ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags telepathy , telepathy test

Reply
Old 20th September 2016, 11:24 PM   #121
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 17,814
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
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 View Post
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.
__________________
After a while you can work on points for style
Like the club tie, and the firm handshake,
A certain look in the eye and an easy smile
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2016, 11:58 PM   #122
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,232
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
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.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 05:50 AM   #123
kali1137
Critical Thinker
 
kali1137's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Purgatory, PA
Posts: 277
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
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?
kali1137 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 07:26 AM   #124
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,066
Originally Posted by kali1137 View Post
... 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 View Post
...
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 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.
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 07:36 AM   #125
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 14,517
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
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?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 08:05 AM   #126
Cosmic Yak
Graduate Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 1,472
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
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
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 08:32 AM   #127
phunk
Illuminator
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,390
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 08:34 AM   #128
phunk
Illuminator
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,390
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 08:36 AM   #129
Donn
Philosopher
 
Donn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In my head.
Posts: 7,318
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
Donn is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 09:11 AM   #130
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,066
Originally Posted by phunk View Post
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.
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 09:18 AM   #131
phunk
Illuminator
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,390
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 09:28 AM   #132
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,232
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
... 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.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 10:43 AM   #133
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,066
Originally Posted by phunk View Post
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.
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 10:51 AM   #134
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 17,814
What a waste of your time, Michel. You have calculated the behaviour of something that does not and cannot exist.
__________________
After a while you can work on points for style
Like the club tie, and the firm handshake,
A certain look in the eye and an easy smile
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 11:53 AM   #135
phunk
Illuminator
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,390
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 12:08 PM   #136
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,066
Originally Posted by phunk View Post
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.
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 12:33 PM   #137
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 17,814
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
.......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.
__________________
After a while you can work on points for style
Like the club tie, and the firm handshake,
A certain look in the eye and an easy smile
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 02:30 PM   #138
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,232
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
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?
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 03:17 PM   #139
JimOfAllTrades
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 337
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 04:06 PM   #140
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,066
Originally Posted by JimOfAllTrades View Post
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 04:23 PM   #141
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,066
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 04:40 PM   #142
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,066
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
...
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.
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 04:42 PM   #143
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
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 View Post
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
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 04:55 PM   #144
p0lka
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 554
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
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.
p0lka is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 05:54 PM   #145
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,066
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
...
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.
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 06:45 PM   #146
JimOfAllTrades
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 337
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 07:07 PM   #147
JimOfAllTrades
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 337
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 08:23 PM   #148
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,066
Originally Posted by JimOfAllTrades View Post
...
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.
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 08:37 PM   #149
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,066
Originally Posted by JimOfAllTrades View Post
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)
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 09:44 PM   #150
Nay_Sayer
I say nay!
 
Nay_Sayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Long Island
Posts: 3,020
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
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.
__________________
I AM THE DREADED PAPIER-MÂCHÉ CENSOR!
------------------------------------------------
I am 100% confident all psychics and mediums are frauds.
Nay_Sayer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 11:30 PM   #151
JimOfAllTrades
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 337
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 11:39 PM   #152
JimOfAllTrades
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 337
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd September 2016, 07:21 AM   #153
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,066
Originally Posted by JimOfAllTrades View Post
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.
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd September 2016, 07:44 AM   #154
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
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"...
__________________
"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
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd September 2016, 09:21 AM   #155
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,232
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
...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.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd September 2016, 11:53 AM   #156
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,066
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
...
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)
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd September 2016, 02:24 PM   #157
Ladewig
I lost an avatar bet.
 
Ladewig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 25,926
Originally Posted by kali1137 View Post
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.
__________________
I lost an avatar bet to Doghouse Reilly.

Last edited by Ladewig; 22nd September 2016 at 02:26 PM.
Ladewig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd September 2016, 03:03 PM   #158
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,232
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
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).
You might like to look up "electroencephalography". People have been detecting, measuring and studying the electrical output of human brains for almost a century.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd September 2016, 03:06 PM   #159
JimOfAllTrades
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 337
Originally Posted by Ladewig View Post
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.
You are correct, and I regret having been tempted to join in again. I'll bow out now, hopefully for the last time.
JimOfAllTrades is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd September 2016, 03:45 PM   #160
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,066
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
You might like to look up "electroencephalography". People have been detecting, measuring and studying the electrical output of human brains for almost a century.
I am well aware of EEG (I mentioned it in my post #156). I was writing about electromagnetic radiation by the brain in the radio frequency range (and, in the case of telepathy, the most interesting frequencies are probably around 10 MHz, I suppose (though this is really unproved speculation)). The radio frequency range starts at 3 kHz (see my post #153, where I quoted wikipedia), while EEG frequencies are at most about 100 Hz, as I explained to you in post #156 (I hope that you know what a frequency is, and what MHz means).

As far as I know, electromagnetic radiation by the brain around 10 MHz has never been measured seriously, making such a measurement would certainly much more difficult than stating "this poster will not change his mind no matter what evidence is presented", after a beer or two.
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:44 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.