• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

WOLFGANG GASSER, Stitching Time in Lichtenstein

Ririon

Cool cat
Ririon
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
2,059
Googling "the psychon theory"?

http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html

I wouldn't recommend it...

There must be some kind of way to get these guys to fight the ID guys (apparently this has something to do with evolution), so we can get on with more important (or fun) things...

Ririon
 
good advice

Ririon offers the link and suggests we avoid it.

Absolutely 'effing right! What a mess.
 
Can someone translate that into English for me? :)

Following that link to the "Appendix" on "McDougall's Lamarckian Experiment on Training of Rats" I just couldn't hold the laughter in. Lamarckianism and the reincarnation of rats, please.

William McDougall's experiment on the inheritance of aquired habits in rats has furnished strong evidence of the psychon theory, which is based on reincarnation of all organisms such as enzymes, living cells, animals and humans. The experiment was repeated by Crew and by Agar, Drummond & Tiegs in order to refute McDougall's results.

The experiment of Agar's group is more convincing than the one of Crew, because they took less (conscious or unconscions) precautions to prevent undesired results. For example Crew started the actual training of his rats only when they were 75 days old whereas McDougall and Agar's group began it when the rats were about 30 days old. (A2, p.167). It is a very reasonable assumption that the earlier the age at which the training begins, the more likely is any transmission of its effects.
Click to expand...

If you are not familiar with Lamarckianism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckian
 
I´ve been to Lichtenstein. There´s no place there to grow weed.

Inheritance of Acquired traits? Google "Lysenko" for further information.

Besides that... did you notice how slickly this guy has already weaseled out of failure in advance? "An Unprejudiced person...", my ass.
 
which is based on reincarnation of all organisms such as enzymes,
Click to expand...

Holy shucking fit! Enzymes are seperate living organisms?!? :jaw-dropp I can't wait for these folks to interact with the past-life regression people and start publishing reports of their followers' past lives as a molecule of peroxidase.
 
Hmm. A demonstration of superluminal communication? Personally, I would be suspicious about trying to say something travelled faster than light moving only three meters. That's 10 nanoseconds in a vacuum. Sounds like he's planning to send it through a cable - that will slow it down a bit. Depends on the cable, and then of course, there's the response time of the oscilliscope.

Now I suppose the question would be whether he's trying to violate the speed of light in a vacuum or the speed of light in a cable. When you slow light down in a medium, you can therefore travel faster than light - in that medium. This produces a shock wave (of sorts) known as Cherenkov radiation; they use it to detect neutrinos.

I'm just too curious for my own good. I called the oscillascope company to see if it would be able to do what he wanted to do with it.

The smallest time devision possible on his scope is 5 nanoseconds, with 10 devisions on the screen. So he's not going to get accuracy in more than 5 ns blocks. And the guy I talked to said that while it could detect differences in signals to that extreme, the triggering mechanism was definitly not good enough to tell you whether you recieved a signal at say, time=0 or time=20 ns. That's if he's sending a pulse of some sort instead of continuous signal. But how is he generating this signal in the first place, and is it some 'special' signal? Or does it always happen when he sets it up with a function generator? Has he constructed some sort of tachyon signal (in which case, he might as well just go for the other million in the form of a Nobel prize)?
 
Chaos said:
I´ve been to Lichtenstein. There´s no place there to grow weed.
Click to expand...

The mountains are taken up with darned stamp and coin producing castles.

Kramer quote: "Unfortunately, we presently have no associates in Lichtenstein."

Outrageous! "Why not?" - I demand!
 
eri said:
The smallest time devision possible on his scope is 5 nanoseconds, with 10 devisions on the screen. So he's not going to get accuracy in more than 5 ns blocks. And the guy I talked to said that while it could detect differences in signals to that extreme, the triggering mechanism was definitly not good enough to tell you whether you recieved a signal at say, time=0 or time=20 ns. That's if he's sending a pulse of some sort instead of continuous signal. But how is he generating this signal in the first place, and is it some 'special' signal? Or does it always happen when he sets it up with a function generator? Has he constructed some sort of tachyon signal (in which case, he might as well just go for the other million in the form of a Nobel prize)?
Click to expand...
It's been 15 years since I seriously used 'scopes, and then I was working in the low MHz range. My immediate thoughts were along these lines too. For all I know he's set the input capacitance of the two leads differently, such that the trigger one takes longer to get to the scope. Is it a dual channel scope? That way one can see the trigger signal and the received signal on the 'same' trace. However such dual traces are created by either multiplexing between the two input signals on successive traces or by multiplexing during a single trace. I doubt the latter technique would work for such fast signals (signals < 1MHz would be ok). The former technique means you're not looking at information from the same time frame. And of course, these only work with some repeated signal.
 
It does appear to be a two-channel scope. So I would assume he's got the trigger on one channel and the recieved signal on the other - hopefully he will find some physicists that know more about it than me though (shouldn't be hard).

If the signals were in phase with each other, would be be able to tell if there's an offset?
 
nathan said:
However such dual traces are created by either multiplexing between the two input signals on successive traces or by multiplexing during a single trace. I doubt the latter technique would work for such fast signals (signals < 1MHz would be ok). The former technique means you're not looking at information from the same time frame.
Click to expand...

Ah, the old ALT/CHOP button of fond memory! You'd be right for an analog 'scope, but I don't think that's an issue with the one suggested, which is digital, so no longer has to employ the old tricks of trying to make one cathode ray look like two. Digital scopes do A-to-D conversion (independently for each channel, I believe) save the results in memory, then create a display (in software) on a more or less normal computer display screen.

There's a few tricks that allows: digital scopes will record everything into memory (it wraps around after a while) but can be programmed to stop recording on receiving the trigger, or shortly afterwards. At that point not only do you get to see what happens after the trigger, as on an analog scope, but also what was happening leading up to the trigger. It also makes it much, much easier to capture fast one-shot events than was possible with analog.

Somebody asked about differences in the probes or leads. That's easy to handle: run the demo some number of times, then swop the cables around (at the test end only: leave the scope connections alone) and see if the effect (if any) stays the same.

(A magician to detect any slight of hand couldn't hurt here.)

If there is a real effect then the scope proposed should be good enough to say "there _may_ be something here" - perhaps enough for this pre-preliminary, perhaps not. If either of the physicists present are employed at a university they should have little problem borrowing a much faster (and calibrated) instrument for a few days.
 
This is all quite obvious:

oscilloscope
<>
emitter receiver
-------------) (---------------

< - - - - - - 3 m - - - - - - >
Click to expand...

Some paranthesis will be transmitted through three meters of dashes, and the oscilloscope will observe this from about 30 cm away without needing to be hooked up at all.

Isn't it quite obvious that mr. Gasser has never even tried what he so confidently presents as obvious facts? I mean, he just bought an oscilloscope...

To quote the king:
A little less conversation, a little more action, please
All this aggravation ain't satisfactioning me
Click to expand...

Ririon
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom