Robittybob1

Like are you suggesting putting these below the wheel to pick up air currents? There could well be air currents as the cause for the phenomenon but then we would need to see how these air currents are generated underneath the air tight hoods (glass bowls). We should do this from the start. I agree it should be part of the experimental design. To overcome the variation that might be possible with the two side by side wheels we were going to assign each of them alternate roles at a defined frequency. So if one had a tendency to move for some weird reason one day it would be the control, next day it would be the test wheel. For the whole time of the experiment neither wheels are touched. In my understanding of physics they may have had some instability to begin with but that will fade with time. I can't see how any difference between the apparatus will persist and always favour the test wheel. EE has not agreed to the experiment as yet but I would be surprised if one could get either wheel (assignation) to move more than the other under those circumstances. Knowing whether something is a false positive is a bit hard for me to understand. It is like you seem to know the outcome you expect and won't accept any other result. You might take the view if the test wheel moved more than the control - it must be a false positive result. I suppose EE would take the opposite view, his false positive would be if the control moved more than the test. I don't have any preconceived notion and all I'm saying is take the measurements.

Good point about seeing it move and making it a positive result. That was why I was suggesting having two wheels side by side, one the test subject and the other the control, and both under glass bowls etc. That to me seems so improbable that one would move and not the other. Can you imagine that situation? Ever since Arete started using the term "type 1 error" (seems like a week or more now) I have been trying to get him to define his term. All my definitions of type 1 error have come straight from sites that were teaching statistics. Is there an alternate use of the term "type 1 error"? I do occasionally make a grammatical error. I have been known to miss the word "not" out of a sentence giving it the complete opposite meaning to what I had intended. What I understand at this stage is that type 1 and 2 errors are not caused by experimental design issues.

Type 1 and 2 errors are not experimental designs issues. Wikipedia:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_I_and_type_II_errors#Definition .They seem to be more related to the degree of sensitivity and sample size. For example we could insist EE would have to repeat the experiment sufficient times so that the results would happen less than 1 time in a thousand by chance. That is 0.1% chance it was due to random chance.

Unless there is some effort why do you say "harder"? What we are more likely to accept is that it spins less if you are not looking at it. For that is what we want to test whether looking at it makes any difference at all. The null hypothesis would be equivalent to saying looking at the wheel makes no difference to the motion of the wheel. During the test the null hypothesis says you would get the same amount of movement more than 5% or 1% (depending on the level of certainty) of the time as when it is unobserved. Does it ever appear to have moved when unobserved?

Would you say it was essential to be able to see the wheel? Did you accept the idea your view of the wheel should be blocked (blinded)? In the above if your hands or body are not near the wheel, what are you doing to make it any different to being not in the room at all? Are you mentally focusing on the object?

As I understood it Type 1 and Type 2 errors involve the analysis of the results and the acceptance or rejection incorrectly of the null result. This has to do with the level certainty you apply ie was it 90% 95% or 99% etc. The design of the experiment will increase the amount of motion that is available in both the control and the test apparatus. So we can look for ways to tighten that up, but if the operator of TK says he must see the object that is turning you can't design an experiment that blocks his view. In truth it should make no difference for he can see the test and the control apparatus equally. Well there could be a bias if the operator is also making the measurements, granted, but in this experimental case let's say it is all independently verified. So tell me what other situation would cause a false positive movement to occur please? We must eliminate all possible cheating obviously. What was equally true? Type 2 errors are the incorrect acceptance of the null hypothesis. That is opposite to Type 1 hence not really the same.

I forgive you Strange. I still find it frustrating when Arete talks of Type 1 errors when they are more of an experimental design issue. As Imfataal pointed out correctly "Type one errors are the incorrect rejection of the null hypothesis".

We are going to measure degrees (as in 360 degrees = 1 circle) so I can't see how being able to see the PSI wheel will make one iota of difference. Let Imatfaal answer the question please. [i see someone has the cheek to give me a negative score for being correct and honest. Discuss the issue please instead of being so vindictive.]

Sorry - I was playing and continuing the joke. I was not really saying that this was a type 1 error but joking about it. Now I didn't mean to play a joke on you. I am pleased you have clarified who it was who proposed the high frequency changing experiment. The only idea I wasn't clear on at present is what you mean by "blinded" in the part sentence "it was the same undisturbed apparatus and secondly it was blinded"?

In post #30 the work by Susan Blackmore supports it. Now how much research she has done I'm not too sure. But I could definitely understand what she was saying and it really made sense to me. [i do watch a lot of YT videos so it wasn't just from that quote above but generally that I have come to admire her thoughts.] That study on language would not really be the right one to pick up what I have come understand about memes. OK I could still be wrong but since a similar idea has been expressed by Blackmore, I am now looking for more evidence to support this relatively obscure notion that it was by the success of using and remembering a large number of memes that humans were naturally selected for increased intelligence (big brain). We used activities that were learned and not just those known through instinct.

I have no problem accepting an alternate possible water world Earth but it has not been supported by many scientists as yet. That article didn't really support your argument either. I am a Moon capture advocate rather than a person supporting the Giant Impact theory for Moon formation. For a Moon capture we would need a Water World Earth to slow the Moon down, that is why I was interested in seeing your arguments for an Earth like that.

What I haven't got across adequately is the spin off to the genetics of the population when one lives out his/her meme. Take a male suicide bomber his meme ends up killing him and hence any evolution that may have resulted from his genome will never be tested. While with priests nuns etc whom have proclaimed celibacy, yet still assist in the spreading of their memes (through their vocations). Their genetic loss is probably made up through the size of their sibling family group. Above I was thinking of sects where the whole group practiced celibacy (if it is really possible) in these groups the teaching would truncate any genetic predisposition that allowed the human organism to adopt the meme. That seems to have a self limiting effect on the viability of the congregation IMO.

This idea is obviously correct: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme But it is not the influence on the genetics of the host species I have seen proposed that the memes encouraged the development of the large brained human. I can see that the large brain enables memes to become included in culture but do they have the feed-back feature of encouraging by selection pressure of an increased brain size? The person initiating the meme may have no offspring, Jesus of Nazareth certainly was the example that sprung to mind, but there definitely has been a major influence at least attributed to his teachings. Initially his followers were persecuted by the Romans so it didn't seem to be the best superstition to have if you were expecting your genetics to influence future generations. Not only that but there were sects of the Christian superstition that advocated celibacy. Now that meme seems to go contrary to any concept I have been promoting. Maybe this was the reason that the sects practicing the celibacy memes soon died out. I wonder if I can find an example that supports the contention? In a paper by Susan Blackmore "Evolution and Memes: The human brain as a selective imitation device" http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Articles/cas01.html The basic memes associated with making and using tools, making and using fire, and the use of cooking must have really put the pressure on for the evolution of intelligence.

How does that argument go?

So what do you want?

Do you think the Moon is flat? Is the Sun flat? So when we have a Lunar eclipse is the flat Earth always in the right alignment? Now having got that off my chest I may look at the silly YT. Can't be bothered sorry. What does SN 1054 mean?

has that been used before?

What should be done is to have two other flexible blades attached to the boat so when the flexible oar is pulled through the water instead of the boat turning this way then that, that motion flexes the flexible blade and assists in the forward motion. I reckon you would triple the forward speed with the 3 blades used together.

It has been done already and it seems successful but I would say it could end up with fatigue at the point of flexing.

What I had come to realise was that all successful memes improve the person's chance of procreating if they carry those memes. I don't think I'm the only one who has come to this conclusion. So to answer your question it would be yes, but if the meme is dying out maybe it isn't so successful today. Read #27 again for it has been edited. this scene from Friends may have destroyed the meme for some people!

Well obviously we are both just guessing here for I doubt whether it has ever been studied. But the birthdates of the population can be graphed. Ok putting up a Christmas tree is one of those end of year activities.

Sounds like a good suggestion.

Has anyone been reported picking up TV or radio transmissions? Years ago I remember hearing a report that someone's fillings were picking up a radio station. I don't know how verified this was. But I remember thinking "that wouldn't be that be so bad", for I liked listening to the radio. I wonder if it is still on the web somewhere? It is still being discussed at some sites but the hyperlinks are broken http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/3638/is-it-possible-to-pick-up-radio-signals-from-dental-fillings so it isn't that easy to check out fully. It could have been a hoax from the beginning. Blow me down here is a demonstration of something. I'm not sure this is for real, but someone in the comments confirmed it. Metallic filling acting as a speaker! I think that is what they are demonstrating.

I am thinking of doing the experiment myself, and I'm just a little concerned that it might be against my religion to practice divination. But then I remembered the supposed words of Jesus when he said something to the effect "if you had faith as small as a mustard seed you could say to the mountain be thrown into the sea", so that is a TK event like no other - moving a mountain - so moving a PSI wheel sounds like child's play.

What sort of events come under the heading ESP?