PartSkeptic’s Thread for Predictions and Other Matters of Interest

[abaddon]

It would have accurately tested the hypothesis you originally posed. The problem is that you proposed additional elements to the protocol without conceding that your first hypothesis was falsified by the premise of the new propositions. That's moving the goalposts.

I suspect the the missed point here is that if PS went with the basic test to establish if there were an effect of any sort worthy of further investigation, it would fail at first hurdle. Hence the hurling of all sort of mad caveats and conditionals.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

I have had a response from the poster in question, saying an application covering similar ground was accepted so he thinks PartSkeptic's probably would be also.

Thank you for your effort looking into this.

As you know a test with objective and mutually acceptable, scientific protocols can easily be established.

However, the potential applicant will not make any application at all, but rather engage in the "Monty Python Cheese shop" game, where an endless range of feeble excuses will be made to avoid any scientific testing.

 

[Pixel42]

I think it might be worth summarising where we now are in terms of test protocol.

Revised hypothesis: PS can determine whether the WiFi is on, and operating at a level greater than Y for Z minutes, from his physical symptoms

Revised test protocol

Equipment required: wifi modem, EMF meter and stop watch

Values X, Y and Z to be specified by PS before the first trial.

1. On a day when PS feels up to it, he goes into a room in his house separated by at least one room from the room containing the wifi modem (off at start of trial), whilst his wife remains in the latter room

2. At a predetermined time his wife tosses a coin
a) if the coin is heads she turns the WiFi on, writes ON on a piece of paper, seals it in a numbered envelope and switches the meter on
b) if the coin is tails she writes OFF on a piece of paper and seals it in a numbered envelope

3. For the next X minutes:
a) PS monitors his state of health
b) If the modem is on, PS's wife monitors the EMF meter and starts a stop watch whenever it shows a value above Y, stopping it when it shows a value lower than Y. If the modem is off, she remains in the room and passes the time quietly in any way she sees fit.

4. After X minutes PS writes either ON or OFF on a piece of paper and seals it in a numbered envelope, then rejoins his wife

5. If the wifi was off, or it was on and the stop watch shows that the wifi modem was above level Y for a minimum of Z minutes, the two envelopes are added to the pile of successful trials. If not, both envelopes are discarded

6. Repeat steps 1 to 5 until ten successful trials have been conducted

7. If at least eight of the ten pairs of envelopes contain the same word, the hypothesis is tentatively accepted and a more formal, witnessed test (perhaps adjudicated by CfIIG) is arranged. If not, the hypothesis is rejected.

Note 1: I've specified a one room separation because in most modern houses it's possible to hear sounds like equipment and stop watches being switched on and off through the walls. If PS feels he needs to be closer to the modem than that, some way of masking sounds (e.g. having a radio playing in one or both of the rooms) might be substituted. Alternatively his wife could monitor the wifi level from a different room.

Note 2: In a formal test PS should be unaware if he has guessed correctly in any individual trial until the experiment is complete, but in this informal test scenario that is not possible.

 

[EHocking]

Just re-read this. Valid points. But the better the tests are done, the better the outcome and the better my credibility.

My wife will take power measurements through-out in another room. If the power is low or drop low for more than a minute she cancels the test.

Or, since you are insistent that the modem is in different power modes which affect you - change the test criteria.

1. modem off
2. modem on - Wifi not being used
3. modem on - Wifi in use

Probabilities are then 1 in 3, since you claim to only be able to detect/be affected by mode 3.

 

[PartSkeptic]

Odd claim. I work around EMF all the time and my siblings so not. I do not suffer "headaches".

Of my siblings, one does suffer migraines, or did. Change of diet and it all went away. No 5G, 4G, 3G, 2G, 1G involved, just an undetected food allergy How do you account for that?

People are different. The reason I am healthy with good genes and yet am EHS is because I have underlying damage to my nerves caused by ciprofloxin and a bat fungus. The few months of 24/7 long exposure to the next door tower made me extremely sensitive.

My wife did not think she was affected but I saw the symptoms she had, and she was the one who got the headache when the tower was illegally powered on. I was away from the house otherwise I would have had the headache first. She was the one who got two events of skin cancer during the six months of living next to the tower. She is predisposed. The tower was a "trigger".

Change of diet changes many things. It could be the sole reason she got headaches in the first place. However, her headaches could have been exacerbated by the cell tower radiation.

People suffer a variety of illnesses. If only cell radiation was cause then illness would be a modern phenomenon. If the cell tower made your sisters headaches worse then the procedure would be that nothing would change except shielding her from radiation. If she had much milder headaches (or no headaches) then the radiation is a contributing factor. There are very few areas without EMF. And some areas the EMF might be high without people knowing it. Did she use a meter to establish the lack of EMF?

 

[PartSkeptic]

It would have accurately tested the hypothesis you originally posed. The problem is that you proposed additional elements to the protocol without conceding that your first hypothesis was falsified by the premise of the new propositions. That's moving the goalposts.

I have not moved the goalposts. My hypothesis is that WiFi radiation from my wife's modem gives me a headache and that when I tested the radiation I found it was high. The test followed from that.

Now it turns out the the modem has a mode with low radiation that does not give me a headache (at least not in 15 minutes).

Once more you try to discredit me rather than giving your input that that model of modem has a low power mode.

You are shifting the focus away from your failure to assist.

 

[PartSkeptic]

That is not my understanding. The laws of quantum mechanics are entirely statistical in nature, on that scale events can occur without a specific cause. Radioactive decay, for example.

I'm afraid I can't make much sense of the rest of this post.

Radiation is nevertheless cause and effect. An unstable molecule that has a propensity to decay to a lower energy. The law governing the timing of the decay is yet unknown but the bulk effect can be predicted by statistical analysis.

We do not specify a gas pressure in a car tire by using individual momentum equations. The net effect is still measurable and predictable using the various gas laws.

And you cannot follow the rest of the post? Give me an example and I will explain it. Are you just finding an escape route?

 

[PartSkeptic]

Thank you for your effort looking into this.

As you know a test with objective and mutually acceptable, scientific protocols can easily be established.

However, the potential applicant will not make any application at all, but rather engage in the "Monty Python Cheese shop" game, where an endless range of feeble excuses will be made to avoid any scientific testing.

First, I will do the preliminary tests to be sure I can sense the radiation and be sure there is not another factor that I am unaware of. And since Pixel42 has taken part in this in a positive way I will post the results. I will try to do the test soon as well.

Then, I will definitely make an application. I will be sure to invite the various scientists to observe also.

If this was paranormal I would invoke the law of non-testability. This is plain science, except it is using my well-being as the measuring detector, and we all know how "feelings" can be tricky. I expect the headaches to get severe enough to rule out "guessing".

 

[PartSkeptic]

Can you please not quote posts then change them without showing your changes, if that's what has happened, it can become confusing.

Equally, can people not edit their posts to remove things without showing their changes, if that's what has happened, also becomes confusing.


Your claim was that you could tell whether the wifi was off or on in 15 minutes because of your headache.

Regarding your bold question, your claim did not involve that so why make it relevant now?
The assumption was yours, why didn't your God tell you that.
Or your headache?

Surely you would have noticed the wifi being on previously, with you sans headache?

You need to read the sequence of posts.

God did make me aware of the low power when I sat next to the modem and did not get a headache. When I measured the power on that occasion it was low.

This is not a paranormal exercise where I can read the person's mind to know whether the modem is on or not. It is whether WiFi radiation can give me headache. I have been saying over and over again that power and duration are key factors.

 

[PartSkeptic]

(snip)

Note 1: I've specified a one room separation because in most modern houses it's possible to hear sounds like equipment and stop watches being switched on and off through the walls. If PS feels he needs to be closer to the modem than that, some way of masking sounds (e.g. having a radio playing in one or both of the rooms) might be substituted. Alternatively his wife could monitor the wifi level from a different room.

Note 2: In a formal test PS should be unaware if he has guessed correctly in any individual trial until the experiment is complete, but in this informal test scenario that is not possible.

Reasonable enough. I thought of having the modem in a cardboard shoe-box and sitting next to it. She leaves the room (our study) and can monitor from another room two rooms away (out lounge) with the radio on. She just notes any drop in level on paper using the wall clock. After the test, she removes the modem and I have another 30 minutes to evaluate how I felt and feel. The headache may be delayed. Also it should disappear and if it does not, I will want to know why

We are aware that this is not a double blind test because someone knows the state of the modem. If I cheat, the only person I am fooling is myself - which would make me seriously stupid.

Side note: The Hydro I am going to apparently is capable of doing Covid tests. If they have antigen tests then I will take one.

ETA: If the are taking insurance that no one will win, then they had better check their terms and conditions.

 

[abaddon]

People are different. The reason I am healthy with good genes and yet am EHS is because I have underlying damage to my nerves caused by ciprofloxin and a bat fungus. The few months of 24/7 long exposure to the next door tower made me extremely sensitive.

You are so "healthy", yet simultaneously demonstrably unhealthy given your claims long before any EMF nonsense. And WTF are "good genes" when they seem oddly useless to you and your ongoing health issues? that you claim to suffer and also not suffer? You are either healthy or not healthy. Pick one. It cannot be both.

And here I am exposed to the very same for decades 24/7 and never one headache. Account for that.

My wife did not think she was affected but I saw the symptoms she had, and she was the one who got the headache when the tower was illegally powered on. I was away from the house otherwise I would have had the headache first. She was the one who got two events of skin cancer during the six months of living next to the tower. She is predisposed. The tower was a "trigger".

New claim. EMF causes melanoma. Sorry, but I have had some chunks carved out of my hide for that reason and nothing to do with any EMF.

Change of diet changes many things. It could be the sole reason she got headaches in the first place. However, her headaches could have been exacerbated by the cell tower radiation.

You referring to my sister? She does not live near a cell tower.

People suffer a variety of illnesses. If only cell radiation was cause then illness would be a modern phenomenon. If the cell tower made your sisters headaches worse then the procedure would be that nothing would change except shielding her from radiation. If she had much milder headaches (or no headaches) then the radiation is a contributing factor.

What? If she has migraines, mild headaches or no headaches at all, EMF is a contributing factor? Is there anything EMF cannot do?

There are very few areas without EMF. And some areas the EMF might be high without people knowing it. Did she use a meter to establish the lack of EMF?

Did she...wait, what? Why would she do any such thing? On the basis of bugger all? Of course, there is the slight onion in your ointment that her issues happened years ago before there was a cell phone tower to be worrying about. So now you are proposing time travelling cell technology?

 

[Pixel42]

I have not moved the goalposts. My hypothesis is that WiFi radiation from my wife's modem gives me a headache and that when I tested the radiation I found it was high. The test followed from that.

No. Your initial claim was that the wifi being on caused you to develop a headache. It was not that the wifi being on sometimes caused you to develop a headache. So "if the wifi is on I get a headache" was the hypothesis the original protocol was designed to test. You have now, after further investigation, revised your hypothesis - which is fine, but it would have been less confusing if you had stated that clearly instead of (as you still seem to be doing) pretending it hadn't happened.

 

[Pixel42]

Radiation is nevertheless cause and effect. An unstable molecule that has a propensity to decay to a lower energy. The law governing the timing of the decay is yet unknown but the bulk effect can be predicted by statistical analysis.

Again, that is not my understanding. There is no unknown law operating, it's all well understood.

The emission of an alpha particle by an atom of U235 is inexplicable under the laws of classical mechanics, because the alpha particle is held in place by the strong nuclear force. Quantum mechanics, however, says the position of the particle cannot be known, but is instead described by a probability wave. At any one instant there is a very high probability that the alpha particle is close enough to the rest of the nucleus to be prevented from escaping by the strong nuclear force, and a very small probability that is just that tiny bit further away to allow it to escape. Because we know what the probability wave is we can calculate how many alpha particles in a lump of U235 will be able to escape in the next hour, say, but the bottom line is that nothing happens to the atoms which emit an alpha particle which does not happen to those that don't. There is no cause which results in the effect of the emission of that alpha particle.

And you cannot follow the rest of the post? Give me an example and I will explain it. Are you just finding an escape route?

Most of it seems to rely on a common misunderstanding of the anthropic principle. I know from experience that there are people who cannot grasp why their understanding of that is flawed, even when pointed to Douglas Adams' wonderful puddle analogy, and I really don't have the energy to go through that argument again. It is, moreover, off topic. If you wish to discuss it further there are many threads on the topic which you can bump, maybe someone else will be interested enough to engage.

 

[Pixel42]

Reasonable enough. I thought of having the modem in a cardboard shoe-box and sitting next to it. She leaves the room (our study) and can monitor from another room two rooms away (out lounge) with the radio on. She just notes any drop in level on paper using the wall clock. After the test, she removes the modem and I have another 30 minutes to evaluate how I felt and feel. The headache may be delayed. Also it should disappear and if it does not, I will want to know why

We are aware that this is not a double blind test because someone knows the state of the modem. If I cheat, the only person I am fooling is myself - which would make me seriously stupid.

Obviously an informal test like this cannot be made perfectly blind, but it is absolutely essential that you make your determination, write it down and seal the envelope before you meet up with someone who actually knows, in this case your wife. There are all sorts of ways she could (entirely inadvertently) indicate to you which word you should write. So by all means tweak my protocol if necessary, but please do not change it such that you are ever in your wife's presence when she knows whether the modem is on or off and you have yet to determine that.

 

[abaddon]

I have not moved the goalposts. My hypothesis is that WiFi radiation from my wife's modem gives me a headache and that when I tested the radiation I found it was high. The test followed from that.

Now it turns out the the modem has a mode with low radiation that does not give me a headache (at least not in 15 minutes).

You moved the goalposts right in this post. You are now claiming that your ill health is caused by the modem and not the mast. Which is it? The mast or the modem? Are you healthy with "good genes" or suffering mightily under the assault of those evil EMFs? You do not stop at moving the goalposts, you add jet engines to them. But let's run with it because. Since you claim that it is your wife's modem being on/off that causes the problem with your healthy illness why have you not invested in some other broadband connection? The mast will continue to blast out whatever signal regardless of whether or not your wife's modem is on or not. You have clearly hitched your wagon to the modem. That means the cell tower is moot.According to your claims to date, the cell tower can blast whatever it likes out, but you are only affected when your wife turns on her modem. So many flaws in that which I am sure you can spot as a scientist so I need not point them out. Or do I need to after all?

Once more you try to discredit me rather than giving your input that that model of modem has a low power mode.

You happily discredit yourself.

You are shifting the focus away from your failure to assist.

Assist? Have you not been paying attention? Assistance has been offered aplenty, and unlikely as one might think is still being offered. All you did is take a massive dump on such offers. Why would that be?

I am almost certain I know why.

 

[Pixel42]

You moved e goalposts right in this post. You are now claiming that your ill health is caused by the modem and not the mast. Which is it? The mast or the modem?

I know PartSkeptic's posts and claims are often hard to follow, but AIUI his claim is that exposure to the cell tower increased his EMS to the point that, even though he has now moved to a house which is not close to a cell tower, even the wifi being on is now enough to trigger it.

 

[PartSkeptic]

(snip)

That is guessing.

Fight tooth and nail. Rubbish and false.

Guessing? When you have a headache do you say to others "I am guessing I have a headache". Groan.

 

[PartSkeptic]

I am checking the CFIIG site and downloading the application.

I will explain my test and state that while I feel the test is a medical one with no paranormal involved, this forum is convinced that I could only succeed through paranormal means.

I see I have to bear the cost. I will try a GoFundMe, but I am prepared to bear the expense as long as their costs are not exorbitant, such as $10,000 a day for each of five officials for five days. I will ask for a quote.

 

[Pixel42]

I will explain my test and state that while I feel the test is a medical one with no paranormal involved, this forum is convinced that I could only succeed through paranormal means.

That is a false statement. The only thing I am convinced of, and I think any sceptic would say the same, is that your own conviction that EMF is the cause of your symptoms is unjustified by the available evidence.

If your hit rate is significantly better than chance then I will certainly seriously consider the possibility that your hypothesis is correct. If it is not, will you seriously consider the possibility that it is incorrect? Or is your mind so firmly closed that you will instead look for excuses to reject the result, as DowserDon did?

 

[RedStapler]

Fight tooth and nail. Rubbish and false.

Guessing? When you have a headache do you say to others "I am guessing I have a headache". Groan.

"These 5G towers give me a headache but no one else in the vicinity is complaining" is not really guessing, it's lying.

I hope these companies sue you for libel and take away your money.