Strange

If it has an effect on things inside the universe, then yes. IF these things exist and IF they have an effect (whether that is telekinesis or telepathy or whatever) then they should be detectable and measurable even if they originate "outside the universe". Otherwise, what you are saying is that you (personally) can detect that you are moving the wheel (or communicating with someone) but no one else can. That is indistinguishable from delusion.

x over x minus 1 factorial

And, again, obviously not true. Otherwise science would not make any progress. Please stop this. I don't know who this "we" is that you are referring to, but it certainly isn't scientists. More meaningless soundbites. You may be a good experimental designer (although I would need evidence of that) but you are clearly pretty ignorant about the state of research into this area. Not at all. If you are not doing science (which you aren't) then you are not scientist. How is that possible if we "can only see what we expect". And you must believe that one plus one equals two and that the Nile River was there yesterday as well because most of what you believe is dependent on such consistencies. Then we may be more in agreement than not. I'm simply of the opinion that we know such a tiny percentage of all of reality that I have far less reason to disbelieve. Science was invented after the Greeks. Science is not static but always progressing. We are always refining how we understand "natural law"; how we interpret reality. I'm simply saying that there's no such thing as "natural law". There is no referent for the term. There is only reality and it is composed of cause and effect and natural logic. What we believe is natural law is actually just extrapolation and interpolation of experiment. This is what we see; something that doesn't even exist!

Neither am I. However, I am not stupid enough to believe their claims without evidence.

So, contrary to your claims, experiment and observation will reveal reality to us. You say this repeatedly. And every time it is pointed out that it is false. If it were true, science would not be able to make progress. Constantly repeating something you know to be false is grossly dishonest and pretty offensive. Why do you think no one has done that already? You completely fail to address the point and just repeat the same baseless claims. So not a scientist then. Crackpots love these soundbites that don't mean anything.

And then ignored the results and started prattling on about the soul.

There is no evidence for these entities. So this is a matter of faith, not science. You might be surprised to learn that people do study the brain. Scientifically.

Ah, silly me. I missed the "multiple of".

Just because the word was invented by a biologist, doesn't make it biology. If it belongs anywhere, it would be under social science. Or maybe psychology. (Or Trash ... mutter ... mutter ... grumble .... grumble ...) The Wikipedia has a good description: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme

Meme (noun): to take a mundane concept (people share ideas) and turn it into a catchy but meaningless sound bite. One definition of bullshit is something that sounds clever but is meaningless. So the concept of memes is close to BS. Why is this in biology?

The thing is that an ion is simply an atom or molecule that has lost (or gained) one or more electrons. They are not separate from the molecules. So as the number of molecules decrease so does the number of ions. The mention of molar conductivity is just a mathematical trick; this value is inversely proportional to the number of ions. So, as the number of ions decreases to zero the molar conductivity becomes infinitely large.

Are you confusing herbal with homeopathic?

163 - 81 = 82 not 6

That doesn't make much sense. What does "the other way round" mean? Reality imagines us?

That is pretty incoherent. Either we can't see it (whatever "it" is) or we can. Why aren't those who know it is real able to demonstrate it to anyone? After all you just said that we can see it when an experiment shows it. It is easy to make idiotic claims like that. But when asked to support such claims you, and your ilk, back away. So I have to assume it isn't true.

Or maybe the other way round ...

And yet you choose to ignore the advice offered, ignore the massive holes in your experiment and hypothesis, and continue to believe in your own abilities despite the evidence against them. How does that work?

Incredulity is not a very convincing argument.

You haven't established that it exists, yet. In fact, your own experiments are more consistent with their not being any such effect. You have gone from apparently rational to full-on crackpot.

Maybe Paul lied. Or didn't know what he was talking about. Or was just mistaken. Or mistranslated.

Or even when you begin to doubt it yourself. Makes me wish I had a picture of mine...

So why not use two wires with one at 0 and one at 24V? What is the benefit of the extra wire and extra circuitry to switch voltages on the wires? It will also generate more interference than normal AC. It will require extra circuitry at the other end to either convert it to a single 24V DC level or to AC. I am not seeing any advantages to this.

I assumed people had an idea of how this works (maybe someone should write a sticky post about it). When a paper is submitted to a (reputable) journal it is sent out to experts in the field (the author's peers) who will look at things like whether the methodology was good, the type and quality of the data collected, the statistical analysis of that data and whether the conclusions of the paper are supported by the data. So, for example, something based on the OP's experiments would be rejected as not being a rigorous test. A version where his glass bowl was used would be better (but would have to be evidence against any effect). A version with "blind" tests would be even better. The paper would have to show, in detail, all the measures that had been taken to eliminate all possible alternative explanations. They might want to use a stage magician to help with this as many scientists have been fooled in the past. Finally, they would have to analyse the results to see if they are better than chance by a significant amount. In every case when this sort of rigorous approach has been taken there is no detectable effect. Which is when we get the "oh, but it doesn't work in the lab" or "its not a measurable effect" excuses. Interestingly, these are never made at the time of the testing. Participants will be convinced they have demonstrated their ability. They only make excuses when it is shown to be bogus.

A peer-reviewed scientific paper has more credibility than some clown's video on yootoob. If you can't see that, there isn't much hope for you.

How do you know that? What evidence supports that belief? You mean when you couldn't see how the trick was done. Do you know how stage magicians do all their tricks? They can reproduce anything that these charlatans can. No it doesn't. (Although matter can be converted to energy and vice versa, they are not the same thing.) That is why matter is not made out of energy. Matter is material by definition. Electrons cannot be broken down. And there is not a large amount of empty space (this is a pop-science story that has little basis). There is no "proof" that the mind is in the brain. This statement seems to be typical of your sloppy thinking. There is, of course, a lot of evidence that the mind arises in the brain. Apart from anything else, we can map which parts of the brain are responsible for various functions of the mind. That has nothing to do with what you are talking about. It is the usual New Scientist sensationalism and dumbing down. The holographic principle just states that the entropy (information) of a volume is proportional to the surface area.