@DBAlex

Quote:

The queens a flying lizard and she eats radioactive brussel sprouts for breakfast and when she farts she shapeshifts!!

Up until now, I have never been remotely interested in politics, but next time they show the state opening of Parliament on TV, I will be watching...
Just on the off chance that somebody forgot to put a cork in it!

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Up until now, I have never been remotely interested in politics, but next time they show the state opening of Parliament on TV, I will be watching...

I know you're in the UK but none of the Republican Presidential candidates 'believe' in science. (There's Jon Huntsman but he's got a snowball's chance.)

The world SHOULD be afraid of a nuclear technology superpower being lead by a religion.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: The video "evidence" is 1 piece...with the source never directly named, mind you. Meanwhile we have many more (named) witnesses whom it actually flew over...vs some video from off in the distance supplied my "mystery supporter #1". The video evidence is indeed 1 piece. There are many other pieces as the Phoenix Lights have been studied fairly indepth. Perhaps this is your confusion that you're assuming only 1 item of evidence shows the opinions as wrong? Many more do too. Remember it was you that said I produced no evidence and asked for 1. So, I presented you with one of tthe many. If you want a list of all the evidence that's something different and far outstrips the space in the thread. Though I'm highly doubtful that's what you want. As you continue to claim a statement is valid truth without validation. (Hint Read the link in my post on Ancient Aliens. You'll see how that program fails in the same manner.) Quote: Considering the millions of people whom have seen ufos vs. Mars, I'd say ufos exist and Mars, who knows... There are several names for the fallacious argument you are making here. Appeal to emotion or Appeal to popularity or the bandwagon argument ... Either way it's all the same. You are concluding something is true because many people believe it to be true. There are many examples in History proving that popularity has no value to truth. GeoCentric view of the universe is one example. Earth,Wind,Fire, Water, and Ether are the elements that everything is comprised of. Diseased caused by evil spirits is another. McDonalds Hamburgers are the most sold in the world so therefore they're the best food for you. ... etc. So what good is popularity? Skipping the political usefulness and getting to truth, the usefulness of popularity is a claim. This can used to build a POSTULATE which we can experiment, evidence, and validate for truth.

Let's get it straight, debunker.
You have 1 debunking group claiming it was a plane.
You have another debunking group claiming they went 2000 miles out of their way to drop flares.

In both cases, neither have reproduced the effect, that by their accounts is completely reproducable. They've merely shouted loudly.

@Lou

Quote:

Let's get it straight, debunker. You have 1 debunking group claiming it was a plane. You have another debunking group claiming they went 2000 miles out of their way to drop flares.

First point is about 2 pages ago you declared this 4 point list of how the non-accepting of woo act. #3 was to attack the poster. Yet you've demonstrated in the last few posts you've made to be perfectly cable to attack me. And yet nothing in that frame from me? Hmm, guess your 4 point list is demonstrated wrong, again.

Anyway you are guessing Maryland flew 2K miles to Arizona. Yet in the military world it's not uncommon to do joint operational exercises. Maryland can fly to the Arizona military base and launch from there. So they wouldn't have to fly 2K miles on the exact same night.

Quote:

In both cases, neither have reproduced the effect, that by their accounts is completely reproducable. They've merely shouted loudly.

Not entirely true. Flares were reproduced. http://www.livescience.com/2483-mysterious-phoenix-lights-ufo-hoax.html -- That these were flares were confirmed by the Police helicopter, neighbor, and later by the man himself that launched them. So, yes a reproduceable event existed. And to no surprise the alien believer crowd was vocally upset. They reported more aliens and this time they clearly weren't. ... So the other thing this did reproduce is people, en masse, can be mistaken. People who wanted to see UFOs, saw UFOs, even when there clearly were not any.

Reproduced flares, reproduced alien UFO misidentification, and clearly not 'merely shouting'.

Last edited by BrianK on 14-Jan-2012 at 12:43 AM.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: Anti-gravity does work. Cold fusion does work...but is now going by the name LENR, which you can find plenty of information on. Your old biases are blinding you. The fantasy that is cold fusion goes back to the 1920's and to date many have claimed success, but none have been able to give a demonstration under controlled conditions. Cold fusion is currently as credible as spoon bending, seances, and mind reading. As for anti-gravity, I note that I still drive in the left hand lane, not above it, and aircraft still need wings to generate aerodynamic lift.

Whate you are doing here is reverting back to your stone age beliefs.
http://ecatnews.com/?p=1830

Quote:

Quote: An hydrogen bomb is cause by an atomic bomb A Hydrogen bomb is an uncontrolled release of energy arising mainly from fission reactions. It works by using the energy of a fission bomb to trigger fusion fuel. This is done by placing a fission bomb and fusion fuel (e.g. lithium deuteride) in close proximity in a container. When the fission bomb is detonated, it first compresses the fusion fuel, then heats it to thermonuclear temperatures. The ensuing fusion reaction can then induce fission in materials not normally prone to it, such as depleted uranium. In large, megaton-range hydrogen bombs, about half of the yield comes from the final fissioning of depleted uranium. In the core of a star the compression of the fusion fuel is achieved by something called gravity.

What you did is recite the pre-classified description.
H-bomb has recently been declassified.

It's called a Hydrogen bomb for a reason. At iron, the maximun nuclear binding energy per nuclear particle is reached. Beyond the brow of this peak of binding energy, nuclei become less stable. Below iron in atomic number, fusion can yield energy; above iron, fission yields energy. Finally, nuclei, like uranium, yield the most energy per fission. However, uranium is rare and hydrogen is abundant. A bomb made with hydrogen, and gaining its power from fusion, could be made much larger than a bomb based on fission. The hydrogen bomb utilizes the pressure generated by light, radiation pressure, to operate. That is, it operates on Poynting flow.
Objects in a dark box that are themselves bright repel each other with mutual radiation pressure. This force obeys it inverse square law of electromagnetism because it is driven by electromagnetism. In a hydrogen bomb, an atomic bomb turns the box into white hot plasma, and a sphere of hydrogen, viewed as a collection of dark objects, is crushed into a miniature star.

Quote:

I guess the problem you have with the standard model is that you still think that simple mathematics can be overridden by the power of wishful thinking.

Wishful thinking is giving every different thing you observe it's own distinct particle name. It's like playing baseball and assuming some batters only hit to left field then other batters only hit to right field and then naming them separate batters despite the fact that the same batter can hit in any direction.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Let's get it straight, debunker. You have 1 debunking group claiming it was a plane. You have another debunking group claiming they went 2000 miles out of their way to drop flares. First point is about 2 pages ago you declared this 4 point list of how the non-accepting of woo act. #3 was to attack the poster. Yet you've demonstrated in the last few posts you've made to be perfectly cable to attack me. And yet nothing in that frame from me? Hmm, guess your 4 point list is demonstrated wrong, again. Anyway you are guessing Maryland flew 2K miles to Arizona. Yet in the military world it's not uncommon to do joint operational exercises. Maryland can fly to the Arizona military base and launch from there. So they wouldn't have to fly 2K miles on the exact same night. Quote: In both cases, neither have reproduced the effect, that by their accounts is completely reproducable. They've merely shouted loudly. Not entirely true. Flares were reproduced. http://www.livescience.com/2483-mysterious-phoenix-lights-ufo-hoax.html -- That these were flares were confirmed by the Police helicopter, neighbor, and later by the man himself that launched them. So, yes a reproduceable event existed. And to no surprise the alien believer crowd was vocally upset. They reported more aliens and this time they clearly weren't. ... So the other thing this did reproduce is people, en masse, can be mistaken. People who wanted to see UFOs, saw UFOs, even when there clearly were not any. Reproduced flares, reproduced alien UFO misidentification, and clearly not 'merely shouting'.

You do realize that this is referring to a minor 2008 incident, right?

You should really keep your debunking straight you know, Mr. Twist... /fail

Last edited by Lou on 14-Jan-2012 at 01:10 AM.

@Lou

#3 again!

Quote:

You do realize that this is referring to a minor 2008 incident, right?

Um Yes! You claimed the effects were not reproduced. Turns out the effects were reproduced. In 2008 the flares used in Arizona by the Phoneix Light Mountans produced similar flight patterns to the events and similar claims of aliens by the UFO crowd. What the minor 2008 event is is exactly that testing you said hadn't occurred.

Last edited by BrianK on 14-Jan-2012 at 02:10 PM.

@Lou

Following your challenge to BrianK Quote:

Do you have anything to challenge the math in Frank Z's paper or not?

I went through Znidarsic's maths again. Not only is his figure of 1.094x10e6 completely unsourced as to how he measured it, it also has no mathematical validity. A couple of pages ago you tried to belittle me by quoting one of the fundamental electrical equations V=IR. Another equation that is fundamental in electronics is fλ=c, so imagine my surprise when I saw the equation Vt=fλ in Znidarsics calculations. If you repeat Znidarsics calculation using the corrected value of 3x10e8 for fλ you end up with the line that Plancks constant=300h, where h is the observed value for Plancks constant.
As I have already explained, Znidarsic has more to do with numerology than mathematics.
For hundreds of years various eminent people have tried to invent perpetual motion machines to use as power sources. They have all failed because it remains a universal truth that you cannot get something for nothing. The equations always have to balance, with no palmed cards. This is the big difference between Znidarsic and Eric Laithwaite, after many years of work Laithwaite was able to provide the full mathematics behind the reactionless drive first shown to him by Alex Jones, and produce a working prototype. Laithwaites work may spend the rest of eternity as an impractical curiousity like the homopole motor, but it is still better than Znidarsics feeble attempt at sleight of hand.

Quote:

What you are doing here is reverting back to your stone age beliefs. http://ecatnews.com/?p=1830

OK so NASA are looking at the basic ideas behind all of the cold fusion hype, that doesn't mean that it has suddenly become a proven and viable technology. In the early 1970's two scientist from Stanford Research Institute were fooled into supporting Uri Gellers claims of supernatural abilities. Stage show magicians however were not convinced since they could reproduce all of his claims themselves. At the same time the US government was paying good money for people to stare at goats,and guess what...that didn't achieve anything either. The simple fact that you have to sift a lot of dross to find diamonds doesn't mean that every bit of dross is a diamond.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou #3 again! Quote: You do realize that this is referring to a minor 2008 incident, right? Um Yes! You claimed the effects were not reproduced. Turns out the effects were reproduced. In 2008 the flares used in Arizona by the Phoneix Light Mountans produced similar flight patterns to the events and similar claims of aliens by the UFO crowd. What the minor 2008 event is is exactly that testing you said hadn't occurred.

Mr. Twist, to quote Nimrod, "orders of magnitude".
1) during the 1997 event, the object was estimated at 3000 feet in the air
2) it (the 5 main amber orbs forming the V) was estimated at spanning 1-2 miles in wide
3) blocked out stars inside the V area
4) had 2 trailing orbs performing manuevers on the backside that looked like docking manuevers... (aka not affected by claimed wind)

NONE of that was reproduced. Do try again...

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Following your challenge to BrianK Quote: Do you have anything to challenge the math in Frank Z's paper or not? I went through Znidarsic's maths again. Not only is his figure of 1.094x10e6 completely unsourced as to how he measured it, it also has no mathematical validity. A couple of pages ago you tried to belittle me by quoting one of the fundamental electrical equations V=IR. Another equation that is fundamental in electronics is fλ=c, so imagine my surprise when I saw the equation Vt=fλ in Znidarsics calculations. If you repeat Znidarsics calculation using the corrected value of 3x10e8 for fλ you end up with the line that Plancks constant=300h, where h is the observed value for Plancks constant. As I have already explained, Znidarsic has more to do with numerology than mathematics. For hundreds of years various eminent people have tried to invent perpetual motion machines to use as power sources. They have all failed because it remains a universal truth that you cannot get something for nothing. The equations always have to balance, with no palmed cards. This is the big difference between Znidarsic and Eric Laithwaite, after many years of work Laithwaite was able to provide the full mathematics behind the reactionless drive first shown to him by Alex Jones, and produce a working prototype. Laithwaites work may spend the rest of eternity as an impractical curiousity like the homopole motor, but it is still better than Znidarsics feeble attempt at sleight of hand.

He tells you quite specifically how he got it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ykCWaVcjSA
...which you keep ignoring...

You actually don't understand what the value represents, from reading your posts.

Quote:

Quote: What you are doing here is reverting back to your stone age beliefs. http://ecatnews.com/?p=1830 OK so NASA are looking at the basic ideas behind all of the cold fusion hype, that doesn't mean that it has suddenly become a proven and viable technology. In the early 1970's two scientist from Stanford Research Institute were fooled into supporting Uri Gellers claims of supernatural abilities. Stage show magicians however were not convinced since they could reproduce all of his claims themselves. At the same time the US government was paying good money for people to stare at goats,and guess what...that didn't achieve anything either. The simple fact that you have to sift a lot of dross to find diamonds doesn't mean that every bit of dross is a diamond.

http://www.lenr-canr.org/
Plenty of reading there for you to digest...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_myth#Science

Some interesting bits:
Quote:

The word theory in the theory of evolution does not imply mainstream scientific doubt regarding its validity; the concepts of theory and hypothesis have specific meanings in a scientific context. While theory in colloquial usage may denote a hunch or conjecture, a scientific theory is a set of principles that explains observable phenomena in natural terms.[167][168] "Scientific fact and theory are not categorically separable",[169] and evolution is a theory in the same sense as germ theory or the theory of gravitation.

Quote:

The Big Bang theory does not provide an explanation for the origin of the universe; rather, it explains its early evolution.

Here's a good one for the worshippers of the law of averages:
Quote:

When a sequence of independent trials of a random process is observed to contain a remarkably long run in which some possible outcome did not occur (for example, when a roulette ball ended up on black 26 times in a row, and not even once on red, as reportedly happened on August 18, 1913, in the Monte Carlo Casino[283]), the underrepresented outcome is often believed then to be more likely for the next trial: it is thought to be "due".[284][285][286] This misconception is known as the gambler's fallacy; in reality, by the definition of statistical independence, that outcome is just as likely or unlikely on the next trial as always—a property sometimes informally described by the phrase, "the system has no memory". If the event is physically determined, and not perfectly random, the repeated outcome may be more likely. For example, a die that has rolled ten consecutive 6s may be loaded or controlled by hidden magnets.

...and it seems the theory of gravitation can't handle crap...
Quote:

Toilet waste is never intentionally dumped overboard from an aircraft. All waste is collected in tanks which are emptied on the ground by special toilet waste vehicles. A vacuum is used to allow the toilet to be flushed with less water and because plumbing cannot rely on gravity alone in an aircraft in motion.

@Lou

Really are you going to continue with ad hominems, which you claimed to be against in your 4 rules? I've not called you names?

Quote:

1) during the 1997 event, the object was estimated at 3000 feet in the air 2) it (the 5 main amber orbs forming the V) was estimated at spanning 1-2 miles in wide 3) blocked out stars inside the V area 4) had 2 trailing orbs performing manuevers on the backside that looked like docking manuevers... (aka not affected by claimed wind)

1) Flares flew at and beyond 3K feet high. So as you say viewers guessed. The test was higher than 3K feet so had to go through 3K feet. Thus, this was tested as were other distances which helps cover observational errors in distances. It's near impossible to judge distance in the sky. One needs markers, which don't exist at 3K feet, to do so.

2) Again a guess. Don't know the details of this part of the test, so I can neither confirm nor deny this was tested. Though see the #5 you missed.

3&4) Video evidence provided by alien claimants do not support these details. In addition some, but not all, the observers agree to these details. Where is your test that helps seperate those inconsistencies?

5) you missed this number -- The event was reproductive enough that various people that claimed aliens made stated 'They're back!' -- Meaning there was sufficent evidence in this experiment to cause the observer of an alien to believe they observed an alien again.

Fairly good study of the single-blind test that was conducted to see what people would report from man-made flares. You seemingly want to discard the test. I have a guess it's because you've not tested aliens. Is there any test where you phoned up ET and had them run a fly by?

Also - I'm glad you posted about what a Scientific Theory is. You seem to want to claim everything is a Theory without predictive confirmation or experimental proof. As well as what the Big Bang is. Glad to see you're definitionally catching up with science. It's taken a few pages and threads, no matter. Glad you're here.

Quote:

Here's a good one for the worshippers of the law of averages:This misconception is known as the gambler's fallacy; in reality, by the definition of statistical independence, that outcome is just as likely or unlikely on the next trial as always

As a famous movie said 'I don't think that word means what you think that word means'... You do realize this is the 'Gambler's Fallacy' which means the problem is the Gambler is failing to see the mathematical reality of the situation. Had it been a scientific problem it would be called the 'Mathematican's Fallacy'. It's fairly important why it's not.

Quote:

and it seems the theory of gravitation can't handle crap

You seemingly missed the detail that vacuum pumps work by change in pressures not ElectroMagentism either.

Last edited by BrianK on 17-Jan-2012 at 12:24 PM.

Re: It's all EM

This would be checkmate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gE0z4sHxe9c

@Lou

Quote:

Re: It's all EM This would be checkmate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gE0z4sHxe9c

A group of postulates in papers that have yet to exhibit their predictability of the real world is barely a box with chess pieces.

Last edited by BrianK on 17-Jan-2012 at 03:59 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Re: It's all EM This would be checkmate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gE0z4sHxe9c A group of postulates in papers that have yet to exhibit their predictability of the real world is barely a box with chess pieces.

Yes, I know, if accepted tomorrow, you'll change your tune in a heartbeat. Until then, live in denial...

I actually can't believe it took me this long to run across this. funny how it echo's my criticisms of "the standard model" LMAO!

Last edited by Lou on 17-Jan-2012 at 05:28 PM.
Last edited by Lou on 17-Jan-2012 at 05:26 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Really are you going to continue with ad hominems, which you claimed to be against in your 4 rules? I've not called you names? Quote: 1) during the 1997 event, the object was estimated at 3000 feet in the air 2) it (the 5 main amber orbs forming the V) was estimated at spanning 1-2 miles in wide 3) blocked out stars inside the V area 4) had 2 trailing orbs performing manuevers on the backside that looked like docking manuevers... (aka not affected by claimed wind) 1) Flares flew at and beyond 3K feet high. So as you say viewers guessed. The test was higher than 3K feet so had to go through 3K feet. Thus, this was tested as were other distances which helps cover observational errors in distances. It's near impossible to judge distance in the sky. One needs markers, which don't exist at 3K feet, to do so. 2) Again a guess. Don't know the details of this part of the test, so I can neither confirm nor deny this was tested. Though see the #5 you missed. 3&4) Video evidence provided by alien claimants do not support these details. In addition some, but not all, the observers agree to these details. Where is your test that helps seperate those inconsistencies? 5) you missed this number -- The event was reproductive enough that various people that claimed aliens made stated 'They're back!' -- Meaning there was sufficent evidence in this experiment to cause the observer of an alien to believe they observed an alien again. Fairly good study of the single-blind test that was conducted to see what people would report from man-made flares. You seemingly want to discard the test. I have a guess it's because you've not tested aliens. Is there any test where you phoned up ET and had them run a fly by?

Yep, this 2008 event was so much like the 1997 one and witnessed by "so many people" that I never heard of it...

AND

Is just another counter-claim that conflicts with your other two debunking attempts.

Unfortunately debunkers don't unite and can't keep their stories straight...

Quote:

Also - I'm glad you posted about what a Scientific Theory is. You seem to want to claim everything is a Theory without predictive confirmation or experimental proof. As well as what the Big Bang is. Glad to see you're definitionally catching up with science. It's taken a few pages and threads, no matter. Glad you're here.

/yawn

Quote:

Quote: Here's a good one for the worshippers of the law of averages:This misconception is known as the gambler's fallacy; in reality, by the definition of statistical independence, that outcome is just as likely or unlikely on the next trial as always As a famous movie said 'I don't think that word means what you think that word means'... You do realize this is the 'Gambler's Fallacy' which means the problem is the Gambler is failing to see the mathematical reality of the situation. Had it been a scientific problem it would be called the 'Mathematican's Fallacy'. It's fairly important why it's not.

/yawn
What did you say about 1/2 lifes again?

Quote:

Quote: and it seems the theory of gravitation can't handle crap You seemingly missed the detail that vacuum pumps work by change in pressures not ElectroMagentism either.

It was just an amusing comment and had nothing to do with EM.

Last edited by Lou on 17-Jan-2012 at 06:26 PM.

@Lou @ BrianK:

The Phoenix lights, now that is an interesting event. I think that thee military exercise in Phoenix was made just to cover up the true event which no body, probably not even the military, knows what it was.

The lights are no doubt flares but what was it people saw on the highway 50 miles outside Phoenix three hours earlier? What happened to the strange persons moving about the gas station in that area? Why did people report stuff happening in Phoenix an hour before the military exercise started?

@Lou

Quote:

Yes, I know, if accepted tomorrow, you'll change your tune in a heartbeat. Until then, live in denial...

Step back and ask how would such things become accepted tomorrow. That happens based on predictive results of the postulates and evidence to reality. Nothing different than what I have asked for.

Quote:

Yep, this 2008 event was so much like the 1997 one and witnessed by "so many people" that I never heard of it...

Just because you didn't know of it doesn't mean it didn't happen. You stated that a test never occurred when in actuality it did. The Wikipedia page on Phoenix Lights has more links to the event that tested observers and flares.

Quote:

What did you say about 1/2 lifes again?

If you want to make a comparision to material half life think of 1 event on 1 table as 1 measure of 1 atom at 1 point in time. Half-Life would be akin to the netted results of all events at all gambling tables in the State (Nevada for instance) for the year. You can't guarantee any 1 table at any 1 time won't lose for the State. You can guarantee that over year all gambling events combined profit for the State.... Again 'Gambler's Fallacy' is something completely different from 'Mathematic's Fallacy'.


@Niolater
Quote:

What happened to the strange persons moving about the gas station in that area? Why did people report stuff happening in Phoenix an hour before the military exercise started?

Ooh interesting. Perhaps the aliens were buying Reeses Pieces before they left. I hear ExtraTerrestrials love those! (J/K)

In all seriousness each claim must be verified as much as possible. And remember correlation is not causation. So even if we can verify it was a strange person we still need to collaborate them to the event. Afterall we know other events in people's lives make them act strangely (fraternity hazing for example). Saying someone is strange isn't really explainative nor does it ensure they were part of the lights in any manner.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Yes, I know, if accepted tomorrow, you'll change your tune in a heartbeat. Until then, live in denial... Step back and ask how would such things become accepted tomorrow. That happens based on predictive results of the postulates and evidence to reality. Nothing different than what I have asked for.

Ah the beauty is that it already has predictive results...

Quote:

Quote: Yep, this 2008 event was so much like the 1997 one and witnessed by "so many people" that I never heard of it... Just because you didn't know of it doesn't mean it didn't happen. You stated that a test never occurred when in actuality it did. The Wikipedia page on Phoenix Lights has more links to the event that tested observers and flares.

...because Wikipedia is infallable and controlled by 100% honest people at all times, right?

Quote:

Quote: What did you say about 1/2 lifes again? If you want to make a comparision to material half life think of 1 event on 1 table as 1 measure of 1 atom at 1 point in time. Half-Life would be akin to the netted results of all events at all gambling tables in the State (Nevada for instance) for the year. You can't guarantee any 1 table at any 1 time won't lose for the State. You can guarantee that over year all gambling events combined profit for the State.... Again 'Gambler's Fallacy' is something completely different from 'Mathematic's Fallacy'.

http://dinosaurc14ages.com/changedecay.htm
I just want to know the name of the guy who waited around for 5300+ years to determine Carbon-14's half life...and also measured changes in the magnetic field around the sample at all times...etc...

@Lou

Quote:

Ah the beauty is that it already has predictive results...

Awesome! Please link the independent experimentation that has been reviewed and has shown proof positive of the predictive results.

Quote:

...because Wikipedia is infallable and controlled by 100% honest people at all times, right?

You have an unwritten false major premise that Wiikipedia is always wrong so we must reject it. Try hard the evidence of a test is documented as well, if not better, than the existence of aliens in Phoenix.

As for Half-Life, all I can add is you need to learn what experimentation brings to the table for validity.