« Last post by allyoop1234 on Today at 13:26:54 »
It critically matters. If one has to use logical fallacies in order to come to a given conclusion, then that conclusion cannot be trusted.
As one example, you say that humans can have any one of an infinite number of thoughts in any one second, so you conclude that the odds of a person
thinking about anything at one time is one-in-infinity. This is incorrect, because (1) human minds have limited knowledge, so there are not an infinite number
of things they could potentially be thinking about, and (2) human thought is not random, but is strongly influenced by recent events in their lives.
We are significantly more likely to think about some subject matters than others in particular situations.
If a random number pops into your head, it is significantly more likely to be a simple, often-encountered number than a very large, rarely encountered number. People are going to think about the number 70 much more often than they will 1,330,495, for example. So your false dichotomy of "1-in-infinity chance vs. divine intervention" is based on flawed reasoning. Sometimes coincidences do happen.
Thank you that's much better. You are talking about the conscious mind only. Yes, the conscious mind produces about 60-70k thoughts a day and a lot are based on on what has
recently happened. I'm on anout the combination of both the conscious and the subconscious. The conscious only accounts for a tiny fraction whereas the subconscious accounts
for 98%. You say human minds have limited knowledge, in the beggining, yes of course but as you grow, it keeps growing infinitely. Also i'm talking, not just about thoughts, i'm
talking about permutations of your knowledge to produce thoughts. The subconscious contains unbounded information but only the odd thoughts pop into the consciousness usually going to
sleep but during the day as well. Although conscious thoughts are strongly influenced by recent activity you mention, they are not always. People often project their minds forwards
in what you might consider dream-like thoughts. So, you are only looking at one aspect of thinking and you are trying to bound it. For someone to think "70 dogs", this is not a
thought bound by recent events. Think about it, it's impossible, so therefore this means, this thought is from the subconsious and it has randmoly been pushed from the subconscious
into the conscious, thereby making it a random thought. Given the size of the consciousness and much bigger subconsciousness and the fact they both constantly grow in terms of what
they contain and the thought is random, this is therefore 1 randmom thought in any infinite number of thoughts. So put simply you say "human minds have limited knowledge" has no
bearing on what i'm saying which is a random permutation of information popping in to your head at a given point in time not related to recent activities. So to re-emphasize
the odds are 1 in Infinity. Also you are forgetting that the thought has to combine with the object itself. i.e. what is the likelyhood that object with that number will be at
the same position you are at? Finally, you are forgetting the object needs to be within your vicinity at the exact same time, or within a couple of seconds of time. So, therefore
your odds are A RANDOM SUBCONSCIOUS THOUGHT times YOU AND THE OBJECT AT THE SAME POSITION AT THE SAME TIME. This is Infinity times billions/millions times billions/millions.
Given all of this, the odds are beyond numbers, hence beyond people, hence beyond science, hence beyond the universe, hence divine intervention.
Plus, numbers themselves are unbounded as you can see in the proof.
Get the gas examined by chemists and physics in order to verify your claims. Anyone can claim anything on the Internet.
If I see you on the news for discovering some amazing new field of chemistry, then I'll know that you've found something interesting.
According to existing chemistry knowledge, mixing hydrogen with hydrogen at standard conditions will not result in anything but hydrogen
(except a bit of helium now and then due to decay of the tritium isotope). Get your gas analyzed by a spectrometer. There is your test.
If the spectrometer shows just hydrogen and other, known, contaminant gases, then it will falsify your hypothesis. If it shows something never seen before,
then it is worthy of further investigation.
Thank you, that is exactly what i am trying to do. As mentioned i need to take a collaborative approach on this whereby people in wider science take this, produce the
gas as i did and verify it. I'm not looking to be on tv, i'm looking to do what i'm supposed to which is help people and the planet in the best way and fastest way possible.
Is there anyone you could forward this on to and put me in contact with that i could work with on this? Spectroscopy is amazing but as you'll read in my post it is using external
stimulation to produce a bounded result. It is not giving a picture of the atom in it's natural state. The proof that it is a different element and a more pure element is the way
in which the gas burns. It's completely different to hydrogen. Yes, you can't see it with todays technology but you will be able to some day. Just because it might hit the same
area on the spectrum in spectroscopy does not mean it's the same element/atom because the rnge on which elements can land is always going to be bound by the spectrum of light.
The fact it is a different element/atom can only be seen through behaviour. Also, through rationale as presented in the paper. Think about it, the world of things being constituent
of compounds of 116 elements is a probable immpossibility. The electron microscope is the best we have now but you cannot see the level of detail we need to be able to. In the future,
we will have this technology and all will be able to see what i'm taking about.
In the meantime, this produces a new clean energy and countless new medical advancments through pharmaceuticals. If there is anything you can do to help me get in contact with people
who can re-verify this, that would be greatly appreciated, Thanks[/quote]
I'm guessing you see all people who disagree with you as being closed-minded. Sorry, but that's not how that works. An open-minded person is willing to observe and evaluate evidence,
a closed-minded person isn't. I actually did look at your paper. After seeing that your evidence and logic is lacking, I see no reason to accept your conclusions.
It's not a good idea to accept a conclusion when it is easy to point out flaws in the reasoning used to get there.
If you think that makes me a bad person, then that's not something I can help.
You are guessing wrong. I welcome criticism, as a scientist you need to be able to welcome criticism, accept it where necessary or defend your work through counter argument showing
reason, rationale and logic. What you gave in your first response was a 3 line answer with absolutely no indication of what you were disputing. Any scientist has no other option
but to assume this type answer is someone being close-minded and only scanning the document. I appreciate you think the logic is lacking, but i am of course free to disagree and
i do feel i have given a sufficient answer to further qualify the logic. Whether you accept it or not, i don't mind and i welcome any further criticism you may have as long as it
is not like your original close-minded response which was basically "I don't like it.". After reading this response, i appreciate you have read it but there was no evidence in
your existing reply to support that so whether you did read it the first time, i can only take your word. "If you think this makes me a bad person...". I never said you were a bad
person. I said you were ignorant and dismissive which is what you were. This doesn't make someone a bad person. I for one can be like that from time to time and as you stated above,
when i see this "I call it like it is."
I'd very much like you too comeback with anything else and if you could help me to contact people you think may be able to work with me to validate this and get to market that would
be great because this innovation will help the world. So can you help?