Phi for All

And like the 50-80% improvement experiment, this is only to raise more interest, for more properly designed experiments. The goal here is to be able to show that there was a significant temperature increase when chi was demonstrated after all reasonable efforts to isolate the experiment from outside influences. If one were to run this test and find that "pretty hot" is actually an 8 degree increase, then you'd have the attention of the folks with the checkbook.

And instead of enlightening me, you choose to do nothing. I know why you are sick.

You're fooling yourself. Atlantis was a myth.

If you use a person, try to remove all influence the person might have on the experiment. The person shouldn't know when you are using your chi or not. The person should be blindfolded. The person's mouth shouldn't be facing the thermometer so breathing affects temperature. The person should not talk during the experiment. The goal is to show that, if there is an increase in temperature recorded by the thermometer, it can only be the affects of chi. Do as much as you can to limit anything that might interfere or influence the experiment.

I've also heard that super short electric pulses can break the hydrogen and electrostatic bonds of ice so it's more easily swept away. I wonder if that type of technology would work with snow. I can see the ad on Craigslist now, asking for snow bunnies to "clear your driveway".

Forget about sources for now. If you can affect the temperature of something with this "energy", you can measure that effect with a thermometer. Put the thermometer on a table in a room and remove anything like fans or open flames (a light source is OK, as long as the amount of light stays the same). Now sit in front of it and wait for 5 minutes to let air currents settle down. Then mark down the temperature, and repeat this each minute for five minutes, to get a baseline temperature. Then apply your chi. Focus on the thermometer itself, making it rise in temperature. Record the temperature every minute as before. Do it for ten or fifteen minutes. Now you have some data, which you can use to put together meaningful information about how chi affects temperature. This is what scientists will be looking for, testable, repeatable results that suggest strongly there is energy present that is unexplained by anything but chi. And instead of saying "pretty hot", you get to say something much more accurate like, "+8.3 degrees C over 11 minutes".

There are many ways you could arrange an experiment to test this. I'm excited about my new Chiunicyle. These are the types of claims you need to support with evidence. You can't just claim you can do this. We need evidence. Pretty hot? Not scientific. We can measure the heat from energy, so why can't you? Are you saying that if you focus chi on this person's hand, a thermometer that had been calibrated from normal would show an increase? That's something you should be able to measure fairly easily.

Incredulity is a weak mortar.

... or we can think about our kids, poison them a lot less, and regulate responsibly, according to what the experts have outlined. Better environment, and we avoid the hideously costly scramble to "scrub the atmosphere" that Mr Adams mentions. Scrub the atmosphere? That sounds a lot like you waited until your marshmallow turned black before pulling it out of the fire.

It would be interesting to see what impact a group of young legal minds drafting up cases (pro bono, of course) against some of the major corporations behind the denier movement would have. "Just getting ready for the inevitable lawsuits that will be leveled at your company for all the foot-dragging and active efforts to halt regulations designed to mitigate climate change effects."

What if you lose the blade, keep the winch, and lay down a heavy tarp the length of the driveway before it snows (20'x40' US$108, cut and sew to get 10' x 80')? Run rope through grommets at the house end to your winch/come-along at the street end. The snow falls on the tarp, and when it gets full enough, you winch/roll it to the street, where it's easier to deal with.

And now I want a chi car. Something I can charge up myself and drive. Or a chi-powered unicycle Segway. The One Wheel.

You need to deal with one misconception at a time here. You're juggling three or four here in this thread, which is why it was split from the other thread. You redefine well-known/understood terms like motion, space, and matter, which is a HORRIBLE practice (seriously, would you discuss baseball with professionals and use phrases like "If you swing your sticks faster, the ball-grabber's mitten won't be able to catch the ball"?). You assert that you're right instead of asking questions, when it's clear you're dancing on the surface of a shallow, pop-sci foundation for a science education. I think it's great you're interested, and you're obviously pretty smart, but you need some mainstream study. What you're doing here to yourself is science garbage. Nothing personal intended.

Listen, this is a science discussion site. We hate it when people say things are "facts" and then don't support that with evidence. Without evidence, you're just ranting. It's boring. If you're going to try and start a conversation with science-minded people, don't call your opinion "fact".

I wouldn't say it that way, no.

Can you think of a truth, something that is universally true for all people everywhere, that isn't also a tautology (red roses are red)? Most of the things people think are true are subjective to them or their culture (theft is wrong), and part of the scientific method is identifying the subjective influences in your arguments and ideas, and minimizing their effect. A court of law might try to seek out the "truth" of what happened in a particular case, but they use science to build a preponderance of evidence to support the case. I'd say leave the truth to the law, and focus on the preponderance of scientific evidence.

What stops you from relieving both your sickness and your boredom by making your surroundings beautiful?

Doesn't it say a lot about modern usage that the first internet image of this is with a man instead of a donkey? I often feel this way.

So our ability to see that far isn't bounded by our technology; it's bounded by the light's ability to reach us from that far away, correct? New technology isn't going to make the pole longer.

! Moderator Note Or, you could just say, "What have you got so far? I can help but I won't give you answers."

Two different carrots and two different sticks. You're thinking of the set that involves either beating the donkey to get him to move, or enticing him with a carrot. Carrot OR the stick. The other set involves tying the carrot to the end of the stick, and holding it in front of the donkey, so he moves forward to get the carrot, but it always stays the same distance away from him. Carrot AND the stick.

It would be like a pre-experiment. You'd throw it out immediately if it yielded results like the OP claims, and finance a much more comprehensive study. Similar to asking someone to name several playing cards that only you can see in order to test psychic abilities. If you guessed 80% of 30 cards correctly, I'd definitely say further testing was a sound investment, even if it's only to find out how you're cheating.

! Moderator Note There's little value in a discussion with a specific topic (WMDs) and no distinguishable parameters (and other BULLSHIT). This is leading straight to conspiracy theory, and we don't do that here. If you can open another thread without the conspiracy, please feel free to do so. Stick to a single topic when you can, and try not to jump from subject to subject. If you make extraordinary claims, you need to support them with extraordinary evidence. This thread is closed.

! Moderator Note Sorry, it's a new anti-spammer setting we're trying. Hang in there, we appreciate it.

* Sigh * Types of Belief: Hope -- I can't support the idea rationally, I think it's probably right, so I'm going to believe it anyway. Faith -- I can't support the idea rationally, but think it's so important to me that I will believe strongly in it, and have confidence it will be exactly as I believe. Trust -- I have made observations, devised experiments to test the idea against reality, I've tried to remove all subjectivity from my process, I've come to conclusions, shared them with colleagues, received feedback, made predictions based on revised information, tested those predictions, encouraged colleagues to repeat my experiments, and supported a precise, objective methodology to pile up a preponderance of evidence to support my idea, and I believe it because I'm confident it was arrived at rationally.