PartSkeptic’s Thread for Predictions and Other Matters of Interest

[JayUtah]

Try me on specifics.

You didn't give any specifics. You just gave a Wikipedia-level discourse on the history of modulation and suggested it somehow proves your point. You didn't explain, for example, how the power envelope that you say differentiates a TDMA-modulated signal composed of packets and guard intervals is different than amplitude-modulation.

I'm happy your low-pass filter worked at school. Since that's kid's stuff, and has been for a couple of decades, it doesn't impress me. I'm glad you know how to read an oscilloscope. Basic filter design, proficiency with common equipment, and ten more skills will qualify you as a bench technician at my company. You're trying so very hard to impress people, as a substitute for providing the support your claims require, and I don't think you realize just how frantic this looks.

I have problems that companies like Siemens could not and that University Electrical Departments working with Hewlett Packard could not.

"I'm so very much smarter than so many other people."

You blunt statement has not basis in fact and simply trying to discredit me.

You're being held to account for your claims. Your failure to do that is what discredits you, not the ill intentions of your critics. You don't get to enjoy credit you have not earned.

Are you working with the SA Telcoms?

"Everyone who can knowledgeably dispute me must be working for my enemies and therefore is not to be trusted."

You really need a new hobby.

 

[JayUtah]

Perhaps JayUtah can tell you what the potential pitfalls are.

I already talked about it. It was probably in one of the posts you admit you didn't read.

Ask JayUtah for the formula. I would like to see him deal with that one.

There is no "formula" for the problem you're frantically trying to hand wave into existence. Well, unless the letter n constitutes a formula to you. And no, I'm not on the hook to provide the rationale behind your refusal of Pixel42's protocol. It's your rationale, so you provide the details. You don't get to proceed from the premise that you're right and everyone knows it but is pretending otherwise.

I already know that the signal strength affects me.

Show us your data, if you please.

If the test failed because of signal variability then you would crow because it failed. You want it to fail so you are rushing to get a result.

If your critics wanted the test to fail, why are they allowing you to get by with a lower confidence interval than standard? We want the test to be dispositive either way. All our efforts have been geared toward that. The only concessions to proper protocol have been in your favor. Stop trying to vilify your critics.

All the things you're talking about now were things that didn't matter to you when you first claimed sensitivity to wifi. They became ad hoc additions to your hypothesis only when all the pieces were in place for the test to proceed. You don't want the test to proceed, we suspect, because factual ambiguity favors you.

This is how God operates.

I don't believe you know how God operates.

 

[JayUtah]

Your post is reasonable. I will explain in detail after JayUtah and EvilBiker have their say.

Don't pretend you're waiting on me, before you answer other people's questions. You're several topics behind me in providing a rejoinder to my various rebuttals, and you don't get to hide behind me. You need a better strategy in this debate than pivoting to callouts to specific critics who have been particularly vexing to you.

That way I can predict the possible answers from JU and EB. All they do is take statements of mine and criticize - thinking I am ignorant of the topics.

You are ignorant of the topics. Our posts fill in the gaps you leave, and correct your errors, thus demonstrating that. That is what critics do. That's what critics are supposed to do. You post here knowing that's what will happen. Stop pretending this is ill-intentioned or unexpected.

They add a lot of tech-babble of their own - mostly not relevant.

Which is it? You either don't read my posts, or you read them in enough detail to be able to say they are nonsensical and irrelevant. You're now contradicting yourself in the reasons why you don't have to delve into the expertise provided by others.

I write lengthy posts. This is because, in those posts, I have carefully examined each of the points you raised in a previous post. For the benefit of those who may not know the underlying principles, I lay them out briefly. Then I provide the information and context that is needed for them to see the error you've made. Then I propose ways in which the relevant sciences view and handle the issue you've raised. If possible, I try to provide a non-technical analogy. All this often takes quite a few words. But it cannot be done by someone who is ignorant of the subject.

In contrast, you just declare that your critics' posts are "techno-babble" and beside the point. That can be done by anyone, and with no knowledge whatsoever of the subject. Given these circumstances, which side do you think should be given more credibility?

 

[abaddon]

All the things you're talking about now were things that didn't matter to you when you first claimed sensitivity to wifi.

That has changed. It isn't the wifi at all now. He has simply been incorrectly calling it the wifi because it is the device that provides wifi for him (and wife). But it uses the cell network to obtain a network connection and it is that connection that PS has issue with.

Why he used incorrect terminology I leave as an exercise for the reader.

Whatever the claimed cause is, it ain't the wifi itself.

That said, I leave open the possibility that PS is unaware of the difference between wifi and cell transmission. Or will suddenly change claims.

 

[Mojo]

Try me on specifics.

You didn't give any specifics.

In a post that is no longer here, but was posted less than a quarter of an hour later than that one, he said, “I cannot answer detail.”

 

[abaddon]

In a post that is no longer here, but was posted less than a quarter of an hour later than that one, he said, “I cannot answer detail.”

Read his post in AAH. It is quite the thing to see.

 

[Pixel42]

Read his post in AAH. It is quite the thing to see.

Just read it.

The assumption that anyone who questions his arguments and beliefs must be working on behalf of the Telcos really is astonishing.

It so happens that I did use to work for a Telco (AT&T), but that was nearly 20 years ago and I have no reason to defend them now. Even then I would have put the health and welfare of myself and my family above my loyalty to the company I worked for, as I'm sure would the vast majority of Telco employees today.

[I also developed X25 packet switching systems for Plessey, but that was even longer ago].

 

[JayUtah]

The assumption that anyone who questions his arguments and beliefs must be working on behalf of the Telcos really is astonishing.

Not really, in the broader view of conspiracism. After it becomes clear to the typical proponent that his hastily-Googled cherry picking is insufficient to support the factual portion of his claims, it's common for him to turn to simply including his critics in the envelope of the conspiracy. It allows him to retain his belief of superior mastery of the facts while explaining away his inability to demonstrate it -- his critics know he's right but are otherwise motivated to obfuscate or lie. This extends in extreme cases to anyone who has any formal education at all. Every exercise that results in specialized knowledge amounts, in conspiracy circles, to having been also automatically brainwashed to accept the traditional narrative.

 

[JayUtah]

If you want to find out whether the strength of the signal affects the severity of your symptoms then you need to include that in the protocol of your blind test. Get your wife to monitor the reading whenever the wifi is switched on and record the maximum level it reached as well as the on/off status in her sealed envelope, and record the severity of your symptoms as well as when you think the wifi was on or off in yours.

Symptom severity, specifically pain severity, is typically measured on either a 5- or 10-point scale. Signal strength is a continuous value, but can be similarly discretized. I don't know what equipment he has, but the question of whether to discretize it on a linear or logarithmic scale is pertinent.

But if we've dispensed with the on-off versus sick-well schema, then the binomial distribution no longer applies. It's no longer a matter of guessing a binary variable, but of matching strength of symptoms to strength of signal. Assuming proper scaling of the values, the Pearson's coefficient would be a suitable statistic if we're only going to do 10 trials, and it can be computed for a given confidence interval.

Again, the typical method requires some number of runs with some number of trials per run. Then the t-test is appropriate, since we don't know the expected variance of the signal strength. But it is unlikely at this point that PartSkeptic will consent to any test, regardless of its simplicity.

As you note, the one-tailed bias would have to be determined prior to the experiment. Assuming, but not knowing whether, it has an effect will introduce an extraneous control that destabilizes the result. This is why we typically ignore putatively insignificant confounds unless their effect can be shown significant, and are one-tailed. I mentioned this in a previous post.

I can think of a couple of different calibration protocols. But I would like to see if PartSkeptic can think of them before I explain them. He seems to have the opinion that they're too onerous, or that the task is fundamentally impossible.

 

[JayUtah]

That has changed. It isn't the wifi at all now. He has simply been incorrectly calling it the wifi because it is the device that provides wifi for him (and wife).

Well, that's the informal sense I used it in too, so I'll grant him that. The device in his house that bridges 802.11 and cellular will naturally emit according to both protocols. The 5G cellular tower is, of course, always in operation. It's irrelevant to the test protocol proposed, which deals only with the emissions of his local device.

 

[abaddon]

Well, that's the informal sense I used it in too, so I'll grant him that. The device in his house that bridges 802.11 and cellular will naturally emit according to both protocols. The 5G cellular tower is, of course, always in operation. It's irrelevant to the test protocol proposed, which deals only with the emissions of his local device.

Well, not according to the latest missive. The cell tower is NOT in continuous operation. Apparently, it does an 8/1 TDM operation, or something and if only a single device is connected this results in a high frequency "on/off" operation at enormous frequencies. Thus, it is not the cell towers per se that cause a problem, it is the frequencies at which high power switching to low power really fast that causes the problem according to the latest claim.

So it isn't the frequency that is a problem, it is the speed of switching between them and that depends on the traffic level of the cell tower.

Once again we are stuck with the recurring problem. The claim will be different tomorrow.

ETA: I am aware that this is a nutty idea, but I can only go by what is posted.

 

[abaddon]

Just read it.

The assumption that anyone who questions his arguments and beliefs must be working on behalf of the Telcos really is astonishing.

It so happens that I did use to work for a Telco (AT&T), but that was nearly 20 years ago and I have no reason to defend them now. Even then I would have put the health and welfare of myself and my family above my loyalty to the company I worked for, as I'm sure would the vast majority of Telco employees today.

[I also developed X25 packet switching systems for Plessey, but that was even longer ago].

While my degree is in this area, I have never worked for any Telco. I built my own companies (long since gone) in the area of encrypted credit transactions over whatever device. Not intentional, it just happened.

Scariest part of that is that the banks themselves are so impossibly naive about it.

 

[JayUtah]

Well, not according to the latest missive. The cell tower is NOT in continuous operation. Apparently, it does an 8/1 TDM operation...

I just mean they don't turn it off at night like a desk lamp.

 

[abaddon]

I just mean they don't turn it off at night like a desk lamp.

Alas, that is also the claim. It appear that it is not the rest of us who are unsure what the claim actually is. The proponent is unsure. That is a problem.

We all end up stamping on the random fires generated by random claims. And the next claim will be different. The entire edifice seems to be a mobile load of it.

 

[p0lka]

Your post is reasonable. I will explain in detail after JayUtah and EvilBiker have their say.

I am busy taking various measurements on WiFi and cell phones in our house. I will post the results and why they are relevant (but incomplete) later. I need to video tape them for later analysis. I should have done this earlier but I need to be healthy. I am getting better at figuring out what, how and when I get affected.

I should do what I did before. Encode a PDF document in crypto (M5 I think) and post it. Then supply the key. That way I can predict the possible answers from JU and EB. All they do is take statements of mine and criticize - thinking I am ignorant of the topics. They add a lot of tech-babble of their own - mostly not relevant.

You made an earlier claim, below

My wife now tells me when she turns on her WiFi modem so I can go to the garage and work there and use shielding. I get a headache within 15 minutes if in the house with no shielding.

To which I thought wow that's intriguing, let's investigate.

From what you have subsequently posted, you should probably retract that claim?

 

[EHocking]

Cutting and pasting to get an absurd rephrasing of my prediction is silly.

No rephrasing.
Summarising. No element of your lack of a prediction was misrepresented.
I just ignored the godly visions.

The prediction (from 2011) was that there would be a major pandemic fairly soon to fix over-population. I then had to figure out why I was being told this. The answer was that I had to learn more so that I could warn the sector of the population that would understand the ramifications. You are not in that sector.

How long will you be amused when the second wave (actually a tsunami) arrives in the next year or so? Don't hold me to time frames. I am guessing based on God's message to reduce population.

In short, within 20 or 30 years there will be a global purge - unless governments see it coming and prevent it.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

The science (emf harm) is far from rock solid - but it is quite definitive in many areas.

Certainly enough to cause concern for thinking rational people.

I am concerned - that you are misrepresenting the science to support your confirmation bias.

Most people are not bothered to educate themselves and this includes most posters here. Being smart and rational does not mean that people do not cling to their beliefs. They do not want electrosmog to be dangerous. And the industry is a skilled and intelligent manipulator of propaganda. Enough truth for most people, even the educated, and enough falsehoods to create doubt. They had me fooled until the tower arrived and I really began investigating. properly.

Whereas you do want 'electrosmog' to be dangerous, and are manipulating propaganda with just enough truth and falsehoods to create doubt - except not skillfully enough to convince us.

I never said I am God's prophet. This is your narrative. I said I believe I had a single message from God. The rest...

A single message is enough. It means you believe in the Supernatural, so you are delusional by definition.

God had to chose someone - it is the way it works apparently.

How do you figure that? How could a non-existent being chose anyone?

We all have had moments when we either win a lottery or have good fortune, or the reverse of having bad fortune. What I ask is "Why not me?" I did not want to be chosen, and still do not. I have tried to remain anonymous and live an ordinary life - but it seems that will not happen.

There is no such thing as good or bad 'fortune' - there are just things that may be beneficial or not depending on the situation.

I see people in denial who are adamant they are right.

I see someone who is in denial of their confirmation bias and adamant that their delusion is real.

It was so nice for me to be ignorant about people and society until the age of 60. Even if there is no God, society cannot carry on the way it is. It will self-destruct. One can hope that it is not terminal.

But it won't. It will muddle on like it always has. We could hope to better, but we won't because too many people are driven by irrational fear and delusion.

 

[EvilBiker]

Are you working with the SA Telcoms?

- looks at unethically named avatar.

- laughs in Berlin.

- ponders Christian ethics in general.

 

[EvilBiker]

While my degree is in this area, I have never worked for any Telco. I built my own companies (long since gone) in the area of encrypted credit transactions over whatever device. Not intentional, it just happened.

Scariest part of that is that the banks themselves are so impossibly naive about it.

I did some contract work for one of our Telcos (Telkom SA) about 30 years ago, when I was employed at UCT and finishing my 2nd degree, which involved the consolidation of various existing X.25, X400 and Diginet network configurations and user data into one database. Project Unibase, I believe it was called.

Hey, I needed the money, so I sold my soul Walked out frustrated after a year. In that time I became an expert in SQL queries, so it wasn't a total loss.

Interestingly enough, I worked with Mark Shuttleworth - he was developing his digital certificate product on the sly while working at Telkom. I didn't like him much, which is a shame - I could have been rich now

 

[Mojo]

My wife bangs on the wall at the beginning of the test. Before she flips the coin. Or I just shout from the bedroom that I am ready.

You know that I can calculate the odds. And do test procedure. We did it for my test of Zener cards.

I will measure the radiation with the Gigahertz HF35C meter. RMS and PEAK in 4 directions. From the wall, from 45 degrees from the wall in the up, left and right.
By what standards do you want success? I am not going to do 1000 tests. I will try 10 to start with. Remember what I said about tests failing because the subjects refuse to continue to subject themselves to harm? Here is such an example. You are setting me up to fail.

To go back to a question that doesn’t seem to have been answered, what is the reason for the highlighted bit?