--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> , "Hugo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> , off_world_beings <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> > > <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> > , "Hugo" <richardhughes103@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> > > <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> > , "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> > > <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> > , "Hugo" <richardhughes103@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> > > <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> > , "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> > > <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> > , "Hugo" > > > <richardhughes103@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > > > But why would he stop doing the experiments, if there is > > > anything > > > > > > > to it at all it's the most amazing breakthrough in > scientific > > > > > > > undertsnding ever! I'm serious. The only abstract I could > find > > > > > > > in the Journal of Neuroscience claims to have found > evidence > > > of > > > > > > > a field effect, if true it's massive. > > > > > > > > > > > > Because the ceiling effect made the resutls > unpredictable/not- > > > > > replicable? > > > > > > > > > > They wouldn't be non-replicable and that's the only thing > > > > > that would lift the research out of obscurity. If nothing > > > > > else, James Randi would give them a million bucks. > > > > > > > > OK, let me puut it another way: the results haven't been > replicated > > > lately, > > > > or so I surmise. The reason for that is...? > > > > > > > > And no, you have no idea WHAT they haven't been replicated: the > most > > > > you can do is speculate. > > > > > > No, I can speculate and I can look around for evidence. So far, no > > > evidence. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It MAY be due to quantum interaction, that in itself is big > news. > > > > > But affecting people at a distance? Very big news indeed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > If it IS QM effects at body temperature at macro-distances > within > > > the brain, > > > > what possible reason would have to assume that it wouldn't show > > > > action at larger distances? What theoretical difference is there > > > > between 5 inches and 5,000 miles in this context? > > > > > > They don't survive the interference with other quantum states is > the > > > problem. Any coherent waveform is localized and remains so because > > > it's like running into a wall of noise once "out" in the world > > > and away from whatever it is pulled them together in the first > > place.>> > > > > Which random quantum states are you talking about that are > exhibiting > > wave coherence in te general environment? You are trying to say > that one > > tiny wave on its own, can stop a host of coherent waves acting in > tandem > > and exponentially magnifying their power wit eac new addition of a > > fluctuation that joins their flow. One, or two, or even a million > > random, scattered wave functions cannot stand againt a coherent > > super-conductor-like formation. > > > > This is your fallacy. You are reading about microtubules in the > brain > > that interact weakly with the quantum field, but people like Penrose > > don't understand yet that there can exist an array of neuronal > activity > > that functions as one 'army', coherent and powerful. Travis already > > proved this twice in the International Journal of Neuroscience. > > Talking of fallacies.... Travis hasn't "proved" anything. > > I was talking about a few coherent quantum waves not surviving very > far when radiating into the general mish-mash. It applies to any > waves whether they are in water, air or whatever. The coherent becomes > incoherenet when interfered with.>>
Hugo. Where did you read about coherent waves getting dissapated? Waves given a signifiacant, but not overwhelming power in Peru on the ocean get BIGGER and more powerful as the cross the Pacific, sometimes building up over thousands of miles to giant tsunamis. There is no book you have read that states that highly coherent wave functions in the electromagnetic field dissapate quickly. You are making it up. OffWorld
