Phil Imbrogno talks more than the usual nonsense about "dimensions"

[Kevin Daly]

We are not, and I stress not "in the 3rd dimension". We perceive three dimensions in terms of up-down, left-right, back and forward. A dimension is not a place, and you can't be in it.
Or to put it another way, Phil prattles knowledgeably about subjects he doesn't understand (we all do that, but it's customary and in better taste to drink lots of alcohol first).
I would also like to point out that the idea of wormholes between universes is an interesting speculation, not a fact, and that wormholes if they exist or could be made to exist could just as easily connect points in the same universe. Similarly - Phil has no basis for talking knowingly of the difference between portals and wormholes when we don't know what portals are (I agree that if they exist they can't be wormholes, but any suggestions about their true nature must at this stage be no more than speculation).
I think Phil probably has gathered a lot of genuinely interesting data about high strangeness areas, but he muddies his case by presenting misconceptions, assumptions and speculations as fact.

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

We are not, and I stress not "in the 3rd dimension". We perceive three dimensions in terms of up-down, left-right, back and forward. A dimension is not a place, and you can't be in it.
Or to put it another way, Phil prattles knowledgeably about subjects he doesn't understand (we all do that, but it's customary and in better taste to drink lots of alcohol first).
I would also like to point out that the idea of wormholes between universes is an interesting speculation, not a fact, and that wormholes if they exist or could be made to exist could just as easily connect points in the same universe. Similarly - Phil has no basis for talking knowingly of the difference between portals and wormholes when we don't know what portals are (I agree that if they exist they can't be wormholes, but any suggestions about their true nature must at this stage be no more than speculation).
I think Phil probably has gathered a lot of genuinely interesting data about high strangeness areas, but he muddies his case by presenting misconceptions, assumptions and speculations as fact.

Well I rather thought the interview was very good and Gene and Chris questions were spot on. Dr Phil Imbrogno at least looks for answers and does the leg work. Its easy to criticize when you have not done the foot work and investigations yourself. Dr Imbrogno even suggested not everyone would like his concepts and ideas . I rather keep an open mind to all possibilities.

Well Done 9/10 Paranormal Detectives.

 

[grannysmith]

Well I rather thought the interview was very good and Gene and Chris questions were spot on. Dr Phil Imbrogno at least looks for answers and does the leg work. Its easy to criticize when you have not done the foot work and investigations yourself. Dr Imbrogno even suggested not everyone would like his concepts and ideas . I rather keep an open mind to all possibilities.

Well Done 9/10 Paranormal Detectives.

So what 'foot-work' has he done into studying portals?

 

[DamnDirtyApe]

We are not, and I stress not "in the 3rd dimension". We perceive three dimensions in terms of up-down, left-right, back and forward. A dimension is not a place, and you can't be in it.
Or to put it another way, Phil prattles knowledgeably about subjects he doesn't understand (we all do that, but it's customary and in better taste to drink lots of alcohol first).
I would also like to point out that the idea of wormholes between universes is an interesting speculation, not a fact, and that wormholes if they exist or could be made to exist could just as easily connect points in the same universe. Similarly - Phil has no basis for talking knowingly of the difference between portals and wormholes when we don't know what portals are (I agree that if they exist they can't be wormholes, but any suggestions about their true nature must at this stage be no more than speculation).
I think Phil probably has gathered a lot of genuinely interesting data about high strangeness areas, but he muddies his case by presenting misconceptions, assumptions and speculations as fact.

Yea I totally agree.. Imbrogno went totally into psuedo-science. That happens a LOT with layman paranormal researchers who want to add a bit of scientific credibility. "Remember portals take less energy than wormholes .." LOL. Portals, as he used the term, are 100% conjectural and there are no physics to support such a thing, although throwing in the words "particle physics or "quantum mechanics" is meant to add an air of believability.

When actual modern physicists discuss subjects such as higher dimensions, they generally have nothing to do with laymen use of "alternate realities" - they are referring to sub-atomic tightly wrapped manifold spaces that have no relation to the 3 macro physical dimensions we experience in space time. Even super-speculative ideas such as p-theory (which refer to higher dimensional membranes that collide to create our universe) stipulate that such dimensions can only interact via gravity. The notion of a place on Earth where entire alternate realities are exposed to each other is completely beyond what anything in brane cosmologies describe.

The one place where entire separate human realities ARE discussed is the also theoretical Many Worlds interpretation of quantum theory, where each quantum event splits into separate universes rather than collapse its wave function. But here again, such realities are not "alien universes", but simply an infinite number of branching permutations of our own "present" universe. Such realities are inexorably separated from each other by definition and could not be traversed the way one would simply hop from one train to another. If such a thing weere even theoretically possible, we have no way to even begin to speculate how it could be managed.

Now I have no doubt that alien beings perhaps millions and millions of years of us may possess means to warp/navigate/manipulate reality and space-time, but such methods and practices are wholly beyond anything we can dream of now and throwing words around like "wormholes" or "portals" and then implying one understands how they basically work is pure fiction.

I blame guys like Kaku for some of this, since they mention sexy, esoteric physics in their books and on TV and then they focus on the "gee-wiz" laymen stuff that gets paranormal ears all perked up without focusing much on what the boring mathematics describe in the real world. He understandably dumbs down everything and focuses on "inspiring the minds of young people" with his talks on science-fiction physics. That's fine for getting school kids to get into math and science, but parnaormal instigators without heavy math and physics credentials should steer clear of invoking such things. Unless you understand and can solve topology equations and various string theory variations, don't use them to back up your speculations.

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

So what 'foot-work' has he done into studying portals?

Well for a start you have to ask him yourself and I said he has done the foot work regarding research cases of hgh strangeness and has been to location around the world (not sitting behind a computer) and writing books on these matters. I never said he did foot work on portals please don't put words in my mouth!


Cheers
BF

 

[grannysmith]

Well for a start you have to ask him yourself and I said he has done the foot work regarding research cases of hgh strangeness and has been to location around the world (not sitting behind a computer) and writing books on these matters. I never said he did foot work on portals please don't put words in my mouth!


Cheers
BF

Well Kevin Daly criticised his theoretical physics. You repond to this saying it's easy to criticise if you haven't put the leg-work in that he has. I ask what 'leg work' he has put in in relation to the claims of theoretical physics currently under discussion. You say I am putting words in your mouth.

tl;dr PI has put in no foot work in relation to the claims Kevin Daly has criticised, and, therefore, his foot-work in relation to other matters is irrelevant to those claims.

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Well Kevin Daly criticised his theoretical physics. You repond to this saying it's easy to criticise if you haven't put the leg-work in that he has. I ask what 'leg work' he has put in in relation to the claims of theoretical physics currently under discussion. You say I am putting words in your mouth.

tl;dr PI has put in no foot work in relation to the claims Kevin Daly has criticised, and, therefore, his foot-work in relation to other matters is irrelevant to those claims.

Yes you are correct about the theoretical physics but I wonder have you both done this type of investigations on the matter of theoretical physics? Secondly, I was talking about Mr Kevin Daly comments " I think Phil probably has gathered a lot of genuinely interesting data about high strangeness areas, but he muddies his case by presenting misconceptions, assumptions and speculations as fact. " How do you know and do you have all the answers?

Cheers,
BF

 

[owlman]

Another excellent show. Chris is bringing in some terrific guests.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

"Remember portals take less energy than wormholes .." LOL. Portals, as he used the term, are 100% conjectural and there are no physics to support such a thing, although throwing in the words "particle physics or "quantum mechanics" is meant to add an air of believability.

With regards to Portals, the cake is a lie.

 

[Ron Collins]

Well I rather thought the interview was very good and Gene and Chris questions were spot on. Dr Phil Imbrogno at least looks for answers and does the leg work. Its easy to criticize when you have not done the foot work and investigations yourself. Dr Imbrogno even suggested not everyone would like his concepts and ideas . I rather keep an open mind to all possibilities.

Well Done 9/10 Paranormal Detectives.

Dr Phil Imbrogno???? Since when and in what discipline?

 

[trainedobserver]

Dr Phil Imbrogno???? Since when and in what discipline?

I think he has a B.A., B.S., and a Master's degree but no PHD as of yet. Maybe he is working on it.

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

I think he has a B.A., B.S., and a Master's degree but no PHD as of yet. Maybe he is working on it.

He is a Teacher with a number of degrees as a pyhiscts and is working on a PHD currently I think and stand corrected

 

[grannysmith]

I think he has a B.A., B.S., and a Master's degree but no PHD as of yet. Maybe he is working on it.

Can I just, for the record, state that I do have a PhD but since it's not in ufology it's all a bit moot, anyway.

Can I add that the relevance of his theoretical claims is that if he is a bullshit artist with no rigour in relation to these armchair claims which I can check, how can I rely on the claims he makes as a result of his 'legwork', which I realistically can't (since it is precisely not my profession)? I just have to be sceptical of the guy.

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Can I just, for the record, state that I do have a PhD but since it's not in ufology it's all a bit moot, anyway.

Can I add that the relevance of his theoretical claims is that if he is a bullshit artist with no rigour in relation to these armchair claims which I can check, how can I rely on the claims he makes as a result of his 'legwork', which I realistically can't (since it is precisely not my profession)? I just have to be sceptical of the guy.

This is a major issues for highly qualified researchers being attracted to the investigation of strange awareness and does reflect the' ridicule factor' from mainstream science. I rather think a 'open mind' and give Mr Phil Imbrogno a listening and I never said all his theories are correct Furthermore, I agree with any subject you must weed out wheat from the chaft. Mind you in Academia you are taught the subject which have there own political & ethical tarnish so nothing in society is clear from BS.

 

[trainedobserver]

Can I just, for the record, state that I do have a PhD but since it's not in ufology it's all a bit moot, anyway.

I was just responding the notion that he used the title of Dr. It seems that people often get mistakenly attributed with degrees and titles in this business. It's kind of like John Lear being referred to as a Vietnam Vet. or David Sereda being billed as a scientist.

 

[grannysmith]

I was just responding the notion that he used the title of Dr. It seems that people often get mistakenly attributed with degrees and titles in this business. It's kind of like John Lear being referred to as a Vietnam Vet. or David Sereda being billed as a scientist.

I understand - I also wasn't trying to be an asshole.

Without disparaging Phil's academic career, it is worth pointing out that a Masters is not a 'higher' degree - it's really regarded as a bachelors level degree with a more specialised focus - it is not an academic imprimatur of 'expertise'.

The whole 'degree' thing is overinflated in this field anyway : it's often the whole Dr David Jacobs conducting hypnosis deal.

 

[CapnG]

I blame guys like Kaku for some of this, since they mention sexy, esoteric physics in their books and on TV and then they focus on the "gee-wiz" laymen stuff that gets paranormal ears all perked up without focusing much on what the boring mathematics describe in the real world.

That's pretty much what I thought. As soon as he mentined "vast amounts of energy being required to create wormholes" I said to myself "He's been reading Kaku's Cliff notes." It's a theory Phil, one we can't even begin to test let alone prove. Don't say it like it's a fact.

Actually I found the whole portals/wormholes thing highly amusing. First off there's no fundamental difference in his own description of the two to justify declaring them "different". But moreover the very idea that can assign qualities to two theoretical phenomena and then start picking at them to define differences is ludicrous. You might as well have a conversation about how pixies differ from faries (besides the fact that faries are more fun and pixies all sound like Ben Stein, of course).

On the whole though I enjoyed this week's episode, although I wouldn't put it in the top tier. Basically it amounted to some interesting campfire tales and very little else. Entertaining, amusing but not exactly informative.

 

[Kevin Daly]

With regards to Portals, the cake is a lie.

I didn't get any cake

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I didn't get any cake

Well, Portal II is coming out soon, so hopefully you'll get the chance.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Actually I found the whole portals/wormholes thing highly amusing. First off there's no fundamental difference in his own description of the two to justify declaring them "different". But moreover the very idea that can assign qualities to two theoretical phenomena and then start picking at them to define differences is ludicrous. SNIP On the whole though I enjoyed this week's episode, although I wouldn't put it in the top tier.

I too found Phil's "cliff notes" explanation/definition of a "portal" wanting and simplistic. And then (when he brought the term "wormholes" into the conversation), I found myself biting my tongue, shaking my head and grinding my teeth... But, in his defense--this subject of "portals" has NOT been adequately investigated out in the field by anyone/group that has published real scientific data for the rest of us to ponder. NIDS is sitting on a wealth of Sherman Ranch data--rest assured, but until the rest of us aspiring proto-scientists marshal our resources and acquire valid data on our own, we need to continue to take notes and do the field work. I'm sure Ted, Phil, Stan etc will agree: gear, team-members with free time, protocols and a strict scientific regime sure sound nice in theory, but, in the real world--don't forget armchair pilots--the phenomena makes all of us get out of our chairs and walk before we can preen at the races or pontificate in the paddock. I've got a couple of really cool projects I'm working on----any volunteers?