barfbag

80% of everything a person learns is before the age of 5. This includes social behaviors. I started two of my three children in school when they were 3 months old, and they are both smart leaders among their peers. I recommend early education. Socialize your infants. When my kids hit kindergarten and grade one they were like, "why are you crying, your mom will come back for you?" to all the terrified youngsters who have never left their mommas side. Japan starts school at a younger age than most of us. I think school should start at birth.

The OP has asked us to review his book which we must pay for (This is part I'm unsure of). I would have thought this spam if not so many pages of responses, especially since the poster has only 7 posts So question for OP? If we write to you will you a) give us a link to buy your paper or b) explain your Theory in full for free. Let me clarify.. Are you asking us to buy your paper first to comment upon it, or are you seriously just in want of input and will provide inquirer's with the paper in question? I should think option A should be against Forum rules.

It is ironic that a Thread entitled "Posting Rules" has been Hijacked for the last three posts. Elephants?

There is no set organization to police the globe however many politicians and scientists will lobby for changes in political behaviors that affect the environment such as with the Montreal Protocol and Kyoto Protocol. Politics of the world are mostly geared for short term. If a United states president wanted to enforce The Kyoto Protocol then he might not get re-elected and the next president might get a few extra votes if he cancels the pricey protocols. Politics are fueled by voters who care more about what the pay for gas than who care for the health of our planet in 25 years.

Yes. I agree with above poster, but could not think of many places that make lab coats in such a small size. I suppose you could commission one or ... There must be some really tiny lab coats for sale someplace. Again though I suggest starting at low end (costume shop) and progressing with her interests. If in the scenario she is using volatile chemicals or conducting some other dangerous experiments then I would retract my comment about good parenting. Some things are better learned via video at that age. I suggest the lab coat is important because children love role playing, and if I gave one of my children a lab coat and a microscope I'm sure they would put the coat on first. Might also make for some cute photo ops.

Science is the study of nature in general and your analogies all fit within the realm of science, however your statement is not complete. Exploring the moon/mars/jungle is scientific because of observation. We are learning about nature. There is no requirements to make predictions about these places and soil elements to make it science.

This is similar to my own wants in regard to fresh air, clean water, and healthy food. My solution is to build a boat. I have a modest boat now, but I'm hoping for at least 90 footer for my globetrotting. I aim to sail or motor around the world, there is a great versatility to a marine lifestyle. You can control the temperature by visiting various locals. Your water would be pure desalinated ocean water. Your food would often be fresh fish with a lot of moong bean sprouts ( 1 veggie that can be "grown at sea" ), and the air will be as pure as in the places you aim your ship. It is not without risks though... There are inherent risks associated with sailing. You could avoid almost any major city and find fresh air, and water can be filtered, distilled, or purchased almost anywhere. Good luck deciding. HOWEVER..... One thing to consider with age (if longevity appeals to you) is to have a family doctor associated with a Major Hospital which means living in the city, or at least having a permanent address there. This point might be contested, but my mother survived Breast cancer and she swears it is because she had a city doctor who could pull a few strings and had her operated upon in short order along with chemotherapy. My parents actually sold off their retirement home after that incident because country Doctors can only get you on long waiting lists for some procedures.. It's all about who you know. Heed this or don't, but it's good advice for all. My mother has been clear of Cancer for over 20 years now.

There are many types of science and labs. It sounds like your daughter has curiosity leading towards biology and animals/dinosaurs. I think many science kits would be apt for someone 6 years of age, but the best place to find what equipment to get her is by participating in her fun and seeing what she likes. With an interest in biology I might encourage medical posters for her bedroom wall, perhaps something akin to... Another thing is to examine where she learned her Dinosaur knowledge. If it turns out she has a really good book, then perhaps you can look at more from the same authors. In any lab the most important things are safety goggles, and if you are 6 years old then you definitely need a lab coat (any Halloween store). Also.. even if you are made of money equipment costs can vary, so start with lower end supplies and watch her avenues of interest. Be careful to explain fire concepts and that you must be present for any experiments involving fire or chemicals. You sound like a good parent though, so you'll find what you need. It would be interesting to hear how you resolved this..

Okay ... maybe $225 after taxes. My bad.

@ Ten oz, No. This is far from what I believe. I think everyone is equally capable of ESP. I don't however think everyone is equally qualified to run ESP experiments. If for example James Randi was hired to verify or copy an alleged ESP method I do not think he would try very hard because he starts out with a skeptic Bias. If he confirmed the experiment it might have even influenced his very livelihood in a negative fashion. It is my belief that anyone reading this could with a minimum effort prove this to themselves. I will try to say my stance better, "I believe we are all connected somehow, and that we can communicate psychically at great distances. This means that at some level we are all connected, and through these constant subconscious and conscious communications form a mass consciousness. I think that this method of communication (IF IT EXISTS) is on a level of vibrational wavelengths that prayers would work upon in this mass consciousness. Therefore if telepathy/mass consciousness could exist (IF it could), then prayers and god could operate upon the same frequencies. AT THE VERY LEAST - If you were able to alter your beliefs to accept telepathy and believed it strongly enough, then perhaps you would also consider another entity (god) could access our minds and actions in the same format. It seems fairly logical IF TELEPATHY WERE REAL ( I am saying IF in this thread). That concept seems like a valid speculation argument for "proof of God". I certainly think it is better than suggesting bar codes prove god as in the OP from the other thread. Why is this lost on moderation here. I received two warnings and a ban in a thread entitled "Proof of God" all for expressing this simple to understand concept. The moderator claims no bias in this, so I am assuming there is a lack of understanding or intelligence being applied by them. Imagine trying to discuss The Theory of Relativity, but if you mention Einstein it was considered Thread hijacking. I must abort that thread because a moderator has deemed my argument so invalid as to be considered a thread hijack, although I honestly think it is a pretty simple case of Bias. I do not think this concept is beyond the moderation intelligence, so I believe it is unfair. I make no apologies for being gruff, and if you want to drive me from your forums by cheating then I understand, but it is still cheating. I mean; if you pray to god or send a chum a psychic message to wake up at 4am it would seem logical that they are using the same mode of operation (IF TELEPATHY AND PRAYERS WERE REAL). I personally feel it was bias because of my gruff nature. So three infractions (third was ban) for saying practicing telepathy would aid belief in god if repetitively successful. This thread may be my only speculative topic on religion or telepathy because the telepathy argument has been deemed hijacking. .@ Phi For All, Ten oz, on 08 Jul 2014 - 09:29 AM, said: It can if you treat it rationally. If your cancer is cured, you could take all the reality-based things your doctor did to help as supportive evidence that modern medical practice was responsible. Or you could use your faith in God's curative powers, which you freely admit you know nothing about, and imagine that was responsible. Faith wouldn't need to be disproven if you could show that another explanation was more trustworthy, less born from imagination. Okay. This is simple enough to counter.. (see link) (Up to here I have not yet searched for a link but I know they will be abundant) Just because you feel something is not likely to be true does not make it a fact. I admit that one could argue for the existence of Unicorns and Fairies based on this, but it is true that you cannot prove they exist or do not exist without more information. James Randi is a king skeptic and he says you are wrong, so I will settle for that. (watch video) @ Inow, Exactly... Maybe when you become a mod I can comment more freely about religion or other speculation topics. It seems to be above some peoples ability to grasp. @ JohnC, If this is true then you are suggesting telepathy can become fact merely by beating the odds consistently. I disagree. Psychology is all about human nature and cannot be measured accurately enough to form facts. Instead of arguing your use of psychology in this regard (I'll also shoot down statistical analysis if you wish to further say probabilities could be proof which would be the case if humans were a decent measuring device for it) So is psychology even a science? http://general-psychology.weebly.com/what-makes-psychology-a-science.html I agree with the above but would alter it to say that Statistics (probabilities) simply do not have enough repetitive qualities to make something fact. Of course Psychology is science though, because everything is science (even telepathy in my opinion). So .... Umm.... (cough) Exactly. This is indeed part of what I am saying (only a part). If you were to prove that Harry Potter or Narnia existed with 100% certainty (in real life), then you would first think yourself insane, and then realize that if they exist then maybe Unicorns and Atlantis might also possibly exist. Good point. Cheers.. @ Mondie, Yes. The first telepath (if real) to be distracted or die during a test (or simply fail) would turn 100% repeatability into a probability involving odds. I was being facetious, and you stated my point. Thanks. This also applies to your next statement in post 32. Again.. While I accept the idea psychology is a science I reject the notion they can prove anything, and take a quote from my answer to John C, http://general-psychology.weebly.com/what-makes-psychology-a-science.html NOTE: I am talking about psychology testing using people as the measuring devices or to provide statistical information, the drug aspects of psychology most certainly have science involved as body chemicals reacting to drugs can be measured quantitatively. I reject the notion any fact can be 100% if based on statistical probabilities, as does most everyone. @ Swansont, (and ydoaPs should also read this part) Dang! Here I am saying I have worked professionally in psychic experimentation and you are outlining psychic experiments. I personally have never seen the idea of using shapes give positive results. Perhaps there may be instances, but if you were a lab assistant would you really try (being you're a skeptic), or would you just say any shape that you want without trying to perceive? Creating a failed psychic experiment would be easier than making toast. Statistics are easy to manipulate when using human subjects. @ ydoaPs, Nice! That sounds like a psychic experiment that has never been tried before. Personally I would not expect good results from a test like the one you suggest, but this is your experiment. Notice above where I told Swansont, "Creating a failed psychic experiment would be easier than making toast." If I conducted this experiment at your University and you were a paid student would you really try to read the other persons mind, or would just say "Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce cheese all on a sesame seed bun", and collect your paycheque. The tester has no clue whether you are trying. Is the sender trying or is he trying to look down the receptionists top? How do you know? FURTHERMORE!!!! What possesses you to think even two people trying to send a phrase to one another could work EVEN if they were both trying? (actually I think this might work somewhat if both parties were trying, but statistically how many tries would be weighed in where one or both parties only claimed to be trying.) I think if you wanted to have this test then it would be better if you had two motivated subjects. Why would you need to constantly replace them? If they are in a double blind setting then the same people could be used, and even used again in a replication by someone else controlling the double blinds. FURTHERMORE!!!! One of the best and reliable methods for transferring ideas/thoughts is Dream Telepathy where the receiving party is in REM sleep. such as the heavily successful ..... http://www.espresearch.com/dreamtelepathy/ but the idea is common.... wikipedia... When I was only 17 I tried this from a book entitled "How to make ESP work for you" by Harold Sherman. I sat up till 2 am and visualized a long lost friend who had mysteriously vanished from our social group months before. I said, " (Their name), (My name) misses you, get in touch" for a full hour. 5 days later I received a cryptic letter ("you probably won't guess who this is from... etc...") from another country. At the bottom of the first page was the words, "last night I had a dream about you that prompted me to write." Now the above story really garnered my interest. I mean what were the odds a person would have a dream that prompted them to write, when the mail taking 4-5 days was likely the mail time from that city. The city is not far across the border and is only 30 miles away as the crow flies. I know. It is just a random chance according to you all (or a lie), but I have never once in my life received a letter from anyone where they said they had a dream that prompted them to write. I know the odds are beyond calculation (want to try), but the psychic message worked well as far as I was concerned. That might have been enough to convince me for life, but I have repeated this type of thing many times since and I am no longer 17. That was merely a first try and it seemed UBER successful. Interesting is that the receiver was not even aware of the experiment, and still responded. If you believe my above story then how would you explain it? I suppose a good explanation would be if that night held a documentary about letter writing or pen pals or even a common experience televised (like Toga Party we both attended) that made us think of each other. That might explain the timing. It does not really explain why they would say ," I had a dream last night that prompted me to write", but according to you guys that again would be chance mutterings that just happened to fit my nocturnal broadcast. There is no skin off my nose if you remain skeptic, but I highly advise at least some of you to actually try telepathy for a few months (at least a few hours some night to get your kid/dad/friend to cal)l. Don't try to make Oprah Winfrey call you on the first time out as I doubt she has your number, and Telepathy seems to work best among friends (as is my experience). So as nifty as your experiment is, I have no need of it. I know the reality of it. I merely feel sorry for you skeptics because I would be in your shoes (I was atheist), if I was not so successful on my very first try. I feel no burden of proof because I am in speculations for starters and have conveyed strong beliefs that people cannot be used as measuring devices (OMG someone else will argue that they can.... reread this post.). now... @ ophiolite, I cannot see how you cannot grasp this. I was using Nature Magazine as a metaphor. It might be confusing for some I suppose. The point I was making is that Mainstream Science is what many believe in, and yet telepathy is not a part of mainstream science so it is unlikely you have every been taught telepathy is real. I can try to simplify this more if it causes further confusion. I think it would create some confusion if I had said,"must only believe what they read in Nature" as anyone unfamiliar with them would think I am talking about in the wild or something to be found in nature. I see no harm in saying Magazine, but I suppose I could say "Nature Journal" if it satisfies your aesthetics. Yes. I am 100% convinced you could easily prove radio waves in the year 1014 (cough). I had not thought anyone would try to argue that point, and should have offered another metaphor. Your points (also from JohnC,) are interesting but I assume you have the intelligence to realize that it was a metaphor with valid implications and it would seem you are just wanting to be argumentative. Was there any proof of the Higgs Boson 1000 years ago? Does that satisfy your Aesthetics? My point is that perhaps science does not yet know it all just yet, and proof of telepathy in another 1000 years might exist. “Believers in psychic phenomena … appear to have won a decisive victory and virtually silenced opposition. … This victory is the result of careful experimentation and intelligent argumentation. Dozens of experimenters have obtained positive results in ESP experiments, and the mathematical procedures have been approved by leading statisticians. … Against all this evidence, almost the only defense remaining to the skeptical scientist is ignorance.” -George Price (well known skeptic) psychologist Donald Hebb wrote this: “Why do we not accept ESP [extrasensory perception] as a psychological fact? [The Rhine Research Center] has offered enough evidence to have convinced us on almost any other issue … Personally, I do not accept ESP for a moment, because it does not make sense. My external criteria, both of physics and of physiology, say that ESP is not a fact despite the behavioral evidence that has been reported. I cannot see what other basis my colleagues have for rejecting it … Rhine may still turn out to be right, improbable as I think that is, and my own rejection of his view is—in the literal sense—prejudice.” leading skeptical psychologist Richard Wiseman has admitted that the evidence for telepathy is so good that “by the standards of any other area of science, [telepathy] is proven.” These leading skeptics seem to think perhaps you are not looking for statistics or you might find them. Feel free to fact check... I wouldn't want to mislead you. (cough) Okay.. out come the Grammar and spelling police. I will agree your version is the one I intended however both versions are common and accepted. http://www.wisegeek.org/what-does-i-could-care-less-mean.htm#didyouknowout (click above link or actually learn about it before dishing out insults) No. The question would be "If we discover Big foot tomorrow, would it increase your belief (not probabilty) that Nessy was also real. It might seem somewhat logical that if one mythical being was discovered more mythical beings might exist. However your logic is amiss in my opinion. What would distinguish telepathy to Prayer? If they both reach out to a mass consciousness.... (PAUSE) I think some here do not grasp this concept. IF TELEPATHY WERE REAL then it is also possible and almost likely that we were all communicating, organizing, and creating on a metaphysical plane (vibrational level? I don't know until they discover mechanism). This would indeed be a mass consciousness. (continue) So if we are all connected, and a mass consciousness did exist which would seem logical IF we are all able to communicate subconsciously, then adding a god onto the same plane level might not be stretching it that far. However the moderators here are in full agreement that telepathy/mass consciousness are less valid a reason to believe in god than the OP of the proof of God thread who offer barcodes as proof. Seriously? Bar codes as proof of god? So it appears it is a matter of opinion. I think you will not change your opinion no matter what is said, so I will stop here on this. I have not been here long, but I have seen some really ignorant posts with positive rep. So many that it is obvious a popularity contest more than a valid judgement. I do not wish to look for 100 examples so if you wish to contend all positive rep posts are wrote, then I suppose you must be right. (cough, hack, cough)

@ Hypervalent_Iodine, The Opening post was citing Bar Codes as proof of gods existence. This is (It was) a religion thread. How much proof do religious discussions normally merit in your opinion? @ Ten Oz, The point is that everyone and everything could be connected and act telepathically as one, where god would be the sum of all parts plus perhaps a bit more. Just knowing we were all connected would heighten belief. However even though I think we communicate telepathically in the same wavelengths we pray or talk to god. Even though this is my religion even if not Judea-Christian. In spite of my firm belief that whatever connects us psychically is also connecting god. In spite of all of this I am not allowqed to bring my religious beliefs into an argument about god. The only person who should even be allowed to comment really is the moderators. I mean if you cannot raise a valid argument without biased moderators making dumb judgements. I won't apologize for that. It is very idiotic to think my argument for god was off topic. I realize I am smarter than most of you by the looks of things and the way the moderators behave here. I tried to dumb the concept down, but I think the mods are too dimwitted to see what is plain as day. Anyone who cannot equate the psychic realm to a realm where a god could exist is either a total idiot or just lying. Is this blunt enough? My god. I thought this science site might actually have a few smart people, but this is like being surrounded by morons.

Yes. I agree. I had said, I'll try to simplify it. For the sake of discussion pretend telepathy is possible. This means your brain can send and receive thoughts to everybody. If you walk into work your coworkers know you are in a good mood. Everybody is silently talking to everybody about everything. Thoughts would be out there floating like cell phone signals in the air. This is describing group thinking where a group consensus can be reached unconsciously. If there were a god then would it not seem telepathy would be the vibrational wavelength an entity would use.to communicate to us. When I originally looked for answers as to how telepathy could exist I was not expecting to become religious or also believe in precognition. I was mainly looking at theories that encompassed telepathy and yes that takes you away from Nature Magazine, but how else do you find answers when telepathy works so well. I must either forfeit belief in everything I have seen and done in this PSI field in favour of just accepting what is the common scientific stance, or continue to look for alternate explanations. I like the Walter Russell matter is motion ideas (like if you moved a spiderweb at 20 000/mph you could cut a diamond). He predicted Plutonium must exist in 1926 and his TOE was sound based like octaves which was how the most ancient culture on our planet viewed physics. The Sumerians physics were based upon sound tech. His version of the Periodic Table is all over the internet, and is interesting. It is easy to simply take a skeptic stance but I won't deny the way I've come to live my life. Everything is connected. We are all pat of god so we are all god. We can create and destroy. Our minds can move mountains. Faith and Expectation trump all.

Really? LENR is not even questionable as far as I'm concerned, sorry you won't be handing my , public disassembly to me. Smarter to pick your battles. NOTE: There was no moderator note, but my argument for "Proof of God" is that we are already in mass communication with each other already so god was not as much of an imaginative stretch. But apparently my "Proof of God" was moved to another thread in the trash. Personally I think my "Proof of God" had more substance than the OP bar code theory, but I guess not as many here are really capable of understanding the relationship between telepathy and mass consciousness. It must be a tougher stretch of the imagination than some are capable of. Maybe I need to slow down and simplify things when I write? So I have resigned from this thread and if you think I am not responding then please check other thread. It was not rudeness on my part.

@ Ten Oz, No. I assure you I am not baiting for an angle. My account now has 2 infraction points for inferring that taking steps to discover telepathy is a step towards proving the possibility of god on a thread entitled "proof of God". The moderator who cannot see the validity of such a viewpoint has instead suggested I open a thread about telepathy, and this is it. The relationship between telepathy and how belief in a god could be related seem very obvious to me, but maybe I've given this more thought than many here. I too often assume the people on the other end are understanding of the subjects. No chance the moderator could be mistaken though.

(For this post pretend for arguments sake you believe in telepathy for some weird reason. If you believed in mass consciousness would it be easier to believe in god? I have suggested that if someone believes in telepathy then the idea that all our minds communicate is true to them. If all our minds communicate what about nature? Would a squirrels perspective be woven into the mass consciousness? What about a tree? If Mass Consciousness existed then would it not be the best argument ever that it helps towards "PROOF OF GOD"

I just had a thread split for Hijacking and another warning was given to me even though a) I did not hijack the thread b) No moderator sent a note or even a comment about my 2nd warning which must have occurred today. I understand this is a set cliche and I ruffle some feathers, but try to have some semblance of fairness. One day I'll be banned but that will never make this right. If in a religion thread someone cannot plug the idea that Telepathy/Mass Consciousness is a pretty hefty steppingstone towards the belief in god then the mentality of this group (whatever mod bypassed warning and commenting) falls in question (or anyone agreeing with them). I am free to comment about it in the Forum because I never got any Mod note saying something was done wrong, or not to comment. All I have is Topic A) http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/68723-proof-of-god/ And Topic B) http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/84244-psy-fields-proof-of-god-hijack/ Note: Both of the "warnings" I have had are because of this god thread. It should not be impossible for a religion moderator to grasp connections between mass consciousness and god. If you try to work telepathy into any Universal Theory the idea of Mass Consciousness and God become very real possibilities. I was making efforts to steer others (who were off topic) on to the topic again, Whatever.... If you can't be fair, you shouldn't be a mod. BTW ... I have no idea who split thread or issued warning because they did not say. Telepathy, Voodoo, Witchcraft, Law of attraction. Just because these are not the moderators chosen religion do not make them invalid religions. Are we only supposed to discuss Judea-Christian Fundamentals here? So I "hijacked" a "Proof of God" thread by using telepathy as proof of god? HONESTLY?????????????? My bag is getting fuller ... Edit: I have to laugh I already got a negative vote on this post even though it is very obvious Telepathy can be equated to a belief in Mass Consciousness, so it must be fairly obvious my warnings were for nothing. At least a negative vote shows it's been read, and I am on the side of fairness. I guess if you can't find legitimate reasons to ban someone you should just make stuff up.

@ Ophiolite, The last post was answered but the thread was moved so I will answer again. One already open. Have at er. I must admit I'm looking forward to this sound scientific thrashing you are about to unleash there. Here is the thread. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83658-low-energy-nuclear-reactions-cold-fusion-thread-split/?p=810199 (Maybe it might be you who learns something)

@ JohnC, So if the JREF "contest" (lol) requires something testable beyond chance, and all of our results depend upon odds of.... This is easy math. There can be no contest if they both require different things. You claimed he offered money for just producing an easy million to one odds, and I say he won't take odds. They want a video they can poke fun of like, That's the only way to win his money. @ Ophiolite, http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83658-low-energy-nuclear-reactions-cold-fusion-thread-split/ One already open. Have at er. @ Ten Oz, There is NO SUCH THING as a telepathy experiment without the involvement of at least two people. Personal experience would not even apply. There must be a sender and receiver in each instance. Imagine trying this with a friend. Do you think you would misinterpret your repeated and extraordinary results? (They always are if you try instead of scoff). I suppose I can understand the skeptic views somewhat, but I fail to understand how anyone can lack the curiosity to try telepathy. Dream/Sleep telepathy is very easy as is communicating by mind with a friend at a distance. I am not speaking from a place of guesswork. I have been involved in PSI research as a hobby and have earned money from since I was a teenager. I mentioned one tool I had developed. Unlike some methods people use to access their subconscious mine requires no ideomotor reflexes. I still do not hear any of you rising to the actual topic of this thread and discuss your views on The beginning of time, and what lies beyond it if it is not infinite. No takers? To stay on topic? There are no sane sounding explanations there for you either, so best ignore. The Big Bang Banged into what? From Where? So I feel sorry for those of you who lack the necessary first hand experiences to believe in PSI/Mass Consciousness/God/Whatever, but it really is not hard to do so it becomes harder to empathize.

@ JohnC, Wow! First. I have addressed the James Randi Foundation thing several times already in this thread (you can find them), and explained that it is bogus. Some would call it a fools bet. There is no way to win. Even if you could perform Telepathy to a high degree and got 99% of the questions right it still would not meet the demands of The Scientific Method especially in regards to replication. How would a 99% accurate psychic make it through experimentation; never mind the confirmation aspects of The Scientific Method. You claim humans have been used as measurement tools using the scientific method? I was in a context discussing the nature of god/telepathy energies, but I'd be interested in ANY comparable instance. I suppose you could say some old Chemist was using his finger to determine if the outcome is hot or cold, lol, but I am being serious. I don't think you can rely on the human brain to be accurate 100% of the time, especially with a "voice" that cannot be heard consciously (as far as I know). Now there is a lot of stuff about The James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) you are not aware of so there is no need to quote his odds at me. Despite the website, I think that contest has been mostly closed for some time,but they want us to believe they will open up again for something I know they had closed it or stopped reviewing applications, etc. Even when JREF was running they wanted you to submit your feat on a 20 minute video. Now since I think Telepathy aimed at REM sleep is the most effective way to transmit thoughts clearly I would require a Sleep Lab, volunteers, and send them a video. You say they accept A Million to One odds though? I would like to see that because it seems awfully low. Many psychic experiments easily defeat a million to one odds. They do NOT accept probabilities/odds. If you can prove otherwise I'd be happy to see it actually. Twenty years ago I invented a new method (newest method in 3000 years) of getting ideas, numbers, guidance from our subconscious mind. It involved using subliminal messages only your subconscious could perceive fed to the subject in random order and with high repetition. I determined three methods for hiding subconscious choices within the pictures which were putting message just outside visible spectrum like with UV ink, altering the pigmentation of the message ever so slightly changing the colour an imperceptible amount, or thirdly embedding the choices in an auto-stereo-gram. The third type was most computer friendly. One assumption with the above method is that the subconscious mind is more aware of our surroundings than we might be like when we drive our cars without focusing on driving. Based on that premise and possibility, we made some software available to various others studying PSI. It contains almost 1000 auto-stereo-grams. I am not a programmer for a living, but I picked up PHP in the development and maintenance of that program. Conscious thought is supposed to filter out because of repetition and leave the intuitive choices. This has shown high probabilities of clairvoyance on top of telepathy. I believe our future thoughts can affect our reality partly because of this. It is expectation and belief that determine whether or not Schrodinger's cat will tough it out. If I believe my cat in the box has a 75% survival chance then the cat will have a 75% chance of survival. This idea that belief trumps reality is in a discussion group I belong to and I've considered borrowing Brian Josephson's Random Number Generators. Here is a thought experiment. Imagine belief does influence reality by collapsing the cat in the state we expect. I know Schrodinger and Einstein would also ridicule that notion, but hear me out for a second. So imagine we approach 1000 people in a mall and tell them that they have a 75% chance of producing 1's over 0's with the coin flip type number machine. Now the results might be 75%, but the testers know the machine outputs 50% of both numbers equally. So the opinions of the testers influence the test results because they are "Wigner's Friends". Their opinions are carried into the mass mind. So maybe the results would still be positive. Let's say the testers opinions only knocked down the results to a 60% success rate. Now weigh in the opinion of the entire world as you try to spread the news. The final collapse may never happen.. maybe we are living life as a possibility wave and some future collapse will alter or change this reality. We are in the spooky religion thread and this stuff is all about god/telepathy/ and mass mind. (Oh and i noticed nobody else took me up on the offer to suggest their own beginning of time notions, because trying to explain the dimensions and occurrence of the Universe is stranger than anything I've said) So I am aware of James Randi. I had contacted JREF in the past also. You are sent copy/paste emails and such, and it is hard to get them to talk. The messages I did get were not from J Randi. If your video is accepted you must fly yourself, staff, and your equipment to their offices and demonstrate. They say cost should be nothing if you expect to win $1 million. Did you think they would come to your house in Nebraska? The Maimonides Sleep Telepathy study defied 75 000 000:1 odds. Dr Ullman and Dr. Krippner who authored that book which is a must read. It is too bad the videos are no longer distributed or accessible because they were a lot of fun to watch. JREF wants a short video they can make fun of on Youitube. I cannot recall any odds being mentioned, but I'd be happy to see. .. Okay. So what Quantum Mechanics problems rely on probabilities? I'm curious. Feel free to add your own beginning of time or beginning of the universe notions so I can take a few cheap jabs also. Sorry, but that's about norm response around here. Does Nature Magazine accept Probabilities? lol Even real science is not immediately accepted here in some cases. I will name Cold Fusion/LENR as an example of that, butI can wait a few years for everyone to catch up. I'm addicted to new energy possibilities and LENR has been confirmed too many tiimes by corporations like Toyota/MIT/NASA and so many more, but it might as well be in the god thread also.

So if a telepathy experiment were arranged that defeated the odds that would be ample proof ? This is usually scoffed at and then a few people "test" it. I could also fix up a failed experiment if I chose. Every experiment must have results containing odds against Random Chance. What if I set up several tests and just showed you the results of the group that got luckiest hits? Skeptics will not accept odds as proof. A Hypothesis cannot say "It should work some of the time". A human can not be used as a measurement device using The Scientific Method.

I would think a Flying Drone armed with a bomb is equal to a guided Missile. Drones sound cheaper and just as accurate, but sound slower. I suppose it boils down to definitions of Drone vs Missiles. A drone could use laser guidance for example. That brings up a point though about why worry about collateral damage. If you are a killer then why not simply forgo identifying your victim and just kill everyone at his house. No need for FRS. The above scenario is likely already possible based on what we have seen civilian drones capable of. Don't become a criminal because within a decade you would be found hiding in the deepest of sewers.

@ Swansont, First. That is a nice thought out point you give in reference to FRS being a danger, and this might have been a fun discussion if I did not need to update Pwagens Drone Engineering knowledge and bring you up to date on where we are with Facial Recognition Software. I'd like to make a point that I was discussing existing science that is very common knowledge. This was meant to be a bit of an ethics debate or how to prevent such terrors from occurring, but the Engineering and FRS should never have been questioned here. I falsely assumed people who enjoy commenting on science threads might know a few things about science and the topics they choose to comment on. Why even offer opinions on topics you know you are very uninformed in? Even now you are saying civillian Drone attacks are just a fantasy Movie Style Threat that will likely never occur in reality although you admittedly show you just learned yesterday that Facial Recognition Software is at the level needed for this. You are applying a days worth of knowledge to your prediction of the future. Am I seeing this wrong? Finally you believe me that Facial Recognition Software can be used accurately in crowds, but that is only because I kept underestimating how little you knew about the subject being discussed, and had to keep adding more. I bet if any of us asks an average high school kid if cameras can track people by faces most of them would know it is possible. Please feel free to ask any High School students you know. I know my kids know. There are even hit TV shows capitalizing on the abuse of this tech. One is called "person of interest", but it goes a bit overboard with the program becoming lifelike. Maybe licensing Facial Recognition Software is a start. Your question about the software being more dangerous than the drones... Currently when the military uses Drone Strikes they simply blow up the drone at a location. This is causing a lot of civilian casualties. Imagine your local gangs start fighting with drones. Would you rather them have facial recognition software or not? I actually would prefer they target the right people so less children will be murdered in drive-by playground shootings. At least if they are targeting a drug dealer then it is that drug dealer who will die and not the kids next to him. That all depend on if the drone explodes or shoots its targets. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OsyGygERHM You question whether terrorists will ever use drones? Here is an article (old/old topic) from Nature Magazine. http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v306/n1/full/scientificamerican0112-16.html Maybe the main aggravation is they may hover over your backyard and take a picture of your wife sunbathing for the Internet while noticing that you like paper plates, gas lawnmower by lawn boy, prefer steak to hot dogs, and the lifejackets in your shed show you like water sports. The drone above your backyard might also learn your nickname is Booboo, and your neighbors daughter is pregnant. Here is an article from nature magazine indicating above may occur, http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v308/n4/full/scientificamerican0413-12.html WATCH VIDEO BELOW STARTING AT 1:30... Now that we are on the same page look at the above video. Maybe drones will catch jumpers from a future high rise fire using this tech (yes they would need to be a bit bigger). This shows that drones can already be used in unison to carry and throw objects, and can even calculate their trajectory and speed and be there to centre the catch. I imagine the processing of this demonstration was done via radio, but perhaps the drones themselves can carry the software and computing hardware. It is interesting. Drones being used in formations and unison are also not new (see Google). In news I heard that in 2001 American military had 50 drones. Now they have over 7500 of varying sizes. (from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-LYLvhQv20) Here are some drones carrying full wine glasses, etc. The FBI has admitted to using drones in America. It is starting out already. Soon you may be getting speeding tickets in the mail from a Drone Flying over the roads you drive on. Personally I don't care much about Police using them or the Big Brother aspects as long as my family stays safe. It is when criminals start using them. Note: Part of my job as a Soil Engineer is to explore some large properties which often means a lot of driving and hiking. Soon everyone in my line of work will likely carry a drone in their car for quicker land surveys. In 20 years maybe I'll be able to launch the UAV from my office and I can forgo the driving. Maybe the drillers will send in their own drones to find my stakes and drill from the sky? What other jobs can be enhanced by drones? Maybe a drone Waitress (I would not eat there or use automated check-outs)? Drones will be huge soon. It is hard not to imagine the terror aspects of it, and that is also a common opinion.

Okay. It still seems odd that it changes from that format on page 3 where it then does away with the last page arrow and squeezes all four page choices in. guess it seems right enough. I program with PHP and can get values turned around in the silliest of ways and I've appreciated feedback about them. I've seen other formats that seem clearer, but , "Don't fix it if it ain't broke" (not that we would fix it as much as report to IP Board Software)

@ John C, First. I have REPEATEDLY said (over and over now), So I made it clear that was a personal opinion that was unrelated to the topic when I also said this, However since you like to poke fun perhaps you can lend us your notions of how the universe began and if it has boundaries, and what is or is not inside the boundaries? Then I'll take a few shots at your implausible explanations because when faced with questions like the beginning of time there is no real great answers is there? So let's hear your best. This thread is about proof of god. Reality itself is absurd.

I've noticed in some threads if you go to the last page number indicated just before the Opening Post it often is not the last page unless you hit "next" first. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/68723-proof-of-god/ The above link is currently an example, but it might change as more posts are added there. - The last page is listed as 3 (currently). - So you go to page 3 and scroll down and discover there is a page 4 This seems common issue here as I've seen it in other areas. Just a counting glitch in the software that should be reported..?? It occurred to me maybe it was just a numbering style, but that cannot be because it does fit in all pages 1 to 4 when you are on page 3. It is a tiny bug in the system