or personally disliked.

Can I achieve such a change in humans? The probably of me succeeding in my efforts is virtually nil. But at least I provide a potential for human change to their selfish and ignorant attitudes. That is all I can do. The rest is to humans such as you.

To return to your first sentence of your latest response, what I can say is that I am used to being questioned by those who are absolutely ignorant of the information I provide, but who ask questions not out of genuine curiosity but for purpose of instigating a conflict for the benefit of their own insecurity, amusement, or in support of their current delusions, even when they pretend in providing for themselves a “benefit of the doubt”. Very rarely do I receive questions from those who have read the book, because after reading of the book all the questions are answered within the book. I actually welcome questions and scrutiny from those who have read the book, because we can communicate on a level of full understanding: like two people communicating in the same language. But it does take intellectual courage to became such a knowledgeable person.

Talking of intellectual courage (or intellectual cowardice), you had mentioned that our correspondence shall be added to the material of your blog. By all means. But I would challenge you to do that not as an intellectual coward - which you currently show yourself to be - but as a courageous intellectual. This means, post our complete communication on your site. Include my web address. I doubt very much that you will have the courage to do that. I do. I shall have no qualms in posting our complete intercourse on my site. I have no fear of being judged or of any verbal opposition. Just like Copernicus or Galileo, or Columbus. If you don’t use sticks and stones your delusions shall never harm me. That’s because I know I’m right, while you may believe I’m wrong. That’s the difference between knowing and believing.

Kind regards,

Victor Senchenko

8) Skeptico’s reply #4

Wow - you seem to know everything.  Your Nobel Prize must be a mere formality.  Strange, then, that you blew up after a couple of simple questions.

I'm not sure that I want to publish everything on my blog - you have written so much, and most of it is really worthless.  I don't want to completely bore my readers.  I'll think about it.  I'll certainly publish a link to your site though.  And you'll be free to comment.

Best regards,

Richard aka Skeptico

9) Victor’s reply #4

Well, well, Richard, still collecting your material for your blog?

But why not post every word of our communication verbatim? Why not be absolutely transparent and honest? Are you embarrassed of your degradations you unjustifiably cast upon me? Unjustifiably, because you have not read the book, yet, have chosen to degrade its contents by trying to denigrate me; by presuming that what you know supersedes what you don’t know and I do; and by presuming that I can fully explain in an instant - while you can fully grasp in an instant - all that requires the sequential reading of the book: which cannot be done. But that’s not it, is it? I know you. You’re the kind of human who likes to belittle those whom you don’t understand. You want your version to be seen as the only true version. If you presumed I was blowing up while I was grinning your version has to be it. You want to be seen right no matter what. So much like a human. A Mugabe in the making, perhaps?.

That is one of the reasons that humans like you fear to read my book; which, incidentally, has a subtitle: “What humans fear to know: the physical truth of all in existence, including themselves.”

At this instant, you may be grinning as much as I am (from different perspectives, of course), but then I’m always grinning: I’m always happy. But in being happy does not mean that I’m oblivious of all the misery that exists on this planet, most of it directly due to human inhumanity, caused by human selfishness, self-importance, greed, and ignorance; directed not just at their own species but all other species. Even the most educated, and those who perceive themselves to be just, rational, socially conscious - as I’m sure you are - are duped by human past.

The past human inventions are still with us today, dominating our lives as social customs and national laws: including religious doctrines propagating subservience to their faith and state as being ideals of earthly life, with reward of obtaining an afterlife; including scientific doctrines that had evolved from religious teaching, and which propagate subservience to their faith of promises of unlimited earthly life, with reward for those who pursue this scientific path with award of the Nobel prize, whose consequence are that of human overpopulation: which is by far the largest cause of all human despair and global environmental depletion and destruction.

(From the above observation you may now have some idea what I think of Nobel and his legacy.)

So, now in finality, Richard, allow me to ask you a question: after you had, of your own volition, responded to our Press Release - in the process having been upset by being told that you are an intellectual coward (a statement of physical truth and not malicious hurtfulness you like to apply), where do you go from here? Do you prove to yourself that you are not an intellectual coward by reading the book? After all, after reading the book you shall be privy to its knowledge, and from that you can either pan it - and me - INFORMEDLY, to kingdom come (which never shall), or realize for yourself that all that I claim is a physical truth, and you too become as knowing as I am. What shall you now do?

I will not dispute that acquiring this knowledge, in the first instant, is not a daunting experience - it is; after all, I had to go through it, so I should know. It requires not a blind acceptance but a great deal of rational perseverance, questioning, and working out for one self. In short: it requires some mental effort. And the reward? Nothing financial, I’m afraid. And no Nobel bullshit. Just the irreplaceable satisfaction of knowing all that physical is physically made of, and why it all physically behaves as it does; and more importantly: who and what humans are.

But there are some dangers to knowing everything: it means to be informed, surrounded by billions of humans who are not. So what’s the problem with that, you may ask? The problem is that once you know everything, you shall be motivated to pass on the knowledge you have for an unselfish reason of assisting human species - those billions of unknowing - to extend their existence on this planet into millions of years, rather than short period they continue to erode.

Ah, decisions, decisions:

to be or not to be: perchance to think; to reason; to explore;

perchance to learn the score of melodies of life,

and so for end of life,

for all there is behaves as in a Shakespeare’s play:

from life to end of life, that end of life the cause of other life,

for that’s the structure of the cycle, or the ring;

not really understood by humans now and then,

from being so different to a Tolkien ring  and ring of master Wagner.

So what shall it be? Shall you turn into an all-knowing human, responsible for all of the humanity, or remain a parrot of other opinions, sitting on a fence squawking their ignorance as your own? Ah, decisions, decisions.

Kind regards,

Victor Senchenko

Return to the main post - Victor Senchenko – Time Does Not Exist.

Egnor Attributes Scientific Progress to Religion

OK, so I’m a little late to this one. But I still think I have something to add. Well I would.

PZ wrote a piece extolling the virtues of science over religion in curing diseases such as cancer, and bemoaning the shortage of funds to support research. (And also bemoaning the money wasted on useless woo projects such as homeopathy and creationism.) The Discovery Institute’s pet brain surgeon, Michael Egnor, then penned what he probably imagined was a decent rebuttal - Cancer Research, Prayer, and St. Jude. A snippet:

I take exception to his claim that prayer and religious faith had nothing to do with the improvements in the treatment of cancer.

The remarkable progress in the treatment of cancer in the past several decades had a lot to do with faith and prayer. Myers misunderstands the origins of modern medical science and the history and nature of cancer treatment.

[…]

Advances in science and cancer treatment emerged, not from science in isolation, but from a culture that made science possible and that directed the fruits of scientific work toward good and compassionate goals. The culture from which science has emerged is Judeo-Christian culture, and modern science has arisen only in Judeo-Christian culture.

PZ responded, as did Orac and Steven Novella, so I don’t need to repeat all their points in detail. Obviously scientific discoveries took place in other cultures apart from Judeo-Christian ones, and even more obviously, the main contribution of religion to scientific discovery has been to suppress it and deny reality, rather than to encourage any new discoveries. Opposition to stem cell research on religious grounds is an obvious example. As is Egnor’s support of the Discovery Institute, a body that wants to deny evolution and instead promote the pseudoscientific idea of Intelligent Design. Egnor even denies that knowledge of evolution has any bearing on medical research – a view that if accepted by researchers, would without doubt hinder new discoveries. Egnor’s views are decidedly anti-science.

Steven Novella also noted that Egnor’s argument was a diversionary tactic. PZ had argued that science, not woo or prayer, has resulted in improvements in treatments for cancer; Egnor shifted the argument to claim that only faith and religion motivated those scientific discoveries. Well OK, he can think that if he wants, but hasn’t he just admitted that it is only through science that these discoveries can actually be made? If you examine Egnor’s almost 2,000 words, you won’t find anything that suggests science is not the best (or only) method for making new discoveries in medicine. And yet this is the man who would bypass the scientific method to teach pseudoscience in schools, and have researchers ignore the implications of evolution in their work. His best argument is that, well, er, science was motivated by religion. Really? That’s the best you got?

OK then. So my question to Michael Egnor is this: now that you have apparently conceded that only science will result in progress, will you publicly admit that we should consider only scientific ideas about how we got here, and disavow quasi religious ideas such as ID? No? I don’t think he will either.

I want to comment on one additional point he made:

The application of science to care for the sick presupposes the view that we have an ethical obligation to help the weakest among us. The atheist view of metaphysics — that the universe has no purpose and no designer and no transcendent ethical code — provides no impetus to scientific inquiry or to the compassionate application of scientific knowledge.

An example he uses is the claimed higher rates for survival of epidemics in early Christian communities, compared with those in pagan communities. This, he claims, was due to the care that Christians provided for the sick, and their refusal to flee when an epidemic struck. (In pagan communities, healthy people fled.) Assuming this is true, all this shows is that early Christians were better than early pagans. Or, if you like, Christian irrationality was better than pagan irrationality. Of course, preferable to both is rationality. By now we should have progressed beyond the world view of second century pagans, with or without religion.

Of course, Egnor’s argument is just the old “no morality without Jesus” drivel we have all heard and debunked many times before. Good people do good things and bad people do bad things, religion notwithstanding. But as someone once said, only religion can make good people do bad things. Egnor shows here that his opposition to evolution is not based on rationality, but on his religious beliefs. Which is great for him, I guess. But not something anyone else need take seriously.

Rob Lancaster sees Sylvia Browne

The title of this post should have been, “Rob Lancaster sees Sylvia Browne in Las Vegas and all he got was thrown out by security” – but that would have been too long a title. It sums up what happened, though.

Rob (owner of StopSylviaBrowne.com), his wife, and skeptic Claus Larsen got tickets to see Browne this week at the Excalibur in Las Vegas. Read the full report at Rob’s site - I attend Browne's Las Vegas show, and words are exchanged. Of note about the actual readings Browne performed is that she offered mostly generic answers to questions, except where specific questions were asked that only a real psychic would be likely to get right – in which cases she bombed. No real surprise there. Rob got to ask Browne a question, and Browne recognized him and verbally attacked him at the end of her show. It’s a long but interesting post, and what stands out is Rob’s integrity and his lack of aggression or meanness towards Browne or her acolytes.

But the same can not be said about Browne. If you scroll down to the section headed “Talk With Other Patrons”, you’ll read about how Rob was having a discussion after the show with some of the attendees (many of whom were less than impressed with Browne), just outside the theater, when Browne appeared behind him, and told him:

[pointing at me angrily] “Someone is going to deal with you!!”

That certainly sounded like a threat. Exactly what it meant was unclear, but a few minutes later the security guards appeared, questioned Rob, suggested that he (Rob) had been causing a “disturbance”, and (ultimately) told him to leave the building. Read Rob’s full report – it doesn’t sound like he was causing any kind of disturbance. But I guess that’s all Sylvia Browne could do. She can’t refute any of the facts listed on Rob’s site. She can’t take Randi’s challenge that she knows she’d lose. She can’t even convince a bunch or people who paid to see her, that she really is psychic. Like all cowards, all she is able to do is use her power to call security and have her critic thrown off the premises.

What a nasty little piece of work you are, Sylvia Browne. And you were just totally outclassed by Rob Lancaster.

Shoemaker Sanctioned

Justice is served:

[Shoemaker] has, he says, had his suspicions aroused because [Seidel] has so much information. Clearly he is unfamiliar with the extent of the information which a highly-competent librarian like Ms. Seidel can, and did, accumulate.

Haaaa – well he knows now. Probably more than he would have wished.

Furthermore:

Clifford J. Shoemaker’s action is an abuse of legal process, a waste of judicial resources and an unnecessary waste of the time and expense to the purported deponent.

The Clerk of Court is directed to forward a certified copy of this order, the motion to quash, the show cause order, and the response of Shoemaker and Seidel to the appropriate professional conduct committee of the Virginia State Bar in order that it may be made aware of Clifford J. Shoemaker’s conduct and so that those authorities may take whatever action they deem appropriate.

As a sanction from this court, Clifford J. Shoemaker is ordered to attend within three months, a continuing legal education program on ethics and on the discovery rules in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. He is ordered to file a certification of completion of the programs.

One for the good guys.

Skeptics’ Circle

The latest Skeptics Circle is posted at Ionian Enchantment.  And there’s something about a meeting in Las Vegas.  What’s that all about, I wonder?

Bad Psychic

This is why we dislike so-called “psychics”. When Larry King has these cold readers on his show, and believers complain about skeptics, bleating that the psychics are doing no harm and that we should leave them alone, this is the reason they are wrong. From Jim Downey today I learned of how a mother of an autistic child was investigated under the Child and Family Services Act because some lame-ass “educational assistant” who worked with the child visited a “psychic” who guessed the letter “V” (the first letter of the child’s name), and (following validation by the mark) suggested the child was being sexually abused. And the dumb as a rock school officials felt this was enough to report the family:

Colleen Leduc already had a lot going against her. The Barrie woman was holding down a job while struggling to raise her autistic 11-year-old daughter. She couldn't afford to give the child the intensive therapy she needed, and was forced to send her to a public school in the area.

So she was completely unprepared for what happened to her and the youngster, an almost unbelievable tale of red tape involving a strange claim from a teaching assistant, a bizarre decision by a school board, a visit from the Children's Aid Society (CAS) and most improbably of all, the incorrect pronouncements of a psychic.

[…]

"The teacher looked and me and said: 'We have to tell you something. The educational assistant who works with Victoria went to see a psychic last night, and the psychic asked the educational assistant at that particular time if she works with a little girl by the name of "V." And she said 'yes, I do.' And she said, 'well, you need to know that that child is being sexually abused by a man between the ages of 23 and 26.'"

The family were able to avoid prosecution and the family being split up, probably only because the mother had fitted the child with a GPS unit that provided audio records of everything that was going on around her. Yes – she was able to prove herself and her family innocent. Lucky. How many other families would have been able to do the same?

And consider the quote above, “the psychic asked the educational assistant … if she works with a little girl by the name of "V." As those of us who watch these cold reading frauds know, it is highly unlikely that that is what transpired. What most likely happened is that the “psychic” offered numerous guesses, and the “V” was the one that stuck. And the psychic probably didn’t even say the “V” was “a little girl…” – the dumb mark most likely provided that for her too.

The psychic isn’t even the worst villain in this case. The real idiots are in the school board who didn’t just dismiss this piece of idiocy out of hand, but who took it upon themselves to take this piece of nonsense seriously. These events took place Monday, but by yesterday the school board are still refusing to even consider they did anything wrong:

The board has admitted the issue could have been handled better, but notes under the law they had to file a report regardless of the source.

Then the law is an ass.

This reportedly cash-strapped mother is extremely fortunate that she had the proof that the allegations were wrong. Most others would not. Remember this case the next time Larry King, and other credulous media types, mindlessly promote psychics are real in an effort to increase ratings. Shame on you people for validating this crap.

Another Credulous Reporter

My local paper last week printed a typically clueless piece from one Amy Moon, about the pseudoscientific Q-Link pendant that I wrote about nearly three years ago - Q-Link if you want. The maker of this device claims it is “the most advanced personal energy system available today” and that it can “tune your being for optimal living and performance”. Pretty big claims for something that is just a few, small, random, cheap electronic components that are not even connected to each other. But to be fair, it cures imaginary problems so perhaps it makes sense to use an imaginary method.

The article was one of the worst of its kind, offering no critical appraisal at all, instead repeating the Q-Link maker’s crap verbatim. Here are some examples:

A random pick from the alphabet led to the Q. Only later did the founders attach meaning to it.

Because of course, that’s how science works – picking stuff at random and then shoehorning meaning into it.

"We started to think about the Q-Link as being the 'Quantum Link,' " said Gray over the phone from his Larkspur company. "Quantum means an 'indivisible unit of energy,' something that supports the notion of the whole or holistic body."

“Quantum” actually means the smallest amount of a physical quantity that can exist. I suppose that, strictly speaking, this also means “an indivisible unit”, but only indivisible because it is the smallest possible - hardly the same as “the whole body”, which obviously can be divided. I am reminded again how woos love equivocation – using the same word in different meanings in an argument, implying that the word means the same each time. With sleight of hand, “quantum” becomes the same as “woolistic” “holistic” – a veritable masterpiece of equivocation to imply that the smallest unit possible is the same as a whole body. But top marks for use of the word “quantum”. (See the woo credo, #10.)

According to Gray, inside the Q-Link is crystalline matter imbued with frequencies that exist outside of the electromagnetic spectrum.

This just makes no sense. If it is electromagnetic radiation then it must by definition be inside the electromagnetic spectrum. In fact, surely all frequencies must be within the electromagnetic spectrum? In what sense is the electromagnetic spectrum limited to certain frequencies?

This realm of subtle energies is a new area of science and controversial because there is no way to prove the energies exist.

So, how do you know they do exist? And how do you know the Q-Link can affect them?

"What's so interesting is if you look back over the last 20 years at anyone who ever talked about chakras, meridians, 1,000 years ago it was the basis of science."

I think he’s claiming that 1,000 year old thoughts about chakras and meridians, as repeated by current new age bozos, is science. Unfortunately, no. Chakras and meridians were just made up by ancient people who had no knowledge of how the body actually works. Science has moved on from these nonsensical made up entities.

Although there has been some independent research on the supposed effects of the Q-Link that are listed on the Clarus Web site, the scientific evidence is scant. Gray said the company hopes to do more research.

Surely they should do the research before they sell the product? Because if they haven’t done the research yet, how do they know it does anything?

But even ignoring this logical error, I find Gray’s claim that he “hopes to do more research” to be bogus. Their website lists ten studies on the device. As far as I can tell these are the exact same ten studies I wrote about three years ago, with the exact same flaws I wrote about then. Three years and no new studies? No follow up? I suppose they don’t really need to bother. With uncritical free publicity from credulous twits like Amy Moon, why would they need to do any actual science?

Psychic Bingo Again

Tonight, Thursday June 12, Larry King is hosting some more pretend psychics:

Psychic kids! Some see dead people, others have a sixth sense! Plus, John Edward and Char Margolis. It's gonna (sic) be a great show. They're predicting it! What do YOU want to ask them?

Well, I’d ask them how they have the nerve to keep playing this cold reading game as though they really were talking to dead people. But that’s just me. I’m not sure who these “psychic kids” are, but we’ve all seen John Edward and Char (“do you have a C?”) Margolis before, playing their cold reading guessing game. Last time they chickened out, but perhaps this time they will actually take some calls and pretend to be talking to dead people, so that we can play bingo.

Click here for the printable psychic bingo card:

The explanations for the squares can be found at the same John Edward / James van Praagh Bingo post from last year. Read the full explanations (and explain them to your woo friends who may be watching with you), to get the full benefit. Char doesn’t employ the exact same routine as van Praagh, but I think it’ll be close enough that I don’t need to change any of the squares. I expect Edward to be the same as usual.

Click the “Randomize” button for cards with different sequences. Or print the same card twice and see if Edward or Margolis gets bingo first. (My money’s on Edward.)

Thursday evening – Edited to add:

Well, the psychic show was called off. It was still advertised on CNN last night but had gone by sometime today. Apparently they wanted to cover four boy scouts who were killed by a tornado yesterday, instead. I don’t know what to think – if you can’t trust Larry King… Also, and this is really puzzling, why didn’t any of the psychics predict this? To quote Larry’s website yesterday, “It's gonna be a great show. They're predicting it!” Bzzt – wrong again, they missed, but thanks for playing.

We’ll get to play bingo one day though. I’m determined.

Skeptics’ Circle

Well, two weeks went by and I didn’t even notice.  But I’m sure they did because there’s another Skeptics Circle posted today at Jyunri Kankei.