Strange

Of course it isn't unsolvable. Any so-called "paradox" in relativity is simply something that is unexpected or counter-intuitive. The theory is mathematically consistent (so no real paradoxes are possible) and also tested experimentally and confirmed to be an accurate description of the way the world work. Presumably, the person who made the video is just ignorant of the theory..

Why? Space is not matter. It is just a set of measurements. However, quantum theory does tell us that empty space has non-zero energy.

What do you mean by "energy field"? I think your frustration comes from a lack of understanding. Maybe ask some questions about the things you don't understand, instead of making stuff up.

Why? Have you tried to recruit some? You are not reading the thread. 1. The OP claims to be able to send messages 2. The range is limited to 10 m How do you expect people here to help, then? And if you want help from people here, are you able to travel to Europe or USA?

What is a “c formation”? What does this mean? How exactly do you cross reference? There are a very large number of ways of generating the numbers 16 and 20 so it seems impossible to decode the word You do t use this anywhere so why mention it?

! Moderator Note I just corrected the title of the thread from Proff to Proof.

This is largely nonsense. Matter is not a form of space Matter cannot be created and destroyed to nothingness Driving away energy does not create matter.

That's a good point (for that reason and just avoiding words that don't really have much meaning). There are standard lists of such "stop words" (because you want to exclude them from indexing and searching documents) that could be used to limit the list. Yes. Getting any number right is going to be impressive. Getting the order (and, in my version of the experiment, the timing right) would be a massive bonus. It would definitely convince me .... that more carefully controlled experiments were required!

If the words were chosen randomly from, say, a large dictionary, then the odds of getting even one right are close to zero. For example, Webster's Third New International Dictionary contains about 470,000 words. If we have chosen 10 of those, then there is (I think) a roughly 1 in 47,000 chance of someone guessing one of those. Although it depends how common the chosen words are - it would be easier for someone to recognise "cat" than an obscure technical term like "phenotype"). To make it easier to calculate the results, I might start with something like the 850 word list from Basic English which should all be commonly known words. I would also like to know the answer to this. As well as confirmation bias.

I have noticed that some types and brands of green tea go brown quite easily. This seems to be more common with Chinese green tea (which I think Twinings is). And also seems more common with hard water and when the water is too hot (green tea should not be made with boiling water). Not sure why honey should make a difference. But many honeys are slightly acidic. This could well be a factor. Update: it is tea time so I just tried adding some honey to my green tea. It did not change colour. So there must be other factors at work. (Also: adding honey to green tea should be illegal anyway!)

Then tell them that your experiment is to prove it is impossible. (Which should be the goal of your experience,ent, anyway. To ensure it is as rigorous as possible.) Just seen Ghideon's suggestion. Brilliant. Don't say anything about telepathy at all. OK. Are you going to fly over here (to Europe or USA) so you can be tested? Genius! Also reduces the risk of the results being affected by the subjects expectations about telepathy. It is common in psychology experiments to tell the subjects that the purpose of the experiment is something completely different, to stop them trying to second-guess the results.

The intro says: "the first law defines the force qualitatively, the second law offers a quantitative measure of the force" Note the difference between the first and second laws. The first one just says that the velocity will "change" if acted on by a force. It doesn't say in what way it will change or by how much it will change. Just "change". So this is a qualitative description. The second law provides a mathematical relationship between the applied force and the change in velocity (ie the acceleration). This means you can apply numbers to any two of the components (mass, acceleration or force) and calculate the magnitude (and, if relevant, direction) of the third. This is therefore a quantitative description. This distinction is very important in science, especially physics. A purely qualitative description is hard (perhaps impossible) to test. A quantitative (ie a mathematical) description can predict precise values that should be measured by an experiment. So this is the basis of rigorous science.

You don't need technology or (lots of) money. I'm sure you could find a couple of students who would be willing to take part for the price of a beer or a lunch. If you are finding it that hard to find people to help, I can only assume you are putting them off with talk of your (non-existent) ability.

You have been given some good advice (even if I say so, myself) on how to do it. You don't need to be a scientist to do science. (Although, once you start working scientifically and accepting the results, then you become a scientist!)

No one said that. Really? You can't see any differences? Or you think the differences aren't due to evolution?

Which is why Inuits look exactly the same, and have the same physiology, as people from Africa.

I would say that Newton's second law is the nearest thing we have to a law of acceleration. Although there are other, related, "laws" (in the general sense of a mathematical relationship) such as the kinematic equations: https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/one-dimensional-motion/kinematic-formulas/a/what-are-the-kinematic-formulas

So you didn't do "that kind of experiment" if you didn't have witnesses. Surely you can find a couple of people (fellow students, workers, friends, family) who would be willing to help you. I suggest you don't start out by saying "I'm telepathic, help me prove it" because that will put a lot of people off. Try something like, " Hey, I read about this idea for testing if telepathy is real; it sounds crazy but do you want to help me try it out?" You need more than one person, because you have to try and do a double blind test. (Ideally, the comparison of results would be done a by a third person who has no direct contact with you, witness A or witness B until after the results have been collated).

You could do some scientific tests yourself. Get a couple of independent witnesses and try something like the following. You get a person to write 10 short messages (even one or two words would do) on pieces of paper and seal each piece of paper in an envelope. Each envelope is numbered, 1 to 10. That person must take no further part in the experiment and have no contact with anyone else in the experiment. (So they leave the envelopes in a room and one of your witnesses (A) collects them later). Next, you and witness A go into a room with closed doors and windows (and the window coverings closed). Witness B goes into a room next door, also with the doors and windows closed. Witness A shuffles the envelopes and passes you one. They make a note of the time and the number of the envelope. You open the envelope and, without saying anything, project the message into the mind of Witness B in the next room. Then you put the paper back in the envelope and hand it back to Witness A. (Witness A should never see the message). Then Witness A picks another envelope and you do the same thing: the number and time is noted and you project the message. Repeat for all 10 envelopes. Meanwhile, Witness B is sitting next door and every time you project a message into their head, they write down the time and the message. When the test is finished, you (and the two witnesses) compare the record of messages received by B with the record of envelopes/messages made by A. You must state in advance if you will allow synonyms or words that sound similar. For example, you project "quick" and they write down "fast". Is that allowed? Or does it have to be the exact message? When judging the results, if you allow synonyms, then you must use a thesaurus to judge if it is a match or not. For example, if you project "quick" and they write down "motorbike" you can't say this a match "because motorbikes go fast". Film the whole thing. Let us know how many of the messages and times are correct. (Suggestions for further improvements welcome). Nonsense. I would say 100% are a sham (most are probably fooling themselves, a few are deliberately lying). A tiny percentage make money from it.

There is, of course, exactly the same amount of evidence for all interpretations of quantum theory. Because they are all interpretations of the same theory. There can’t, by definition, be evidence that favours one over another, either.

No you can't.

Walking up a stationary escalator can be tricky even though you can see the steps are uneven and not moving.

You still haven't provided a reference to support this.

Today I learned that the word "cubicle" has no connection with "cube". It originally meant a place to lie down (still does for some people). https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/cubicle-cube-office-word-history-etymology