CNJ831 wrote: SpaceMouse wrote: Probably the second most common post on this site has to do with the high cost of Model Railroading. I say it doesn't matter. What I am saying is that whether or no you can afford model railroading is based upon you thoughts about it. If you constantly think of how you can't afford model railroading you will not be able to afford it. If you think about how easy it is to come by what you need, that will be the way it happens. What you think manifests. A classic "newbie's" outlook on whether or not the hobby really is becoming less affordable or that the idea arrises simply out of an individual's take on matters. Wait until you are in the hobby for a decade or two instead of just 18 months, Chip, and then, after watching the prices of items you want/need spiral ever higher (as they have during the past decade more than at any time in the last 50 years) and out of reach of your dispossable income bracket, come back to assess your statements. I'll guarantee you'll have a much more sobering outlook on the matter once you've gained some experience. CNJ831
SpaceMouse wrote: Probably the second most common post on this site has to do with the high cost of Model Railroading. I say it doesn't matter. What I am saying is that whether or no you can afford model railroading is based upon you thoughts about it. If you constantly think of how you can't afford model railroading you will not be able to afford it. If you think about how easy it is to come by what you need, that will be the way it happens. What you think manifests.
Probably the second most common post on this site has to do with the high cost of Model Railroading. I say it doesn't matter.
What I am saying is that whether or no you can afford model railroading is based upon you thoughts about it. If you constantly think of how you can't afford model railroading you will not be able to afford it. If you think about how easy it is to come by what you need, that will be the way it happens. What you think manifests.
A classic "newbie's" outlook on whether or not the hobby really is becoming less affordable or that the idea arrises simply out of an individual's take on matters.
Wait until you are in the hobby for a decade or two instead of just 18 months, Chip, and then, after watching the prices of items you want/need spiral ever higher (as they have during the past decade more than at any time in the last 50 years) and out of reach of your dispossable income bracket, come back to assess your statements. I'll guarantee you'll have a much more sobering outlook on the matter once you've gained some experience.
CNJ831
Amen...enuff said
Ray Seneca Lake, Ontario, and Western R.R. (S.L.O.&W.) in HO
We'll get there sooner or later!
boy did I get sucked in, this has nothing to do with trains,it's chippies life philosophy, period. pschycobabble at it's finest, next, snake oil elixors to stave off old age.
"'scuse me while i kiss the sky"..........................
I think that Chip is not offering a religion or a magic trick. I think he's simply saying that those who generally feel prosperous or solvent generally wind up being able to acquire the model railroading stuff that they want. Just as those who generally think that this forum is filled with nitwits generally find little of value here, and those who think that the forum is filled with valuable talented modelers generally find very useful and correct information here. I don't think Chip is telling us that this concept can magically manifest an in-ground pool, but that someone who really believes that he can acquire an in-ground pool generally will find the means to achieve it.
I think that Chip is speaking about a very powerful concept that can help someone to achieve a more beautiful model railroad (and a more beautiful, peaceful life).
MidlandPacific wrote: He is currently domiciled in Florence, Colorado.
simon1966 wrote:If anyone cares to look for it on the web, there is an old time classic "The Science of Getting Rich" by Wallace D. Wattles published in 1910. It is a public domain title, so you might even be able to find a free download of it somewhere. It illustrates the principal under discussion in simple easy to understand language.
Ah yes, "If you act in a certain way..."
Napoleon Hill's book is actually in public domainas well. The public domain version, I feel is the better than the editied version. The modern print version edits some of the wording to be more "acceptable" and loose some of the subtlties.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
MidlandPacific wrote:I thought that at first myself, but the pseudoscience started coming thick and fast, complete with crystals. That's why everyone thought it was a leg-pull. He seems to actually believe it.
What I believe is that a person can change his reality. That takes setting a goal and following it through.
The evidence for manipulating the universe with intention is non-traditional at best, as most of us still live in the Newtonian universe. However, more and more evidence is coming from the peanut gallery, er quantum physics that thought as energy does indeed affect matter. Even so what is presented is paradoxical--an ugly can of worms no one really wants to deal with. The mere thought that a particle could be in 3000 places at the same time, or that when you get right down to it that matter is only organized energy flies in the face of what we see and belief to be real.
A good read, that you will no doubt dismiss before investigating, is The Biology of Belief, by Peter Upton, PhD. In it he discusses quantum physics and cellular biology.
I have no need to prove anything to you or convince you of anything, so I have no burden of proof. Indeed I cannot, as you have already told me you believe what I alluded to is impossible.
As someone mentioned above, I may be merely filling my need for attention and putting a bug in someone's bonnet is a way I'm quite fond of.
selector wrote: Are we not describing attitudinal "power", rather than "psychic" powers? If I understand Chip, he is merely asking for a consensus whether we, as a group, support his contention that believing in something requires fleshing it out, describing it, countenancing it, operationalizing it, so that it is mutable. From there, comes the desire to achieve it, to effect it, to build it. So, what Chip has said, for me, is a big load of motherhood, and he is almost certainly attempting to get us into a debate about how the more we want something, the more likely we are to realize the intended. As simple as that. He has thrown smelly cheese behind the buffet table before, you know. I related this story a year ago, but it is still relevant: my father's dad installed one of the first telephones in Kirkland Lake, Ontario, way back in the early 40's. Some of my dad's friends also had phones, and he desperately wanted to call one of them to tell him of the exciting news. He was afraid of the device, however, since, at 13 years of age, he did not understand it. Finally, he asked by grandfather to make the call for him. After considering it for a lone second, my grandfather returned to his newspaper and said to my dad, "You know how to place the call, Son. When you want to make the call badly enought, you'll do it."
Are we not describing attitudinal "power", rather than "psychic" powers? If I understand Chip, he is merely asking for a consensus whether we, as a group, support his contention that believing in something requires fleshing it out, describing it, countenancing it, operationalizing it, so that it is mutable. From there, comes the desire to achieve it, to effect it, to build it. So, what Chip has said, for me, is a big load of motherhood, and he is almost certainly attempting to get us into a debate about how the more we want something, the more likely we are to realize the intended. As simple as that. He has thrown smelly cheese behind the buffet table before, you know.
I related this story a year ago, but it is still relevant: my father's dad installed one of the first telephones in Kirkland Lake, Ontario, way back in the early 40's. Some of my dad's friends also had phones, and he desperately wanted to call one of them to tell him of the exciting news. He was afraid of the device, however, since, at 13 years of age, he did not understand it. Finally, he asked by grandfather to make the call for him. After considering it for a lone second, my grandfather returned to his newspaper and said to my dad, "You know how to place the call, Son. When you want to make the call badly enought, you'll do it."
I thought that at first myself, but the pseudoscience started coming thick and fast, complete with crystals. That's why everyone thought it was a leg-pull. He seems to actually believe it.
http://mprailway.blogspot.com
"The first transition era - wood to steel!"
I related this story a year ago, but it is still relevant: my father's dad installed one of the first telephones in Kirkland Lake, Ontario, way back in the early 40's. Some of my dad's friends also had phones, and he desperately wanted to call one of them to tell him of the exciting news. He was afraid of the device, however, since, at 13 years of age, he did not understand it. Finally, he asked by grandfather to make the call for him. After considering it for a lone second, my grandfather returned to his newspaper and said to my dad, "You know how to place the call, Son. When you want to make the call badly enough, you'll do it."
Simon Modelling CB&Q and Wabash See my slowly evolving layout on my picturetrail site http://www.picturetrail.com/simontrains and our videos at http://www.youtube.com/user/MrCrispybake?feature=mhum
SpaceMouse wrote: MidlandPacific wrote: Dave Vollmer wrote:Chip, I was with you at first here, but I think you've taken a step away from reality here... I'm an atmospheric physicist (meteorologist) with multiple degrees; I think you may be out of your element. There are lots of people who talk "science-y" who wouldn't know good, real science if it fell on them. Unfortunately, few people have adequate training both in physics and in the scientific method to sort the real from the bull excrement. CONCUR. A secondhand account of an "experiment" doesn't count as proof. I'm still waiting for my computer to lock me out. MP, I gave you a source to view the "evidence" and I gave you an experiment you could do to either prove or disprove it to yourself. Obviously, you care to do neither. Dave, What scientist would make an assumption without viewing the evidence? I'm sure you are quite good at what you do? As to my knowledge of research, I have had graduate level courses in research methodolgy and my exposure to hard-core science has been vicaroius through my father-in-law, Rchard Bernstein, whose work has won two Nobel prizes--one in which he bowed out as fourth man and the other awardred to his partner aftrer his death. Read about him here: http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/biomems/rbernstein.html While I don't fully understand quantum physics--the calculus physics I took was Newtonian, it certainly has my interest piqued.
MidlandPacific wrote: Dave Vollmer wrote:Chip, I was with you at first here, but I think you've taken a step away from reality here... I'm an atmospheric physicist (meteorologist) with multiple degrees; I think you may be out of your element. There are lots of people who talk "science-y" who wouldn't know good, real science if it fell on them. Unfortunately, few people have adequate training both in physics and in the scientific method to sort the real from the bull excrement. CONCUR. A secondhand account of an "experiment" doesn't count as proof. I'm still waiting for my computer to lock me out.
Dave Vollmer wrote:Chip, I was with you at first here, but I think you've taken a step away from reality here... I'm an atmospheric physicist (meteorologist) with multiple degrees; I think you may be out of your element. There are lots of people who talk "science-y" who wouldn't know good, real science if it fell on them. Unfortunately, few people have adequate training both in physics and in the scientific method to sort the real from the bull excrement.
CONCUR. A secondhand account of an "experiment" doesn't count as proof. I'm still waiting for my computer to lock me out.
MP,
I gave you a source to view the "evidence" and I gave you an experiment you could do to either prove or disprove it to yourself. Obviously, you care to do neither.
Dave,
What scientist would make an assumption without viewing the evidence? I'm sure you are quite good at what you do?
As to my knowledge of research, I have had graduate level courses in research methodolgy and my exposure to hard-core science has been vicaroius through my father-in-law, Rchard Bernstein, whose work has won two Nobel prizes--one in which he bowed out as fourth man and the other awardred to his partner aftrer his death. Read about him here: http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/biomems/rbernstein.html
While I don't fully understand quantum physics--the calculus physics I took was Newtonian, it certainly has my interest piqued.
What source would that be? The wikipedia entries for Napoleon Hill are, to put it nicely, disputed. I don't have a microscope here, so my ability to repeat the experiment you described is limited, and it is in any case not a particularly detailed description that you've given us. The idea that you've presented "evidence' that can be "evaluated" (rather than making a set of decidedly unsupported assertions) sounds impressive, but doesn't hold up. The burden of proof in any experiment is on the guy who claims he can do something, not the guy who doubts it.
In keeping with Dave's observation, I enclose a link to the website that will explain why everyone on this thread approaches this subject with the presumption that claims of psychic power are nonsense - and your assertion that not believing hinders accomplishment only furthers our skepticism. It's nice that you think that you absorbed hard science vicariously, but that's not the same thing as providing a replicable result under controlled conditions.
http://skepdic.com/randi.html
James, Brisbane Australia
Modelling AT&SF in the 90s
SpaceMouse wrote: Dave, What scientist would make an assumption without viewing the evidence? I'm sure you are quite good at what you do?
Thanks. I like to think I'm pretty good at what I do... But, I ask you the counter-question...
What scientist would make an assumption completely counter to hundreds of years of accepted principles without OVERWHELMING evidence to dispute it? Your evidence is anything but overwhelming.
But, I think I'm done with this thread. It's just gotten plain silly. And somewhere along the line we forgot to talk about TRAINS.
Modeling the Rio Grande Southern First District circa 1938-1946 in HOn3.
You only need to look at the posted pics of Chip's layout to see that he's proven his point, in spades. He saw what he wanted to do and got it done. Well done if I might offer my opinion from my own perspective.
dwRavenstar
Dave Vollmer wrote: MAbruce wrote: At this point I’m pretty sure that Chip has been seriously screwing with us for a good laugh. If this is all a put-on, then Chip is my new hero, 'cause he sure had me going! Good job Chip -- you da man! Not just a modeler and a poster-extraordinaire, but one heck of a good leg-puller!
MAbruce wrote: At this point I’m pretty sure that Chip has been seriously screwing with us for a good laugh.
At this point I’m pretty sure that Chip has been seriously screwing with us for a good laugh.
If this is all a put-on, then Chip is my new hero, 'cause he sure had me going! Good job Chip -- you da man! Not just a modeler and a poster-extraordinaire, but one heck of a good leg-puller!
I'm prepared to second that. Unless my frickin' computer locks out. Then I'm going down to the basement and barricading myself in.
MidlandPacific wrote:I see. If it is physics, it should be demonstrable. Since the key criterion appears to be belief, and since I presume you believe, why don't you perform a small experiment - use the power of positive thinking to alter the universe in some way that's visible to me? That would get us around my inability to believe rather neatly, I think.
You looking for a water to wine type thing or would a Uri Geller spoon bending do the trick.
Seriously, look at the post directly above yours.
SpaceMouse wrote: MidlandPacific wrote: Well, why not give it a try - holes or not? I admit that I'm extremely skeptical of these kinds of things, and not just because I used to get piles of mail when I worked for a government advisory board from people who claimed to have discovered all sorts of avenues around the laws of physics. Surely, if there is a formula, it must at some level be comprehensible. More importantly, it should also be testable. So please let us know - how can we perform a simple experiment to verify the claimed effect of mental energies on the physical world? I'm not quite sure where I mentioned that it is something that is easy. One may have to change their fundamental assumptions of what is real and what is not. That is where the movie comes into play. One can read Napoleon Hill, or listen to Anthony Robbins and get inspired, but until you address those fundamental assumptions you have about the nature of reality, and maybe more importantly, your expectations about the outcome you desire, the exercise is pointless. So if I tell you to visualize what you desire, and you expect that it won't occur, your expectaion will determine the outcome every time. So watch the movie, see if they make at least theoretical sense, then try your experiment on anything you like. BTW: These are not discoveries around physics, it is physics.
MidlandPacific wrote: Well, why not give it a try - holes or not? I admit that I'm extremely skeptical of these kinds of things, and not just because I used to get piles of mail when I worked for a government advisory board from people who claimed to have discovered all sorts of avenues around the laws of physics. Surely, if there is a formula, it must at some level be comprehensible. More importantly, it should also be testable. So please let us know - how can we perform a simple experiment to verify the claimed effect of mental energies on the physical world?
I'm not quite sure where I mentioned that it is something that is easy. One may have to change their fundamental assumptions of what is real and what is not. That is where the movie comes into play. One can read Napoleon Hill, or listen to Anthony Robbins and get inspired, but until you address those fundamental assumptions you have about the nature of reality, and maybe more importantly, your expectations about the outcome you desire, the exercise is pointless. So if I tell you to visualize what you desire, and you expect that it won't occur, your expectaion will determine the outcome every time. So watch the movie, see if they make at least theoretical sense, then try your experiment on anything you like.
BTW: These are not discoveries around physics, it is physics.
I see. If it is physics, it should be demonstrable. Since the key criterion appears to be belief, and since I presume you believe, why don't you perform a small experiment - use the power of positive thinking to alter the universe in some way that's visible to me? That would get us around my inability to believe rather neatly, I think.
MidlandPacific wrote: More importantly, it should also be testable. So please let us know - how can we perform a simple experiment to verify the claimed effect of mental energies on the physical world?
A simple repeatable test was the aformentioned water crystal experiment. This has been replicated numerous times.
Take a several drops of water and place it in a dish/ or slide that can be seen under a microscope. Have a group of people think thoughts of love at one drop and thoughts of hate at another. Then freeze it. Of course, other thoughts can be used as well. The water crystals should be semetrical and organized in the "love" droplet and disorganized and random with the "hate" drop.