[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Esebian

EDIT: Btw how did the discussion about the NerveGear evolve in a discussion about dark matter and Higgs Bosons? XD

No clue

Originally Posted by grey_moon

I'm not asking or expecting you to change your PoV, but to respect others. For example even taking the time to read the provided links before aggressively debunking.

Which I did.

Originally Posted by grey_moon

I posted the quote from the wiki "When used against humans electromagnetic weapons can have dramatic effects, such as the intense burning sensation caused by Raytheon's Active Denial system, or more subtle effects such as the creation—at a distance—of a sense of anxiety or dread, intense drowsiness, or confusion in an individual or a group of people."

Which to me reads as:

At short range causes burning

At long range aka distance "or more subtle effects such as the creation—at a distance—of a sense of anxiety or dread, intense drowsiness, or confusion in an individual or a group of people"

But from your reply it seemed to me that you decided to bundle the effects without taking range into account just to make your point. Whether or not the science is good or bad, if you decide to interpret information the way you want isn't that just bad science?

Your first problem is quoting wikipedia, which is a good starting point, but is not reference grade material.

Which brings me to the second point, I'm actually somewhat familiar with the ADS (military), and I have never even heard of any of the secondary effect mentioned in the wiki article being associated with the actual millimeter wave, which incidentally is also the only place where it can be found. Go look up all the papers published, both by the DoD and various universities on the ADS, it'll become readily apparent to you what's actually there and what's not.

Moral of the story is, take stuff you see on wikipedia with a grain of salt.

Originally Posted by grey_moon

But if you read my main point which I may not have gotten across properly, is that I believe that any theory should be taken with an open mind and subjected to the same level of high review and testing. By doing that I believe pseudo science will be eliminated rather then a breeding ground of misinformation, even some sciences which are considered norm, for example "dietitians vs nutritionists"

This I agree with.

Originally Posted by grey_moon

*EDIT*
In terms of making the brain hear stuff that isn't there, I think a good area to start is psycho acoustic modelling, which is a well established science. One of its main uses is to reduce the size of audio files, as you can drop parts of the wave and the brain still perceives it!

There is also the super set of this which I can't remember the name of right now, which deals with how the brain deals with data in general. One area this was being looked at is how to make games more realistic via the good old 2d screen

That has more to do with how the brain processes information. It's not just audio either, it's the same for visual data as well. The human brain discards most of the sensory inputs it receives, it relies on recognizing patterns and then fill in the gaps based on prior experiences.