BigGiantHead

This 'one particle' notion bears similarity to an interpretation of QM that is, I think, due to Feynmann. It's called the 'sum over histories' approach.

I didn't say it was easy, but any practical science is difficult when you're just a big giant head bobbing about in an atmosphere suit. This 9.8m/s^2 gravity really sucks too. Give me the cool dark of intergalactic space where a guy can get some real thinking done

Apparently this is not a breakthrough, but an interesting though minor aplication of an old process that does not yield useful amounts of energy. See the short news story here; http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/thisweek/story/0,12977,1048639,00.html

Not at all. The issue is whether you can reasonably say that taking a pill causes what occurs after the pill was taken or whether those things occur for some other coincidental reason or because of the taker's expectations. The particular nature of any symptoms is irrelevant to the principles of the DBPC protocol. Which bats the question back again as, 'If Aph 138 is so rock-solid in its logic then why bother with a DBPC trial?'. Answer: Aph 138 is not rock-solid. DBPC methods correct the errors implicit in Dr H's protocol. Next question: Why do you perceive there to be a need for DBPC trial? Is it because you realize it's better, though your steadfast defense of Dr H suggests otherwise, or is it because you just want to pay lip-service to scientific methods to gain a cloak of respectability? If the latter, it can only be because you assume the results will be positive and you are just tolerating the need to play science's rules. But what if they are negative, are you ready for that? These are rhetorical questions, I don't expect answers. I don't think your heart is in the DBPC method or you would not still defend Aph 138 and its relatives, so it's not worth pursuing this any further. As much as I can I've shown why DBPC trial are run the way they are and I've run out of new ways to explain it. Let's see if Rolfe can get there instead. BGH.

Tim I am going to leave this to Rolfe at the moment, he is pursuing a new tack on this trial thing, that does cover most of the same territory that I would have got into, but it does look like an interesting angle. I think I'll wait and see how you get on with following the protocol. I would agree that I think you have the integrity to report honestly back to us if you take it on. In the meantime, since you communicate with Albert, does he have an answer to what got called Albert's Logical Impasse at the BBC site, where he rejects trials because he doesn't like the homeopaths who took part, but seems to ask us to accept those homeopaths' clinical experiences (even though they may not be the purist that he is)? (If he can reply without abuse then I'll engage with the discussion, but if it's more of the same then I'm not going to bother. I think we can take for granted all the abusive stuff by now, we've got the glossary: quack, ars, ignorant fool etc etc. Why doesn't he post here? Was he banned? Ahh, I just checked the members' list and answered my own question. He is banned. I'll not subvert the Mods' intentions by communicating with him via you acting as proxy, so I think we'd best leave it at that. And perhaps you should avoid forwarding his stuff or the Mods might extend their judgement to you, which would be a shame when we're in the middle of something. Have you suggested that he could tone it down a bit if we wants to stay in forums like this? ) BGH

dave I think that's one of things called an 'answer' without being an 'explanation' ;-) I had already directly looked up Modular Forms and still came away clueless. It may be the unfortunate truth that the explanation requires more of the basics than I have, but maybe it doesn't.

First off, I can't cope with anything much beyond high school math, but given that restriction, can anyone enlighten me as to what a modular form is and why they are marvelous mathematical objects? I managed to read all of Simon Singh's book on Fermat's Last Theorem without gaining any insight into what a modular form is. Funnily enough, I just looked on Amazon and the first reviewer, who is clearly a mathematician, enjoyed the book but complains about precisely this point- if you don't know what a modular form is then you miss the main idea behind the proof. (P.S. Such is my ignorance that I don't even know whether this is the best subforum for this question. Mods please shift it if necessary)

Rolfe's on a roll here, so I'll wait and see where that's going, especially since he/she says it's in DBPC territory. It may be that the issues wil get covered by this route so I'll avoid duplication for now. Cheers BGH (Rolfe- Excellent cat photo)

Here now, but wanted to see if this identity had been used and now it won't let me change it, so BGH I am. As an alien, and being just a head, of course there is no gender, but carry on with she if that helps continuity. Anyway, back at the ranch, and not wishing to interrupt, but I notice that you didn't respond to what seemed to be strong references from 'Glider' attempting high-potency provings of mercury and belladonna, one of which was done by an advocate of homeopathy (Walach). Both gave negative results. Anyway I'll look in when you've finished speaking to Rolfe to see what you say. (By the way, I wasn't going to join because I tired of all this stuff about other posters' identities. Let's just get on with the debate) BGH (as it is now).