Ghideon

Then you do not need to tell participants about telepathy? Give them a pair of wireless headphones, tell them that communication will be tested and run the test suggested by Strange. Tell the receiver individual to write down messages and estimate ”sound quality”. you could also send some real speech into the headphones as comparison.

Is this what you are looking for?http://www.ddbst.com/en/EED/PCP/TCN_C95.php, Dortmund Data Bank, Thermal Conductivity of n-Propyl and Isopropyl Alcohols at Various Temperatures and Pressures

Strange's approach seems good so I'll add to it. I think a detailed definition of "message" is useful. Some notes regarding definitions of message: -Is a message text only? -Can a message be numerical? -Can the message consist of random letters? -Can a text message be delivered in a different language? -Is a message delivered exactly letter by letter? -Will the receiver be able to distinguish "peace" from "peas"? -Does the receiver have to know about the subject or understand the words that makes up the message? -How does the receiver "know" that they have the message? What kind of sensation is triggered? -Is "intention" or feelings delivered with the message? Example: "Now that was just freaking awesome" could be a sarcastic comment or meant as a compliment. Some additional notes to start modeling the phenomenon*: -Is the effect exactly the same for all receiving individuals or are there differences? -What happens at the sending side if there is no individual receiving the message? -What happens with the other people around, will they receive the message? -What happens if you do not know if there is a person in the receiving room? Can you tell? -Can the receiving individual choose to not listen to messages? -Over what range can the message be transferred? -What happens at maximum range, are some parts dropped? Some messages are not transferred? Other? -Are some recipients are more sensitive, receiving messages at longer distances? *) I'm of course completely convinced that this (and other) experiments will fail, telepathy does not exist. But discussing pros and cons of possible approaches is interesting.

Where does the paper say that? The paper states the following (bold by me)

Here is a paper with plenty of references and discussion of evolutionary patterns: Evolution of Air Breathing: Oxygen Homeostasis and the Transitions from Water to Land and Sky, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3926130/ (I have not had time to read all of the paper)

In the short video clip the dust(?) particles are moving so the glass pane is not stationary relative to the camera. It is not possible to tell if effects are from moving the glass or if pressure is squeezing the wd40 mix or if other effects are shown. Note that the magnet does not affect light (if that is what you suggest). I'm not sure I follow, you squeezed the magnet and the magnet got positive a charge? How? Please try to clarify and to back up your claims. Can you explain why you think that?

Over here, where streetlights are needed 16 hours per day this time of the year, I think that could save quite some energy especially in less crowded areas. One test* of equipment claimed to reduce energy consumption 40-50%. But I don not think increased maintenance costs etc. were discussed in this test. In context of OP, in these tests there are discussions about the type of light source to use and also about how far ahead (and behind) the light should be at 100%. Less serous note: Smartphone runs out of battery: No smartphone flashlight and also no streetlights = complete darkness? *) Fact sheet: www.grow-smarter.eu Stockholm pdf

We have sent spacecrafts there*, twice. Does the measurements from Voyager magnetic field sensor and other instruments match your predictions? *) edge of the heliosphere List of Magnetic Fields Investigation papers: https://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/science/bibliography/mag/ Article about five recent papers: https://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/news/details.php?article_id=116

Ok! So discussion is purely related to electromagnetic concepts. A better way of educating yourself may be to do the opposite: continue posting. Start posting questions about current models and theories in mainstream sections of the forum, there is a great chance that members will provide both good answers and references to other sources (books or online).

Hello. Can you describe, in some detail, the improved understanding of gravity?

Ok.I was hoping for a sincere discussion about helping new students, not speculations. Thanks for answering my question. Understating present theories would be a good start if you wish to extend or replace something well supported like SR. Why not stay around, ask questions, and "engage in an intelligent conversation about issues in Special Relativity"?

If you choose to neglect important concepts the result will be incorrect. For instance finding a net force on the rig when there is no such net force. What happens to the current at points C, D and E?

Hello. I've read through this interesting thread and have some follow up questions. First; alternative approaches and analogies for explaining relativity (or science in general) are good*. The concepts of no universal "now", time dilation and length contraction are AFAIK central parts of understanding SR. Why are students asking about them to understand more a problem? Why does it help to remove those concepts? If I try to put my self into the role of a beginner, studying relativity: length contraction / time dilation is not a point of view, it is what actually happens according to the theory and its supporting experimental results. *) As long as such approaches and analogies are used within their respective area of applicability and not as replacement for models and math or contradict mainstream observations.

Can you show a complete set of calculations, not just a formula? If you have a total force on current carrying wires then there is an opposite and equal force somewhere else in the rig or you are ejecting particles or radiations somewhere. Can you show calculations for conservation of momentum?

Those little blue F's are just blue arrows. Not calculations. How does the charged particles ("free ions") follow a straight line when there is a magnetic field?

Then just show the calculations that predict there is a net force on the rig in the drawing.

Reducing the smoking may allow for clearer drawings to be provided? What force is required to accelerate the "free ions"? What does the math say once that is taken into account?

Has someone claimed that you did say that?

Repeating it is not explaining. Another question: As far as I know quantum fluctuations is involved in the Lamb shift in the hydrogen spectrum. Since you state that there are no quantum fluctuations between galaxies, can you elaborate what your idea predicts about hydrogen absorption and emission spectrum in the intergalactic medium compared to hydrogen absorption and emission inside a galaxy? Does observations of intergalactic hydrogen support your idea?

Some basic layman questions about your idea: How is it, according to your idea, that light and radiation from other galaxies can be observed? How does the photons get here if space between galaxies is "truly empty"? How does your idea explain the observations of intergalactic stars? What kind of environment are they supposed to exist in?

Can you elaborate why that is a requirement? As far as I know there are successful wave models where invariant mass is zero. I'm thinking for instance of photons having zero invariant mass while light can be modeled as a wave.

Here is an extract from a paper* primarily designed for educational and research purposes. The list shows which factors that are supposed to add credence versus factors that have a negative impact. Note that the list distinguishes between factors present at the time of observation and factors present at a witness confrontation. I post this as it seems to give a good overview what factors that are important to take into consideration. I'll do dome reading and possibly add some more thoughts later. Positive factors: At the time of observation: 1. Former acquaintance with the perpetrator 2. Long observation time 3. High attention and good lighting conditions 4. Repeated exposures 5. A perpetrator with a distinct and distinctive appearance 6. Same group affiliation (gender, age, race etc.) 7. The witness was emotionally disturbed and the perpetrator was the center of attention and cause of the condition At the confrontation: 8. A short time since the testimony 9. Proper confrontation procedure 10. Automatic, direct and holistic recognition process 11. Quick identification decision 12. High subjective security and good circumstances at the time of the testimony 13. Emotional memory reactions 14. Spontaneous correction of the person's appearance that can be confirmed Negative factors: At the time of observation: 15. Short observation time 16. Low attention and poor lighting conditions 17. Perpetrator with everyday appearance 18. The perpetrator exposed a weapon at the time of the witness 19. Perpetrator of other group affiliation (gender, age, race, etc.) 20. The witness was emotionally disturbed and the perpetrator was not the center of attention or cause of the condition 21. Neutral and everyday event At the confrontation: 22. A confrontation where the suspect deviates from the figures 23. The witness has seen the suspect before (for example in the media) 24. Very long time observation 25. The witness reason with who must be the perpetrator 26. Long time for the identification decision 27. Low subjective certainty for identification *) Link to original swedish paper: http://www.juridicum.su.se/process/bevis. Note: I have partially used machine translation.

Interesting questions, I think there will be different answers for different countries. A specific example: "Does Two make it better?": In an old law text over here it is stated something like: "Two agreeing witnesses is a full evidence, one witness is half an evidence".

I have some experience from similar situations. Nice to see you fixed the issues rather promptly! Anyway, I didn't know how much I appreciate the site (and it's members) until scienceforums.net suddenly was offline.

Thanks! Below is a hint if someone should be interested: