Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by barfbag

  1. I had said, "Fully accepted". This includes Bohr and Dr. Quantum/Fred Alan Wolf. Thus Interpretations of interpretations. From Wikipedia on topic of Copenhagen Interpretation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation I think saying Interpretations of interpretation should be clear to anyone reading the above two quotes. The people introducing the topic were not even in agreement on some issues. Anybody who does not realize The Copenhagen Interpretation has been used to support theories here and elsewhere that consciousness causes collapse surely must be very unfamiliar with the topic. Yet others will say that is not what it is saying at all. @ Strange, So when you say... I must answer, "How could you not"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_histories Consistent histories is one interpretation of The Copenhagen Interpretation. Objective Collapse Theory is another Yet there are many other ways Interpretations of the Copenhagen Interpretation have been abused and twisted to support all kinds of nonsense. http://physics.about.com/od/quantuminterpretations/fl/What-Is-the-Copenhagen-Interpretation-of-Quantum-Mechanics.htm Every VERSION... That means this author also thinks there are various versions of The Copenhagen Interpretation. Is that not the same as saying Interpretations of The Copenhagen Interpretation.? I see it. (same citation as last quote) neb·u·lous[neb-yuh-luhs] Show IPA adjective 1. hazy, vague, indistinct, or confused: a nebulous recollection of the meeting; a nebulous distinction between pride and conceit. How could you not? I think any of us could cite a dozen other sources that say the exact same things about it. so... I will reiterate... and stand by my statement... although I should now say again and again.
  2. The idea of consciousness affecting reality is not true. It is the same leap mankind has made thousands of times in the past contributing consciousness or religion to something we cannot yet explain. This is my current belief of the mechanism behind it. The movement of an electron itself creates a magnetic field that has not always been considered. I must say again though that there are various interpretations of The Copenhagen Interpretation. NOTE: The Double Slit experiment is still confusing and confounding to many. There is no one accepted Theory that explains its mysteries. I am sad ( If you are familiar with some of beliefs you would realize I'd like the Dr. Quantum view to be accurate) to say that consciousness is not involved, but it is not.
  3. I thought Sir Walter Raleigh brought them to Queen Victoria from Virginia. That's what I get for watching too much television.
  4. @ Johnc, I use Tea tree oil on my dogs ears because Jack russells are sometimes prone to Yeast infections in the ear. You made a comment about boiling. I wonder if that is as important with TTO because of its effects as an antibiotic.. @OP, Although North America is newly discovered (evolution wise) a lot of the food sources are grouped by distance from the equator. Coconuts for example likely won't be a North American growth unless it is genetically manipulated. Potatoes were taken from North America to England as a new food source so maybe our ancestors did not have a lot of spuds or fries. I think a better question is what foods are we not adapted to eat. Certainly our ancestors did not consume nearly as much sugar as we do. Did our ancestors eat processed foods? Not nearly on the same level if so. I even consider it a good rule of thumb to look at my meals and ask myself if my ancestors ate this 5 generations ago. Example: Animal fats. We are often told by some nutritionists animal fat is not good for us. There are also some who claim it is good for us. When it comes to how to fuel the body there is a lot of varied and contradictory opinions. But our ancestors did eat animal fat so in my reasoning it is likely handled better by our bodies than pure sugars. I cannot think of why diets would need to seem so different simply crossing The Atlantic. I can see diets changing if a population moved from The Equator to Canada.. It is an interesting topic though.
  5. Yes. I had just said, "The conservation of energy in time just seems freaky."
  6. Could not find an open thread on movies so if you've seen something good put it here maybe. Try not to give spoilers.. I just came from an advance screening of "GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY" and we found it to be a hilarious space romp. We enjoyed it a lot. There are some 80's references so if you're younger you may want to look up the movie Flashdance or you'll miss a funny reference. Earlier this week we saw "Lucy". It was also well done, and somewhat unique. Both are science fiction so might appeal to a science crowd more than most.
  7. If we ignore the hokey consciousness aspects of this video, it is a decent cartoon of how the experiment is done. So the OP can see the results can be 2 bands. The parts that infer consciousness implications Fred Alan Wolf and some claim are in reality caused by the style of measurement imposed. I think it is a good cartoon if you stick to reality or end it a minute too soon.
  8. A lot of good answers it seems but I'll add to the question a bit. One aspect of Energy that seems odd to me is the whole "cannot be created or destroyed" aspects. We are so used to seeing kinetic energies, etc., slow down and stop I almost expect energy to also stop or at least lose some of its potential. But it goes on changing from one form to another. It seems to defy logic to me. If there is an easy rational then I plead I skipped that day in school, or my memory has another unresolved leak. The conservation of energy in time just seems freaky.
  9. MigL, Yet you spend half your post describing "a" (as opposed to The) Copenhagen Interpretation of The double slit experiment. This is basically the topic here. Is this reality? Existing is the topic here. We could look at The thought experiment Schrodingers Cat in the box. Schrodinger was using it to show how absurd the notion was, but as the topic of this thread is, we can ask, is the cat really existing? The determination is not made until the box is opened, so the juxtaposition in both states is what kind of reality/existence? But then again we know that would be absurd as Schrodinger speculates. So again. The topic of this thread is directly related to whether you accept the standard versions of The Copenhagen Interpretation of The double slit experiment, or If you buy into the absurd angle of it being pushed by Fred Alan Wolf (dr quantum) among others. You may have opinions, but so do they. How could this topic be about anything else? If you are unfamiliar with the Fred Alan Wolf stance, he is also known as Dr. Quantum. As in here... Note: I am not endorsing the Dr. Quantum viewpoint here, but drawing attention to the fact that the topic of us "EXISTING" (TOPIC OF THIS THREAD) is directly related to how you view The Interpretation AS I SAID IN MY LAST POST. MigL Okay. I give up. What does Spooky action at a distance have to do with reality? I easily see how living in superposition such as inside a Schrodingers box (if we looked at absurd angle) might be considered not reality. But I'll let you explain how Spooky action at a distance weighs in. How would that make us exist or not exist?
  10. Is also nice, but as a cliche I liked the bridge version if taken with salt. It describes well the job in the briefest way possible, but I am sure nobody wants a bridge that barely stands (unless its floating, cough!). Speaking as an Engineer who will never build anything except models in my spare time. I just play in the muck.
  11. Yes. I had said it was a fraudulent religion, and there is no basis for dianetics. I also think this article does not point to consciousness. They are measuring Brainwaves from these Microtubules, but I fail to see why such a broadcast mechanism would represent consciousness. Perhaps it just mimics necessary thought the way our mouths mimic sounds. A mouth to the brain type metaphor. I mean maybe the brain waves have some kind of message for the rest of the brain to act a certain way, and is just an internal brain messaging system. How would that make it consciousness? I think maybe one day consciousness will be measured, but I don't think this version makes a lot of sense.
  12. I had thought was one of the best (and concise) answers so far. Understandably sad and potentially horrific. However just because an Engineer designs a Bridge that Barely stands does not mean it was not built to last 100 years or that could not meet strong Earthquakes head on. Those would be the Engineers that make a bridge that does not stand. It is sorry to hear your experiences (last post), but as long as the bridge stands for a long time under all conditions, then the Engineer did a fine job.
  13. It is funny how many interpretations The Copenhagen Interpretation has. Does the moon exist when it is not observed? This question will get various answers depending on whom you ask. The conscious being involved with collapse is a Fred Allan Wolf type view, which has met a lot of skepticism and debate. I prefer either viewpoint over The Many Worlds view, but I have no idea. Anyone looking at QM at that level must be satisfied with some pretty strange conundrums.
  14. Too late! Ron L Hubbard told the world our cells were all individual life forms who can carry memories (engrams) and affect our attitudes and abilities. His theory was that if something caused your cells sever pain or lack of oxygen or knocked you unconscious that the cells would record events around you and send you into panic mode should similar circumstances arise. So if you had an operation and the surgeon said you take a long time getting to sleep, then maybe in later life you will become an insomniac. It's true (Sarcasm) Just ask John Travolta, or Tom Cruise. This theory was called Dianetics. The Church of Scientology was founded on such beliefs. Any Scientology out there has undergone a treatment to rid their cells of engram memories. Cellular memory is called "The Reactive Mind", because a cell only reacts to stimuli. This is how it begins...... Bwhahahahaha However... Ron L Hubbard later said Dianetics is wrong and he wrote it not knowing a religion would arise from it. So the religion is a fraud Note: I am not endorsing nor believe in Dianetics, but the OP and article seems like a Dianetics ad. Except in the new version Neurons are the conscious. I realize the article was about Neurons, but POST # 5 mentioned Brain Cells and that jogged my mind to this. I'm wondering about the validity of this article. Could they be reversing cause and effect in their studies.
  15. I likely have played more online poker than many here. I've spent so much time playing online poker that I was invited to become a Moderator for French and English versions of their website, which I have done because I'm playing there several nights a week anyways. So I work as a Moderator on a website that has 50 million members. I must say I find game play fair enough in the years I have been playing. It is easy enough to win a lot of the time. I must admit the OP sounds more like a losing rant than actual math. Everybody faces the same odds This reminds me of playing 21 in a Casino. Whoever plays last before the dealer is called the Anchor, and supposedly they are supposed to ruin their own hand to allow the dealer to go bust. There is a lot of SUPERSTITION around what the anchor should play. This does not make sense to me as the decks are usually 8 decks together and mixed thoroughly so if three 10 cards come in a row it really is random what will come next, but I would love to know for sure. There are probably thousands of pages about it on the Internet already, but it only occurred to me to think on it here. If there are 5 - 10 cards (cards worth 10 points) in a row then it seems to make sense that the next card would be a numbered card less than 10, so I guess the Anchor does have a role. Never sit at last seat before dealer or everyone will yell at you if you play wrong. lol Here is some poker tips. - When there are 9 players never bluff. Someone has a good hand. - Watch your position. Late positions can be played with lesser hands. Position means who calls last on a turn (dealer does which is represented by a moving button). If you have button in front of you or a few spots to the left lesser hands work better. - Play tight and wait for good cards unless the blinds are getting high.. - ALWAYS PROTECT YOUR HAND. If you have two aces (texas) at start and you play against 4 others odds are you will lose. You want to be one on one or one on two maximum so raise enough preflop to make most fold. If you make your hand then bet high enough to make others fold. - If you play for free enter big tourneys for practice , all the bad players who go all in with every ace they get will soon be gone and you can then learn to play with legit players. - Try to avoid going all in near the start. wait until you have a stack double most peoples (if you get chance). - Dont play if there is not much money at the table.. Imagine you have 7000 chips and the other 8 at the table have only 1500 each. You cannot double up on any of them and they are often desperate enough to challenge you with their whole pot. I think often the best way to get chips is to hoard the ones you have instead of trying to win more frequently. - If two of any suit come up on flop and two or more other stay in the pot and a third card from same suit comes someone likely has a flush. -Going past a flop you want at least 13-14 outs (cards that will help your hand.) - Pretend you have two consecutive and suited cards like 9 and 10 of diamonds. Do NOT raise too much preflop because you can profit by allowing more people into the pot. The more people in this hand the better for you. You will not always make your hand but with 9,10, of diamonds you are hoping for a really big hand like flush (all same suit), or straight (5 cards consecutive). If you do make your hand then hopefully one of the others matched up his kings or paired something nice so they will give you all their money. If you don't make your hand then it did not cost much. THIS TIP IS GOLDEN, AND NOT MANY KNOW THIS. - if flop comes and an ace is there and you dont have an ace.. always assume other players have an ace because it is the most common card played. - If you do play aces I recommend A-10 or above. Ace two might land a lucky hand, but low kickers are horrible if an ace comes up. Don't be a sore loser. You can come in 5th place out of 10 000 players and you get mad at yourself for playing that hand badly and feel like a loser, but you forget you just beat 9995 people. Don't bet what you cannot afford. You can set deposit limits on most websites that take 1 week to change. So if you are happy with $25 a week. Then set that as your limit. Never bet what you cannot afford to lose.
  16. @ Bignose, Okay. I will stop here. Obviously the arguments are getting sillier (by others from my view). Let's look, You guys just finished admonishing me for giving citations along with accompanying Resumes and now you are asking me to post more? @ John and Bignose, (John likes to make me repeat everything so I will copy paste from my last post) From the first half of my last post.... from second half of my last post, Anyways. Some here have made an effort to at least investigate this for themselves and may keep an eye on it. If it is true then it would be without a doubt the greatest discover of the century and worthy of Nobel Prizes and every accolade we could think of. If you do not use your common sense and look at things like motivations of the inventor (who had no need of money prior to this, and became a medical doctor .. Why - so he could scam and harm people?), and those doing the verifications then you likely won't find anything until more peer reviewed papers are published, or wait until it is taught in grade schools.. A lot of Chemistry and Physics PhD's have staked their reputations saying they have witnessed The Hydrino Theory working (and experiments are highly detailed if you wish to replicate). You can ignore them all. Ignore them. Ignore, Ignore. No skin off my nose. Anyways. I'm done here. Ive already spent more time here than I wanted, but Bignose went to some trouble a few posts back to craft a long argument that deserved a response. Now they don't
  17. @ JohnC, Not yet. How many new inventions/discoveries have peer reviewed data and theories right off the hop. @ Bignose, Earlier it was argued (cannot recall post #) that the PhD's supporting this are new and they hold no reputations. This time I showed these people were respected PhD's and not someone who has just handed in their Thesis. Logically no papers should exist about The Hydrino Theory because it is not widely known. In such instances we can either look at what is available or ignore any fringe topics (even the valid ones). This is a speculative topic with no substantiation in any textbooks. Thus it cannot be proven by me by citing those textbooks. Actually: Isn't any citation an appeal to authority? That is why the more citations the better. I think experimental validations should be considered more like proof than belief. These people are not saying they believe, they are saying they have seen proof. These citations were because the paper I linked at your request (one unrelated to Mills) was being pulled apart and it is suggested that it seems like the only source of information. So again you and others are asking us to ignore everyone who has seen these devices work. How does that make sense? First: Nobody has said this is proven or even real. I have maintained it looks promising based on a lot of things some of which is the opinions of authorities. Secondly: If your insistent upon third-party verifications then you really have no business even looking at speculative alternative energies or any fringe science because new discoveries are not always verified within the first six months (as this "product" is). You might as well be looking at ghost stories unless you want to apply common sense and investigative techniques that would include looking at motivations of those standing behind it. As I said in my last post. Ignore any reading materials you like. @ John & Bignose, Those were just three of many. There are completely independent verifications as well such as the Professor from University of Illinois. I could easily list another dozen with equally impressive resumes, The resumes indicate reputation/and reflect knowledge and areas of expertise. I fail to see how they would not be important. EXAMPLE: Bignose gave a sample paper discrediting Hydrinos. It could have been written by a Baker for all I know. I tried to find his credentials and I'm guessing he was some kind of Geologist or is invisible to google. Why even bother reading it if their credentials are garbage? If you refuse to entertain the results of those who have experimented with The Hydrino Theory then your only alternative is to wait 20 years and see if shows up in a college textbook. You want peer review this quickly. That's funny. If Alexander Graham Bell had gone for peer review instead of patenting and inventing the telephone then we probably never would have heard of him. He could have ended his career working for Starbucks.
  18. http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/CopelandReport.pdf resume http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/CopelandBio.pdf B.S., University of Delaware Ph.D., Massachusetts Institute of Technology age 62. Currently CEO of Altair Nanotechnologies, Inc. @ JohnC, The above is the type of thing you are asking us to ignore. (paper linked). Note: THE ABOVE CONFIRMATION IS REGARDING HYDRINO THEORY. THEY ARE NO LONGER USING CIHT CELLS AS THE POWER SOURCE. We know some new solar cells can convert 80% of the captured suns energy to steam (I was not going to say capture in that sentence, but people here attack like law students) , but if you look for supporting papers you likely will not find many. Why? Because nobody has heard of it. I bet 99.999% of people experimenting with hydrogen have never even heard of The Hydrino theory. Who here has heard of it before this thread? So the few who have heard of it and examined it are obviously those asked to replicate or verify, etc. Here are validations of the current invention you want us to ignore, from http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/RamanujacharyReport2.pdf His resume and list of over 180 publications (no reputation there) http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/RamanujacharyCV.pdf and/or http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/WeinbergReport2.pdf Here is his resume PhD Chemistry - Berkeley (over 550 papers) and his list of awards/honors reads like a book. http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/WeinbergBio.pdf Maybe you think his BS degree means something else. Those are just two of many who have seen experimental validation of The Hydrino Theory. Both of whom have good reputations. I provided their CV's.. You can choose to ignore whatever reading materials you like.
  19. @ ACG52, Mills coined the term Hydrinos and it is based on his Theory, how would you expect otherwise? I was asked to show a paper in favor of The Hydrino Theory. There are many, but I was also asked that it not be someone known to associate or sponsored by BLP in any form. I did. I am not surprised it did not melt preconceived notions, but that is merely one, while the majority of papers and experimental findings were not wanted by Bignose because they are too close to the author of the Theory. @ Acg52 still, While I appreciate people like Bignose at least considering the possibility, this statement seems extremely silly and I wish you had thought it through on your own first.
  20. I was done with this thread, but a lengthy post like that deserves a response. I had said in the OP, Some inventors barely make it to the patent office before their competitors. If Alexander Graham Bell had published instead of inventing/patenting it is likely you may never have heard of him. I thought it was common sense that most companies don't give away their research for free. Okay. Here is one. http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0507193v2.pdf The paper as far as I know was conceived and written in Belgium and the Author has no association with Mills. If I am wrong I will try to find more. Note: I have not endorsed this Theory. I find it interesting and the more I read about it the more real it looks. Happy? Note: But taking away my Youtube videos and known BLP associates takes the fun out of it.
  21. "Hypothesis ... might ... perhaps" does not equal "fact" True enough. But they still taught it in Universities.
  22. @ Ten oz, Yes. I understand the concept of a Hydrino is not fitting with known physics. Physics is not yet 100% defined, and there are papers supporting both versions. People still doubt LENR aka cold fusion, but there are over 20 major corporations claiming they are doing LENR including NASA (yes they have a half million dollar LENR budget (sue your congress if you think its a waste), Toyota, Honda, Mitsubishi, Volvo, MIT (Prof. Hagelstein), University of Illinois, and many more. There are a half dozen good theories about why the coloumb barrier is not an issue in LENR but if you talk to most people they will say Coloumb barrier this and coloumb barrier that. There is enough LENR evidence and papers that people should be accepting it already but for some reason science has roadblocks nowadays. Read above quote from 2011 and then note Authors Name and Job description. more here http://newenergytimes.com/v2/inthenews/2012/201205NASA-Dennis-Bushnell-Low-Energy-Nuclear-Reactions-the-Realism-and-the-Outlook.pdf Yet here LENR is in speculations trash can section. So forgive me if I do not believe every paper that comes out supporting either views. Obviously someone is making errors. Obviously some physics is going to be turned on its head. I may be on the fence about Mills, but LENR is real. By the way. I'm not off topic, this was part of the OP at the bottom. I'm sure some will paint The Chief Research Scientist at NASA Langley as a hack now for supporting such "nonsense", but I think someone getting paid to research LENR who is the chief Research Scientist at an organization that sends people to space is likely more believable than someone here who reads about it for 10 minutes and then mentions the coloumb barrier ten times. So conventional physics is not always right. There is still something to learn.
  23. @ John, What brightness can Fiber optics handle? I do not know. Yes cooling would be an issue and heat would be a problem if such a machine could exist. Fiber optics could route some light to cooler areas, but likely not near that magnitude. in my humble (cough) opinion I think you were also wrong thinking they were powering a power plant with heat. I understand you were misled by video of hydrino theory and CIHT cells, but you should have known what we were discussing from post 1, otherwise why even comment. I count two. Plus there is a remote chance you may have been wrong before on a myriad of topics during your life, so "Wrong Again" would equally be valid. Also what is the cost of these super solar cells? Would they even be cost effective if this device worked? If this device is indeed harnessing the energy of a Hydrogen atom falling to a more stable state and moisture is the fuel, then any over unity can be celebrated. @ Mordred, Yes. Fair enough. Patents are years away though because they just applied recently. I think confirmation will simply be if they cannot get this to work. I do appreciate the paper you linked, but there are arguments currently in discussion groups I have seen that speak in terms of of the maths and theories and it seems to be a bitter war. I must sit on the fence because both sides are pitching a good game. Watch the validators in 2nd demo video and you will see what I mean.
  24. @ Mordred, Yes I have read theories for and against. I would not be an expert either way. I am an Engineer but everything I need analyzed is sent to a lab and I am more of a glorified driver these days (feels that way) and half my paycheck seems to be in gas reimbursements. This allows me time to listen to lectures and videos of interest, but I'm not about to tackle the math in the paper you quoted, especially since I would not recognize the alternative maths in comparison. This fellow also says the The known Bohr's Radius and Uncertainty principle should be enough to discount this. I am not endorsing this technology. Okay here is what I actually believe about this. a) I believe Mills is not a fraud. I think his intentions are true. b) I believe he could be making a fundamental error (like i listed in my last post) c) I do not believe he is 4 months away from a 100kW reactor. If it is true I suspect as many years. d) I believe the company believes they have something (same as "a" I guess) You've listed one paper, and at least that is someone who has considered Hydrinos. I googled him. Is he a Geologist? I cannot find the authors credentials, but there are many supporting papers as well, and not as many rebuttals from anyone intelligent enough to pen a paper Yes. I am looking from both sides. I had given a valid argument against in my last post before even reading yours. @ John c, Why do I always need to repeat things for you. This thread could be much shorter. http://www.techfragments.com/1944/multijunction-solar-cell-sets-world-record-for-efficiency/ So YOU ARE WRONG AGAIN (but can you admit it)! They can capture sunlight 1000 times brighter. Now you claim you own Buckingham Palace?
  25. @ John, At this point the discussion had turned to fraud. I was saying that if it is fraud then many reputable PhD's like the one in the video we are NOW discussing. Go back and see this in context. @ Strange, So you are saying Hydrino theory is impossible. You also say that a Physics PhD is outside his area of expertise when confirming Hydrinos are real? Pretend for a second that Hydrinos were real. What type of PhD would you suggest then if not a Physics PhD to examine if the Hydrogen atom could exist in a more stable state? Or are you saying Chemistry is never used to confirm physics? No. I'm still on the fence about this. I will not accept anyones opinion though that has not looked at this. If someone is just quoting the known Bohr radius for hydrogen in its currently accepted ground state without looking at the papers then no I will not simply accept their opinion. I would like to mainly hear from experts who have considered both sides and reviewed experimental data. I still believe there is stuff out there for mankind to learn. @ strange and ten oz, Okay. Fair enough. It is still better than 17% with direct sunlight. There are also another type of PV cells in discussion, but I'm not aware of the differences except its claimed they can handle sunlight 1000 times brighter (or something like that. I will edit if I locate (stumble across) but I'm not looking, ok I am) Found something (no citations at moment) 40% efficiency at a brightness of 1000 suns. We must also not that Fiber Optics can move light to cooler areas outside the devices http://www.techfragments.com/1944/multijunction-solar-cell-sets-world-record-for-efficiency/ @ Ten oz, So if this is real (Mills device not PV cells) and they can harness 40% of 1000 X suns brightness then that would help. If the fuel is simply moisture though then just achieving over unity would be enough. @ all, There are possibilities of error that include things like BLP is burning aluminum in a water vapor causing Thermolysis, the splitting of the water into hydrogen and oxygen and burning the hydrogen as well as the aluminum. Things like the above to me are more valid arguments than "That's Bull"! (Can you spot the difference?)
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.