Telekenisis formula

[Lucianarchy]

"Telekinesis: from off the Movie Screen to Reality?

Murdock, Florida, August 4, 2003 —

Frequent travelers on the Information Superhighway are aware that it has its own "Twilight Zone" of sorts, and out there on one stretch are signposts directing the curious to the website of James A. Conrad.

After over twenty years of research, the film industry author and paraphysics researcher has discovered and released a scientific equation for the paranormal ability known as telekinesis. This is the first time in history that an actual equation, or formula, has ever been offered by a researcher to mainstream skeptical science for any alleged paranormal power.

Telekinesis, according to Conrad's definition, is the causing of microscopic or full-out visual movement in an object from a distance by a mind-activated release of natural brain energy that interacts with the object's surface electrical field resulting in an effect of repulsion or attraction. According to his theory, which he arrived at after examining data from over ten years of his own blood tests and experiments performed in his full-scale telekinesis laboratory, sufficient circulating iron in the brain's blood supply plays a key role, but, he insists, not an amount that would be considered excessive or dangerous.

Just like the basis for the onscreen telekinetic character Jean Grey in this year's hit movie X2: X-men United, Conrad believes that some people have a genetic gift or tendency to be able to generate a higher level of cerebral energy that can be released outward from the brain once a mental triggering technique is learned, what he calls "zero point emotions."

The idea of energy, other than thermal energy, traveling outward from the human head into the air is no longer the stuff of science fiction. In 1997, an advancement in cerebral energy physics (a term Conrad coined) occurred when the Japanese Yokogawa Electric Corporation announced the invention of the MEG machine, a multimillion dollar brain-energy emissions detector for medical use that can scan the head region of a person—without making physical contact—for very low levels of magnetic field energy that normally projects from the brain and skull of everyone into the open air surrounding the head.

That breakthrough invention, observers say, provided the first mainstream scientific evidence, a crack in the proverbial "Twilight Zone" door, that witnesses' claims over the years about objects moving in front of them due to some unseen human energy projection might actually have some foundation in truth. Telekinesis could be, as Conrad contends, "an emerging natural evolutionary trait in humans and not a supernatural one."

Conrad's Human Telekinesis Equation, also known as the Conrad Telekinesis Formula, is


TK = CFe +VC +ZPE -SD - E+. "

http://jamesaconrad.tripod.com/TKpress-release-Aug4-03.html

[MRC_Hans]

Pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo.

On the so-called break through where Japanese scientists detected "brain waves": There is nothing new in brain waves, we have been detecting brainwaves for half a century. The news is in the wireless application, but there is a reason for that being a multi-million project: Those EM waves generated by nerve currents in the brain are EXTREMELY weak.

- And even in the event that we might create an experiment where such EM waves actually moved some (tiny, to be sure) object, that would be simple physics, and nothing supernatural.

It is always funny when kooks call on "electrical energies" and such, because this area is so well researched, and correspondingly easy to debunk.

Hans

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo.

On the so-called break through where Japanese scientists detected "brain waves": There is nothing new in brain waves, we have been detecting brainwaves for half a century. The news is in the wireless application, but there is a reason for that being a multi-million project: Those EM waves generated by nerve currents in the brain are EXTREMELY weak.

- And even in the event that we might create an experiment where such EM waves actually moved some (tiny, to be sure) object, that would be simple physics, and nothing supernatural.

It is always funny when kooks call on "electrical energies" and such, because this area is so well researched, and correspondingly easy to debunk.

Hans

You should consider a exciting new career as a "everything paranormal which is outside of my personal beliefs is Pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo laboratorist". You can spend your time conducting controlled scientific experiment to prove your views!
:crazy:

[UnrepentantSinner]

I wish I had twenty years of my life to piss away doing worthless reseach and making up neat sounding babble like "zero point emotions."

[Lothian]

Lothian’s conjecture.

CFe +VC +ZPE -SD - E+ = 0

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Let's make sure we know what the symbols mean:
Fuller explanations for the various symbols can be found on his website (http://jamesaconrad.com), but simply put, TK = Telekinesis; + CFe = sufficient Cerebro Iron; + VC = direct Visual Contact; +ZPE = Zero Point Emotions; - SD = no Sleep Deprivation; and - E+ = no excess Vitamin E. The World Health Organization estimates that up to 80% of the world's population may be iron deficient and considers it the number one nutritional disorder in the world; in fact, "a public health condition of epidemic proportions."
Now let's see if we can figure out the units:

(unknown) = boolean + boolean + boolean - boolean - boolean

So the unit of TK must also be boolean. The above equation is equivalent to:

TK = CFe and VC and ZPE and not SD and not E+

Of course he calls SD "no sleep deprivation" and E+ "no excess vitamin E," so those terms really ought to be ANDed, but anyhoo. This appears to be conditions for TK, not an equation.

I've emailed him asking for the units of each of the terms.

~~ Paul

[Agammamon]

That's what I was just going to ask about. I went to the guys actual website and nowhere does he quantify his variables. What unit is VC (Visual Contact) in? How do you measure it? Is it a yes/no true/false computer logic type of thing or are these variables supposed to correspond to physical values. If they do, how do the units correspond to to things like time, length, energy, and mass?

Honestly the equation looks like some sort of computer logic formula that is simply asking whether or not the individual states are true or false. Sufficient FCE present(Y/N), Do you have visual contact (Y/N), are ZPE >= 0 (Y/N), have you been sleep deprived (Y/N). Presumably answering yes to all of these questions means that you can do TK but it still says nothing about how strong your ability may be (and his website specifically says TK ability is not constant between individuals).

It really doesn't allow any faslifiability. How much CFE is sufficient? How sleep deprived am I right now?

[SteveGrenard]

There are two areas of serious research that are tangential to this subject. One is the confirmed discovery that magnetite, an iron (Fe) compound has been discovered in the human brain. It was known to occur in such disparate animals as sea turtles and migratory birds and was believed responsible for their navigational abilities. So enter "magnetite" in human brain in google. There are also other largish repositories of metals in living organisms such as in the iron containing pigment we call hemoglobin or in many of the metallic electrolytes that are found in our body fluids. The other area of interest is the use of "non-contact electrodes" and "photorodes" (these are also keywords to search this subject). The U.S. Defense Department as well as NASA are very interested in telemetric monitoring EEG ("brain waves") and ECG via non-contact electrodes and these developments are nearing fruition with tested prototypes in existence.

Whether the energies created within and liberated by the brain, heart or any other part of the body (e.g. muscles measured through EMG) are capable of telekinesis is another matter. The bioelectric field is real, what it is capable of remains to be seen.

[RonSceptic]

Here is another formula which I have generally found to be true.....


PNR = BS



You can fill in the blanks I'm sure.

[BNiles]

Well, I found very little info on his website about what qualifications he has. His posted biographical data is just shy of a personal ad. In fact the only thing worthwhile on the site was the supermodel archive. Something all serious researchers should maintain.

"Nevermind the scientific explanations, I see boobies!" :wow2:

[hgc]

Damn! I've been working on my TK formula ever since I saw "Carrie" in 1976. Now comes this Johnny-come-lately, who only just saw Dr. Jean Grey in "X2," and he's already got it worked out.

Now I'm going to have to go the movies this weekend and get another idea for some magic powers I know I can master and present to sceptical science.

Hmmm. I have an idea for some hulking up formula.

[Lucianarchy]

Does anyone know if it is possible for pre/pubescent girls to develop an excess of iron?

[BNiles]

How about a strict diet of liver and oatmeal?

[hgc]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Does anyone know if it is possible for pre/pubescent girls to develop an excess of iron? Well they'd better not, since Magneto will draw that iron right out of them through their skin, and escape from his plastic prison. Didn't you see X2?!?

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by RonSceptic
Here is another formula which I have generally found to be true.....


PNR = BS



You can fill in the blanks I'm sure.

http://www.student.smsu.edu/s/san232s/hardfunnypics/omfgcat-meyou.jpg

[LeFevre]

Having fun yet traveller?

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by LeFevre
Having fun yet traveller?

Not yet I'm tired of being so rational I think I eventually be banned for that.

[Ed]

But why does Luci seem to enjoy wearing the moral equivelant of a "Kick Me" sign by posting silly things like that?

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by Ed
But why does Luci seem to enjoy wearing the moral equivelant of a "Kick Me" sign by posting silly things like that?

masochism.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

No response from Conrad yet.

~~ Paul

[BNiles]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
No response from Conrad yet.

~~ Paul

And you expect one? ;)

[T'ai Chi]

So where is evidence of anyone actually moving anything by 'telekenisis' ?

Any videos?

I'd rather see that before analyzing the equation, etc.

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
There are two areas of serious research that are tangential to this subject. One is the confirmed discovery that magnetite, an iron (Fe) compound has been discovered in the human brain. It was known to occur in such disparate animals as sea turtles and migratory birds and was believed responsible for their navigational abilities. So enter "magnetite" in human brain in google. There are also other largish repositories of metals in living organisms such as in the iron containing pigment we call hemoglobin or in many of the metallic electrolytes that are found in our body fluids. The other area of interest is the use of "non-contact electrodes" and "photorodes" (these are also keywords to search this subject). The U.S. Defense Department as well as NASA are very interested in telemetric monitoring EEG ("brain waves") and ECG via non-contact electrodes and these developments are nearing fruition with tested prototypes in existence.

Whether the energies created within and liberated by the brain, heart or any other part of the body (e.g. muscles measured through EMG) are capable of telekinesis is another matter. The bioelectric field is real, what it is capable of remains to be seen.

Do you think regular physics might apply here? Like if we could use some field generated by our bodies to move things, would it require the same amount of energy as if we reached out and picked it up?

How do you suspect this energy would get converted into ' lifting ' power ' ?

[SteveGrenard]

Do you think regular physics might apply here? Like if we could use some field generated by our bodies to move things, would it require the same amount of energy as if we reached out and picked it up?

Definitely regular physics, no, regular biophysics .... perhaps from a source (e.g. human body, e.g. magnetite,etc) heretofore un-appreciated and perhaps, in some persons, perhaps genetically derived. I have no idea if it is sufficient to perform feats of macro telekinesis or so-called psychokinesis.



How do you suspect this energy would get converted into ' lifting ' power ' ?

Lifting or moving power. Again, based on an abnormally higher amount of biofield (yes, there are bio fields) than normally exhibited. I agree that in 99.9999% of the populace such energies would be too small to move a milligram of iron even a tenth of an mm. This is an emerging field so we don't know what discoveries await us.

[Trollbane]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard

Lifting or moving power. Again, based on an abnormally higher amount of biofield (yes, there are bio fields) than normally exhibited.

There are? What exactly is a bio field, I´ve never heard of it.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

BNiles the faithless ;) asked:And you expect one?
I was hoping, and my hopes were fulfilled. Here is his response:
The units of the some of the terms in the equation would be specific to an individual's physiology and could only be put in general terms otherwise; for example, a high end of Normal Range for serum iron is where you would look to see an ability to perform rather than a low range level. Not everyone has the same quantity of blood in their body or the exact same size brain in their skull. The quantitative units in the equation at which Subject A begins to perform may be different than Subject B and so on.

Einstein's energy-mass equation E = mc2 does not give specific units either. To quote "The World Book Encyclopedia," 2003: "When Einstein announced it [E=mc2] in 1905, scientists knew of no way to change mass into energy." His equation therefore, like mine, was just a theory based on his research at the time he published it and there was no way to factually prove it right or wrong until science advanced further.

Unless I can restore my ability, which is taking time because iron is lost slowly and restored slowly, and have a wide range of blood tests done, we will have to wait until other researchers out there, knowlegable in my work, can find a telekinetic whose blood can be tested, or a telekinetic himself or herself privately has his or her own blood tested.

I would be very surprised, even shocked, if someone with proven telekinetic ability were found and they had low serum iron. Based on me losing nearly half the iron in my blood at the same time I lost my ability, I just don't think you are going to find such a person. But remember, my research is in telekinesis, not mind-related psychokinesis. Surely there may be some overlapping; maybe the formula is nearly the same with an addition or two, but I can only profess an expertise in telekinesis research. This is a young science. My hair isn't gray and frizzed out like Einstein's yet!
Too bad he doesn't know what a unit is. I've explained and asked again.

~~ Paul

[SteveGrenard]

The biofield is formed by electromagnetic energy emanating or radiating from living organisms. For more information on one of the studied areas, visit the website of the International Institute of Biophysics in Germany: (english site)

http://www.lifescientists.de/ib_000e_.htm

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
So where is evidence of anyone actually moving anything by 'telekenisis' ?

Any videos?

I'd rather see that before analyzing the equation, etc.

That was a refreshing change, T'ai Chi!

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
The biofield is formed by electromagnetic energy emanating or radiating from living organisms. For more information on one of the studied areas, visit the website of the International Institute of Biophysics in Germany: (english site)

http://www.lifescientists.de/ib_000e_.htm
Interesting, but what does it have to do with telekinesis?

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
There are two areas of serious research that are tangential to this subject. One is the confirmed discovery that magnetite, an iron (Fe) compound has been discovered in the human brain. It was known to occur in such disparate animals as sea turtles and migratory birds and was believed responsible for their navigational abilities. So enter "magnetite" in human brain in google. There are also other largish repositories of metals in living organisms such as in the iron containing pigment we call hemoglobin or in many of the metallic electrolytes that are found in our body fluids. The other area of interest is the use of "non-contact electrodes" and "photorodes" (these are also keywords to search this subject). The U.S. Defense Department as well as NASA are very interested in telemetric monitoring EEG ("brain waves") and ECG via non-contact electrodes and these developments are nearing fruition with tested prototypes in existence.

Whether the energies created within and liberated by the brain, heart or any other part of the body (e.g. muscles measured through EMG) are capable of telekinesis is another matter. The bioelectric field is real, what it is capable of remains to be seen.
I don't think the studies you mention are tangential at all. It's an incredible leap to associate bioelectrics with telekinesis, a power that violates the freaking laws of physics. Saying that such studies are tangential to telekinesis lends credence to the notion of telekinesis that it just does not deserve.

Someone else explain how the energy necessary to telekinese even so much as a feather is enough to fry neurons.

[Ed]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
The biofield is formed by electromagnetic energy emanating or radiating from living organisms. For more information on one of the studied areas, visit the website of the International Institute of Biophysics in Germany: (english site)

http://www.lifescientists.de/ib_000e_.htm


According to this

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/isq.html

Lifting 10 lbs at 10 feet would mean that one could lift 1000 lbs at 0 feet.

Steve, does this pass the sniff test in your opinion?

[SteveGrenard]

First of all Ed, I clearly stated that I did not know what, if anything, the energy that emanates from the human body or any living organbism's body, is capable of in terms of its kinetic abilities. The electricity produced by an electric eel is capable of lighting a bulb and giving a person a nasty enough shock to send them reeling. But is this possible for humans or dogs or organisms without externalized electric conductive systems? No.

Are you attempting to refute the existence of the biofield? Are you saying that the electrical signals, exemplified by EEG tracings, are fake? That these signals are not created through the firing of neurons and are sufficient to travel through the brain, through three membranes and the skull or cranium and be picked up by an electrode (on the surface or above it as in non-contact electrode/phototrode research) and amplified so that it can be seen by mere mortal eyes? Are you saying the same for the ECG which exemplifies the electrical signals produced intrinsically by the action of the heart? Are you sayng that muscle activity does not produce EM which is measured thrugh electromyography?

I freely admit that such extremely subtle or, if you prefer, weak energies could not possibly lift ten pounds at ten feet or a thousand pounds at ground zero.
I know of nobody who claims this so what is the point? Have you seen such a claim?

I also said I don't know if such energies are capable of even lifting or even moving a single milligram of any substance at any distance.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Okay, I've had one clarification:The iron levels are usually measured in micrograms per deciliter, as described on my website. Vitamin E I consumed was in international units, but that is an avoidance issue and I did not have vitamin E levels measured in my body (if even possible) because I had already lost the ability due to low iron. I discovered the Vitamin E factor while trying to raise iron in my blood and found it was an inhibitor.

Go to my home page and type "micrograms" in the search box and three pages will come up. When I get around to it, I'll have to restore the cached page links on all search results so you can find words highlighted on pages.
So our equation becomes (units in parens):

TK (?) = CFe (ug/dL) + VC (?) + ZPE (?) - SD (?) - E+ (?)

I've asked for further clarification.

~~ Paul

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
First of all Ed, I clearly stated that I did not know what, if anything, the energy that emanates from the human body or any living organbism's body, is capable of in terms of its kinetic abilities. The electricity produced by an electric eel is capable of lighting a bulb and giving a person a nasty enough shock to send them reeling. But is this possible for humans or dogs or organisms without externalized electric conductive systems? No.

Are you attempting to refute the existence of the biofield? Are you saying that the electrical signals, exemplified by EEG tracings, are fake? That these signals are not created through the firing of neurons and are sufficient to travel through the brain, through three membranes and the skull or cranium and be picked up by an electrode (on the surface or above it as in non-contact electrode/phototrode research) and amplified so that it can be seen by mere mortal eyes? Are you saying the same for the ECG which exemplifies the electrical signals produced intrinsically by the action of the heart? Are you sayng that muscle activity does not produce EM which is measured thrugh electromyography?

I freely admit that such extremely subtle or, if you prefer, weak energies could not possibly lift ten pounds at ten feet or a thousand pounds at ground zero.
I know of nobody who claims this so what is the point? Have you seen such a claim?

I also said I don't know if such energies are capable of even lifting or even moving a single milligram of any substance at any distance.
Steve, are bioelectric impulses measurable without direct contact with the body? If so, what's the falloff distance?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Pyrrho

Steve, are bioelectric impulses measurable without direct contact with the body? If so, what's the falloff distance?

It falls off as the square of the distance

E=1/D^2

Hence my example

[SteveGrenard]

Yes they can Pyrrho. Enter the following terms in a search engine:

1. GDV ( Gas Discharge Visualization Device)

2. Superconducting Quantum Interference Device (SQUID)

3. Non-Contact Electrodes - Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA-which is a branch of the U.S.
Department of Defense)

4. Photorode (technology-photoelectric sensor)

Fall off distance? Don't know. Right now I would have to say that distance might be limited by the sensitvity of the devices being used to determine it. I would be interested in knowing where Ed got his formula from.

[Ed]

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.ed...forces/isq.html

[SteveGrenard]

Sorry, I am getting a Cannot be Found message when I try your link.

[SteveGrenard]

Non-contact ECG monitoring
... demonstration of non-contact ECG monitoring. Although they probably overstate the
problem of signal distortion when using conventional electrodes, a monitoring ...
www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0957-0233/13/4/601 - Similar pages
[ More results from www.iop.org ]
Non Contact Electro-Cardiography - Sensing Application - ...
... method for non-contact cardiography will allow researchers to collect data more
easily than traditional techniques have allowed because electrodes no longer ...
www.sensatech.com/applications/ electro_cardiography.html - 10k - Cached - Similar pages

Invasive, non-contact 3-D mapping - Sensing Application - ...
... Non-contact because transmit and sense electrodes do not require physical contact
with the surface of the material to transmit electric field onto and into the ...
www.sensatech.com/applications/invasive3d.html - 9k - Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from www.sensatech.com ]

NASA Watch 19 August 2002
... NASA/ARC plans to issue a Request for Quotation (RFQ) for a set of four
parallel sensors (8 non-contact electrodes in 4 differential pairs). ...
www.nasawatch.com/misc/08.19.02.mindreading.html - 7k - Cached - Similar pages

[PDF]Biological Effects and Medical Applications of RF and Microwaves
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
... The major areas under current investigation include multielectrode arrays, noncontact
electrodes, and nonfluoroscopic mapping by recognizing an electromagnetic ...
www.mtt.org/symposia/ims/2000/specsess_bio.pdf - Similar pages

[PDF]Non-contact surface charge/voltage measurements
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
... Capacitive probe al- lows for non-contact and non-destructive examination of the ... accumulated
by the capacitor, U is the voltage between electrodes of the ...
www.trekinc.com/Download/3001_Vibrating_Probe.PDF - Similar pages

Noncontact Scanning Surface Profilometers
... A class of optoelectronic noncontact computer-controlled scanning surface profilometers
is ... detector (PSD), which is a photodetector with electrodes at opposite ...
www.nasatech.com/Briefs/Oct02/KSC11759.html - 6k - Cached - Similar pages

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Yes they can Pyrrho. Enter the following terms in a search engine:

1. GDV ( Gas Discharge Visualization Device)

Well, that seems to have to do with the long-discredited Kirlian photography, which requires that the object be subjected to a strong electromagnetic field, and does not measure the strength of a body-generated bioelectric field as far as I can tell. Quaint, but not what I'm looking for.

2. Superconducting Quantum Interference Device (SQUID)

Interesting, and legitimate. At least this detects energy produced by the body and gives some real data. I found this most helpful:

Biomedicine. In diagnosing heart and/or blood circuit problems the use of magneto cardiograms is an important supplement to conventional electro cardiograms. Such diagnostic equipment is now feasible with the application of the new SQUID sensors
and this

http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci816722,00.html

One of the device's most promising uses is in magnetoencephalography (MEG), the process of measuring magnetic fields to enable brain imaging. Physical processes, such as muscular or neural activity, in humans (and other animals) create magnetic fields as small as a thousand billionth of a tesla (as a comparison, a fridge magnet generates about a tenth of a tesla). DC SQUIDs, contained in a helmet-like device, measure the currents created by neural activity. The possible SQUID neuroscience applications are myriad. A recent study used SQUID-enabled magnetoencephalography to measure the surprisingly large level of activity in consumer's brains that is evoked by choosing between (for example) brands of ketchup.

The magnetic fields produced by physical processes is extremely small. I'd say that pretty much makes it clear that such fields cannot effect telekinesis.

3. Non-Contact Electrodes - Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA-which is a branch of the U.S.
Department of Defense)

Interesting.

http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0957-0233/13/2/304/

We present remarkable new data showing the application of these probes to the remote, off-body, sensing of the electrical activity of the heart at distances of up to 1 m from the body and to high-resolution electrocardiograms. We suggest that in the future such probes may form the basis of a radically new technology for measuring the dynamics of the human body as well as in non-contact, imaging systems for pre-emptive and diagnostic medicine.

http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0957-0233/13/4/601

Some comments from another researcher.

4. Photorode (technology-photoelectric sensor)

Can't find anything on photorodes.

Fall off distance? Don't know. Right now I would have to say that distance might be limited by the sensitvity of the devices being used to determine it. I would be interested in knowing where Ed got his formula from.

[SteveGrenard]

... in Elderly Adults Justine E. Owens, Ph.D. & Mark E. Williams, MD This study tests the hypothesis that the Gas Discharge Visualization (GDV) device can detect ...

www.issseem.org/SunGeneral.html

Research on GDV Bioelectrography
... Crown-TV" device // J. Pathophysiology .- Vol. 5.- 1998.- P. 227. Kolmakow S., Hanninen
O., Korotkov K. Gas discharge visualization system applied to the study ...

www.gdvusa.org/research.html


Ko Engl1 Geistiges Heilen
... in different modes by using Gas Discharge Visualization (GDV) technique ... rise to the
sliding gas discharge 3 along ... Spatial distribution of discharge channels is ...
www.psi-infos.de/body_ko_engl1_geistiges_heilen.html - 14k - Cached - Similar pages



SIIB
... The Gas Discharge Visualization [GDV] instrument was invented by Konstantin Korotkov
in 1999. The device is a culmination of previous work that photographs ...
www.siib.org/GasDischargeVisualization.asp - 9k - Cached - Similar pages



Visualization of electrical inhomogeneities in high-ohmic ...
... A device for rapid visualization of electrical ... a semiconducting plate is placed between
transparent plane parallel electrodes in the gas discharge cell. ...
www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0022-3727/27/6/021 - Similar pages

[SteveGrenard]

superconducting quantum interference device - a whatis definition
A superconducting quantum interference device (SQUID) is a mechanism used to
measure extremely weak signals, such as subtle changes in the human body s ...
www.whatis.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci816722,00.html - 33k - Cached - Similar pages

A Superconducting QUantum Interference Device magnetometer system ...
... A Superconducting QUantum Interference Device magnetometer system for quantitative
analysis and imaging of hidden corrosion activity in aircraft aluminum ...
www.vanderbilt.edu/lsp/abstracts/abedi-rsi-1999.htm - 4k - Cached - Similar pages

SQUID, Superconducting Quantum Interference Device (Ref. 246)
... SQUID, Superconducting Quantum Interference Device. Ref. 246. DESCRIPTION.
The most sensitive device for magnetic field detection is ...
extids.estec.esa.nl/ATTACHEMENTS/A7884/ - 5k - Cached - Similar pages

[PDF]Josephson junctions and superconducting quantum interference ...
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
... the superconducting flux quantum h/2e ... depth could suggest that the loop screening
currents are strong enough to partially wash out the interference pattern ...
arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0107273 - Similar pages

[PDF]Variable sample temperature scanning superconducting quantum ...
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
Variable sample temperature scanning superconducting quantum interference device
microscope JR Kirtley a) and CC Tsuei IBM TJ Watson Research Center, PO Box 218 ...
cmp.ameslab.gov/programreview/ 2001/pdf/APL1999v74p04011.pdf - Similar pages

[PDF]Superconducting quantum interference device magnetometry during ...
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
Superconducting quantum interference device magnetometry during ultrahigh vacuum
growth DP Pappas a) and GA Prinz Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC ...
www.boulder.nist.gov/div816/publications/ pappas/APL65(1994)3401.pdf - Similar pages

[PDF]Dc superconducting quantum interference device amplifier for ...
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
Dc superconducting quantum interference device amplifier for gravitational wave
detectors with a true noise temperature of 16 K Andrea Vinante, a) Renato ...
www.auriga.lnl.infn.it/auriga/ papers_src/apl_vinante.pdf - Similar pages

Superconducting Quantum Interference Devices (SQUIDs) and Their ...
Superconducting Quantum Interference Devices (SQUIDs) and Their Applications.
The Group. Back row: Simon G. Hilton, Richard NS Dawe ...
www.phekda.freeserve.co.uk/richdawe/squid/ - 3k - Cached - Similar pages

[PDF]Development and Evaluation of an Airborne Superconducting Quantum ...
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
REVISED 9/6/02 Unexploded Ordnance UX-1316 Development and Evaluation of an Airborne
Superconducting Quantum Interference Device-Based Magnetic Gradiometer ...
www.serdp.org/research/UX/UX-1316.pdf - Similar pages

Investigation of Fuel Cells using Superconducting Quantum ...
Investigation of Fuel Cells using Superconducting Quantum Interference Devices. ... project
will be provided by the High-T c Superconducting Device Applications Lab ...
www.isso.uh.edu/postdoc/projects/miller.htm - 8k - Cached - Similar pages

[SteveGrenard]

Go here:

# SRICO_23rd Army Science Conference4.doc (PDF)
... MONITORING WITH HIGH-IMPEDANCE OPTICAL ELECTRODES (PHOTRODES TM ... Artifact-Free, Fully Optical ECG Sensor for ... Uninterrupted Artifact-Free EEG during Functional ...
www.asc2002.com/Abstracts_only/d/DA-10.pdf view as html

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Fall off distance? Don't know. Right now I would have to say that distance might be limited by the sensitvity of the devices being used to determine it. I would be interested in knowing where Ed got his formula from.

You're kidding, right??? Tell me you are kidding.

You're not kidding. Jeebus Jehova Jumping on a Jeep, Steve, don't you know one of the most fundamental laws of nature? It's called the "Inverse Square Law". It applies to gravity, electric fields, light, sound and radiation.

Ed's link is http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/isq.html, it's the very first hit on the Google you love so much to use as reference.

You are utterly incompetent in scientific matters, Steve. It's not just this, you also think electrical resistence is measured in Volt. You also think that while there are no molecules left in a homeopathic solution, there can still be particles.

:hb:

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Okay, I've got all the units:

TK (CSTAs) = CFe (ug/dL) + VC (degrees) + ZPE (unitless) - SD (hours) - E+ (mg/L)

Say what? Ah, it's not really a mathematical equation:
My equation is part physiological equation and part psychological equation. It is not being presented as a mathematical equation because it has intangible factors that cannot be weighed, timed, or otherwise measured. They have to be experienced.

~~ Paul

[xouper]

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos: Okay, I've got all the units:This is the kind of thing that should be preserved in a JREF FAQ somewhere. Thanks, Paul, for your efforts in following up on these details and uncovering the story behind the story.

[CFLarsen]

Paul,

Excellent work. That puts this claim to rest.

One down, a zillion to go. Still... ;)

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I would be interested in knowing where Ed got his formula from.
It came from a little thing we like to call "science." Perhaps you've heard of it. Or perhaps not.

Your ignorance is absolutely astonishing. Astonishing.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Yahzi

It came from a little thing we like to call "science." Perhaps you've heard of it. Or perhaps not.

Your ignorance is absolutely astonishing. Astonishing. [/B]

Yeah, it is utterly un-ignorant to call someone ignorant.
:rolleyes:

Just play nice folks.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Yeah, it is utterly un-ignorant to call someone ignorant.
:rolleyes:

Just play nice folks.

You are aware that Steve poses himself as someone with scientific knowledge? That he was a "science moderator" on a JE-fan board? That he tried to establish a "SurvivalScience"-board, but had to shut it down, due to him being the main contributor?

You are - hopefully - aware that Steve has no knowledge of science at all?

Calling Steve "ignorant" is playing nice. It is a true statement.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

You are aware that Steve poses himself as someone with scientific knowledge? That he was a "science moderator" on a JE-fan board? That he tried to establish a "SurvivalScience"-board, but had to shut it down, due to him being the main contributor?

You are - hopefully - aware that Steve has no knowledge of science at all?

Calling Steve "ignorant" is playing nice. It is a true statement.

Yes, I know about some of the things Steve has done. I also know, firsthand, that people can change, and that, moreover, people deserve multiple chances.

Those things, to me, are more important that 'calling someone out', something which does nothing really except turning a discussion board into a playground, where bullies pretend to be impartial rulers (this goes for any discussion board).

For what it is worth, I don't agree with everything that Steve thinks (nor with what any one person thinks), but I don't feel he is 'lower' than anyone else. I disagree with some of his statements, but I also feel a lot of them have merit and are worth exploring.

Fair treatment for all? My 2 cents: Yes, I think that is the way to go.

[CFLarsen]

Steve is not treated fairly? Are you joking? Everyone here is asked for evidence, even you (as you might have noticed).

How is Steve not treated "fairly"?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Those things, to me, are more important that 'calling someone out', something which does nothing really except turning a discussion board into a playground, where bullies pretend to be impartial rulers (this goes for any discussion board).
Troll Chi,

It seems to me you have no notion of what JREF is about. Neither have you any idea of what the forum is about. "Calling someone out" is a huge part of JREF's mission and the mission of this board.

JREF is "an educational resource on the paranormal, pseudoscientific and the supernatural." On the paranormal and supernatural, it seeks to uncover evidence that such things exist. Anybody claiming they can demonstrate such things is encouraged to apply to be tested and, if successful, bring home some serious bacon. But nobody at JREF is holding his breath. Neither do they worry over the fate of the hogs.

Just as instrumental to the mission of finding the paranormal if it exists is identifying the deluded, the delusional and the con-artists out there claiming they have special powers or have evidence of same. What happens when such people are found? Why, Randi calls them out. Uri. JE. Browne. And on and on and on. Called out.

This isn't a kaffe klatch, son. You pretend something mysterious and strange is out there, and you are challenged to marshall the evidence. When you offer up pap or pretense, when you dissemble or aver, when you dodge and duck, when you blow smoke up JREF's derriere, you can expect to be called out.

This is a winnowing field in the fight against the dark ages Steve and you and Clancie and the whole crew of credophiles represent. We won't go silently into your dark night. We carry torches, son. And we will keep them lit. You will be called out. This is a necessary part of skepticism and an essential part of JREF.

Do you have a problem with bullsh being exposed? If so, why? If not, then why is "calling out" so problematic to you?

For what it is worth, I don't agree with everything that Steve thinks (nor with what any one person thinks), but I don't feel he is 'lower' than anyone else. I disagree with some of his statements, but I also feel a lot of them have merit and are worth exploring.

Fair treatment for all? My 2 cents: Yes, I think that is the way to go.
I agree, Troll Chi. Fair and equal treatment. That includes challenging you to marshall evidence supporting this statement: "I also feel of lot of [Steve's statements] have merit and are worth exploring." Which statements? What merit? Be specific.

[thaiboxerken]

Yes, I know about some of the things Steve has done. I also know, firsthand, that people can change, and that, moreover, people deserve multiple chances.

That's not knowledge, that's your bleeding-heart philosophy. I don't think a person that screws up constantly deserves any more chances in the field/subject/context he keeps screwing up in.


Those things, to me, are more important that 'calling someone out', something which does nothing really except turning a discussion board into a playground, where bullies pretend to be impartial rulers (this goes for any discussion board).

That's because you're a wussy-boy, you keep crying "that's not fair" to anything. You call the skeptics closed-minded when they refute and point out where the believer's "evidences" are not evidence at all, and when the fallacies of the believer's arguements are shown. You're one of those people that has his mind so open that the rain gets in.


For what it is worth, I don't agree with everything that Steve thinks (nor with what any one person thinks), but I don't feel he is 'lower' than anyone else. I disagree with some of his statements, but I also feel a lot of them have merit and are worth exploring.

That's your opinion, you can have it. SG's posts are only good at annoying people, they have no intellectual merit.


Fair treatment for all? My 2 cents: Yes, I think that is the way to go.

SG is treated based on his posts, that's fair.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

Yes, I know about some of the things Steve has done. I also know, firsthand, that people can change, and that, moreover, people deserve multiple chances.

That's not knowledge, that's your bleeding-heart philosophy. I don't think a person that screws up constantly deserves any more chances in the field/subject/context he keeps screwing up in.


Those things, to me, are more important that 'calling someone out', something which does nothing really except turning a discussion board into a playground, where bullies pretend to be impartial rulers (this goes for any discussion board).

That's because you're a wussy-boy, you keep crying "that's not fair" to anything. You call the skeptics closed-minded when they refute and point out where the believer's "evidences" are not evidence at all, and when the fallacies of the believer's arguements are shown. You're one of those people that has his mind so open that the rain gets in.


For what it is worth, I don't agree with everything that Steve thinks (nor with what any one person thinks), but I don't feel he is 'lower' than anyone else. I disagree with some of his statements, but I also feel a lot of them have merit and are worth exploring.

That's your opinion, you can have it. SG's posts are only good at annoying people, they have no intellectual merit.


Fair treatment for all? My 2 cents: Yes, I think that is the way to go.

SG is treated based on his posts, that's fair.
I have a different take, TBK, both in the specific case here (SG) and in the more general topic. SG repeatedly appeals to false authority, including his own pretense to authority. When called out, he acts indignant, then shrivels up and lamely claims he didn't say what he said. When asked to cite evidence, he produces a blizzard worthy of these Berkshire foothills a bit north of you on Rt. 8. When we skeptics trudge through the drifts, we find squat. Some so immensely bad, one can only speculate that it was shoved in as filler to puff up the evidence. When caught on points of logic or fact, SG ducks, diverts and flees.

For me, as long as this continues to be his modus operandi. then he is little more than a high-entertainment-value character here. The only annoying thing is the sound of oohs and ahhhs from all the little woos that flock after him.

But, to me, and I think, to many others, he gets second, third and fourth chances. Eventually he may take one of them. When he does, I will acknowledge it and encourage him to learn more. When he does.

This "fairness" cry seems to be a woo thing. Here, JREF, at its own expense, invites the woo-wobblies in to discuss things and they seemingly try to misunderstand the rules of evidence. Any challenge is met with cries of harrassment, unfair, and even, hypocrisy. Minimally, we need to convey to all the foundations for such challenges and the reason that they are constantly challenged on their bizarre assertions.

Cheers,

[SteveGrenard]

Hoyt...have you ever heard the question regarding whether preaching to the choir is of any value ? For those who come here with the expectation of having their skeptical beliefs confirmed, there needs to be voices which point out the other side. Its called debate.

It is, at the end of the day, the only reason I bother. It is not about whether one accepts the other side or not, its about knowing that it's there and needs to be reckoned with. Some would rather suppress the evidence for the other side by asking for rules preventing the listing of references, citations, abstracts and, yes, google or MedLine searches, as a bad thing. Some would prefer to ignore the commentary of analysts who point out errors and design flaws in studies or demonstrations designed to impeach such things as biofield medicine (biophysics) without having a real understanding of what that entails. I don't know that human beings can detect the biofield as some claim, but I know the biofield exists and has always existed. You can detect and measure it with instruments (not people as far as I know for certain). I provided those references and it was the skeptics who failed to acknowledge that SQUIDS, GDVs, photorodes and non-contact electrodes were proven to exist and that the biofield is what they are detecting.

So whenever this comes up and persons such as myself are aware of it we will chime in with opposing information. How boring preaching t the choir would be otherwise.


Edited to add:

Personally I think instruments can detect and diagnose the biofield better than any human can. Human detectors are too unreliable, subject to too much variability and just do not work the same each time. Advances in this field will be through instrumentation and human detectors, regardless of their claims, will have no more market. This would be a good thing.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Some would rather suppress the evidence for the other side by asking for rules preventing the listing of references, citations, abstracts and, yes, google or MedLine searches, as a bad thing. Some would prefer to ignore the commentary of analysts who point out errors and design flaws in studies or demonstrations designed to impeach such things as biofield medicine (biophysics) without having a real understanding of what that entails.

Who are trying to suppress evidence by preventing the listing of references, citations, or abstracts? Google searches and MedLine searches are most often useless as they yield too many hits.

Do you think people are unaware of how to use Google, Steve?

Who are these people? Names, please.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I don't know that human beings can detect the biofield as some claim, but I know the biofield exists and has always existed. You can detect and measure it with instruments (not people as far as I know for certain). I provided those references and it was the skeptics who failed to acknowledge that SQUIDS, GDVs, photorodes and non-contact electrodes were proven to exist and that the biofield is what they are detecting.

What is a photorode, Steve? Google has nothing.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
So whenever this comes up and persons such as myself are aware of it we will chime in with opposing information. How boring preaching t the choir would be otherwise.

Yes, we appreciate you coming here, Steve. You are the best thing to happen to skepticism in years.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Hoyt...have you ever heard the question regarding whether preaching to the choir is of any value ? For those who come here with the expectation of having their skeptical beliefs confirmed, there needs to be voices which point out the other side. Its called debate.
If that is what you think you are doing, and if you think you are doing it well, then "the other side" is incredibly lame. If you want to debate, then understand the rules of evidence, sir, and attempt to marshall them. Understand also what fallacies are and stop persisting in them. Learn some basic science so that you quit making so many laughable posts here, Steve. Work for "your side", man.
It is, at the end of the day, the only reason I bother. It is not about whether one accepts the other side or not, its about knowing that it's there and needs to be reckoned with. Some would rather suppress the evidence for the other side by asking for rules preventing the listing of references, citations, abstracts and, yes, google or MedLine searches, as a bad thing. Some would prefer to ignore the commentary of analysts who point out errors and design flaws in studies or demonstrations designed to impeach such things as biofield medicine (biophysics) without having a real understanding of what that entails. I don't know that human beings can detect the biofield as some claim, but I know the biofield exists and has always existed. You can detect and measure it with instruments (not people as far as I know for certain). I provided those references and it was the skeptics who failed to acknowledge that SQUIDS, GDVs, photorodes and non-contact electrodes were proven to exist and that the biofield is what they are detecting.

So whenever this comes up and persons such as myself are aware of it we will chime in with opposing information. How boring preaching t the choir would be otherwise.


Edited to add:

Personally I think instruments can detect and diagnose the biofield better than any human can. Human detectors are too unreliable, subject to too much variability and just do not work the same each time. Advances in this field will be through instrumentation and human detectors, regardless of their claims, will have no more market. This would be a good thing.
Steve,

Buy yourself a clue. Start with the question of inverse square law. Learn basic science before you spout out some bizarre claimed equivalence of "biofield medicine" and "biophysics". They have nothing to do with one another except that the cranks from the first wish to lay claim to the authority of the second.

You're a head trip.

[thaiboxerken]

Some would rather suppress the evidence for the other side by asking for rules preventing the listing of references, citations, abstracts and, yes, google or MedLine searches, as a bad thing.

What you claim as "evidence" is anything but. You are doing an intimidation type of tactic that doesn't impress any of the skeptics here. The barrage of nonsense that you spout out is your attempt to overwhelm the skeptics and pass the burden to us. Typing a word into a search engine and telling us to debunk all of it is a dishonest tactic. Why don't you research the "evidence" yourself and show us which specific examples are evidence? Oh, I know, it's because you already realize that the "evidence" is wanting, that it is too easily refuted when presented one at a time. What you don't realize is that skeptics can see through your hurricane of crap and see that you have nothing, you have NO credible evidence. The JREF prize is safe.

[SteveGrenard]

Ed has started a thread on this subject which underlies my contentions that there is an effort here to suppress information by a few persons. It is a self-evident attempt. No judging is necessary. Read it and agree or disagree. I could care less.

Insofar as quoting sources, for example, photrode device, it is listed and I didn't bother to put up a link even since I felt in some cases people interested in this could, indeed, find it themselves.
Apparently not. This is an excellent example for the need for such links and better key word referencing.

SRICO is the US Army contractor for this project so trying their name in google might help as well. I believe instruments such as the photrode and other dry, non-contact sensors will not only prove the existence of the biofield but effectively delete the need for human practitioners to get involved in this since as was stated already their claims are indeed dubious, and their results highly variable and non-replicable. Does that state the position clearly enough?

.....found this exchange which has an Aug'03 update from SRICO's Chief Scientrist:

http://www.stanford.edu/~torque/blog/archives/000084.html


SRICO
Today I found a document about some work SRICO had been doing with the US Army on dry biopotential acquistion. Essentially their device uses lithium niobate to alter the polarization of a beam of light traveling through a fiber. The major technical challenge is noise from the fiber-optic since microphonic noise can affect the beam. How the contact is made is not completely clear though. The sensor is large, about 5 cm square.

Posted by torque at June 10, 2003 11:56 AM | TrackBack

Comments
Hi,

I am one of the inventors of the SRICO Photrode (this device used to be called an "Optrode"). Where did you get the information about the fiber optic lead microphony and the 5 cm square dimensions? This sounds like it came from one of our early Phase I SBIR reports a few years back. (*)

Actually, our more recent prototype devices generally had rectangular packaging but were still not built for size. Work is presently underway for significant reduction in the chip and packaging size.

Contact is either through conducting rubber pads or capacitive coupling through clothing (EKG only).

Dr. Stuart A. Kingsley
Chief Scientist
SRICO, Inc.

Posted by: Stuart Kingsley at August 18, 2003 11:38 AM


Edited to add: (*) I posted the URL for this PDF document previously on this forum.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Troll Chi,


(exactly the type of things I'm talking about...)


It seems to me you have no notion of what JREF is about.


You go on and on about the JREF. I'm not talking about the goals of JREF, I'm not talking about Randi, I'm talking about the JREF bulletin board behavior by a few individuals.


This is a winnowing field in the fight against the dark ages Steve and you and Clancie and the whole crew of credophiles represent.


Oh please Bill. Spare us the dramatic here. I can't speak for Steve, Clancie and others, but I've posted my skeptical thoughts on a variety of topics. If you disagree, just say so. But do go off lumping all the 'disagres with Bill' into a group that supposedly promotes the Dark Ages, since that is obviously not the case.

For example, me saying 'expected by chance' and you jumping on my back and apparently disregarding everything else I said (even though CE or MCE makes 100% sense, and is a term that is used!!). Or me simply asking Iamme for the height of his pane of glass and the type of paper and ink used so I could recreate similar conditions, and you go off on me saying that I had not considered refraction, etc. Or saying that I am claiming that PRNG's are random, when I clearly used the P, and said "in a random manner". SHEESH!


We won't go silently into your dark night. We carry torches, son. And we will keep them lit.


Great! Super! I'm glad! Good for you! Torches? Now that is dark ages. How about a flashlight at least?? Son.

I think a lot of people here are all for critical thinking and skeptical inquiry. You don't have dibs on it anymore than we all do.


That includes challenging you to marshall evidence supporting this statement: "I also feel of lot of [Steve's statements] have merit and are worth exploring." Which statements? What merit? Be specific.

Oh gees.. now you'll nitpick every one of my statements (and even opinions, as above!!) to death, and when I don't answer your primadonna demands you'll probably claim some victory.

Good job.

[CFLarsen]

T'ai Chi,

All that you need to do - because you said you would - is to:

1) Post your critique.
2) Post references to the studies you think shows:


the evidence for RNG experiments?
the evidence for remote viewing?
the evidence for Ganzfeld?
the evidence for Autoganzfeld?
the evidence for precognitive habituation?


These are fields where you think there is "some evidence". Now, please point to it.

On JREF, claims are sought verified. Get used to it.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
When asked to cite evidence, he produces a blizzard worthy of these Berkshire foothills a bit north of you on Rt. 8. When we skeptics trudge through the drifts, we find squat.
In one of his blizzards about non-contact electronics, he posted a link about optical profilometry.

I didn't bother to point out how irrelevant this quote was, because refuting the specific facts seemed unnecessary. However, I would like to point out, that as a skeptic who waded through that particular pile of random links, and as a professonal who has built non-contact optical profilometers for fifteen years, they have nothing whatsoever to do with non-contact electronics. As usual, Steve was posting things he didn't understand, regardless of whether they supported his case or not.

[SteveGrenard]

I didn't bother to point out how irrelevant this quote was, because refuting the specific facts seemed unnecessary. However, I would like to point out, that as a skeptic who waded through that particular pile of random links, and as a professonal who has built non-contact optical profilometers for fifteen years, they have nothing whatsoever to do with non-contact electronics. As usual, Steve was posting things he didn't understand, regardless of whether they supported his case or not.


Well gee whiz, I didn't bother to edit....
that list of links which was returned to me under the search string "Non-Contact Electrodes." Please be cognizant of this. Thank you. However, as is typical for skeptics here, they refuse or ignore the relevant links concerning superconducting quantum intereference devices (build any of those lately?) or SQUIDS, Photrodes(tm)
(which nobody seems to be able to find except me) or dry, non-contact electrodes which can pick up the ECG through clothing. Also spend some time rummaging around "sublte energies" and the Journal of the same name. Have a nice day. And yes, I have read the relevant ones.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Yeah, it is utterly un-ignorant to call someone ignorant.
:rolleyes:

Just play nice folks.
I have you on ignore, but someone quoted this post, so I saw it.

Characterizing Steve Grenard as ignorant because he does not recognize the power law is not an insult, it is a statement of fact. Given the authority and volume with which SG asserts his scientific understanding and expertise, it is magnified to astonishing.

If you don't recognize the power law, you too are ignorant of basic physics. This is in no way an insult. Lots of people are ignorant of basic physics. So what? I'm ignorant of virtually everything concerning super-string theory, or how to conjugate Tamil verbs. Should I feel insulted if you point that out? Of course not.

It's only an insult to be called ignorant of something if you have spent the previous ten pages asserting your knowledge of the field. For SG it is an insult precisely because he has so firmly asserted his knowledge of physics.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Troll Chi
You go on and on about the JREF. I'm not talking about the goals of JREF, I'm not talking about Randi, I'm talking about the JREF bulletin board behavior by a few individuals.
I am discussing JREF goals because the behavior you fault is aligned with them.
Oh please Bill. Spare us the dramatic here. I can't speak for Steve, Clancie and others, but I've posted my skeptical thoughts on a variety of topics. If you disagree, just say so. But do go off lumping all the 'disagres with Bill' into a group that supposedly promotes the Dark Ages, since that is obviously not the case.
Gee, I wonder what Sagan meant by the subtitle for Demon-Haunted World?
For example, me saying 'expected by chance' and you jumping on my back and apparently disregarding everything else I said (even though CE or MCE makes 100% sense, and is a term that is used!!). Or me simply asking Iamme for the height of his pane of glass and the type of paper and ink used so I could recreate similar conditions, and you go off on me saying that I had not considered refraction, etc. Or saying that I am claiming that PRNG's are random, when I clearly used the P, and said "in a random manner". SHEESH!

Let's not re-hash all of this, son. You're sounding whiny.
Great! Super! I'm glad! Good for you! Torches? Now that is dark ages. How about a flashlight at least?? Son.

I think a lot of people here are all for critical thinking and skeptical inquiry. You don't have dibs on it anymore than we all do.
Sure. Just like creationists. They learned a new trick a while back. They tacked "science" at the end of "creation" and tried the cargo cult routine. Distinguish yourself from this cargo cult mentality and my responses will shift, son. Right now, you are pretending to emulate the form. Not even doing a good job of that. You are miles away from the substance.
Oh gees.. now you'll nitpick every one of my statements (and even opinions, as above!!) to death, and when I don't answer your primadonna demands you'll probably claim some victory.
There you go again, son. You made a claim. Will you or will you not enumerate what Grenard stuff has merit? Ah, but that's a "nitpick", isn't it? You just don't get it, do you? YOU MADE A CLAIM THERE, SON. My challenging that claim is not a nitpick, sonny. Back up your claim or give it up.

[SteveGrenard]

Gould wrote Demon Haunted World? That's news to me. Try seeing if Carl Sagan had anything to do with that book.

Hoyt wrote:

Gee, I wonder what Gould meant by the subtitle for Demon-Haunted World?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
T'ai Chi,

All that you need to do - because you said you would - is to:

1) Post your critique.
2) Post references to the studies you think shows:


the evidence for RNG experiments?
the evidence for remote viewing?
the evidence for Ganzfeld?
the evidence for Autoganzfeld?
the evidence for precognitive habituation?



I did 1. and 2., and the above list are strawmen, as I've never claimed there is evidence, only suggestive evidence, and even that is flimsy, as I've said many times.

Do confine your requests to the thread in which my claims/opinions were brought up originally. DO NOT continually harass me in threads I post in about the content from other threads. I don't appreciate it, and you will be reported.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Sure. Just like creationists. They learned a new trick a while back. They tacked "science" at the end of "creation" and tried the cargo cult routine. Distinguish yourself from this cargo cult mentality and my responses will shift, son. Right now, you are pretending to emulate the form. Not even doing a good job of that. You are miles away from the substance.


Poor attempt at 'guilt by association'. Next time, make sure to throw in Hitler somewhere in there.

LOL with the "son" and the "sir" usage. :D


You made a claim. Will you or will you not enumerate what Grenard stuff has merit? Ah, but that's a "nitpick", isn't it? You just don't get it, do you? YOU MADE A CLAIM THERE, SON.


I stated an opinion, not a claim.

(Bill tags Claus, Claus's turn right about now...)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I did 1.

Your "thoughts" constitute a "critique"?? You have very low standards....

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
and 2., and the above list are strawmen, as I've never claimed there is evidence, only suggestive evidence, and even that is flimsy, as I've said many times.[/size]

That is a bald-faced lie. You have - as I have proved by reposting your own words - made these claims.

Now, either retract them, or provide evidence.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Do confine your requests to the thread in which my claims/opinions were brought up originally. DO NOT continually harass me in threads I post in about the content from other threads. I don't appreciate it, and you will be reported.

Good! I am confident that the moderators will rule wise and just. And, above all, skeptically.

[thaiboxerken]

Here's my telekinesis formula, and I'll challenge anyone to prove it wrong.

Telekinesis = Superpower + Fiction + delusion AND/OR fraud + Imagination + Fantasy = BS

[The Mighty Thor]

Do confine your requests to the thread in which my claims/opinions were brought up originally. DO NOT continually harass me in threads I post in about the content from other threads. I don't appreciate it, and you will be reported.

That sounds like: 'Don't show where I have been proven wrong before, even if I rehash and repeat some ludicrous claim. DO NOT keep proving me wrong over and over again because it is embarrassing to me.'

I don't think that will wash here.

malc

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Here's my telekinesis formula, and I'll challenge anyone to prove it wrong.

Telekinesis = Superpower + Fiction + delusion AND/OR fraud + Imagination + Fantasy = BS

Dare I ask what units those are in? :D

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Here's my telekinesis formula, and I'll challenge anyone to prove it wrong.

Telekinesis = Superpower + Fiction + delusion AND/OR fraud + Imagination + Fantasy = BS

Smart guy, where is your proof for this formula since you're making the claim? Hint: attempt to think outside your arrogance!

:crazy:

Again I'm including a link to this topic so you can reply because if I don't you will probably get lost in this forum.
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=28098&perpage=40&pagenumber=2

[Lothian]

Traveller.
It is a shame you live in the city of Los Angeles because you are depriving a village of an idiot.

Ken has submitted the same standard of proof as Conrad and his formula looks valid to me unless of course you have proof that anyone can move a remote object by mind power alone.

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by Lothian
Traveller.
It is a shame you live in the city of Los Angeles because you are depriving a village of an idiot.

http://www.student.smsu.edu/s/san232s/hardfunnypics/thanksforsharingbaby-joemama.gif

Ken has submitted the same standard of proof as Conrad and his formula looks valid to me unless of course you have proof that anyone can move a remote object by mind power alone.

Ken made the claim not me! I never said I believe in tk.

[hal bidlack]

This post has been reported. I find no violation here. If a person feels pestered, they are urged to place the individual on ignore.

hal


Originally posted by CFLarsen
T'ai Chi,

All that you need to do - because you said you would - is to:

1) Post your critique.
2) Post references to the studies you think shows:


the evidence for RNG experiments?
the evidence for remote viewing?
the evidence for Ganzfeld?
the evidence for Autoganzfeld?
the evidence for precognitive habituation?


These are fields where you think there is "some evidence". Now, please point to it.

On JREF, claims are sought verified. Get used to it.

[Agammamon]

". . .The units of the some of the terms in the equation would be specific to an individual's physiology and could only be put in general terms otherwise; for example, a high end of Normal Range for serum iron is where you would look to see an ability to perform rather than a low range level. Not everyone has the same quantity of blood in their body or the exact same size brain in their skull. The quantitative units in the equation at which Subject A begins to perform may be different than Subject B and so on. . ."

Hey, maybe it's just me but I would think the
values of the units would be specific to an individual and would affect the value of TK but not the units.

". . .Einstein's energy-mass equation E = mc2 does not give specific units either. To quote "The World Book Encyclopedia," 2003: "When Einstein announced it [E=mc2] in 1905, scientists knew of no way to change mass into energy. . ."

And as far as E=MC2 being unitless, forgive me if I am mistaken but aren't the units:

E= energy in joules
M= mass in grams
c= speed of light in meters per second

I'm just a dum Boatswain's Mate but thems seam like units to me.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Agammamon
". . .The units of the some of the terms in the equation would be specific to an individual's physiology and could only be put in general terms otherwise; for example, a high end of Normal Range for serum iron is where you would look to see an ability to perform rather than a low range level. Not everyone has the same quantity of blood in their body or the exact same size brain in their skull. The quantitative units in the equation at which Subject A begins to perform may be different than Subject B and so on. . ."

". . .Einstein's energy-mass equation E = mc2 does not give specific units either. To quote "The World Book Encyclopedia," 2003: "When Einstein announced it [E=mc2] in 1905, scientists knew of no way to change mass into energy. . ."

Hey, maybe it's just me but I would think the
values of the units would be specific to an individual. And as far as E=MC2 being unitless, forgive me if I am mistaken but aren't the units:

E= energy in joules
M= mass in grams
c= speed of light in meters per second

I'm just a dumb Boatswain's Mate but those seem like units to me.

You have provided a very basic example of the essence of Woo. To wit: Invoke Einstein, say he did the same as you. Be wrong.:D

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by hal bidlack
This post has been reported. I find no violation here. If a person feels pestered, they are urged to place the individual on ignore.
hal


Thank you for taking the time to look at it Hal. I must say I disagree, but will honor your decision, and will put the person in question on ignore.

I find it absolutely incredible that one person can repeatedly hound others with questions/demands in a thread, but where the questions/demands are from discussions from other threads, without any moderator thinking that is inappropriate behavior. It is not only that I and others feel pestered, it is that we are being pestered by this person's deliberate actions.

Thanks again for your looking into it Hal. I know you had infinitely more important things to do. Your time and advice is much appreciated.

[Ed]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Thank you for taking the time to look at it Hal. I must say I disagree, but will honor your decision, and will put the person in question on ignore.

I find it absolutely incredible that one person can repeatedly hound others with questions/demands in a thread, but where the questions/demands are from discussions from other threads, without any moderator thinking that is inappropriate behavior. It is not only that I and others feel pestered, it is that we are being pestered by this person's deliberate actions.

Thanks again for your looking into it Hal. I know you had infinitely more important things to do. Your time and advice is much appreciated.

Trolling is a no no.

[thaiboxerken]

Smart guy, where is your proof for this formula since you're making the claim? Hint: attempt to think outside your arrogance!



I am not making any claim, I am simply not believing the claim of telekinisis. Until ONE person tests positive for having superpowers, I won't believe anyone has that superpower. Know of any TK beings? Didn't think so.

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken I am not making any claim, I am simply not believing the claim of telekinisis. Until ONE person tests positive for having superpowers, I won't believe anyone has that superpower. Know of any TK beings? Didn't think so.

You made a claim with your so-called formula!

http://www.student.smsu.edu/s/san232s/hardfunnypics/kittynotamusedthrone-Bubbelz.jpg

[xouper]

traveller: You made a claim with your so-called formula!Ken made a claim? I would have assumed the humor was obvious.

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by xouper
Ken made a claim? I would have assumed the humor was obvious.

Because he's arrogent!

http://www.student.smsu.edu/s/san232s/hardfunnypics/angrywetcatnotamused.jpg

http://www.student.smsu.edu/s/san232s/hardfunnypics/airguitarbroom-dedcat.gif

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by xouper
Ken made a claim? I would have assumed the humor was obvious.

It's only obvious to the reasonable person. Traveller isn't reasonable, or intelligent.

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


It's only obvious to the reasonable person. Traveller isn't reasonable, or intelligent.

TBK is a obnoxious idiot!

http://www.student.smsu.edu/s/san232s/hardfunnypics/angrygrannies.jpg

[xouper]

traveller: TBK is a obnoxious idiot!Welcome to my ignore list, troll.

PLONK

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by xouper
Welcome to my ignore list, troll.

PLONK

This is good news!

So that means you cant see this!

http://www.student.smsu.edu/s/san232s/hardfunnypics/gfybuyvowel.jpg

[xouper]

This thread is looking better already:

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by xouper
This thread is looking better already:

Cool I can have fun with this! I bet you can't resist viewing my post.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by traveller


Cool I can have fun with this! I bet you can't resist viewing my post.

Can't show us telekinesis, so you'll just resort to insults instead? I understand, it must be hard believing that people have superpowers even though you can't prove it. All it takes is ONE telekinetic to prove us wrong. Know any?

[Luciana]

This thread is fast spiraling down. Can't we stop its descent? Folks, let's exercise some maturity here, please. If the debate is over, then let it go.

[thaiboxerken]

It's pretty obvious to the skeptic that the Telekinesis formula is just the same falllacies that believers use in a different package. It amazes me that there are so many "theories" as to how telekinesis works, yet not ONE person can show that it DOES work. The same BS applies to mediumship and other paranormal claims..... all theory and no application.

[BillHoyt]

About this...:
I disagree with some of his statements, but I also feel a lot of them have merit and are worth exploring.
Tr'oll Chi said this:
I stated an opinion, not a claim.
Let's take this one out for a spin down the reductio ad absurdum highway. Apparently, Tr'oll thinks that couching a claim in emotive language somehow transforms the claim into an opinion. With this logic, then, we can construct the following statement:
I feel gravity doesn't exist

Are we now to let this go unchallenged? Simply because of the word, "feel"? Simply because you have couched the claim doesn't mean it must go unchallenged. Whether you "think" it or "feel" it, you are still saying "a lot of" Grenard's statements "have merit and are worth exploring."

Your choices here at JREF are to:
o marshall evidence to support this claim,
o state you have no evidence to support this claim,
o withdraw the claim

Your move.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Thank you for taking the time to look at it Hal. I must say I disagree, but will honor your decision, and will put the person in question on ignore.

I find it absolutely incredible that one person can repeatedly hound others with questions/demands in a thread, but where the questions/demands are from discussions from other threads, without any moderator thinking that is inappropriate behavior. It is not only that I and others feel pestered, it is that we are being pestered by this person's deliberate actions.

If you feel "pestered" because people (not just me, remember?) are asking you to back up your claims with evidence, then you will have a hard time here. Shouldn't you also put e.g. Ed on ignore?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Thanks again for your looking into it Hal. I know you had infinitely more important things to do. Your time and advice is much appreciated.

Yes, thanks, Hal, for making the right decision.

T'ai Chi, I am sorry to hear that you have now put me on ignore. I will still, however, ask you questions that derive from your claims, as well as asking for evidence.

As you have just learned, such is the way of skeptics. We don't stop until we have some answers!

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Tr'oll Chi said ...
Tr'oll ...


:cry:


I feel gravity doesn't exist


Strawman argument at its finest.


Your choices here at JREF are to:
o marshall evidence to support this claim,
o state you have no evidence to support this claim,
o withdraw the claim


Here at the JREF. :D Shouldn't that be, "here at my house/work/internet cafe where, I, Bill, am typing to you.."?

Anyway, my choice is to listen to Hal's advice and respect his decision on the matter, and ignore the person(s). There is no rule that you have to answer questions. Sound familiar, Bill, or does that double-standard now not apply because it is little ol' me?

I said that I feel that some (or alot, I forget) of Steve's comments have merit. Saying "I feel" communicates, to all rational readers, that it is an opinion being presented, and not a claim that can be proved scientifically. I've also said, and this hasn't been latched onto by you for some reason..., is that I disagree with many things Steve has said too. It is also clear, to all rational readers, that simply because I feel that some of what Steve says has merit, that doesn't mean I agree with his statements.

[xouper]

T'ai Chi: I said that I feel that some (or alot, I forget) of Steve's comments have merit. Saying "I feel" communicates, to all rational readers, that it is an opinion being presented, and not a claim that can be proved scientifically.Well, I for one, have no interest in what you "feel" about Steve Grenard's statements. Such an "opinion" is useless to me in evaluating his statements.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by xouper
Well, I for one, have no interest in what you "feel" about Steve Grenard's statements. Such an "opinion" is useless to me in evaluating his statements.

Xouper,

The discussion isn't about if my opinion is useful or not in evaluating Steve's claims.

The discussion is about if my opinion is, in fact, an opinion, or, in fact, a claim.

[SteveGrenard]

Would someone do me one little favor?

Since you are talking about my" claims", please refresh our memories as to what exactly those claims are referencing telekinesis (e.g. this thread). References please. Precise quotes and their location where these alleged claims are made.
These mysterious claims seem to have taken on a life of their own. Insofar as I can recall the only thing I ever said is that we must keep an open mind and evaluate evidence on both sides regarding those who do make claims. This is not, exactly, a claim itself but an opinion regarding claims. There is more than a subtle difference and this seems to be lost on some people.

Thank you.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Tr'oll Chi


Xouper,

The discussion isn't about if my opinion is useful or not in evaluating Steve's claims.

The discussion is about if my opinion is, in fact, an opinion, or, in fact, a claim.

Perhaps you may wish to note xouper's use of scare quotes? And to think about why they were inserted.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Would someone do me one little favor?

Since you are talking about my" claims", please refresh our memories as to what exactly those claims are referencing telekinesis (e.g. this thread). References please. Precise quotes and their location where these alleged claims are made.
These mysterious claims seem to have taken on a life of their own. Insofar as I can recall the only thing I ever said is that we must keep an open mind and evaluate evidence on both sides regarding those who do make claims. This is not, exactly, a claim itself but an opinion regarding claims. There is more than a subtle difference and this seems to be lost on some people.

Thank you.

Do try to keep up with the discussion, sir. We are discussing Tr'oll Chi's claim that some of your statements have merit. We are trying to find out what those statements are. I, for one, have no idea.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Strawman argument at its finest.
Apparently, you need to augment the list of your professors in need of slapping. That was a parallel reductio ad absurdum. I drew a parallel argument and demonstrated its preposterous nature.
Anyway, my choice is to listen to Hal's advice and respect his decision on the matter, and ignore the person(s). There is no rule that you have to answer questions. Sound familiar, Bill, or does that double-standard now not apply because it is little ol' me?
What rules did I just enumerate? The JREF rules. Randi laid them down one of the last times the creodphiles were wah-wah-wahing all over about how unfaiir the questions were here. Randi posted on what challenges he considered to be fair.

Now read those rules. Note they describe challenges to claims.
I said that I feel that some (or alot, I forget) of Steve's comments have merit. Saying "I feel" communicates, to all rational readers, that it is an opinion being presented, and not a claim that can be proved scientifically. I've also said, and this hasn't been latched onto by you for some reason..., is that I disagree with many things Steve has said too. It is also clear, to all rational readers, that simply because I feel that some of what Steve says has merit, that doesn't mean I agree with his statements.
You are simply and stolidly following my counter-argument. Stuffing an "I feel" in front of a statement about fact does not change it to be an opinion. "I hate purple" is an opinion. "Purple doesn't look good on me" is an opinion. "I feel purple will bleach the melanin from your skin" is a factual assertion in the guise of an opinion.

"I feel" is not a "get out of providing evidence free" card.

Now will you elaborate and marshall evidence in support, or will you let another woo assertion wither on the vine of your trolling inanity?

[SteveGrenard]

Hoyt: We are trying to find out what those statements are.

Reply: So am I.

Hoyt: I, for one, have no idea.

Reply: Its good to see I am not the only one in the dark.

[xouper]

T'ai Chi: Xouper, The discussion isn't about if my opinion is useful or not in evaluating Steve's claims. The discussion is about if my opinion is, in fact, an opinion, or, in fact, a claim.Regardless what you want to call them, if you do not offer some reason to pay any attention to them, I won't. So if you want to say that some of Steve Grenard's statements have merit, what good does that comment do anyone if you do not justify it or give any reason why your utterance even matters?

SteveGrenard:
Hoyt: We are trying to find out what those statements are.
Reply: So am I.
Hoyt: I, for one, have no idea.
Reply: Its good to see I am not the only one in the dark.Add me to that list in the dark. We are waiting to see if T'ai Chi will say what statements he was referring to as having merit.

[CFLarsen]

T'ai Chi will not answer questions, nor provide evidence.

Welcome back, Steve! That was a short...hmmm..."vacation".

[Eos of the Eons]

F***tard...hmm, that's a very enlightening point...NOT!

Grow up dude

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

...wah-wah-wahing


http://gothmog.homeip.net:8000/funnypics/car_salesmen.jpg

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
F***tard...hmm, that's a very enlightening point...NOT!

Grow up dude

http://www.student.smsu.edu/s/san232s/hardfunnypics/howaboutnodrevil.jpg

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by xouper
Well, I for one, have no interest in what you "feel" about Steve Grenard's statements. Such an "opinion" is useless to me in evaluating his statements.

You still can't see what I'm saying!

http://www.student.smsu.edu/s/san232s/hardfunnypics/dirklovesithinkasshat-Super-D.jpg

[UnrepentantSinner]

f***tard...

a**hat...

"soon to be banned"

Say, you don't spend time on the Survivor Sucks board do you?

[Denise]

A picture may say a thousand words... I think it works well with people who are not good at communicating with words. But when one posts picture after picture I am led to the inevitable conclusion that they are unable to compose a thought and thus must take another's creation. Please be mindful of those on dialup.

[SteveGrenard]

No no Hoyt. In order to agree or disagree or have a opinion re with a claim the claim must exist. I am still waiting for evidence that I made a claim or claims as indicated above.

Opinions, agreement or disagreement with them can come next. First they have to exist. (This is an example of a statement ...I am referrring to claims)

So I reiterate (and yes, please spare us the artwork) can anyone here specifically point to any claims I made (not statements but claims)?

Thank you.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
No no Hoyt. In order to agree or disagree or have a opinion re with a claim the claim must exist. I am still waiting for evidence that I made a claim or claims as indicated above.

Opinions, agreement or disagreement with them can come next. First they have to exist. (This is an example of a statement ...I am referrring to claims)

So I reiterate (and yes, please spare us the artwork) can anyone here specifically point to any claims I made (not statements but claims)?

Thank you.
Steve,

Please review the posts. Tr'oll Chi is the one who claimed you had made some statements of merit. Not I. Not anyone else. Tr'oll Chi is the one who claims that he was stating an opinion, not making a claim. Not I. Not anyone else.

Please address your concerns to Tr'oll.

[hal bidlack]

this thread has been reported.

Traveller, please stop posting so many pictures. It makes it very hard for folks on dialup to load threads quickly. Feel free to post occasional pics, and to link to as many as you want to.

hal

[SteveGrenard]

No no Hoyt. Get with the picture. The Moderators have denied my requests to delete unprovoked ad hominem attacks because I "have made claims which were not defended." This is incorrect. I am challenging anyone here (don't take this personally) to provide me with evidence I made claims. Once again it is irrelevant who claims I made claims and it is irrelevant whether they have merit or dont have merit. In order for meritorious or non-meritorious claims to have occurred, first you need to have the claims. If T'ai Chi says I made claims with merit, if he says I did things he does not agree with, I would like to have evidence of that. If he can provide them fine. If not, anybody is free to do so or retract any statements they made that I have made claims in the threads mentioned below. Not claims made anywhere in known universe, but relevant to the threads below where these attacks occurred as a result of the hallucinations experienced by Lartsen and Yathzi et al that I made claims there.

Iwill lower the goal and move in the posts even closer: you can do this for this thread, the TT thread, the JP Murder thread, and the medium thread although this started on the TT thread and seemed to spill over here.

So once again, I am waiting to hear what claims I made in these threads to cause unprovoked character assasination, major LIES from Claus Larsen regarding my career and professional status and other ad hominem crap remarks made by Yorthzi, Ralf and Professor Jeff Cory of Psych Dept, C.W. Post College in Breookville Long Island where he allegedly teaches or tries to teach critical thinking. I am trying to demonstrate to Colonel Hal Bidlack of the US Air Force Academy that there were no claims justifying these attacks and Moderator Lisa who wrote me by PEM saying I should defend my claims. I will do that if I made them but so far nobody has been able to demonstrate to me that I have made any claims requiring defense.

Still waiting.

[Ed]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
No no Hoyt. Get with the picture. The Moderators have denied my requests to delete unprovoked ad hominem attacks because I

Still waiting.

Well, you did claim the following:

There are two areas of serious research that are tangential to this subject. One is the confirmed discovery that magnetite, an iron (Fe) compound has been discovered in the human brain.

You are claiming that there might be a mechanism for something that is undemonstrated.

Q. Do you think regular physics might apply here? Like if we could use some field generated by our bodies to move things, would it require the same amount of energy as if we reached out and picked it up?

A. Definitely regular physics, no, regular biophysics .... perhaps from a source (e.g. human body, e.g. magnetite,etc) heretofore un-appreciated and perhaps, in some persons, perhaps genetically derived. I have no idea if it is sufficient to perform feats of macro telekinesis or so-called psychokinesis.

You claim that physics might explain this phenomenon



Q. How do you suspect this energy would get converted into ' lifting ' power ' ?

A. Lifting or moving power. Again, based on an abnormally higher amount of biofield (yes, there are bio fields) than normally exhibited. I agree that in 99.9999% of the populace such energies would be too small to move a milligram of iron even a tenth of an mm. This is an emerging field so we don't know what discoveries await us.

You are suggesting here that 1 person in 100,000,000 can exhibit telekinesis. That means about 50 people can do this



Personally I think instruments can detect and diagnose the biofield better than any human can. Human detectors are too unreliable, subject to too much variability and just do not work the same each time. Advances in this field will be through instrumentation and human detectors, regardless of their claims, will have no more market. This would be a good thing

here you are claiming that, while poor at it, humans can be detectors

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by hal bidlack
this thread has been reported.

Traveller, please stop posting so many pictures. It makes it very hard for folks on dialup to load threads quickly. Feel free to post occasional pics, and to link to as many as you want to.

hal

OH MY F***ING GOD PEOPLE! LEAVE HAL ALONE WITH YOUR B***S*** WHINY COMPLAINTS.

traveller was annoying me so guess what, he's on iggy. Can't you do the same without bothering Hal with petty b***s***?

Stop with the crybaby reporting kiddies.

[Ed]

Is it too much to ask that the responsible people delete all those photos?

[SteveGrenard]

I am saying "might" not claiming it is so. You will have to do better than that.

I am stating there is a biofield. Are you denying this?

I am stating that magnetite has been found in the human brain. Are you denying this is so? There are 2,650 websites returned in google when you enter magnetite in human brain. Here are a few for you to verify my assertion. I am not doing this anymore since you and others seem to object to it but since you force me to do so, I will. Besides this is not my claim. Obviously I have never isolated biomagneite from the human brain. There is a vast distinction Eddy old boy between revealing information here and what one claims. I am pointing out the claims of others, not my own. How absurd for you to think that. I think its called transference. A lot of that type of faulty reasoning seems to go on around here. In spite of such findings I did state that I feel (and this was a claim) that instruments are better at detecting the biofield than people are. Did you happen to miss that?



Biogenic Magnetite
... organisms including animals. Recent investigations have revealed the presence
of biogenic magnetite in human brain tissue as well [2,3,4]. The presence ...
www.pd.uwa.edu.au/~dobson/magnetite.html



Biogenic Magnetite
... including animals . Recent investigations have revealed the presence of
biogenic magnetite in human brain tissue as well. The presence of ...
www.keele.ac.uk/depts/stm/magnetite.html

Biogenic Magnetite
... In addition, we have been examining and characterizing biogenic magnetite
in the human brain and other organs since 1993. This research ...
www.keele.ac.uk/depts/stm/character.html


Studies of Inorganic Crystals in Biological Tissue: Magnetite in ...

... In a previous study, we reported the first detection of magnetite
in human brain tissues. Compared with ferrit in and magnetite ...

www.gps.caltech.edu/users/jkirschvink/ pdfs/AtsukoTumorPaper.pdf

Magnetite Biomineralization in the Human Brain
... Biogenic magnetite in the human brain may account for high-field saturation effects
observed in the T1 and T2 values of magnetic resonance imaging and, perhaps ...
www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/ articlerender.fcgi?rendertype=abstract&artid=49775

Biological magnets in the human brain-could ...
... Abstract: The isolation of microscopic crystals of the magnetic mineral
magnetite from samples of human brain tissue is described. ...
ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/abs_free.jsp?arNumber=149651

Jon Dobson's Homepage
... Research Projects. BIOPHYSICS: Magnetite Biomineralization in the Human Brain. ... Effects
of biogenic magnetite on MRI hypointensity artefacts in the human brain. ...
www.biophysics.uwa.edu.au/Jon.html

Bio-magnetite abstracts [UWA Biophysics]
... ferromagnetic transduction model proposed by Kirschvink (1) suggests that the coupling
of biogenic magnetite particles in the human brain to mechanosensitive ...
www.biophysics.uwa.edu.au/BiomagNet/eeg_abstracts.html


A Ferromagnetic Transduction Mechanism for Radio Frequency ...

... of magnetic extracts from human brain tissue by our group [4] and Kirschvink`s group
have revealed that biogenic magnetite in human brain tissue occurs in ...
www.ifh.ee.ethz.ch/Microwave/reco/Wieser.rtf

[TLN]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I am stating there is a biofield. Are you denying this?

Define "biofield".

[SteveGrenard]

While the term biofield, if you search it, seems to be adopted by a lot of complementary and alternative medicine applications, I have never susbcribed to the fact that it is their "property."

The following two recent developments describe the hard measurement of subtle electrical potentials such as those generated by EEG, EMG and ECG outside, not within the body.
This is the "true biofield." Again, I am not making claims but I am making sure that we consider these interesting developments and claims of others.

I have bolded some particularly relevant claims made by the U.S. Army (Walter ReedArmy Medical Center -- TLN you have heard of them? ) and the contractor, SRICO. I am surprised Colonel Bidlack is not up on these developments.

Excerpted from SRICO’s website:

http://www.srico.com/medical.html#R&D%20100%20Award%20For%202002


Advanced Optical Sensors for EEG and EKG Measurement
Srico has developed groundbreaking, patent pending, optical sensing technology for physiological monitoring, particularly, EEG and EKG measurement. Our innovative photonic biomedical sensors offer new capabilities and benefits in electrodiagnostics, patient monitoring, and functional magnetic resonance imaging. These all-optical sensors use Srico proprietary technology for improved, hassle-free, non-contact EKG and dry contact EEG measurement. They require no skin preparation, gels, or adhesives.EKG readings can be taken directly over clothing.These state-of-the-art patient monitoring devices will enable physicians and medical researchers to safely and accurately collect data that was previously impossible or impractical to collect. They are particularly beneficial for emergency medicine, functional MRI (fMRI), sleep studies, ambulatory monitoring, and anesthesia awareness monitoring.




January 2003


Sensor Tracks Soldiers' Vital Signs Battles may be won or lost on how well troops cope with stress and fatigue. In work sponsored by the US Army Medical Research and Materiel Command at Fort Detrick, Md., for the Warfighter Physiological Status Monitoring System program, investigators are developing wearable optical sensors that will provide electrophysiological data about soldiers so that field commanders can ensure that they are at their best for combat. Wearable optical sensors may monitor the vital signs of tomorrow's soldier on the battlefield, detecting stress and fatigue. Courtesy of Srico Inc. Initially developed as a voltage measurement solution for NASA's space power systems, the Photrode optical sensor from Srico Inc. uses radiation to detect the very low amplitude potentials produced by the human body. The output of a superluminescent diode enters the sensor, where it is perturbed by electrical signals sensed in the subject. The intensity-modulated light exiting the sensor is applied to an optical receiver, which detects and digitizes the voltage. In a study at Walter Reed Army In- stitute of Research, Helen C. Sing subjected the Photrode system to a head-to-head test against standard silver/silver-chloride electrodes. An MP150 physiological monitoring instrument from Biopac Systems Inc. of Santa Barbara, Calif., collected and analyzed the brain activity information from the Photrode, as well as data on 12 other channels that indicated pulse and tracked chin, eye and wrist movements of the test subjects, matching performance to alertness levels. Sing found that the electroencephalogram signals from the optical system were comparable to those from standard electrodes. She also observed that the system could detect the minute fluctuations in alpha waves when the test subjects opened and closed their eyes. The Photrode, however, displayed minimal sensitivity to electromagnetic interference and allowed the subjects to wear the monitoring system with little discomfort. Unlike systems that use metal electrodes, it does not require the use of conductive gels, which must be renewed every three hours, or of collodion adhesive, which must be removed with acetone.

In the long term, the Photrode system may be used to detect alertness and drowsiness levels as well as head trauma, possibly triggering an audible alarm for the soldier. With the new information they are collecting about high-frequency electroencephalograms, the Army researchers will develop a drowsiness index that could be used to initiate sleep discipline for soldiers. Eventually, the system could be extended to the commercial arena, detecting and warning workers of incipient drowsiness in environments that require a continuous high level of alertness. by Brent D. Johnson Contact: Helen Sing, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, Silver Spring, Md.; +1 (301) 319-9130; e-mail:helen.sing@na.amedd.mil. Sri Sriram, Srico Inc., Columbus, Ohio; +1 (614) 799-0664; e-mail: sri@srico.com.

(press release-free to use)

[hal bidlack]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
No no Hoyt. Get with the picture. The Moderators have denied my requests to delete unprovoked ad hominem attacks because I "have made claims which were not defended." ...

Steve,

One clarification. I have not refused to censor due to whether you have or have not supported claims. I am refusing to censor, because even ad hominem is allowed, if not particularly welcomed, as part of a broader effort to keep speech as free as possible.