--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> , "Hugo" <richardhughes103@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> , "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> , "Hugo" <richardhughes103@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> , "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In 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. > OffWorld >
