multi-dimensional physics thread (for Gisteron) ;-)

Gist is like the spring wind, blowing hard but no place to go.


oh well, on to better things. I am now developing a new theory based on the IP here that I am attempting to integrate into my multidimensional metaphysics theory. Its about how we meld into the matrix and how the different parts of our consciousness interact with the worlds there. And its based on the 7 worlds theory but it needs some help I guess. Here is what I propose. and let me know what you think! or ask questions or give suggestions!

Malicious wrote: You know you remind me of a ( friend ) I had . Such arguments we would get into . But in reality if you don't get what I'm saying then ya don't get it .

Well, I did specify exactly what I didn't get and why. But fair enough, if this was more about just throwing stuff out there rather than having anyone understand it as I thought it might be after you prefaced it with "speaking scientifically", that's fine, too. I don't have to understand it.

Who knows maybe I will be the one to right the book on time travel and dedicate it to all those who mocked me ... And do ya have proof of ya teaching at a college ? Let me guess you were just a sub for the real professor ( or just a teacher's pet ) that got to teach a stupidly fundimental physics lesson .

Can't recall anyone here ever mocking you. But if there are many out there who do, I'm all with you. You show them.
Any reason you felt you needed to mock me, though?
If you ask me in private, I might scan my employment contracts from last semester and this one. Though I wouldn't count on it. That sort of private information is worth more to me than anyone's believing me on this issue. I think I can make it evident enough that I could teach lecture supplementary classes in theoretical electrodynamics and quantum mechanics (at least, they are the only two I tried so far) without having to compromize my privacy quite so much. Whether you come to believe that I actually taught either of them is of little consequence, overall, though.

Personally I would like some proof about these so called research journals that are being " published " and would like to criticize them .

Well, I for one am not responsible for publishing the journals themselves. If you like to criticize scientific journals, by all means, be my guest. You can start with Nature Communications - the peer reviewed journal the first paper with my name on it appeared in. Though it makes little difference to me in practice, nonetheless I'm looking foward to read what you have to say about the journal.

Common put all your hard work out here let's all look at it .

There is such a thing as online privacy, but if you ask nicely, maybe I'll send you a link to that NatComms paper I mentioned above in private.

Until you put your research on here ( please make another forum post ) then don't criticize others .

Yea, no, that's not how it works. I don't have to earn any rights to criticize what people put out in public for others to discuss. If you post it, I get to comment on it. You are free to disregard my comments, but you are not free to have me not make any until I prove my worth to you.

I am very interested in the " research " you are doing , maybe I might have a lot to say on the subject . A little peer review never hurt anyone .

As I say, I'm not comfortable putting my real name and work place in quite so public a space, especially seeing how many adversaries I appear to be making for myself lately by daring to expect some baseline intellectual rigor in a thread about physics. If you want to know the subject, though, it's (active) granular matter. So think statistical physics/thermodynamics, but way out of equilibrium and with macroscopic particles.

If you are actually well scientifically knowledgeable , then I don't want to fully and precisely tell you exactly how to build a time machine or how it works . I don't like my ideas being stolen .

Don't worry, I'm not an engineer. But I could build an electromagnet without your assistance all the same, and given a current source I could have it generate a magnetic field, too. I don't think I'd have quite the resources at my avail to build something that generates an actual magnetic singularity, i.e. a field of actually infinite strength at any point, but then again, I'm rather confident that this is not a restriction on my resources as much as it is on electromagnetism itself, so I'm not worried about you doing it any time soon either.

Trust me on this if I had the money I would make the time machine then me and you would take it out for a spin but sadly I don't until then this conversation is done . As Obi-Wan once done to some Stormtroopers ( mind trick hand gesture ) move along .

Alright, I shall trust you on this. Thanks for calling me weak-minded on your way out of an otherwise pleasant albeit unproductive conversation, too. I guess we'll talk again when ever you have built your time machine. I'd love to help if only I understood what you were talking about, but it seems you wouldn't want that. Fair enough. Good luck, at any rate.

Gisteron wrote: Well, then, bring it on. State your case.

Well, for a start, consider the extent of George Berkeley and David Hume's skepticism, and what it implied.
They accurately point out that we have no true or direct way of knowing the material world.
We directly experience our senses, but the material world is only ever experienced indirectly.
All we really know about the outside world is what our senses tell us, and the ideas we form from this sense data.
That calls into question all scientific knowledge, all objective data, and the reliability of our senses.
So, considering that all we really know about the world comes from our senses and our interpretation of them, how can we obtain true objective, material knowledge? Is it possible?

Im sorry for mocking you , it's not to say really here but a lot of other people offline ( well in the resent past ) . It's okay I will take your word on it . Hmm quantum mechanics sounds interesting . Again sorry I haven't had much sleep so I maybe a little cranky . Wow I think that's the first time I snapped at someone here . I don't need to see your previous employments I will take your word for face value . As for going into greater detail on the theoretical time travel I might be able to write up some notes on the matter and make a forum post . It might not be today because I have about 4 hours to get to sleep , then wake up and go to work . Last night I pulled a 12 hour shift . I don't think I necessarily called you weak-minded but if I implied that at any time again I apologise . Since you have done work in quantum mechanics then you will know more on this matter than I thought . And yes I would actually love your help . And the amount of power would be astronomical to preform such a feat . Possibly even an entire electro-nuclear reactor ( not a regular nuclear reactor ) .
I would like to say this again .
I am truly sorry for saying that . I haven't had any sleep yet and I was a little cranky . Forgive me if I implied you were weak minded . It is I who failed to explain it correctly . I will take your word at face value , I do not need any further details about your work . Actually it sounds pretty dang cool . Quantum mechanics is especially interesting . I will try to write some notes explaining it to the best of my ability . I think this is the first time I snapped at someone here and I feel really bad about it . You are more knowledgeable than I so it will be difficult for me to explain it in my perspective so that you can understand it .

I feel a little sad about this thread, and other similar ones that have preceded it.

The general trend seems to me to be that a perspective is presented based on a blend of subjective perception with objective evidence that is clearly explained, but expressed in generalities. That perspective becomes increasingly well-defined as the threads evolve. A counterview is offered based on a disciplined and detailed presentation of objective evidence alone; this is expressed in a level of detail that conveys familiarity with the evidence that is beyond most of us, but appears well-documented by professionals who spend much of their time in efforts directed by the scientific method. As dialog proceeds, it becomes more and more separated from a contrast of two perspectives in favor of an argument about which of the participants is least honest and most offensive.

In the end, the participants tire of the argument and leave it behind, only to begin again in a new thread after the passing of a little time. I'm inclined to think that each time, all participants and readers walk away knowing about as much as they did at the beginning.

Can't we do better? Maybe venture forth with a "Why do you think that's true?" instead of a "You're wrong?" Nobody's required to adopt someone else's point of view, nor give up the idea that it's ignorant, if that's how you feel; but the process of rejecting an idea would sure be less tiring if it didn't keep devolving into personal attacks.

I agree Omhu!

In the spirit of that I want to ask a question and specifically I want to ask Gisteron.

Gisteron, do you believe in the force?
If you do what do you believe it is?
If you dont why not and if not why are you here?

@Malicious:
Hey, man, don't beat yourself up. It's alright. Perhaps I read too much into that Star Wars reference (as old Ben Kenobi would go on to explain to Luke that it is the weak-minded - Storm Troopers among them, then - that are particularly susceptible to manipulation via the Force). Also I don't work with QM myself. I've taken an introductory class to it, and a few subjects where it is applied, and I tutored an exercise class that supplemented another lecture in the intro class, but I never had to do any actual research in that area myself. Granular matter is, as far as I know, treated completely classically so far, and rightly so, I think. Anyway, don't worry about it. Things get heated at times, but I try neither to take nor to mean things personally in the end.


@CaesarEJW:
I actually completely agree with that assessment. Indeed, at times I end up debating this with people who are enthusiastic about science but under-appreciative of its limitations. I have myself been accused, even on this forum, a few times of being a believer in "scientism" - the idea that the scientific method is the pinnacle of if not the only genuine way of knowledge acquisition. Yet this is not the case. The most I would say is that "objective knowledge" is something we have no means to acquire at all, at least not in any absolute sense of "objective". Even purely analytical ventures like logic or mathematics are ultimately contingent upon the inference rules they set for any model, and for every meta-discussion one could have about that, there exists a meta-meta-discussion to remind us that even as we ponder models of thinking we are but employing just which ever one of many kinds of pondering, and on, and on...
But if we admit to ourselves that we have no means to reach absolute knowledge of anything, we cannot turn around and say that why, yes, we do, and we dub those means philosophy. As much as science relies on our senses and thinking, so philosophy relies on our thinking, and - to shocking extents, frankly - on our intuitions, too. And if we want to be very strict and pedantic about it, all of these things are fallible in an ultimate sense, none is in this regard superior to the others.
The question then becomes, if absolute knowledge is not one we can have, what can we have? Perhaps more importantly, what need we have? I readily admit, I cannot prove, ultimately, that an external world exists. I cannot even prove, ultimately, that my own internal one does. After all, if we accept that our senses of the outside are unreliable, why would we insist in the same breath that our internal perceptions are not? By a pragmatic argument we could say that, seeing as our internal perceptions is all we have, we might as well try and go with it, in an effort to maybe get anywhere at all eventually. But by that same pragmatic thinking we can argue that - bar the occasional illusions our fellow humans may help dispel - our senses, too, are the only thing we have to rely on when attempting to function in what might be something rather quite like what we'd think of as an external world. I submit to you this argument in favour of science as a means to obtain... well, let's call it "useful understanding", rather than "(absolute) knowledge". The devices either of us are using to communicate across the world wouldn't have ever been constructed, if we didn't understand "nature" to an extent sufficient to construct them. Whether this "nature" thing is real, or external, may by all means be an interesting question, but not one we can answer any more ultimately without science than we could with it. At the end of the day, we want to make life comfortable, and a part of that is foreseeing the future, so as to make strides to maximize comfort in it. And until we have the future laid bare for us to observe, we have nothing but the past to look at as a reference. And it works. That's what makes it worthwhile. Ultimacy wouldn't.

Omhu Cuspor wrote: Can't we do better? Maybe venture forth with a "Why do you think that's true?" instead of a "You're wrong?"

Completely agreed. This is how I attempt to start out most of the time. I wish questions like "what makes you think that?" wouldn't be understood as direct disagreements so often, or even personal attacks. Sometimes they are...



@Fyxe:
I believe in the Force at most as a principle moreso than as any external entity one could point at. I have gone into more detail about this in the moderately recent past, though I'm having difficulty nailing down the relevant post now. If memory serves, even you yourself had asked me that before and I think I did explain it more then, too. Not sure what it has to do with the subject of this thread, though.

CaesarEJW wrote: You can't learn anything with Physics. Philosophy is much better lol.
Metaphysics beats quantum physics any day!
Fight me, I dare you!

Also relevant to Hume:
You realize that skepticism is largely a hypothetical and not an actual viewpoint; if you do decide to be a skeptic, you're at a dead end and you have nothing else to add. Every important philosopher in the last 50 years is at some level a pragmatist. Metaphysics and physics both require the other at a certain level, so your edgy point just outed yourself.

I think the big point everyone keeps ignoring is that you have to do your observations correctly for them to mean anything. You have to consider the implications of your beliefs and find the causal mechanisms before making a stupidly broad system and expecting anyone to take you seriously. Also peer review helps.

I haven't touched modern physics in a long time, but I'm pretty sure travelling back in time isn't a thing for a handful of reasons.

Discussing why someone would believe any scientific piece of evidence is simple because you theoretically could recreate the experiment yourself (given you have the time, equipment, and know how). When you get into esoteric beliefs, it's far more convoluted. Also scientific evidence isn't supposed to be used for everything, but really each study should answer a very narrow question. The way we compile particular data into theories is a way we make sense of it all, but ultimately should be able to be coherent.

Gisteron wrote: @Fyxe:
I believe in the Force at most as a principle moreso than as any external entity one could point at. I have gone into more detail about this in the moderately recent past, though I'm having difficulty nailing down the relevant post now. If memory serves, even you yourself had asked me that before and I think I did explain it more then, too. Not sure what it has to do with the subject of this thread, though.

What it has to do with the subject is Im trying to understand why you have taken such particular issue with my particular theories on the subject of the force. You seem to want to reduce it to complete... uhh woo, didnt you call it? I can understand that some will see it that way but your particular obsession with completely destroying it seems a lot. I wonder where you get this intense hatred from and I wonder if its because you have had a very bad experience or something?

So I wanted to know what you are doing here exploring something you dont believe in or at least claim to not believe in.

So you say the force is a "principle"? I looked it up and the definition says a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning. So I want to know what is this fundamental truth to you? What is it a truth of and what do you believe about it and how do you arrive at those conclusions?

It does seem a little sad when you have the same people trolling different topics just to condemn criticize make fun of Insult badd Mouth , And it keeps going on and on and on.

All in the name of we are here to be self aware and learn and grow from each other. And to become jedi.


I" feel the feeling " some of you Believe it and know it to be true deep deep deep down in the back of your mind and soul.
But you have been lied to and misled your whole life. And now you are confused tried to make sense of it all.
In the past you believed and tried to do and used the force Yourself ,and it did not work immediately for you. And you got confused and started to doubt. and doubt turn to frustration and a feeling like you weren't important or special enough.

Now later in life you are bent on making others feel the pain you felt.
This messages is not for everyone but you know who you are that this message is for.

Please remember you are special and not forgotten.
And we are all connected as one.

May you be with the force.

Rex wrote: Metaphysics and physics both require the other at a certain level, so your edgy point just outed yourself.

Outed myself? Edgy?
You realize I'm not being serious whatsoever. In fact, I was being deliberately flippant.
I'm just trying to add to the conversation, I have no specific standpoint, especially concerning philosophy (I'm a college freshman).

Rex wrote: Also relevant to Hume:
You realize that skepticism is largely a hypothetical and not an actual viewpoint; if you do decide to be a skeptic, you're at a dead end and you have nothing else to add.......

Skepticism is an actual viewpoint, hence the work of Descartes (or maybe it's just an evil demon tricking us with a false reality).
Most philosophers utilize a healthy amount of skepticism towards one thing or another.
It isn't so much a strict belief as it is a tool, a means to an end.
Skepticism can be extended towards any matter, it doesn't necessarily mean you are at an epistemological "dead-end", as you put it.

Rex wrote: I haven't touched modern physics in a long time, but I'm pretty sure travelling back in time isn't a thing for a handful of reasons.....

Are you implying that philosophy is outdated? Because I would heartily disagree.

Poe's law strikes again.

Descartes Meditations were chalk full of thought experiments not his actual beliefs. I mean cogito is one of them, along with the wax and evil demon ones. If you don't believe me, fact check me, Stanford's philosophy encyclopedia is a reputable and still easily accessible resource. I actually enjoy this sort of stuff as a hobby, and love learning more about it, so if you want to discuss it in a separate thread (this one is already its own nasty beast) I'd love to.

Skepticism is like the term "agnosticism" in that it's used against certain beliefs, however total skepticism i.e. that you can't trust jack, is a dead end. Why? Because I wrote this.

The time travelling remark has nothing to do with philosophy. It's because time expands and contracts, but always in the positive direction. Otherwise, the fundamental nature of causality among other things would be screwy

Rex wrote: I actually enjoy this sort of stuff as a hobby, and love learning more about it, so if you want to discuss it in a separate thread (this one is already its own nasty beast) I'd love to.

Yes, let's do that.
That may prove entertaining, informative, and hopefully less combative than this thread.
I love talking philosophy, and I just started my first philosophy class in college, so discussing it may help my understanding.
A little dialectic never hurts.
Do you want to start the thread, or shall I?
What topic shall we start with?

Fyxe wrote: What it has to do with the subject is Im trying to understand why you have taken such particular issue with my particular theories on the subject of the force. You seem to want to reduce it to complete... uhh woo, didnt you call it? I can understand that some will see it that way but your particular obsession with completely destroying it seems a lot. I wonder where you get this intense hatred from and I wonder if its because you have had a very bad experience or something?

There is no particular hate I feel toward your position. I tried to start out with content-oriented inquiries, maybe some disagreements stemming from a misunderstanding of the way you used certain technical terms. It's also not about what the Force "really is to me" or how you may or may not have a different perspective on it. I invited you to open this thread after you mentioned in another that your model was supported by findings in physics research. See, if this was your personal religious conviction, that would be fair enough by me. Still I might comment on those if I find them intriguing enough to ponder beyond just saying "thanks for sharing" and moving along, but a lot of the time you go much further than just expressing how you feel. When you say that this is the way the... "cosmos", for lack of a better word, is structured, and when you say that this is actually something with scientific backing behind it, that's when you really spark my interest. You are not the first to present your ideas as factual rather than mere philosophical ponderings, and you are not the first to have ideas that rightly raise an eyebrow on the face of anyone who spent some time studying nature outside of YouTube and an arm chair. You are not unique in this, and I don't have personal issues with it, as long as we can discuss it with civility.

I don't want nor need to reduce your ideas to woo either. This may be a controversial thing to say, but in my experience, people broadly have some respect for the scientific enterprise. The last few hundred years of our history are profoundly different from the thousands that came before. We live now to become old enough that various forms of dementia and cancer are things we get to worry about. Until that time we are surrounded by so much technology to aid our lives that a general sense of boredom is a problem some people can genuinely have. Meanwhile entertainment is so abundant that we get to miss out on more than we get to enjoy. Compare our lives to the lives of our ancestors just a millennium ago, and it turns out that even the poorest among us live in relative luxury. Intuitively we understand that none of this would be possible, were it not for the relentless efforts by a collective of the most competent and passionate among us to find out how the world works and to exploit those mechanisms for the benefit of all. The name of science bears so much appeal and pedigree with the common man, that often appeals to science even without any cited research are compelling. "Technobabble" is a technique used in storytelling to ex-machina difficult situations out of the picture so the tale can conclude on time. When Geordi LaForge speaks of some "anti-dilithium quantum slipstream reactor catalysis" or some mumbo jumbo like that, we don't spend time to analyze whether what he said made any sense. The message we are supposed to get is that he is an engineering genius who just had the idea of how to save the Enterprise in that week's episode, and that is fair enough. Sharlatans of course do the same thing, except unlike Star Trek, they don't make it clear that what they sell is fantasy, and instead exploit their buyers' intuitive trust in science to make money out of selling empty promises of great rewards.

When I call something woo, I mean by it that it uses technical jargon solely because it sounds nice as anything we are conditioned to trust would, rather than because it is appropriate to convey the intended meaning. Words like "quantum", "singularity", or "vortex", or even "energy" and "dimension" sure sound exciting, and anyone is free to use them to refer to things like the mystical, or a magic portal, or a flash of light, or a spirit, or a parallel world of course, but I think it is important to understand and appreciate that in the context they are borrowed from they already have established uses. For all I care you can call the Phantom Zone a "dimension" when writing a Superman comic book, but to say that science has evidence of the fictional prison world just because "dimension" is also a word you might find in scientific texts is, in my humble opinion, stretching it far, far beyond breaking point. And, no offense, but what you presented in this thread was not exactly substantially more meritorious, let's face it. What you proposed, after all, were very specific numbers of worlds of different types that overlapped in specific ways, contained specific things or kinds of existence and shared relations between them and so on. Of course you can point at dark matter or dark energy as things that sort of don't quite fully fit in with the rest of what we figured out but still have an impact, any impact, on those things. But to take that very generic and superficial point of similarity (if one were even to grant that there be any) to say that this indicates, serves as evidence even, that indeed there are this amount of "spiritual levels" of this sort, and that amount of the other, and they interact in some measurable or unmeasurable ways but that are well described as those particular interactions is, frankly, a bit reaching, I find.

And that you then go on to take criticisms like that so personally and snap back over nothing (until it inevitably escalates as you lose ever more composure) really doesn't help clarify or resolve anything. It's also not helpful to pretend in the end like this should never have been about the scientific merit you were trying to claim for your model. Especially considering that you were fine supporting a conversation about that before it became ever clearer that the reasoning by which the model was obtained had not been scientific in the first place.

So what it sounds like to me Gist is that you just have a problem with me using your pet words and phrases, right?

Ok so if I present this experience (changed from theory) of myself to the board to get input and feedback on its content and I say that I have belief (changed from evidence) that it is real, this is the result of becoming convinced that what I have been told and experienced conforms with reality because of the faith (changed from proof) I have in the incredible amount of work others have put in in these areas over the centuries that have come to the same conclusions as I. This is reinforced by the appearance (changed from fact) that the findings of modern sceince seem to line up with these ancient revealings. Things like dark matter appear to conform with the idea that other worlds do exist that are not physical but still interact with the solid reality.

Would you have any problems then?

Hmm, I don't think I had "problems" before either. All I did was take what you said at face value, and inquired just what evidence from physics it was that you were referring to and it turned out something that was not really indicative of your model as much as it was arguably sort of consistent with it.

As for your new wording, aside from wondering why you would insist that yes there was indeed evidence - if not proof - of your "theory" - when apparently you meant nothing stronger than a (possibly unfounded) personal conviction, the only thing I'd still say to it is that I don't understand how dark matter "conforms" to the idea that other non-physical worlds exist. Sure, the existence of one does not - as far as I can tell - preclude the existence of the other. There is no strict contradiction there. But there is no strong contradiction between regular matter and Santa Clause either, and we wouldn't think of that "conformity" as particularly significant in a discussion on the (physical) merits of the Santa Clause idea, so I wouldn't know why one would bring it up. So does bringing dark matter into a discussion about other worlds seem a bit forced (no pun intended), given the flimsy connection. A reference to the mysterious in a discussion about the mystical. I mean, it's not even that we know dark matter to share the non-physicalness with your other worlds. And the interaction asserted for it would seem to be detectable, at least in principle, whilst the interactions between your other worlds and ours you said could very well not be.
Although, I'd struggle to understand what "non-measurable interaction" might be referring to, anyway. It's rather like "unthinkable thought". If something is to be called a "thought" of any sort, it is sort of entailed automatically that it has to be possible for something we would recognize as a mind to think it...

Oh I would very much disagree that you did not have a problem. You have not only a problem but a huge condescending chip on your shoulder in order to resort to such low tactics as calling me a liar and a weasel. Those are not objective terms of science but personal attacks on my person.

I used evidence in a laymans term and I find it reasonable so if asked I will convey that in as a yes, this is not insisting anything as you seem to want to put that word in my mouth. This is what I meant and its what I intended. The only reason I h ave softened it here is for your ego so that you can feel as though you have won some sort of sciencey victory for all mankind.

Dark matter conforms to my idea of non physical worlds because I say it does. It makes sense to me. Obviously it does not to you and thats fine. But short of you making a claim that it CANT conform to that idea all you can do is tell me you dont agree. You asked for evidence and I gave it and you did not find it credible, ok. A accept your rejection of my evidence and I move on. I dont care what you think anyway so why are you still here trying to show the world how much I am wrong or how much better you have it figured out? You seem to be satisfied you proved a point. soooo.. why are you still trying to prove it except to bully this thread and interrupt others trying to have a discussion?

I have no idea what the whole santa clause thing is about. children believe in it because we trick them into believing it. Im not trying to trick you into anything here. I was upfront and you say NOT and thats it. right?

One more thing, why do you refuse to answer my questions about your beliefs? you seem to think you know everything wrong with my beliefs based on your intense knowledge and strict use of sceiney terms so you killed discussion here. What about you. I want to know what you believe about the force and why?

Is it possible some people are afraid of what they cannot control.?
If they don't have all the answers and are standing on solid ground they're afraid?

For some people they're obviously not going to get this connection. one example look at the scientifically documented cases of the placebo effect.
They give people a water pill And tell them it will cure cancer they come back a week later their whole bodies cured of cancer.
You think the 1st time you would have heard a story like that it would have changed the whole world.
No way it's too scary for people to think in your mind you could change the molecules of the body heal muscles cure every disease replace damaged organs all by just a thought.

It's too scary magine the millions of people who would be put out of work in the medical field.
So we continue on our path.
Some people will never change It's a little scary for them imagine to find out all your years of reading books and going to school or pointless.
Just something to think about for those who get it.
Ill stand back while most of you start to throw rocks at me .

Fyxe wrote: I used evidence in a laymans term and I find it reasonable so if asked I will convey that in as a yes, this is not insisting anything as you seem to want to put that word in my mouth. This is what I meant and its what I intended.

Perhaps then I misread. To me it sounded like you were saying that there was scientific support for your model, but perhaps all you really meant was that to you it made sense in the context of what you think are findings in modern physics. In the end, now that you clarified that this was not how you meant it, we can move on with that new interpretation.

You asked for evidence and I gave it and you did not find it credible, ...

I invite you and other readers to go back and read through what I actually said. Credibility of what you submitted did not come up. My contention was that what you submitted did not serve to indicate the model you were proposing over alternatives to it. You have made it clear now that this was not what you meant by evidence, but it is what I meant and I made that much clear long before you submitted your first item. That moment would have been a good time to clarify, tha when you speak of "evidence in physics", you do not mean evidence in the sense any scientific context would assign, but rather a vague consistency just enough to make a lay person go "yea, that kinda makes sense to me". You did not, so I treated your evidence as if it was of the scientific sort, for I assumed that this was how I was meant to take it.

I dont care what you think anyway so why are you still here trying to show the world how much I am wrong or how much better you have it figured out?

You have voiced that accusation a few times already, but it is in my opinion a false one and I shouldn't need to have to point that out again and correct you again. I leave it to the judgement of our readers, then, to go back and to see whether showing your wrongness was an implicit or explicit goal I ever pursued here or whether showing the world how much better I had figured it out was.
As for you not caring what I think... If that is so, then how come you put my name in the thread title and invited me publicly to pose questions to you, with a promise to address them? How come you are asking me of my conception of the Force, if you genuinely don't care what I think? Well, whether you care or not, at the very least it would seem to me that you wish me to express my thoughts, or at least you make some effort to converse with me, for a while. Your not fancying what I have to say too much afterwards is in any case perfectly acceptable to me.

forceuser wrote: ... it's too scary for people to think in your mind you could change the molecules of the body heal muscles cure every disease replace damaged organs all by just a thought.

Of course that would be scary! Imagine you had a lung inflammation and your doctor told you to just think it away? Imagine you lost a limb in a freak car accident, blood is gushing out of the fresh stump, your eyesight is fading away and you feel increasingly cold and all you can hear is the ever more muffled voices of the emergency medics telling you intently from a yard's distance away to start having heal-y thoughts so you can stop the bleeding and regrow your foot. This could easily be the premise of a horror novel, and rightly so!

But no. Doctors that respond in this way to serious conditions are rightly viewed as sharlatans by most people. Their patients either die thinking that they should have had more faith and it is ultimately their own fault, or they live long enough to visit an actual doctor who may still have time to save them. The reason people broadly believe that doing nothing achieves nothing is not so much that they are afraid to find out they wasted their time doing stuff when they could instead have just thought things into becoming the way they wished, but rather because there is about as little as no confirmation whatsoever that things in general behave this way, and everything we know about how the universe operates pushes us towards the opposite conclusion. If this was not so, the placebo effect would not be remarkable but mundane. It would be the rule, rather than the exception.

Some people will never change It's a little scary for them imagine to find out all your years of reading books and going to school or [sic] pointless.

In education, we read books and go to school not in order to study the world so much as in order to not all start at zero in that effort. It is not necessary for everyone to reinvent the wheel when it has already been invented and works just fine as is. The point is to get people to a place from whence they can contribute something new and interesting, rather than tread ground long covered. If anything is to be called scary here, it'd be this sort of dismissive attitude of the very thing that enables someone to broadcast it accross the world with such ease. If all those years all those engineers spent reading books and going to school were so pointless in your eyes, then what are you doing with the semiconductor based microelectronic computer device, sending radio wave transmissions into outer space to be received by a network of self-sustaining amplifying satellites zooming just fast enough to be ever falling past earth's surface, and eventually beamed back to other places across the globe? The fact that you get to live comfortably enough to fantasize of magical thought-powers rather than about surviving through the night is testimony to the effectiveness of the very enterprise you use that comfort to talk down about... using even for that purpose technology it provided you with. The "point" behind some of us reading books and going to school, in a way, is so that they can make life easy enough for you to have any time left to speak of their efforts as pointless...