New telepathy test, the sequel. - Page 4

Jack by the hedge · 20th September 2016, 03:27 PM

While we're on the subject Michel, I don't recall your ever explaining how you know that people hear your thoughts.

I mean, even if we were to imagine that the phenomenon of thought broadcasting was real, how would the 'broadcaster' know they were doing so? What would such a sensation feel like? Wouldn't it be at least as likely that they did it without realising it at all?

And even if we further assume that the person might somehow perceive they were emitting thought waves, how on earth could they know their thoughts were being heard by people in distant corners of the world? What kind of sense can you imagine that would give someone the sensation of a person on the other side of the world hearing something? It's ridiculous.

Michel H · 20th September 2016, 03:45 PM

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

Yes, I do. They're just the type of joke responses I'd expect to see in a thread where someone persistently claims somehow to know that people all over the world hear their thoughts.

That's a very strange use of the word "probably". It suggests you think it more probable that a phenomenon which has never ever been demonstrated to exist is experienced by multiple members of the forum rather than that they were merely poking fun at the idea.

When someone gives a response that happens to suit your delusion, you discount the possibility that they were joking even when they themselves confirm that they were in fact joking.

Jack by the edge, you said yourself, after you saw the analysis of my first test, and after giving an answer to my second test:

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

I'm increasingly eager to see Michel's analysis of why I chose my number, right or wrong. I'm sure it will be illuminating.

You don't really say about a deluded schizophrenic that his next analysis will be illuminating. So, you supported my point of view then, and you changed your mind later, contradicting yourself. If you have sometimes a impression of knowing some of my thoughts (via extra-sensory perception), I would urge you, and also other members of this forum, to participate in my tests constructively (if there are more of them), and to contribute to the truth, rather than trying as hard as you can to present me as a deluded schizophrenic.

Nay_Sayer · 20th September 2016, 05:12 PM

Originally Posted by Michel H

I am actually very satisfied with the results of my latest extra-sensory perception test on this forum (here): there was one credible answer, given by cullennz, and it was correct. Cullennz (who seems to be in New Zealand) added later:

(in AAH, date: 13th September 2016)
I have to admit, though, that I am less happy about many of the comments I read.

I know you are, You are unable to see the multiple issues but I'm happy that you're happy with your results.

I can't hear your thoughts

No one can hear your thoughts

You think everyone can, Nothing will change that, We know that and more importantly you know that.

End Thread. Period.

MikeG · 20th September 2016, 11:24 PM

Originally Posted by Michel H

My latest thread on this forum: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=311990 is not of the "Which of these 4 things am I thinking about?" kind, although it is related to my telepathy testing.

Well, that's a straight-out lie. You asked us to guess which one of "automobile, boat, plane or submarine" you were thinking of.

Originally Posted by Michel H

And I don't think this "super-power" (the word you are using) is "ridiculous" (though there is no known historical precedent), because it doesn't seem to violate the known laws of physics: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...0#post10277440

No, Michel, it is ridiculous. You don't have the ability to broadcast your thoughts. No human in history has such ability. You have produced no evidence that you have such a power, and your mental health history is the full explanation of your belief that we are all hearing your thoughts. We aren't. You don't understand irony or sarcasm. Every poster who has got one of your silly games "right" has been taking the piss out of you. I suggest that instead of wasting our time, and yours, with endless repetitions of this "guess which one from 4" game, followed by twisting the responses to suit your desired result, that you get yourself back to a mental health practitioner and then take the medication they prescribe. For your own good, I would like to see you banned from this and other fora, because endlessly rehearsing your delusions isn't likely to be doing you any good at all.

Jack by the hedge · 20th September 2016, 11:58 PM

Originally Posted by Michel H

Jack by the edge, you said yourself, after you saw the analysis of my first test, and after giving an answer to my second test:

You don't really say about a deluded schizophrenic that his next analysis will be illuminating. So, you supported my point of view then, and you changed your mind later, contradicting yourself. If you have sometimes a impression of knowing some of my thoughts (via extra-sensory perception), I would urge you, and also other members of this forum, to participate in my tests constructively (if there are more of them), and to contribute to the truth, rather than trying as hard as you can to present me as a deluded schizophrenic.

I'm sorry but you are mistaken, Michel.

I was eager to hear what you had to say as I was convinced that it would reveal that you were cherry picking favourable results and rejecting unfavourable results for no good reason beyond fooling yourself. That has been my belief throughout. Your choosing to misinterpret my remark as indicating that I thought telepathy might be real is another manifestation of your ongoing problem. It's all in your head, as it has been throughout.

kali1137 · 21st September 2016, 05:50 AM

Originally Posted by Michel H

Welcome to this thread, kali1137. I have already pointed out the drawbacks of this policy, but they don't seem to be paying much attention.

Thank you for the welcome! The main drawback to this that I can see, from your point of view, is honesty from those suggesting it and from those participating. Is this correct? Because my argument is, how are we to trust that you are being truthful? You are the one claiming thoughts, so we are taking your word for it for the most part it seems.

Let me through something out there and you tell me what your thoughts would be on it. I claim to have the ability to levitate. I tell everyone that I have it on video and agree to share the video with all who ask. Then, the video just shows me on a chair and I look like I am merely meditating. No levitation happens. I then tell you that someone clearly tampered with video since it left my possession. Do you believe me or them?

Michel H · 21st September 2016, 07:26 AM

Originally Posted by kali1137

... Because my argument is, how are we to trust that you are being truthful? You are the one claiming thoughts, so we are taking your word for it for the most part it seems. ...

When I do tests in which I ask people, for example, "Did I write "1", "2", "3" or "4" on my paper", some people sometimes complain that, if, for example, everybody answers "2", I could cheat and say I wrote "2" on my paper, in order to get a good hit rate. For this reason, in this latest test, I have added a security feature, called a cryptographic hash, which was originally suggested to me on this forum. The idea is to calculate the hash corresponding to a complicated sentence like "àç!è§"' ze mumbe I vrote ist ein 2", and to post this hash early in the test, and the sentence at the end of the test, after I have revealed the target number.

Originally Posted by kali1137

...
Let me through something out there and you tell me what your thoughts would be on it. I claim to have the ability to levitate. I tell everyone that I have it on video and agree to share the video with all who ask. Then, the video just shows me on a chair and I look like I am merely meditating. No levitation happens. I then tell you that someone clearly tampered with video since it left my possession. Do you believe me or them?

In this case, I think I would be very skeptical myself.

However, in my tests, I fairly often read statement like:

Originally Posted by a member of this forum

I am hearing Michel H's thoughts. ...

, which seem to confirm the existence of a special phenomenon, and I can't fake that.
In addition, my credibility analyses for the answers are usually easy to understand (and to verify) for most people, this is why they are (in my opinion) reliable.

abaddon · 21st September 2016, 07:36 AM

Originally Posted by Michel H

When I do tests in which I ask people, for example, "Did I write "1", "2", "3" or "4" on my paper", some people sometimes complain that, if, for example, everybody answers "2", I could cheat and say I wrote "2" on my paper, in order to get a good hit rate. For this reason, in this latest test, I have added a security feature, called a cryptographic hash, which was originally suggested to me on this forum. The idea is to calculate the hash corresponding to a complicated sentence like "àç!è§"' ze mumbe I vrote ist ein 2", and to post this hash early in the test, and the sentence at the end of the test, after I have revealed the target number.

In this case, I think I would be very skeptical myself.

However, in my tests, I fairly often read statement like:
, which seem to confirm the existence of a special phenomenon, and I can't fake that.
In addition, my credibility analyses for the answers are usually easy to understand (and to verify) for most people, this is why they are (in my opinion) reliable.

Yeah, see that is outright mockery of your claims by means of sarcasm. We have already established that you are utterly unable to detect sarcasm, even when people later reply to explain their sarcasm.

It is also cherry-picking at it's finest. Anyone who posts a sarcastic reply you like is taken as written in stone. Anyone who posts an honest answer you don't like is rejected with a bovine pseudo-justification.

When a better test is proposed such as by Kid Eager, you run a country mile from it because even you realise that you will fail.

So put up or shut up. Add the MD5 protocol to Kid Eager's test and bite that bullet.

Cosmic Yak · 21st September 2016, 08:05 AM

Originally Posted by Michel H

However, in my tests, I fairly often read statement like:

Originally Posted by Originally Posted by a member of this forum View Post

I am hearing Michel H's thoughts. ...

, which seem to confirm the existence of a special phenomenon, and I can't fake that.
In addition, my credibility analyses for the answers are usually easy to understand (and to verify) for most people, this is why they are (in my opinion) reliable.

Your credibilitywould be significantly enhanced if you were to post the entire quote, rather than this selective cherry-pick.
I am also awaiting your response to my earlier post. An honest response to that would also enhance your credibiity.

phunk · 21st September 2016, 08:32 AM

Originally Posted by Michel H

It was not cherry-picked, this was explained in the analysis of the results (and also in this post (part 2)).

You do not really expect an average schizophrenic to get comments like this (just three examples):

And there is no objective reason to say these answers were "sarcastic". Some say this on this forum, probably just because they are desperately looking for pretexts to discredit, disqualify such statements.

You still don't get it?

"Took me a while as the signal was weak."

He was insulting you, calling you weak minded. There's a reason it was moved to AAH, everyone but you can see that. This is the guy you think gave you a "credible" answer.

phunk · 21st September 2016, 08:34 AM

Originally Posted by Michel H

However, in my tests, I fairly often read statement like:

Quote:

I am hearing Michel H's thoughts. ...

, which seem to confirm the existence of a special phenomenon, and I can't fake that.

It only confirms that you don't understand, or are in denial, that these are jokes.

Donn · 21st September 2016, 08:36 AM

Nothing you shout,
nothing you yell,
will make a dent on Michel,
or cause him doubt.

In a case like this one,
in cases like these,
involving mental disease,
there is no win.

Best is quiet.
Nill per mind.
Let him find
boredom's diet.

Michel H · 21st September 2016, 09:11 AM

Originally Posted by phunk

You still don't get it?

"Took me a while as the signal was weak."

He was insulting you, calling you weak minded. There's a reason it was moved to AAH, everyone but you can see that. This is the guy you think gave you a "credible" answer.

I don't find anything wrong in cullennz' post:

Quote:

Think it's pretty simple.

I'm psychic and chose to read Michael H's mind.

Took me a while as the signal was weak

You have to realize that he is apparently in New Zealand, while I am in Belgium, we are therefore approximately on diametrically opposite (antipodal) points on a terrestrial globe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipodal_point

So, from a physics viewpoint, it is quite understandable that the signal should be weak, this is to be expected. By the same token, the thoughts you are presumably hearing from me (even if you deny it) should become weak and disappear when you scuba-dive. I would like to hear this from you (this would be great), but, so far, ..., nothing, unfortunately.

phunk · 21st September 2016, 09:18 AM

Originally Posted by Michel H

I don't find anything wrong in cullennz' post:

You have to realize that he is apparently in New Zealand, while I am in Belgium, we are therefore approximately on diametrically opposite (antipodal) points on a terrestrial globe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipodal_point

So the entire earth being between you and him won't block the whole signal, but a few feet of water will?

Quote:

So, from a physics viewpoint, it is quite understandable that the signal should be weak, this is to be expected. By the same token, the thoughts you are presumably hearing from me (even if you deny it) should become weak and disappear when you scuba-dive. I would like to hear this from you (this would be great), but, so far, ..., nothing, unfortunately.

I've never heard anything from you, above or below water.

Jack by the hedge · 21st September 2016, 09:28 AM

Originally Posted by Michel H

... By the same token, the thoughts you are presumably hearing from me (even if you deny it) should become weak and disappear when you scuba-dive. I would like to hear this from you (this would be great), but, so far, ..., nothing, unfortunately.

Since it's only in your imagination that people hear your thoughts there will naturally be nothing to report. I appreciate that this must be extremely frustrating for you since you are clearly convinced we can all hear what you are thinking but the simple truth is we really can't.

Can you explain how you 'know' we hear you? Did you just one day become overwhelmed by the certainty that this was so? If so, how does that make sense to you?

You're presently trying to rationalise this as being some kind of radio transmission from your mind, but if you are the supposed 'transmitter', why are you certain that there are billions of 'receivers'?

If the answer is something along the lines of "I just feel it" then perhaps that's a good starting point to consider whether, since all you really have is a feeling, the simplest explanation for that strange feeling is that you have a similar medical condition to each of the other people who have experienced the same feeling.

Michel H · 21st September 2016, 10:43 AM

Originally Posted by phunk

So the entire earth being between you and him won't block the whole signal, but a few feet of water will?
...

Short-wave electromagnetic waves may travel between the surface of the Earth and the ionosphere, this is a well known phenomenon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionosphere . But the same short waves get quickly absorbed in seawater, figure 6 from this paper: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a046687.pdf tells us that the attenuation constant alpha is equal to about 10 m^-1 at a frequency equal to 10 MHz; this corresponds to an attenuation length of about 10 cm for the amplitude, and 5 cm for the intensity. This means that, after an electromagnetic wave of 10 MHz has traveled a distance of 5 cm, its intensity is reduced by a factor of e = 2.72, where e is Euler's number.

Of course, a factor of about 2.7 or 3 is not enough to "get rid of my thoughts"

. Let's say we demand an attenuation factor f for the intensity. We have: f = exp(-2 alpha x), or ln f = - 2 alpha x, or x = - (2 alpha)^-1 ln f, or x = - ln f /20 (in meters) = - (2.303/20) log f (in meters).

So, x = - 0.115 log f (in meters), where f is the attenuation factor (not the frequency), and log is decimal logarithm. If we demand an enormous attenuation factor of 10^-100, the courageous scuba-diver will have to go to a depth of 11.5 meters.

MikeG · 21st September 2016, 10:51 AM

What a waste of your time, Michel. You have calculated the behaviour of something that does not and cannot exist.

phunk · 21st September 2016, 11:53 AM

Originally Posted by Michel H

Short-wave electromagnetic waves may travel between the surface of the Earth and the ionosphere, this is a well known phenomenon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionosphere . But the same short waves get quickly absorbed in seawater, figure 6 from this paper: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a046687.pdf tells us that the attenuation constant alpha is equal to about 10 m^-1 at a frequency equal to 10 MHz; this corresponds to an attenuation length of about 10 cm for the amplitude, and 5 cm for the intensity. This means that, after an electromagnetic wave of 10 MHz has traveled a distance of 5 cm, its intensity is reduced by a factor of e = 2.72, where e is Euler's number.

Of course, a factor of about 2.7 or 3 is not enough to "get rid of my thoughts"

. Let's say we demand an attenuation factor f for the intensity. We have: f = exp(-2 alpha x), or ln f = - 2 alpha x, or x = - (2 alpha)^-1 ln f, or x = - ln f /20 (in meters) = - (2.303/20) log f (in meters).

So, x = - 0.115 log f (in meters), where f is the attenuation factor (not the frequency), and log is decimal logarithm. If we demand an enormous attenuation factor of 10^-100, the courageous scuba-diver will have to go to a depth of 11.5 meters.

So you're saying your brain broadcasts radio waves strong enough to be picked up by brains on the other side of the world (when brains aren't even antennas), and those signals magically don't get detected by actual radio receivers?

Michel H · 21st September 2016, 12:08 PM

Originally Posted by phunk

So you're saying your brain broadcasts radio waves strong enough to be picked up by brains on the other side of the world (when brains aren't even antennas), and those signals magically don't get detected by actual radio receivers?

Yes, that's about correct, I think (though I wouldn't use the word "magically"). There is a big difference (I suppose) between our telepathic broadcasts and ordinary radio broadcasts, in that the latter occur at almost definite and precise frequencies. Presumably, this is not true for telepathic broadcasts, which are much more "broad band", with a wide range of frequencies.

MikeG · 21st September 2016, 12:33 PM

Originally Posted by Michel H

.......There is a big difference (I suppose) between our telepathic broadcasts and ordinary radio broadcasts, in that the latter exist

I've corrected your post.

Jack by the hedge · 21st September 2016, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by Michel H

Yes, that's about correct, I think (though I wouldn't use the word "magically"). There is a big difference (I suppose) between our telepathic broadcasts and ordinary radio broadcasts, in that the latter occur at almost definite and precise frequencies. Presumably, this is not true for telepathic broadcasts, which are much more "broad band", with a wide range of frequencies.

You don't need a submarine to screen yourself from radio waves. A tunnel or the basement of a substantial building could be just as effective. I'm tempted to ask if you have ever noticed that people can't hear your thoughts when you're in a tunnel, but of course how could you possibly tell?

JimOfAllTrades · 21st September 2016, 03:17 PM

Originally Posted by Michel H

Yes, that's about correct, I think (though I wouldn't use the word "magically"). There is a big difference (I suppose) between our telepathic broadcasts and ordinary radio broadcasts, in that the latter occur at almost definite and precise frequencies. Presumably, this is not true for telepathic broadcasts, which are much more "broad band", with a wide range of frequencies.

You should know that the highlighted part means that it is even more certain the signal would be picked up by radio receivers, precisely because it would be detectable across many frequencies. Since it isn't, I'm afraid there is no such signal being broadcasted.

Michel H · 21st September 2016, 04:06 PM

Originally Posted by JimOfAllTrades

You should know that the highlighted part means that it is even more certain the signal would be picked up by radio receivers, precisely because it would be detectable across many frequencies. Since it isn't, I'm afraid there is no such signal being broadcasted.

No, I think it is easier to detect a signal at an (almost) definite frequency, because then the energy is concentrated in a narrow frequency range, and you can eliminate all other frequencies using a LC circuit. For example, when NASA wants to communicate with one of its very far away spacecraft (near Jupiter, for example), they use a definite frequency (they're not crazy):

Quote:

Another component to the success of interplanetary communications is the fact that there are no significant sources of noise in interplanetary space at the spacecraft's specific frequency.

(link)

An example of wide band radiation is thermal radiation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation ): you do not detect it with your radio receiver (near a fire for example), even though it has a radio waves component.

Michel H · 21st September 2016, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

You don't need a submarine to screen yourself from radio waves. A tunnel or the basement of a substantial building could be just as effective. I'm tempted to ask if you have ever noticed that people can't hear your thoughts when you're in a tunnel, but of course how could you possibly tell?

I think that a submarine would be far more effective. In a tunnel for example, the signal can get in through the entrance of the tunnel for example, and concrete is not necessarily a good conductor of electricity. In a sub, I could find out if I still hear my telepathic voices (as mentioned previously), but I would like to get some preliminary info before possibly traveling.

Michel H · 21st September 2016, 04:40 PM

Originally Posted by Michel H

...
So, x = - 0.115 log f (in meters), where f is the attenuation factor (not the frequency), and log is decimal logarithm. If we demand an enormous attenuation factor of 10^-100, the courageous scuba-diver will have to go to a depth of 11.5 meters.

So, x = - 0.115 log f, where x is the distance (in meters), f is the attenuation factor (not the frequency), and log is decimal logarithm. If we demand an enormous attenuation factor of 10^-100, the courageous scuba-diver will have to go to a depth of 11.5 meters.

Slowvehicle · 21st September 2016, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by Michel H

No, I think it is easier to detect a signal at an (almost) definite frequency, because then the energy is concentrated in a narrow frequency range, and you can eliminate all other frequencies using a LC circuit. For example, when NASA wants to communicate with one of its very far away spacecraft (near Jupiter, for example), they use a definite frequency (they're not crazy):
(link)

This only demonstrates that you do not understand how broadcast energy works...you have already demonstrated innocence of the inverse-square law; here you demonstrate innocence of broad-spectrum broadcasting.

Oh, well.

Originally Posted by Michel H

An example of wide band radiation is thermal radiation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation ): you do not detect it with your radio receiver (near a fire for example), even though it has a radio waves component.

Here, you demonstrate innocence of the EM spectrum...ask yourself why lightning interferes with radio broadcasts, across the AM & FM bands...

p0lka · 21st September 2016, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by MikeG

I've corrected your post.

wooah, don't quote then edit and make it look like a quote that hasn't been edited, pretty please

It can be confusing.

Michel H · 21st September 2016, 05:54 PM

Originally Posted by Slowvehicle

...
Here, you demonstrate innocence of the EM spectrum...ask yourself why lightning interferes with radio broadcasts, across the AM & FM bands...

Actually, lightning bolts seem to affect A.M. radio, but not F.M. : https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlike...ai&sh=05e9d331

It is true that electromagnetic waves produced by lightning have a wide frequency spectrum (rather than a definite frequency), but the power of a lightning bolt is enormous (about 10¹⁰ watts, link), compared to about 20 watt for a human brain, or a spacecraft transmitter. Also, the bolts of lightning should not be too far away: you're not constantly hearing bolts from the entire Earth. You cannot "hear a fire" on your A.M. radio, even though the thermal radiation has a wide-band radio waves component.

JimOfAllTrades · 21st September 2016, 06:45 PM

Originally Posted by Michel H

No, I think it is easier to detect a signal at an (almost) definite frequency, because then the energy is concentrated in a narrow frequency range, and you can eliminate all other frequencies using a LC circuit. For example, when NASA wants to communicate with one of its very far away spacecraft (near Jupiter, for example), they use a definite frequency (they're not crazy):
(link)

You really don’t understand any of this stuff, do you?

Of course you broadcast on a narrow frequency to be more efficient. But that has nothing to do with receiving a signal.

You said you were broadcasting on a wide range of frequencies. That means that any receiver tuned to any of those frequencies would pick up part of the signal, most likely as interference. That means that every radio designer in the world would be scratching their heads trying to figure out what the extraneous broadband signal is bleeding into the normal signal.

Since this is not happening, we can be sure you're not broadcasting in that manor.

JimOfAllTrades · 21st September 2016, 07:07 PM

Originally Posted by Michel H

It is true that electromagnetic waves produced by lightning have a wide frequency spectrum (rather than a definite frequency), but the power of a lightning bolt is enormous (about 10¹⁰ watts, link), compared to about 20 watt for a human brain, or a spacecraft transmitter.

Do you think this might be a clue that you're not broadcasting a broadband signal around the world?

Michel H · 21st September 2016, 08:23 PM

Originally Posted by JimOfAllTrades

...
You said you were broadcasting on a wide range of frequencies. That means that any receiver tuned to any of those frequencies would pick up part of the signal, most likely as interference. That means that every radio designer in the world would be scratching their heads trying to figure out what the extraneous broadband signal is bleeding into the normal signal.
...

Not necessarily, think about the example of a fire emitting thermal radiation I already quoted. Is every radio designer in the world scratching their head near a fire (or any source of heat)? No. Is a simple fire (or any source of heat) emitting thermal, and therefore electromagnetic waves in the radio frequency range? Yes.
Physics teaches us that, whenever an ion (for example a sodium Na⁺ ion in the brain) gets accelerated, electromagnetic radiation gets emitted. On the other hand, in the brain, during an action potential, sodium ions rush into the neuron, and they are accelerated because of the voltage difference between the interior and exterior of the cell. So we can safely predict that cerebral activity produces electromagnetic radiation.

Michel H · 21st September 2016, 08:37 PM

Originally Posted by JimOfAllTrades

Do you think this might be a clue that you're not broadcasting a broadband signal around the world?

No, because, with only 5 watts power, ham radio operators can make voice contact with the antipode (link)

Nay_Sayer · 21st September 2016, 09:44 PM

Originally Posted by Michel H

No, because, with only 5 watts power, ham radio operators can make voice contact with the antipode (link)

Your brain is not a ham radio.

JimOfAllTrades · 21st September 2016, 11:30 PM

Originally Posted by Michel H

No, because, with only 5 watts power, ham radio operators can make voice contact with the antipode (link)

Not very often, and on very narrow frequencies, using huge antennas on both ends, and only under the most favorable conditions.

Again, if there were broadband broadcasts going out from a single source all over the world, there would be a massive amount of evidence, and it would have been being researched by many people and very common knowledge in the industry. It isn't, therefore there are no such broadcasts.

JimOfAllTrades · 21st September 2016, 11:39 PM

Originally Posted by Michel H

Not necessarily, think about the example of a fire emitting thermal radiation I already quoted. Is every radio designer in the world scratching their head near a fire (or any source of heat)? No. Is a simple fire (or any source of heat) emitting thermal, and therefore electromagnetic waves in the radio frequency range? Yes.

Are you sure about this? (Careful, that's kind of a trick question.)

Michel H · 22nd September 2016, 07:21 AM

Originally Posted by JimOfAllTrades

Are you sure about this? (Careful, that's kind of a trick question.)

I don't know what you mean with your "Careful, that's kind of a trick question.", I (generally) don't ask "trick questions".

Wikipedia explains to us:

Quote:

Radio frequency (RF) is any of the electromagnetic wave frequencies that lie in the range extending from around 3 kHz to 300 GHz, which include those frequencies used for communications or radar signals.^[1]

(link)

I am not saying that a flame at a temperature of, say, 1800 kelvin (link), emits all of its radiation in the radio frequency range, but this radiation does have a low-frequency "tail" in this radio frequency range. There is even a mathematical expression for the low-frequency "tail" of Planck's distribution (link1, link2), it is called the Rayleigh–Jeans law (link). And the Rayleigh–Jeans spectral density is definitely not zero at frequencies below 300 GHz, in the radio range.

Slowvehicle · 22nd September 2016, 07:44 AM

Originally Posted by Michel H

I don't know what you mean with your "Careful, that's kind of a trick question.", I (generally) don't ask "trick questions".

Wikipedia explains to us:
(link)

I am not saying that a flame at a temperature of, say, 1800 kelvin (link), emits all of its radiation in the radio frequency range, but this radiation does have a low-frequency "tail" in this radio frequency range. There is even a mathematical expression for the low-frequency "tail" of Planck's distribution (link1, link2), it is called the Rayleigh–Jeans law (link). And the Rayleigh–Jeans spectral density is definitely not zero at frequencies below 300 GHz, in the radio range.

...look up "inverse-square law"...

Jack by the hedge · 22nd September 2016, 09:21 AM

Originally Posted by Slowvehicle

...look up "inverse-square law"...

Perhaps also look up "signal-to-noise ratio".

Michel, even if you convince yourself that the electrical noise generated by the activity in your brain might form some kind of coherent signal, do also consider not only that its radio emissions are extremely weak, but also that it is only one of billions of sources of such noise.

I have of course raised this issue before, but you preferred to fixate on a spelling mistake which you seemed to take as a sign that you ought to be suspicious of the point I was making.

Michel H · 22nd September 2016, 11:53 AM

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

...
Michel, even if you convince yourself that the electrical noise generated by the activity in your brain might form some kind of coherent signal, do also consider not only that its radio emissions are extremely weak, but also that it is only one of billions of sources of such noise.
...

Actually, we don't really know how weak these radio emissions from our brains are, because they seem to have never been measured seriously (they might actually not be so weak). I agree that there are billions of sources (billions of people, and therefore billions of brains on this planet), but there is perhaps something special and unusual about Michel H's gamma waves, perhaps he has more gamma waves than most people, and is therefore "emitting at a higher (low) frequency" than most people:

Quote:

A gamma wave is a pattern of neural oscillation in humans with a frequency between 25 and 100 Hz,^[1] though 40 Hz is typical.^[2]
According to a popular theory, gamma waves may be implicated in creating the unity of conscious perception (the binding problem).^[3][4][5]

(link).

Quote:

Neural oscillations have been most widely studied in neural activity generated by large groups of neurons. Large-scale activity can be measured by techniques such as EEG. In general, EEG signals have a broad spectral content similar to pink noise, but also reveal oscillatory activity in specific frequency bands. The first discovered and best-known frequency band is alpha activity (7.5–12.5 Hz)^[5] that can be detected from the occipital lobe during relaxed wakefulness and which increases when the eyes are closed.^[6] Other frequency bands are: delta (1–4 Hz), theta (4–8 Hz), beta (13–30 Hz) and gamma (30–70 Hz) frequency band, where faster rhythms such as gamma activity have been linked to cognitive processing.

(link)

Ladewig · 22nd September 2016, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by kali1137

Thank you for the welcome! The main drawback to this that I can see, from your point of view, is honesty from those suggesting it and from those participating. Is this correct? Because my argument is, how are we to trust that you are being truthful? You are the one claiming thoughts, so we are taking your word for it for the most part it seems.

Let me through something out there and you tell me what your thoughts would be on it. I claim to have the ability to levitate. I tell everyone that I have it on video and agree to share the video with all who ask. Then, the video just shows me on a chair and I look like I am merely meditating. No levitation happens. I then tell you that someone clearly tampered with video since it left my possession. Do you believe me or them?

Welcome to the forum.

You should be aware that many of Michel's tests involving picking a number between1and 4. If a poster guessed 2 and the actual number was 3, then Michel would claim that through the tone of that poster's posts Michel knew that the poster really meant 3 and he was lying when he said 2.

You have missed the hundreds and hundreds of pages that have already been devoted to this poster's claims. Michel has agreed that there is

no analogy
no metaphor
no hypothetical
no thought experiment
no statistical analysis
no explanation of mental health problems
no explanation of probability
no description of current knowledge
no explanation of science
no analysis of human physiognomy
no example
no counter-example
no advocacy of medicine

....that will ever, ever, ever make him even partially doubt his ability to transmit thoughts. There is no use in trying.

I can understand how frustrating it is for all of the posters who are trying to reason with him. But I have to ask them, is it really that hard to admit that you cannot win? You all love logic and critical thinking and you believe that if people are shown how illogical their belief systems are then they will change. That will not happen in this case. yes, it is sad; but continuing to argue with someone who has repeatedly stated he will not change his mind no matter what evidence is presented is a fool's errand and helps nobody.

20th September 2016, 03:45 PM	#122
Michel H Master Poster Join Date: May 2012 Location: Belgium Posts: 2,815	Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge Yes, I do. They're just the type of joke responses I'd expect to see in a thread where someone persistently claims somehow to know that people all over the world hear their thoughts. That's a very strange use of the word "probably". It suggests you think it more probable that a phenomenon which has never ever been demonstrated to exist is experienced by multiple members of the forum rather than that they were merely poking fun at the idea. When someone gives a response that happens to suit your delusion, you discount the possibility that they were joking even when they themselves confirm that they were in fact joking. Jack by the edge, you said yourself, after you saw the analysis of my first test, and after giving an answer to my second test: Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge I'm increasingly eager to see Michel's analysis of why I chose my number, right or wrong. I'm sure it will be illuminating. You don't really say about a deluded schizophrenic that his next analysis will be illuminating. So, you supported my point of view then, and you changed your mind later, contradicting yourself. If you have sometimes a impression of knowing some of my thoughts (via extra-sensory perception), I would urge you, and also other members of this forum, to participate in my tests constructively (if there are more of them), and to contribute to the truth, rather than trying as hard as you can to present me as a deluded schizophrenic.
	Last edited by Michel H; 20th September 2016 at 04:11 PM.

20th September 2016, 05:12 PM	#123
Nay_Sayer I say nay! Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Long Island Posts: 3,892	Originally Posted by Michel H I am actually very satisfied with the results of my latest extra-sensory perception test on this forum (here): there was one credible answer, given by cullennz, and it was correct. Cullennz (who seems to be in New Zealand) added later: (in AAH, date: 13th September 2016) I have to admit, though, that I am less happy about many of the comments I read. I know you are, You are unable to see the multiple issues but I'm happy that you're happy with your results. I can't hear your thoughts No one can hear your thoughts You think everyone can, Nothing will change that, We know that and more importantly you know that. End Thread. Period.
	__________________ Memento Mori

20th September 2016, 11:24 PM	#124
MikeG Now. Do it now. Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: UK Posts: 24,804	Originally Posted by Michel H My latest thread on this forum: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=311990 is not of the "Which of these 4 things am I thinking about?" kind, although it is related to my telepathy testing. Well, that's a straight-out lie. You asked us to guess which one of "automobile, boat, plane or submarine" you were thinking of. Originally Posted by Michel H And I don't think this "super-power" (the word you are using) is "ridiculous" (though there is no known historical precedent), because it doesn't seem to violate the known laws of physics: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...0#post10277440 No, Michel, it is ridiculous. You don't have the ability to broadcast your thoughts. No human in history has such ability. You have produced no evidence that you have such a power, and your mental health history is the full explanation of your belief that we are all hearing your thoughts. We aren't. You don't understand irony or sarcasm. Every poster who has got one of your silly games "right" has been taking the piss out of you. I suggest that instead of wasting our time, and yours, with endless repetitions of this "guess which one from 4" game, followed by twisting the responses to suit your desired result, that you get yourself back to a mental health practitioner and then take the medication they prescribe. For your own good, I would like to see you banned from this and other fora, because endlessly rehearsing your delusions isn't likely to be doing you any good at all.
	__________________ "The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.

21st September 2016, 07:36 AM	#128
abaddon Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Republic of Ireland Posts: 23,499	Originally Posted by Michel H When I do tests in which I ask people, for example, "Did I write "1", "2", "3" or "4" on my paper", some people sometimes complain that, if, for example, everybody answers "2", I could cheat and say I wrote "2" on my paper, in order to get a good hit rate. For this reason, in this latest test, I have added a security feature, called a cryptographic hash, which was originally suggested to me on this forum. The idea is to calculate the hash corresponding to a complicated sentence like "àç!è§"' ze mumbe I vrote ist ein 2", and to post this hash early in the test, and the sentence at the end of the test, after I have revealed the target number. In this case, I think I would be very skeptical myself. However, in my tests, I fairly often read statement like: , which seem to confirm the existence of a special phenomenon, and I can't fake that. In addition, my credibility analyses for the answers are usually easy to understand (and to verify) for most people, this is why they are (in my opinion) reliable. Yeah, see that is outright mockery of your claims by means of sarcasm. We have already established that you are utterly unable to detect sarcasm, even when people later reply to explain their sarcasm. It is also cherry-picking at it's finest. Anyone who posts a sarcastic reply you like is taken as written in stone. Anyone who posts an honest answer you don't like is rejected with a bovine pseudo-justification. When a better test is proposed such as by Kid Eager, you run a country mile from it because even you realise that you will fail. So put up or shut up. Add the MD5 protocol to Kid Eager's test and bite that bullet.
	__________________ Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? ...love and buttercakes...

21st September 2016, 08:05 AM	#129
Cosmic Yak Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2015 Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand. Posts: 5,956	Originally Posted by Michel H However, in my tests, I fairly often read statement like: Originally Posted by Originally Posted by a member of this forum View Post I am hearing Michel H's thoughts. ... , which seem to confirm the existence of a special phenomenon, and I can't fake that. In addition, my credibility analyses for the answers are usually easy to understand (and to verify) for most people, this is why they are (in my opinion) reliable. Your credibilitywould be significantly enhanced if you were to post the entire quote, rather than this selective cherry-pick. I am also awaiting your response to my earlier post. An honest response to that would also enhance your credibiity.
	__________________ Fortuna Faveat Fatuis 'Of course it can be OK to mistreat people.'- shuttlt

20th September 2016, 03:27 PM	#121
Jack by the hedge Safely Ignored Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 13,374	While we're on the subject Michel, I don't recall your ever explaining how you know that people hear your thoughts. I mean, even if we were to imagine that the phenomenon of thought broadcasting was real, how would the 'broadcaster' know they were doing so? What would such a sensation feel like? Wouldn't it be at least as likely that they did it without realising it at all? And even if we further assume that the person might somehow perceive they were emitting thought waves, how on earth could they know their thoughts were being heard by people in distant corners of the world? What kind of sense can you imagine that would give someone the sensation of a person on the other side of the world hearing something? It's ridiculous.

20th September 2016, 11:58 PM	#125
Jack by the hedge Safely Ignored Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 13,374	Originally Posted by Michel H Jack by the edge, you said yourself, after you saw the analysis of my first test, and after giving an answer to my second test: You don't really say about a deluded schizophrenic that his next analysis will be illuminating. So, you supported my point of view then, and you changed your mind later, contradicting yourself. If you have sometimes a impression of knowing some of my thoughts (via extra-sensory perception), I would urge you, and also other members of this forum, to participate in my tests constructively (if there are more of them), and to contribute to the truth, rather than trying as hard as you can to present me as a deluded schizophrenic. I'm sorry but you are mistaken, Michel. I was eager to hear what you had to say as I was convinced that it would reveal that you were cherry picking favourable results and rejecting unfavourable results for no good reason beyond fooling yourself. That has been my belief throughout. Your choosing to misinterpret my remark as indicating that I thought telepathy might be real is another manifestation of your ongoing problem. It's all in your head, as it has been throughout.

21st September 2016, 05:50 AM	#126
kali1137 Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2016 Location: Purgatory, PA Posts: 2,252	Originally Posted by Michel H Welcome to this thread, kali1137. I have already pointed out the drawbacks of this policy, but they don't seem to be paying much attention. Thank you for the welcome! The main drawback to this that I can see, from your point of view, is honesty from those suggesting it and from those participating. Is this correct? Because my argument is, how are we to trust that you are being truthful? You are the one claiming thoughts, so we are taking your word for it for the most part it seems. Let me through something out there and you tell me what your thoughts would be on it. I claim to have the ability to levitate. I tell everyone that I have it on video and agree to share the video with all who ask. Then, the video just shows me on a chair and I look like I am merely meditating. No levitation happens. I then tell you that someone clearly tampered with video since it left my possession. Do you believe me or them?

21st September 2016, 07:26 AM	#127
Michel H Master Poster Join Date: May 2012 Location: Belgium Posts: 2,815	Originally Posted by kali1137 ... Because my argument is, how are we to trust that you are being truthful? You are the one claiming thoughts, so we are taking your word for it for the most part it seems. ... When I do tests in which I ask people, for example, "Did I write "1", "2", "3" or "4" on my paper", some people sometimes complain that, if, for example, everybody answers "2", I could cheat and say I wrote "2" on my paper, in order to get a good hit rate. For this reason, in this latest test, I have added a security feature, called a cryptographic hash, which was originally suggested to me on this forum. The idea is to calculate the hash corresponding to a complicated sentence like "àç!è§"' ze mumbe I vrote ist ein 2", and to post this hash early in the test, and the sentence at the end of the test, after I have revealed the target number. Originally Posted by kali1137 ... Let me through something out there and you tell me what your thoughts would be on it. I claim to have the ability to levitate. I tell everyone that I have it on video and agree to share the video with all who ask. Then, the video just shows me on a chair and I look like I am merely meditating. No levitation happens. I then tell you that someone clearly tampered with video since it left my possession. Do you believe me or them? In this case, I think I would be very skeptical myself. However, in my tests, I fairly often read statement like: Originally Posted by a member of this forum I am hearing Michel H's thoughts. ... , which seem to confirm the existence of a special phenomenon, and I can't fake that. In addition, my credibility analyses for the answers are usually easy to understand (and to verify) for most people, this is why they are (in my opinion) reliable.

21st September 2016, 08:32 AM	#130
phunk Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,127	Originally Posted by Michel H It was not cherry-picked, this was explained in the analysis of the results (and also in this post (part 2)). You do not really expect an average schizophrenic to get comments like this (just three examples): And there is no objective reason to say these answers were "sarcastic". Some say this on this forum, probably just because they are desperately looking for pretexts to discredit, disqualify such statements. You still don't get it? "Took me a while as the signal was weak." He was insulting you, calling you weak minded. There's a reason it was moved to AAH, everyone but you can see that. This is the guy you think gave you a "credible" answer.
phunk Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,127

21st September 2016, 08:34 AM	#131
phunk Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,127	Originally Posted by Michel H However, in my tests, I fairly often read statement like: Quote: I am hearing Michel H's thoughts. ... , which seem to confirm the existence of a special phenomenon, and I can't fake that. It only confirms that you don't understand, or are in denial, that these are jokes.
phunk Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,127

21st September 2016, 08:36 AM	#132
Donn Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: In my head. Posts: 7,758	Nothing you shout, nothing you yell, will make a dent on Michel, or cause him doubt. In a case like this one, in cases like these, involving mental disease, there is no win. Best is quiet. Nill per mind. Let him find boredom's diet.
	__________________ "If I hadn't believed it with my own mind, I would never have seen it." - thanks sackett "If you stand on a piece of paper, you are indeed closer to the moon." - MRC_Hans "I was a believer. Until I saw it." - Magrat

21st September 2016, 09:11 AM	#133
Michel H Master Poster Join Date: May 2012 Location: Belgium Posts: 2,815	Originally Posted by phunk You still don't get it? "Took me a while as the signal was weak." He was insulting you, calling you weak minded. There's a reason it was moved to AAH, everyone but you can see that. This is the guy you think gave you a "credible" answer. I don't find anything wrong in cullennz' post: Quote: Think it's pretty simple. I'm psychic and chose to read Michael H's mind. Took me a while as the signal was weak You have to realize that he is apparently in New Zealand, while I am in Belgium, we are therefore approximately on diametrically opposite (antipodal) points on a terrestrial globe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipodal_point So, from a physics viewpoint, it is quite understandable that the signal should be weak, this is to be expected. By the same token, the thoughts you are presumably hearing from me (even if you deny it) should become weak and disappear when you scuba-dive. I would like to hear this from you (this would be great), but, so far, ..., nothing, unfortunately.

21st September 2016, 09:18 AM	#134
phunk Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,127	Originally Posted by Michel H I don't find anything wrong in cullennz' post: You have to realize that he is apparently in New Zealand, while I am in Belgium, we are therefore approximately on diametrically opposite (antipodal) points on a terrestrial globe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipodal_point So the entire earth being between you and him won't block the whole signal, but a few feet of water will? Quote: So, from a physics viewpoint, it is quite understandable that the signal should be weak, this is to be expected. By the same token, the thoughts you are presumably hearing from me (even if you deny it) should become weak and disappear when you scuba-dive. I would like to hear this from you (this would be great), but, so far, ..., nothing, unfortunately. I've never heard anything from you, above or below water.
phunk Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,127

21st September 2016, 09:28 AM	#135
Jack by the hedge Safely Ignored Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 13,374	Originally Posted by Michel H ... By the same token, the thoughts you are presumably hearing from me (even if you deny it) should become weak and disappear when you scuba-dive. I would like to hear this from you (this would be great), but, so far, ..., nothing, unfortunately. Since it's only in your imagination that people hear your thoughts there will naturally be nothing to report. I appreciate that this must be extremely frustrating for you since you are clearly convinced we can all hear what you are thinking but the simple truth is we really can't. Can you explain how you 'know' we hear you? Did you just one day become overwhelmed by the certainty that this was so? If so, how does that make sense to you? You're presently trying to rationalise this as being some kind of radio transmission from your mind, but if you are the supposed 'transmitter', why are you certain that there are billions of 'receivers'? If the answer is something along the lines of "I just feel it" then perhaps that's a good starting point to consider whether, since all you really have is a feeling, the simplest explanation for that strange feeling is that you have a similar medical condition to each of the other people who have experienced the same feeling.

21st September 2016, 10:43 AM	#136
Michel H Master Poster Join Date: May 2012 Location: Belgium Posts: 2,815	Originally Posted by phunk So the entire earth being between you and him won't block the whole signal, but a few feet of water will? ... Short-wave electromagnetic waves may travel between the surface of the Earth and the ionosphere, this is a well known phenomenon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionosphere . But the same short waves get quickly absorbed in seawater, figure 6 from this paper: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a046687.pdf tells us that the attenuation constant alpha is equal to about 10 m^-1 at a frequency equal to 10 MHz; this corresponds to an attenuation length of about 10 cm for the amplitude, and 5 cm for the intensity. This means that, after an electromagnetic wave of 10 MHz has traveled a distance of 5 cm, its intensity is reduced by a factor of e = 2.72, where e is Euler's number. Of course, a factor of about 2.7 or 3 is not enough to "get rid of my thoughts" . Let's say we demand an attenuation factor f for the intensity. We have: f = exp(-2 alpha x), or ln f = - 2 alpha x, or x = - (2 alpha)^-1 ln f, or x = - ln f /20 (in meters) = - (2.303/20) log f (in meters). So, x = - 0.115 log f (in meters), where f is the attenuation factor (not the frequency), and log is decimal logarithm. If we demand an enormous attenuation factor of 10^-100, the courageous scuba-diver will have to go to a depth of 11.5 meters.
	Last edited by Michel H; 21st September 2016 at 10:59 AM.

21st September 2016, 10:51 AM	#137
MikeG Now. Do it now. Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: UK Posts: 24,804	What a waste of your time, Michel. You have calculated the behaviour of something that does not and cannot exist.
	__________________ "The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.

21st September 2016, 11:53 AM	#138
phunk Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,127	Originally Posted by Michel H Short-wave electromagnetic waves may travel between the surface of the Earth and the ionosphere, this is a well known phenomenon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionosphere . But the same short waves get quickly absorbed in seawater, figure 6 from this paper: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a046687.pdf tells us that the attenuation constant alpha is equal to about 10 m^-1 at a frequency equal to 10 MHz; this corresponds to an attenuation length of about 10 cm for the amplitude, and 5 cm for the intensity. This means that, after an electromagnetic wave of 10 MHz has traveled a distance of 5 cm, its intensity is reduced by a factor of e = 2.72, where e is Euler's number. Of course, a factor of about 2.7 or 3 is not enough to "get rid of my thoughts" . Let's say we demand an attenuation factor f for the intensity. We have: f = exp(-2 alpha x), or ln f = - 2 alpha x, or x = - (2 alpha)^-1 ln f, or x = - ln f /20 (in meters) = - (2.303/20) log f (in meters). So, x = - 0.115 log f (in meters), where f is the attenuation factor (not the frequency), and log is decimal logarithm. If we demand an enormous attenuation factor of 10^-100, the courageous scuba-diver will have to go to a depth of 11.5 meters. So you're saying your brain broadcasts radio waves strong enough to be picked up by brains on the other side of the world (when brains aren't even antennas), and those signals magically don't get detected by actual radio receivers?
phunk Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,127

21st September 2016, 12:08 PM	#139
Michel H Master Poster Join Date: May 2012 Location: Belgium Posts: 2,815	Originally Posted by phunk So you're saying your brain broadcasts radio waves strong enough to be picked up by brains on the other side of the world (when brains aren't even antennas), and those signals magically don't get detected by actual radio receivers? Yes, that's about correct, I think (though I wouldn't use the word "magically"). There is a big difference (I suppose) between our telepathic broadcasts and ordinary radio broadcasts, in that the latter occur at almost definite and precise frequencies. Presumably, this is not true for telepathic broadcasts, which are much more "broad band", with a wide range of frequencies.
	Last edited by Michel H; 21st September 2016 at 12:09 PM.

21st September 2016, 12:33 PM	#140
MikeG Now. Do it now. Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: UK Posts: 24,804	Originally Posted by Michel H .......There is a big difference (I suppose) between our telepathic broadcasts and ordinary radio broadcasts, in that the latter exist I've corrected your post.
	__________________ "The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.

21st September 2016, 02:30 PM	#141
Jack by the hedge Safely Ignored Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 13,374	Originally Posted by Michel H Yes, that's about correct, I think (though I wouldn't use the word "magically"). There is a big difference (I suppose) between our telepathic broadcasts and ordinary radio broadcasts, in that the latter occur at almost definite and precise frequencies. Presumably, this is not true for telepathic broadcasts, which are much more "broad band", with a wide range of frequencies. You don't need a submarine to screen yourself from radio waves. A tunnel or the basement of a substantial building could be just as effective. I'm tempted to ask if you have ever noticed that people can't hear your thoughts when you're in a tunnel, but of course how could you possibly tell?

21st September 2016, 03:17 PM	#142
JimOfAllTrades Muse Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 900	Originally Posted by Michel H Yes, that's about correct, I think (though I wouldn't use the word "magically"). There is a big difference (I suppose) between our telepathic broadcasts and ordinary radio broadcasts, in that the latter occur at almost definite and precise frequencies. Presumably, this is not true for telepathic broadcasts, which are much more "broad band", with a wide range of frequencies. You should know that the highlighted part means that it is even more certain the signal would be picked up by radio receivers, precisely because it would be detectable across many frequencies. Since it isn't, I'm afraid there is no such signal being broadcasted.
JimOfAllTrades Muse Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 900

21st September 2016, 04:06 PM	#143
Michel H Master Poster Join Date: May 2012 Location: Belgium Posts: 2,815	Originally Posted by JimOfAllTrades You should know that the highlighted part means that it is even more certain the signal would be picked up by radio receivers, precisely because it would be detectable across many frequencies. Since it isn't, I'm afraid there is no such signal being broadcasted. No, I think it is easier to detect a signal at an (almost) definite frequency, because then the energy is concentrated in a narrow frequency range, and you can eliminate all other frequencies using a LC circuit. For example, when NASA wants to communicate with one of its very far away spacecraft (near Jupiter, for example), they use a definite frequency (they're not crazy): Quote: Another component to the success of interplanetary communications is the fact that there are no significant sources of noise in interplanetary space at the spacecraft's specific frequency. (link) An example of wide band radiation is thermal radiation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation ): you do not detect it with your radio receiver (near a fire for example), even though it has a radio waves component.

21st September 2016, 04:23 PM	#144
Michel H Master Poster Join Date: May 2012 Location: Belgium Posts: 2,815	Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge You don't need a submarine to screen yourself from radio waves. A tunnel or the basement of a substantial building could be just as effective. I'm tempted to ask if you have ever noticed that people can't hear your thoughts when you're in a tunnel, but of course how could you possibly tell? I think that a submarine would be far more effective. In a tunnel for example, the signal can get in through the entrance of the tunnel for example, and concrete is not necessarily a good conductor of electricity. In a sub, I could find out if I still hear my telepathic voices (as mentioned previously), but I would like to get some preliminary info before possibly traveling.

21st September 2016, 04:40 PM	#145
Michel H Master Poster Join Date: May 2012 Location: Belgium Posts: 2,815	Originally Posted by Michel H ... So, x = - 0.115 log f (in meters), where f is the attenuation factor (not the frequency), and log is decimal logarithm. If we demand an enormous attenuation factor of 10^-100, the courageous scuba-diver will have to go to a depth of 11.5 meters. So, x = - 0.115 log f, where x is the distance (in meters), f is the attenuation factor (not the frequency), and log is decimal logarithm. If we demand an enormous attenuation factor of 10^-100, the courageous scuba-diver will have to go to a depth of 11.5 meters.

21st September 2016, 04:42 PM	#146
Slowvehicle Membership Drive Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls... Posts: 17,348	Originally Posted by Michel H No, I think it is easier to detect a signal at an (almost) definite frequency, because then the energy is concentrated in a narrow frequency range, and you can eliminate all other frequencies using a LC circuit. For example, when NASA wants to communicate with one of its very far away spacecraft (near Jupiter, for example), they use a definite frequency (they're not crazy): (link) This only demonstrates that you do not understand how broadcast energy works...you have already demonstrated innocence of the inverse-square law; here you demonstrate innocence of broad-spectrum broadcasting. Oh, well. Originally Posted by Michel H An example of wide band radiation is thermal radiation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation ): you do not detect it with your radio receiver (near a fire for example), even though it has a radio waves component. Here, you demonstrate innocence of the EM spectrum...ask yourself why lightning interferes with radio broadcasts, across the AM & FM bands...
	__________________ "They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest "The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David "Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze

21st September 2016, 04:55 PM	#147
p0lka Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: near trees, houses and a lake. Posts: 2,890	Originally Posted by MikeG I've corrected your post. wooah, don't quote then edit and make it look like a quote that hasn't been edited, pretty please It can be confusing.
	Last edited by p0lka; 21st September 2016 at 04:56 PM.

21st September 2016, 05:54 PM	#148
Michel H Master Poster Join Date: May 2012 Location: Belgium Posts: 2,815	Originally Posted by Slowvehicle ... Here, you demonstrate innocence of the EM spectrum...ask yourself why lightning interferes with radio broadcasts, across the AM & FM bands... Actually, lightning bolts seem to affect A.M. radio, but not F.M. : https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlike...ai&sh=05e9d331 It is true that electromagnetic waves produced by lightning have a wide frequency spectrum (rather than a definite frequency), but the power of a lightning bolt is enormous (about 10¹⁰ watts, link), compared to about 20 watt for a human brain, or a spacecraft transmitter. Also, the bolts of lightning should not be too far away: you're not constantly hearing bolts from the entire Earth. You cannot "hear a fire" on your A.M. radio, even though the thermal radiation has a wide-band radio waves component.

21st September 2016, 06:45 PM	#149
JimOfAllTrades Muse Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 900	Originally Posted by Michel H No, I think it is easier to detect a signal at an (almost) definite frequency, because then the energy is concentrated in a narrow frequency range, and you can eliminate all other frequencies using a LC circuit. For example, when NASA wants to communicate with one of its very far away spacecraft (near Jupiter, for example), they use a definite frequency (they're not crazy): (link) You really don’t understand any of this stuff, do you? Of course you *broadcast* on a narrow frequency to be more efficient. But that has nothing to do with *receiving* a signal. You said you were broadcasting on a wide range of frequencies. That means that any receiver tuned to any of those frequencies would pick up part of the signal, most likely as interference. That means that every radio designer in the world would be scratching their heads trying to figure out what the extraneous broadband signal is bleeding into the normal signal. Since this is not happening, we can be sure you're not broadcasting in that manor.
JimOfAllTrades Muse Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 900

21st September 2016, 07:07 PM	#150
JimOfAllTrades Muse Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 900	Originally Posted by Michel H It is true that electromagnetic waves produced by lightning have a wide frequency spectrum (rather than a definite frequency), but the power of a lightning bolt is enormous (about 10¹⁰ watts, link), compared to about 20 watt for a human brain, or a spacecraft transmitter. Do you think this might be a clue that you're not broadcasting a broadband signal around the world?
JimOfAllTrades Muse Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 900

21st September 2016, 08:23 PM	#151
Michel H Master Poster Join Date: May 2012 Location: Belgium Posts: 2,815	Originally Posted by JimOfAllTrades ... You said you were broadcasting on a wide range of frequencies. That means that any receiver tuned to any of those frequencies would pick up part of the signal, most likely as interference. That means that every radio designer in the world would be scratching their heads trying to figure out what the extraneous broadband signal is bleeding into the normal signal. ... Not necessarily, think about the example of a fire emitting thermal radiation I already quoted. Is every radio designer in the world scratching their head near a fire (or any source of heat)? No. Is a simple fire (or any source of heat) emitting thermal, and therefore electromagnetic waves in the radio frequency range? Yes. Physics teaches us that, whenever an ion (for example a sodium Na⁺ ion in the brain) gets accelerated, electromagnetic radiation gets emitted. On the other hand, in the brain, during an action potential, sodium ions rush into the neuron, and they are accelerated because of the voltage difference between the interior and exterior of the cell. So we can safely predict that cerebral activity produces electromagnetic radiation.
	Last edited by Michel H; 21st September 2016 at 08:43 PM.

21st September 2016, 08:37 PM	#152
Michel H Master Poster Join Date: May 2012 Location: Belgium Posts: 2,815	Originally Posted by JimOfAllTrades Do you think this might be a clue that you're not broadcasting a broadband signal around the world? No, because, with only 5 watts power, ham radio operators can make voice contact with the antipode (link)

21st September 2016, 09:44 PM	#153
Nay_Sayer I say nay! Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Long Island Posts: 3,892	Originally Posted by Michel H No, because, with only 5 watts power, ham radio operators can make voice contact with the antipode (link) Your brain is not a ham radio.
	__________________ Memento Mori

21st September 2016, 11:30 PM	#154
JimOfAllTrades Muse Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 900	Originally Posted by Michel H No, because, with only 5 watts power, ham radio operators can make voice contact with the antipode (link) Not very often, and on very narrow frequencies, using huge antennas on both ends, and only under the most favorable conditions. Again, if there were broadband broadcasts going out from a single source all over the world, there would be a massive amount of evidence, and it would have been being researched by many people and very common knowledge in the industry. It isn't, therefore there are no such broadcasts.
JimOfAllTrades Muse Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 900

21st September 2016, 11:39 PM	#155
JimOfAllTrades Muse Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 900	Originally Posted by Michel H Not necessarily, think about the example of a fire emitting thermal radiation I already quoted. Is every radio designer in the world scratching their head near a fire (or any source of heat)? No. Is a simple fire (or any source of heat) emitting thermal, and therefore electromagnetic waves in the radio frequency range? Yes. Are you sure about this? (Careful, that's kind of a trick question.)
JimOfAllTrades Muse Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 900