Why skeptics doesnt show proof?

[EE THr]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

OK, I've got one. (Another one.)

An answer to the question asked by the title of this topic.


The reason skeptics don't show proof, is because the LRL promoters would merely say, "That doesn't mean anything." That's easy to say, isn't it?

It's the standard childish answer.

I think I'll add it to the list!

Now, where have I seen this before?





ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

I don't know, why don't you tell me?

Actually, the list for LRL shouldn't be that long (if they actually worked). It would be only two items long.

Those items would be---
1. LRL promoter/maker makes claim.
2. LRL promoter provides proof of claim.

Simple as that.

Oops, I forgot...that would be the list of honest business people. Sorry, my mistake!







Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[aarthrj3811]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Actually, the list for LRL shouldn't be that long (if they actually worked). It would be only two items long.

Those items would be---
1. LRL promoter/maker makes claim.
2. LRL promoter provides proof of claim.

Simple as that.

Oops, I forgot...that would be the list of honest business people. Sorry, my mistake!

Ok if you say so

 

[EE THr]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Thank you.











Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[EddieR]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Hi EE, you posted to wh regarding Judy -->JH just tries to psychoanalyze everyone.

Nobody seems to know why....
***************

That is precisely why, most in need do 'not' recognize it. Snicker. For the record she 'is' a titled professional scientist, but not one dedicated to tightening loose screws. May I point out the indelicate usage of inappropriate words by wh to various members for your edification of a few screws needing to be tightened. Your's seem to be up to specifications.

Don Jose de La Mancha

Yeah sure whatever man,.

Titled professional scientist? .... a what?
What's her title and degree?
"Titled professional scientist" doesn't say anything.

You pretty much haven't said anything since you got on here.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Well, Well, so wh & swr 'can't' produce anything to give weight to their claims of expertise eh?? hmm snicker, snicker. Fascinating since they demand the credentials of those that don't agree with them. Of equal interest, I have yet to see evidence of their actually 'understanding' any phase of the theories of lrl's being possible.

Soooo, based upon past posts, I fail to see where wh has any claim to post of his 'superiority' in any factor.

Swr, has yet to post anything on technical data, except for cut and paste data which leaves an impression that he actually doesn't understand what he has posted..

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

EE my friend: You have to an extent, joked about nano technology, this leaves one with the feeling that you haven't studied or read much about it sooo-->

Nanoradio
A nanoradio is a radio receiver or transmitter constructed on a nanometer scale. Currently only receivers have been developed and they are structured around a carbon nanotube. The first such device was described in October 2007 by a team led by physicist Alex Zettl.[1]
The nanotube, about 10 nanometers in diameter and several hundred nanometers long, is contained in a vacuum and one of its ends is connected to an electrode of a battery. The other electrode is placed a short distance from the nanotube's other end. The tube, now charged, will vibrate in tune with any external electromagnetic signal, effectively acting as an antenna. The favorable vibration frequency can be adjusted by changing the applied voltage, which allows one to tune the radio to different carrier frequencies. The field electron emission effect causes a current to flow, as electrons tunnel across the gap between the tube and the second electrode. This current represents an amplified version of the radio signal; no demodulation is necessary.[2][3]

Nanoelectronics:
The aim of Nanoelectronics is to process, transmit and store information by taking advantage of properties of matter that are distinctly different from macroscopic properties. The relevant length scale depends on the phenomena investigated: it is a few nm for molecules that act like transistors or memory devices, can be 999 nm for quantum dot where the spin of the electron is being used to process information. Microelectronics, even if the gate size of the transistor is 50 nm, is not an implementation of nanoelectronics, as no new qualitative physical property related to reduction in size are being exploited.
Objectives:
The last few decades has seen an exponential growth in microchip capabilities due primarily to a decrease in the minimum feature sizes. The resulting doubling of processor speed every 18 months (known as Moores Law) is, however, expected to break down for conventional microelectronics in about 15 years for both fundamental and economic reasons [Nature 406,1027 (2000)]. Fifteen years correspond to only 3 generations of graduate students (2 y MSc., 3y Ph.D.)! The search is on, therefore, for new properties, paradigms and architectures to create a novel nanoelectronics.
What is Nanoelectronics:
Semiconductor electronics have seen a sustained exponential decrease in size and cost and a similar increase in performance and level of integration over the last thirty years (known as Moore's Law). The Silicon Roadmap is laid out for the next ten years. After that, either economical or physical barriers will pose a huge challenge. The former is related to the difficulty of making a profit in view of the exorbitant costs of building the necessary manufacturing capabilities if present day technologies are extrapolated. The latter is a direct consequence of the shrinking device size, leading to physical phenomena impeding the operation of current devices. Quantum and coherence effects, high electric fields creating avalanche dielectric breakdowns, heat dissipation problems in closely packed structures as well as the non-uniformity of dopant atoms and the relevance of single atom defects are all roadblocks along the current road of miniaturization [Nature 406, 1023 (2000)]. These phenomena are characteristic for structures a few nanometers in size and, instead of being viewed as an obstacle to future progress might form the basis of post-silicon information processing technologies. It is even far from clear that electrons will be the method of choice for signal processing or computation in the long term - quantum computing, spin electronics, optics or even computing based on (nano-) mechanics are actively being discussed. Nanoelectronics thus needs to be understood as a general field of research aimed at developing an understanding of the phenomena characteristic of nanometer sized objects with the aim of exploiting them for information processing purposes. Specifically, by electronics we mean the handling of complicated electrical wave forms for communicating information (as in cellular phones), probing (as in radar) and data processing (as in computers) [Landauer, Science (1968)]. Concepts at the fundamental research level are being persued world-wide to find nano-solutions to these three characteristic applications of electronics. One can group these concepts into three main categories:
1. Molecular electronics
Electronic effects (e.g. electrical conductance of C60)
Synthesis (DNA computing as a buzz word)
2. Quantum Electronics, Spintronics (e.g. quantum dots, magnetic effects)
3. Quantum computing
Currently the most active field of research is the fabrication and characterization of individual components that could replace the macroscopic silicon components with nanoscale systems. Examples are molecular diodes , single atom switches or the increasingly better control and understanding of the transport of electrons in quantum dot structures. A second field with substantial activity is the investigation of potential interconnects. Here, mostly carbon nanotubes and self-assembled metallic or organic structures are being investigated. Very little work is being performed on architecture (notable exceptions are HP's Teramac project [Heath et al., Science 280, 1716 (1998)] or IBM's selfhealing Blue Gene project). Furthermore, modeling with predictive power is in a very juvenile stage of development. This understanding is necessary to develop engineering rules of thumb to design complex systems. One needs to appreciate that currently the best calculations of the conductance of a simple molecule such as C60 are off by a factor of more than 30. This has to do with the difficult to model, but non-trivial influence of the electronic contact leads. The situation in quantum computing is somewhat different. The main activities are on theoretical development of core concepts and algorithms. Experimental implementations are only starting. An exception is the field of cryptography (information transportation), where entangled photon states propagating in a conventional optical fiber have been demonstrated experimentally.
What needs to be done ?
First, nanoelctronics is a wide open field with vast potential for breakthroughs coming from fundamental research. Some of the major issues that need to be addressed are the following:
1. Understand nanoscale transport! (closed loop between theory and experiment necessary). Most experiments and modeling concentrate on DC properties, AC properties at THz frequencies are however expected to be relevant.
2. Develop/understand self-assembly techniques to do conventional things cheaper. This has the future potential to displace a large fraction of conventional semiconductor applications. One needs to solve the interconnect problem and find a replacement of the transistor. If this can be done by self-assembly, a major cost advantage compared to conventional silicon technology would result.
3. Find new ways of doing electronics and find ways of implementing them (e.g. quantum computing; electronics modeled after living systems; hybrid Si-biological systems; cellular automata). Do not try and duplicate a transistor, but instead investigate new electronics paradigms! Do research as a graduate student in this field and lay the foundation for the Intel of the New Millenium.


Don Jose de L aMancha

 

[fenixdigger]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

There you go with those facts again. A delusional response will be forthcoming with a large helping of I'm a genius see me roar.

God, I hate it when Freud is right. Here it comes.

 

[EE THr]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

RDT---

Actually, I have read about nanometer technology from time to time. I was trying to rib you for using a generalized term. As in, "nano what?" It's like saying "a micro, or a pico, or a milli." It could mean anything. I'd add "mega" and "kilo," but they have contemporary street connotations, and I don't want to dilute my point. And that is, that the term, nano, by itself isn't anything more than negative decimal multiplier.

So, that's all very nice, and all. But what do you want to say about nanometer technology. Are you talking about nanometer wavelengths? Or nanometer particles? Or what?

And how does that relate to LRLs? Are you saying that nanometer radiowaves travel farther than other frequencies? Are you saying that LRLs have nanometer receivers, like the one mentioned in your information, built inside of them? Where would the nanometer wavelength radiation come from?

I could go on with many more questions, but I think you get the idea.

And no, I haven't heard anything about, what did you call it?---nano bio-electronics? What the heck is that? Oh, I can imagine approximately what it is supposed to be about, but to what, exactly does it currently pertain?

And please don't make me have Scotty beam you up!

 

[EddieR]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

There you go with those facts again. A delusional response will be forthcoming with a large helping of I'm a genius see me roar.

God, I hate it when Freud is right. Here it comes.

 

[EE THr]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Is Eddie letting Big J use the account now?

 

[fenixdigger]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

SWR has never demanded the credentials of those that don't agree with them. Good grief, stop fabricating stories already stop


OMG

 

[GuyinWH]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Well, Well, so wh & swr 'can't' produce anything to give weight to their claims of expertise eh?? hmm snicker, snicker. Fascinating since they demand the credentials of those that don't agree with them. Of equal interest, I have yet to see evidence of their actually 'understanding' any phase of the theories of lrl's being possible.

Soooo, based upon past posts, I fail to see where wh has any claim to post of his 'superiority' in any factor.

Swr, has yet to post anything on technical data, except for cut and paste data which leaves an impression that he actually doesn't understand what he has posted..

Don Jose de La Mancha

Kettle calling the pot black? Funny he demands credentials yet hes nowhere near even claiming he has any.
To top the matter off, of course we'd demand credentials. You're making absolutely bogus claims, theres no way you're going to have your cake and eat it too.

And yes I for one do understand the theories behind the LRLs, they're a fraud so not much to understand.
All those theories are based off of pseudo-science (ie fabricated/false) and have no scientific merit.
Just the fact you're here talking about the LRL theories as if they had some sort of legitimacy tells me you don't know anything at all.


Also, everyone else please note the setup of his previous post. The way he worded it, it's a sure bet he'd try to disqualify our degree's as degree mill degrees or fake or what have you so it's a moot point.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Good morning EE: You definitely need , I will join you

You posted -->the term, nano, by itself isn't anything more than negative decimal multiplier.
***************
?? agreed, why I clarified it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

also you posted --> how does that relate to LRLs?
***************
Directly, no way, as I had hoped / thought that you would understand, but as a developing field which 'may' be applied to Lrl's. possibly quite pertinant in regards to power and the sensitivity needed for a lrl to function without the human interface
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You posted -->what did you call it?---nano bio-electronics? What the heck is that? Oh, I can imagine approximately what it is supposed to be about, but to what, exactly does it currently pertain?
*****************
Currently? nah, but in the future quite possibly to bridge the gap between the lrl and the human interface. -->

http://hubpages.com/hub/Nano-Biotics
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
you posted--> And please don't make me have Scotty beam you up!

**************
Nah, I have too much work to do, I can't go playing around on other solar systems just yet.


Don Jose de La Mancha .

 

[aarthrj3811]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

~GuyinWH`

And yes I for one do understand the theories behind the LRLs, they're a fraud so not much to understand.

Understanding (also called intellection) is a psychological process related to an abstract or physical object, such as a person, situation, or message whereby one is able to think about it and use concepts to deal adequately with that object.
An understanding is the limit of a conceptualization. To understand something is to have conceptualized it to a given measure.
conceptualize, conceptualise [kənˈsɛptjʊəˌlaɪz]
vb
to form (a concept or concepts) out of observations, experience, data, etc.
conceptualization , conceptualisation n

I don’t think you understand..Art

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Morning mi buddy swr.: You posted -->I got a PM that Joseph was fabricating stories, again. I see that PM was correct.

****************
If you call posting about a developing future science. fabricating, yes, however that brings up the question just where did your electrical / electronic education stop keeping up with the latest developments? Right now in countless labs, brilliant, true scientists are developing things that we can't begin to imagine, especially those with closed minds.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
you also posted -->SWR has never demanded the credentials of those that don't agree with them.
**************
Interesting grammatical construction, but , do I have to go over countless past posts of yours demanding just this? Of course this includes statements degrading the education of the targeted poster.

Don Jose de La Mancha

p. s. sugar or cream for your coffee my friend swr?

 

[GuyinWH]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

~GuyinWH`

And yes I for one do understand the theories behind the LRLs, they're a fraud so not much to understand.

Understanding (also called intellection) is a psychological process related to an abstract or physical object, such as a person, situation, or message whereby one is able to think about it and use concepts to deal adequately with that object.
An understanding is the limit of a conceptualization. To understand something is to have conceptualized it to a given measure.
conceptualize, conceptualise [kənˈsɛptjʊəˌlaɪz]
vb
to form (a concept or concepts) out of observations, experience, data, etc.
conceptualization , conceptualisation n

I don’t think you understand..Art

Gee Art, thanks for your fail-proof expertise with copy-pasting! It has shown me the light!! err... meaning of Understand...

Think what you what, no one cares.

 

[GuyinWH]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Wow this whole thread strayed so far from it's original purpose....

Hope it gets back on track and someone explains what will be accepted as evidence that they are all a fraud...


EDIT: Don't think that this in any way suggests there is any legitimacy to these devices as we have already ascertained they are all a fraud.
This is merely for the sake of the thread at hand.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Hope it gets back on track and someone explains what will be accepted as evidence that they are all a fraud...

I live in the USA…A Jury of their peers have the final word and becomes case law…art

 

[GuyinWH]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Hope it gets back on track and someone explains what will be accepted as evidence that they are all a fraud...

I live in the USA…A Jury of their peers have the final word and becomes case law…art

You do live in the USA? REALLY?
Actually no, a jury of their peers does not have the final word and it doesn't become case law...


Anyone want to chime in and point out why Art is so helplessly WRONG yet again?
May I add you yet again sidestepped the thread.

 

[EE THr]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

artie---

No. Understanding is not a "psychological" process.

Psychology means "study of the spirit," which is the person, himself, not the body.

How can understanding be a "study of [anything] process"?

Understanding is simply when a person knows something, to one degree or another, about something. There are different levels of understanding. For example, a person can know that a rock is a rock, or a person can know that the rock is composed of mineral matter, or a person can know what mineral matter a certain rock is composed of, or a person can understand to a much greater degree than than---things like crystalline structure, molecules, atoms, and so forth.

It's not absolutely nothing to do with psychology. Except that Psychology likes to try to tie everything into itself, to make its collection of non-science seem more encompassing, and thus important. They should "psychoanalyze" themselves sometime! Except it would probably make them nuttier than they already are.