New telepathy test, the sequel.

[Jack by the hedge]

Yes, that's about correct, I think (though I wouldn't use the word "magically"). There is a big difference (I suppose) between our telepathic broadcasts and ordinary radio broadcasts, in that the latter occur at almost definite and precise frequencies. Presumably, this is not true for telepathic broadcasts, which are much more "broad band", with a wide range of frequencies.

You don't need a submarine to screen yourself from radio waves. A tunnel or the basement of a substantial building could be just as effective. I'm tempted to ask if you have ever noticed that people can't hear your thoughts when you're in a tunnel, but of course how could you possibly tell?

 

[JimOfAllTrades]

Yes, that's about correct, I think (though I wouldn't use the word "magically"). There is a big difference (I suppose) between our telepathic broadcasts and ordinary radio broadcasts, in that the latter occur at almost definite and precise frequencies. Presumably, this is not true for telepathic broadcasts, which are much more "broad band", with a wide range of frequencies.

You should know that the highlighted part means that it is even more certain the signal would be picked up by radio receivers, precisely because it would be detectable across many frequencies. Since it isn't, I'm afraid there is no such signal being broadcasted.

 

[Michel H]

You should know that the highlighted part means that it is even more certain the signal would be picked up by radio receivers, precisely because it would be detectable across many frequencies. Since it isn't, I'm afraid there is no such signal being broadcasted.

No, I think it is easier to detect a signal at an (almost) definite frequency, because then the energy is concentrated in a narrow frequency range, and you can eliminate all other frequencies using a LC circuit. For example, when NASA wants to communicate with one of its very far away spacecraft (near Jupiter, for example), they use a definite frequency (they're not crazy):

Another component to the success of interplanetary communications is the fact that there are no significant sources of noise in interplanetary space at the spacecraft's specific frequency.

(link)

An example of wide band radiation is thermal radiation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation ): you do not detect it with your radio receiver (near a fire for example), even though it has a radio waves component.

 

[Michel H]

You don't need a submarine to screen yourself from radio waves. A tunnel or the basement of a substantial building could be just as effective. I'm tempted to ask if you have ever noticed that people can't hear your thoughts when you're in a tunnel, but of course how could you possibly tell?

I think that a submarine would be far more effective. In a tunnel for example, the signal can get in through the entrance of the tunnel for example, and concrete is not necessarily a good conductor of electricity. In a sub, I could find out if I still hear my telepathic voices (as mentioned previously), but I would like to get some preliminary info before possibly traveling.

 

[Michel H]

...
So, x = - 0.115 log f (in meters), where f is the attenuation factor (not the frequency), and log is decimal logarithm. If we demand an enormous attenuation factor of 10^-100, the courageous scuba-diver will have to go to a depth of 11.5 meters.

So, x = - 0.115 log f, where x is the distance (in meters), f is the attenuation factor (not the frequency), and log is decimal logarithm. If we demand an enormous attenuation factor of 10^-100, the courageous scuba-diver will have to go to a depth of 11.5 meters.

 

[Slowvehicle]

No, I think it is easier to detect a signal at an (almost) definite frequency, because then the energy is concentrated in a narrow frequency range, and you can eliminate all other frequencies using a LC circuit. For example, when NASA wants to communicate with one of its very far away spacecraft (near Jupiter, for example), they use a definite frequency (they're not crazy):
(link)

This only demonstrates that you do not understand how broadcast energy works...you have already demonstrated innocence of the inverse-square law; here you demonstrate innocence of broad-spectrum broadcasting.

Oh, well.

An example of wide band radiation is thermal radiation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation ): you do not detect it with your radio receiver (near a fire for example), even though it has a radio waves component.

Here, you demonstrate innocence of the EM spectrum...ask yourself why lightning interferes with radio broadcasts, across the AM & FM bands...

 

[p0lka]

I've corrected your post.

wooah, don't quote then edit and make it look like a quote that hasn't been edited, pretty please
It can be confusing.

 

[Michel H]

...
Here, you demonstrate innocence of the EM spectrum...ask yourself why lightning interferes with radio broadcasts, across the AM & FM bands...

Actually, lightning bolts seem to affect A.M. radio, but not F.M. : https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlik..._am_radio_but_not_fm/?st=itdl66ai&sh=05e9d331

It is true that electromagnetic waves produced by lightning have a wide frequency spectrum (rather than a definite frequency), but the power of a lightning bolt is enormous (about 10¹⁰ watts, link), compared to about 20 watt for a human brain, or a spacecraft transmitter. Also, the bolts of lightning should not be too far away: you're not constantly hearing bolts from the entire Earth. You cannot "hear a fire" on your A.M. radio, even though the thermal radiation has a wide-band radio waves component.

 

[JimOfAllTrades]

No, I think it is easier to detect a signal at an (almost) definite frequency, because then the energy is concentrated in a narrow frequency range, and you can eliminate all other frequencies using a LC circuit. For example, when NASA wants to communicate with one of its very far away spacecraft (near Jupiter, for example), they use a definite frequency (they're not crazy):
(link)

You really don’t understand any of this stuff, do you?

Of course you broadcast on a narrow frequency to be more efficient. But that has nothing to do with receiving a signal.

You said you were broadcasting on a wide range of frequencies. That means that any receiver tuned to any of those frequencies would pick up part of the signal, most likely as interference. That means that every radio designer in the world would be scratching their heads trying to figure out what the extraneous broadband signal is bleeding into the normal signal.

Since this is not happening, we can be sure you're not broadcasting in that manor.

 

[JimOfAllTrades]

It is true that electromagnetic waves produced by lightning have a wide frequency spectrum (rather than a definite frequency), but the power of a lightning bolt is enormous (about 10¹⁰ watts, link), compared to about 20 watt for a human brain, or a spacecraft transmitter.

Do you think this might be a clue that you're not broadcasting a broadband signal around the world?

 

[Michel H]

...
You said you were broadcasting on a wide range of frequencies. That means that any receiver tuned to any of those frequencies would pick up part of the signal, most likely as interference. That means that every radio designer in the world would be scratching their heads trying to figure out what the extraneous broadband signal is bleeding into the normal signal.
...

Not necessarily, think about the example of a fire emitting thermal radiation I already quoted. Is every radio designer in the world scratching their head near a fire (or any source of heat)? No. Is a simple fire (or any source of heat) emitting thermal, and therefore electromagnetic waves in the radio frequency range? Yes.
Physics teaches us that, whenever an ion (for example a sodium Na⁺ ion in the brain) gets accelerated, electromagnetic radiation gets emitted. On the other hand, in the brain, during an action potential, sodium ions rush into the neuron, and they are accelerated because of the voltage difference between the interior and exterior of the cell. So we can safely predict that cerebral activity produces electromagnetic radiation.

 

[Michel H]

Do you think this might be a clue that you're not broadcasting a broadband signal around the world?

No, because, with only 5 watts power, ham radio operators can make voice contact with the antipode (link)

 

[Nay_Sayer]

No, because, with only 5 watts power, ham radio operators can make voice contact with the antipode (link)

Your brain is not a ham radio.

 

[JimOfAllTrades]

No, because, with only 5 watts power, ham radio operators can make voice contact with the antipode (link)

Not very often, and on very narrow frequencies, using huge antennas on both ends, and only under the most favorable conditions.

Again, if there were broadband broadcasts going out from a single source all over the world, there would be a massive amount of evidence, and it would have been being researched by many people and very common knowledge in the industry. It isn't, therefore there are no such broadcasts.

 

[JimOfAllTrades]

Not necessarily, think about the example of a fire emitting thermal radiation I already quoted. Is every radio designer in the world scratching their head near a fire (or any source of heat)? No. Is a simple fire (or any source of heat) emitting thermal, and therefore electromagnetic waves in the radio frequency range? Yes.

Are you sure about this? (Careful, that's kind of a trick question.)

 

[Michel H]

Are you sure about this? (Careful, that's kind of a trick question.)

I don't know what you mean with your "Careful, that's kind of a trick question.", I (generally) don't ask "trick questions".

Wikipedia explains to us:

Radio frequency (RF) is any of the electromagnetic wave frequencies that lie in the range extending from around 3 kHz to 300 GHz, which include those frequencies used for communications or radar signals.^[1]

(link)

I am not saying that a flame at a temperature of, say, 1800 kelvin (link), emits all of its radiation in the radio frequency range, but this radiation does have a low-frequency "tail" in this radio frequency range. There is even a mathematical expression for the low-frequency "tail" of Planck's distribution (link1, link2), it is called the Rayleigh–Jeans law (link). And the Rayleigh–Jeans spectral density is definitely not zero at frequencies below 300 GHz, in the radio range.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I don't know what you mean with your "Careful, that's kind of a trick question.", I (generally) don't ask "trick questions".

Wikipedia explains to us:
(link)

I am not saying that a flame at a temperature of, say, 1800 kelvin (link), emits all of its radiation in the radio frequency range, but this radiation does have a low-frequency "tail" in this radio frequency range. There is even a mathematical expression for the low-frequency "tail" of Planck's distribution (link1, link2), it is called the Rayleigh–Jeans law (link). And the Rayleigh–Jeans spectral density is definitely not zero at frequencies below 300 GHz, in the radio range.

...look up "inverse-square law"...

 

[Jack by the hedge]

...look up "inverse-square law"...

Perhaps also look up "signal-to-noise ratio".

Michel, even if you convince yourself that the electrical noise generated by the activity in your brain might form some kind of coherent signal, do also consider not only that its radio emissions are extremely weak, but also that it is only one of billions of sources of such noise.

I have of course raised this issue before, but you preferred to fixate on a spelling mistake which you seemed to take as a sign that you ought to be suspicious of the point I was making.

 

[Michel H]

...
Michel, even if you convince yourself that the electrical noise generated by the activity in your brain might form some kind of coherent signal, do also consider not only that its radio emissions are extremely weak, but also that it is only one of billions of sources of such noise.
...

Actually, we don't really know how weak these radio emissions from our brains are, because they seem to have never been measured seriously (they might actually not be so weak). I agree that there are billions of sources (billions of people, and therefore billions of brains on this planet), but there is perhaps something special and unusual about Michel H's gamma waves, perhaps he has more gamma waves than most people, and is therefore "emitting at a higher (low) frequency" than most people:

A gamma wave is a pattern of neural oscillation in humans with a frequency between 25 and 100 Hz,^[1] though 40 Hz is typical.^[2]According to a popular theory, gamma waves may be implicated in creating the unity of conscious perception (the binding problem).^[3][4][5]

(link).

Neural oscillations have been most widely studied in neural activity generated by large groups of neurons. Large-scale activity can be measured by techniques such as EEG. In general, EEG signals have a broad spectral content similar to pink noise, but also reveal oscillatory activity in specific frequency bands. The first discovered and best-known frequency band is alpha activity (7.5–12.5 Hz)^[5] that can be detected from the occipital lobe during relaxed wakefulness and which increases when the eyes are closed.^[6] Other frequency bands are: delta (1–4 Hz), theta (4–8 Hz), beta (13–30 Hz) and gamma (30–70 Hz) frequency band, where faster rhythms such as gamma activity have been linked to cognitive processing.

(link)

 

[Ladewig]

Thank you for the welcome! The main drawback to this that I can see, from your point of view, is honesty from those suggesting it and from those participating. Is this correct? Because my argument is, how are we to trust that you are being truthful? You are the one claiming thoughts, so we are taking your word for it for the most part it seems.

Let me through something out there and you tell me what your thoughts would be on it. I claim to have the ability to levitate. I tell everyone that I have it on video and agree to share the video with all who ask. Then, the video just shows me on a chair and I look like I am merely meditating. No levitation happens. I then tell you that someone clearly tampered with video since it left my possession. Do you believe me or them?

Welcome to the forum.

You should be aware that many of Michel's tests involving picking a number between1and 4. If a poster guessed 2 and the actual number was 3, then Michel would claim that through the tone of that poster's posts Michel knew that the poster really meant 3 and he was lying when he said 2.

You have missed the hundreds and hundreds of pages that have already been devoted to this poster's claims. Michel has agreed that there is

no analogy
no metaphor
no hypothetical
no thought experiment
no statistical analysis
no explanation of mental health problems
no explanation of probability
no description of current knowledge
no explanation of science
no analysis of human physiognomy
no example
no counter-example
no advocacy of medicine

....that will ever, ever, ever make him even partially doubt his ability to transmit thoughts. There is no use in trying.

I can understand how frustrating it is for all of the posters who are trying to reason with him. But I have to ask them, is it really that hard to admit that you cannot win? You all love logic and critical thinking and you believe that if people are shown how illogical their belief systems are then they will change. That will not happen in this case. yes, it is sad; but continuing to argue with someone who has repeatedly stated he will not change his mind no matter what evidence is presented is a fool's errand and helps nobody.