Strange

It is not quite that simple. After all, placing a (delayed) diagonal filter in the path of the other photon means that the pattern appears, despite the presence of the circular polarisers.

If they were random then you couldn't predict anything. Apart from that, this proposed experiment would seem to predict the same results as standard biology. What are you predicting that distinguishes your idea from existing theories? I don't know what this means: 1. What is the "decaying pattern"? 2. What distinguishes "mechanistic reactions" from ... well, what is the alternative? Are you suggesting some sort of magical non-mechanistic chemistry? I still have no idea what you are proposing. Other than the fact that living things are a complex set of deterministic chemical reactions.

I'm not sure that insulting your audience is a great way to convince people. Better would be some peer reviewed science. While there are some positive results, there are as many, if not more negative results. And, of course, the results on both sides have been challenged. Until there is compelling evidence (and resulting industrial application) I will remain sceptical (and disappointed).

1. This discussion is not in the "trash can". 2. The only person to describe cold fusion as "junk science" is you in some of your emotional rants. 3. Has anyone said there is no research? No. 4. Has anyone said there should be no research? No. In fact, quite the reverse; people have asked for evidence which we will only get from high quality scientific research. But it seems that you are still unable to have a calm, rational discussion about the subject. 5. "Bill Gates is looking to invest 1 Billion Dollars into Low Energy Nuclear Reactions." The article you link to doesn't say that. I found another article that suggested he might be thinking about it, but when I found the original Italian article (from a relatively unknown local news website) it appears to be a mistranslation. http://www.larena.it/stories/Economia/947605_gates_finanza_lenea_vicini_ad_unintesa

As you rightly say, your calculation is totally bogus and therefore the conclusion is invalid. As an example that makes the flaw more obvious, consider the odd and even numbers using the same argument: If the set of natural numbers is infinite, that would mean that the amount of odd numbers and even numbers would both be infinite. To find the percent of odd numbers, you would divide the number of odd numbers by the total number of natural numbers, which would be infinity divided by infinity. If the equation were mathematically possible, which it is not, but if it were, the answer would be 1, which would imply that 100% of numbers are odd. The same would go for even numbers, therefore creating a paradox which can only be solved by having all numbers to the equation being finite. Which is provably wrong.

Ah, yes. "Prove me wrong!" The battle cry of the pseudo scientist. Yes. But I don't see any evidence. And do you have any evidence for that claim?

The problem is not understanding, it is that there is no reason to share your beliefs and opinions in the absence of compelling evidence (and in the presence of significant counter-evidence). Exactly. You claim soot is more important. The thesis, despite focussing on soot, says that CO2 is more significant.

Not sure where you get that from. Temperature is a measure of the kinetic energy of the atoms. That depends largely on the nucleus as the mass of the electrons is insignificant. Plasma normally (always?) has electrons, just dissociated from the atoms. The outcome would be a burst of gamma radiation as they annihilated one another. Actually, that is the easy bit (for hydrogen nuclei, anyway). The tricky bit is getting the anti-protons to combine with anti-electrons to make anti-atoms. And then containing the (uncharged) anti-atoms. See the CERN Alpha experiment for more info.

Ah, the infinite improbability drive, eh. Interestingly, tunnelling has been measured to be faster than light. But I don't think there is any way (yet?) to use it for communication.

What do you mean, "where is it"? It is tested and demonstrated in labs. (And note that that description was invented by Einstein because he didn't like the results of the theory. A little bit crackpotty of him, really.) Another attempt to show how unintuitive the results of the theory are. Not to be taken to seriously - there never was (and never will be) such a cat. I don't think he ever said that. It is probably a mixing up of Bhor's comment, "anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it".

It doesn't matter how often you say it, it still isn't true. You are simply projecting your own problems onto everyone else. (And possibly losing whatever sympathy you might have had initially.)

Yes. It comes about because in quantum theory an "observable" has a particular meaning, very different from the everyday sense. Unfortunately, this sort of confusion is common with specialised terminology in many fields of life.

We would need more evidence than just the people you know before drawing any conclusions. But if there were such a correlation and (remember, correlation doesn't imply causation) then an alternative hypothesis is that brown haired and blond haired parents are likely to have sex at different times of the year. Or are more fertile at different times of the year.

Are you talking about quantum theory here (having moved on from aliens or whatever it was at the start)? If so, it has absolutely nothing to do with consciousness. Pretty much any interaction counts as an "observation".

It is quite a good read. After all, it contradicts you!

Skimming the first, it appears to be some sort of American right-wing political thing. The second looks more serious (although it is just a student thesis, not peer-reviewed science) and confirms that CO2 is the more significant factor. And what did you say about staying on topic ...?

The assumption is that evidence would change people's minds. Rather than statements of belief. Quite on topic.

They are white because of the material they are made from, which is a product of millions of years of selection. Ditto. I'm tempted to ask what your alternative explanation is, but I suspect it is even more idiotic than creationism. So please keep it to yourself.

To put it yet another way, there is variation within a population - this is trivially true by observation. Much of this variation is heritable - this was known by selective breeders for millennia, quantified by Mendel, explained by genetics. Some of these variants will have greater [or lesser] reproductive success than others for a variety of reasons - also true by observation. (This is the fact commonly known, for better or worse, as "natural selection".) Therefore those variants will be come more [or less] common over time. Given those facts, evolution must happen. It would take divine intervention to prevent it.

Perhaps you should present some peer reviewed papers to support your beliefs. You never know, if you can come up with enough compelling evidence you might convince people.

You appear to be confusing an informal description of the theory with the theory itself. I guess next you will be attacking "survival of the fittest".

So, it is actually a little subtler than that. Here is a good description that explains why it doesn't work like that. http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=25872 It all comes down to which photons/electrons you count as contributing to the interference pattern.

It seems that once you remove "mandatory" giving (tithing) then there is no longer an obvious relationship between religion and level of charitable donation: http://business.time.com/2012/08/21/how-religious-affiliation-affects-charitable-giving/

But you can't tell anything about interference/non-interference from a single particle. It is a statistical thing. Where any given electron lands doesn't tell you anything; it could have landed in the "dark" area with low probability or the "light" area with high probability. It is only after seeing enough electrons that you see that most fall in the light area, creating the pattern. (Or not, as the case may be.)

But the only result known at Ds is that an electron has been detected. It isn't even known, until a large number have been detected, whether an interference pattern has been formed or not. So I'm not sure what information could be sent from Ds to Dp that would create a paradox.