Strange

That doesn't answer any of the questions (that page does not even contain the word "local"). Please stop googling for keywords (that you appear not to understand) and answer the questions about these "experiments" you say you have performed: 1. What is "local communication"? 2. What are "local observations"? 3. How are you measuring "quantum connectivity"? 4. What experimental setup do you use? 5. What results have you obtained?

What are "local observations"? How are you measuring "quantum connectivity"? What experimental setup do you use, what results have you obtained?

What does that mean?

Apart from: 1. random.org does not generate true random numbers (they do) 2. Intel does not have a True Random Number Generator (they do) 3. Quantum computers can generate true random numbers (still waiting for an explanation of this) Instead of providing support for your claims, or admitting you were wrong, you have gone off on some stoner fantasy. Grow up.

But just to make unsubstantiated claims?

Please use the Big Button clearly labelled "Quote". It is tedious to keep having to search for the posts you are referring to. I know it may be a terribly high-tech concept and difficult to master unless you are a Jedi with centuries of experience, but there is even a sticky about it: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/82164-the-quote-function-a-tutorial-in-several-parts/ If you don't have any evidence, you don't have much of a case, do you. As you have failed to provide even a single example...

Claims of it having "magical" properties are BS. It is just a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen. (And therefore liable to explode!)

Really? Really?? https://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intel-digital-random-number-generator-drng-software-implementation-guide So no support for your claim that quantum computers can better generate true random numbers? Just random waffle. How about you stop posting idiotic drivel and answer the question?

So you have no evidence, just your personal belief. From several threads I have seen you participate in, it seems you think that any disagreement with you is part of this "conspiracy".

I assume you didn't read the article then. Can you provide a reference to support this claim? Because it is not something I have heard of. How about the UK's "ERNIE", which uses thermal noise. Do you claim that is not truly random as well? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premium_Bond#ERNIE

This idea has been looked at, for example: https://www.insidescience.org/news/every-black-hole-contains-new-universe http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/10/20/could-our-universe-have-arisen-from-a-black-hole/ I don't think anyone has ruled it out, but it hasn't been confirmed either. We need a theory of quantum gravity to have a better understanding of (a) black holes and (b) the early universe.

Why is not truly random? Why do they say it is, if it isn't? It certainly seems to be: https://www.random.org/analysis/ And why do you think a quantum computer is better able to produce random numbers? Intel processors already include a true random number generator: http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/behind-intels-new-randomnumber-generator/0

These show that sleep improves the lymphatic function. You cannot conclude from that that "any defect in the "sleep" is a defect in the glymphatic system." That is the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.

I didn't mention mass, so why do you think I meant that. When your results is compared with reality It is WRONG. Therefore your equation is wrong. Why can't you accept that?

Do you have any evidence for that?

You can look up the height of a geostationary orbit (and how it is calculated): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_orbit Note that (1) it is calculated using Newton's law of gravitation and (2) we have launched geostationary satellites and so we know that calculation is correct. we also, therefore, know that your equation is wrong. You can't keep denying this. Please provide some evidence for this. So far the only evidence you have provided proves you wrong.

If your model produces only incorrect results, then the model is wrong. That is nothing to do with this website or me. Why would anyone use an equation that gives the wrong results in 100% of cases?

That doesn't make much sense. Please show your working in detail.

You need to provide some evidence of this.

You: the only prediction you have made was wrong. So: 1 wrong prediction; zero correct predictions = no support.

How about this: "OpenWorm is an open source project dedicated to creating a virtual C. elegans nematode in a computer." http://www.openworm.org

https://www.random.org "RANDOM.ORG offers true random numbers to anyone on the Internet. The randomness comes from atmospheric noise, which for many purposes is better than the pseudo-random number algorithms typically used in computer programs. People use RANDOM.ORG for holding drawings, lotteries and sweepstakes, to drive online games, for scientific applications and for art and music."

It is just a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen. You could either mix the gasses or electrolyse water. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyhydrogen "Brown's gas[4] and HHO are fringe science terms for a 2:1 mixture of oxyhydrogen obtained under certain special conditions; its proponents claim that it has special properties." "Fringe science" is being very kind.

Really? http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Blood-pressure-(high)/Pages/Causes.aspx Is there any evidence for that?

It was your word. I am not a mind reader. Accusing them of hypocrisy when you really meant bias. Unsubstantiated claims of bias. You could apologise to the whole membership for just being an annoying tick, while you are at it.