Notices

View Poll Results: DO you believe Psychokinesis/telekinesis is possible?

Voters
37. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes it IS

    21 56.76%
  • No it isn't

    16 43.24%
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 101 to 200 of 243
Like Tree6Likes

Thread: Telekinesis/Psychokinesis Possible or not?

  1. #101  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    Oh yes I do, the accepted laws of physics prevent telekinesis, so what's your knowledge?
    'the accepted laws of physics'

    Where does it say this can't fit in these accepted laws?

    Well, I know it exists. You believe it doesn't exist. - That's my knowledge.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Guest
    Just show me any of the accepted laws of physics that include any reference to tele-whatever...

    Perhaps you'd like to ammend a bit of newtonian mechanics..

    A body will continue in uninterrupted motion in free space unless it smacks into some other physical object or is deviated by power of mind alone?


    You know it exists?

    Well either you are being or economical with the truth OR you have been easily deceived, if neither please state...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    Just show me any of the accepted laws of physics that include any reference to tele-whatever...
    You've said it yourself, include. True, accepted laws of physics don't INCLUDE this yet. But they don't say it is impossible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Guest
    There is no credible evidence, scientifically validated that shows any mechanism by which TK can exist, you know it is impossible for me to prove that it does not, in the same way a person cannot prove God does not exist - that too does not mean he does exist.

    It is only possible for you to prove that it does, and, since you offer no evidince that it does exist, I maintain it does not. Since you offer no evidence that it may be possible I maintain it is impossible.

    There are prizes, I'll pay $5 million to anyone who can demonstrate it in a very simple experiment, you just have to pay me $10,000 to set it up. It's as simple as that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by SpiritNL
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Quote Originally Posted by SpiritNL
    I haven't claimed to be able to perform PK. Until now, yes I can do it.

    So does a friend:
    So you'll be collecting Randi's $ Million?
    Not likely.

    Edit: http://www.psipog.net/show.php?cmd=wp&id=14
    I figured as much.

    http://www.skepticreport.com/skepticism/topjref.htm
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    There is no credible evidence, scientifically validated that shows any mechanism by which TK can exist, you know it is impossible for me to prove that it does not, in the same way a person cannot prove God does not exist - that too does not mean he does exist.
    But it doesn't not mean he doesn't exist either.

    The proof is right infront of your eyes:

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=P2Wy9_9RJ8M

    http://psistudies.net/_media/Lasseni...19nov-2006.JPG

    It's only up to you to except it.


    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Believe what ever you prefer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    wow. There is truly a force at work here. Fortunately, we're all safe and that force is gravity. It would seem that probability favors liar after all. Did you think no one would notice that the surface the can sits on is moving slightly, causing the can to shift? This, after all is the reason for placing the camera on the surface rather than a tripod away from the surface.

    Pure trickery. The difference between stage magicians and those that claim "telekinesis" is that stage magicians tell you up front that what their doing is s trick.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    wow. There is truly a force at work here. Fortunately, we're all safe and that force is gravity. It would seem that probability favors liar after all. Did you think no one would notice that the surface the can sits on is moving slightly, causing the can to shift? This, after all is the reason for placing the camera on the surface rather than a tripod away from the surface.

    Pure trickery. The difference between stage magicians and those that claim "telekinesis" is that stage magicians tell you up front that what their doing is s trick.
    Yep, there is a force at work here. It is called psi, or PK-force. And yes, gravity is also at work here. But, you make one mistake, the surface isn't moving. And please tell me, why are there always comments on 'how a video should be done'.

    You are so ignorant. Why can't you just even consider the fact that I am not making all this up.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2
    hello.

    it seems like theres a mutual debate over this matter.

    the argument can be seen both ways:

    route a)

    telekinetics are fake. it can be to do with the wind or the air currents, the subtle vibrations of the body or the electromagnetic fields. it could be deliberately faked by breathing on it, or using strings attached to certain body parts. if we examine the Nina Kulagina video...

    http://youtube.com/results?search_query=nina+kulagina

    see here iv linked you to the selection. the top one, i quote says "use the force"

    the second option says "Nina Kulagina uses a thin thread attached to her leg to drag small objects on a table. (Wonder why she could only attract objects towards the border of the table! huh?)"

    - this sums it up really. now lets look at this psychologically for a minute. why does the first one willingly seem positive, and the latter claims straight away its a trick. why is it that something WE can't do is a trick.

    so this brings me on to...

    route b)

    telekinetics ARE real. now what? what happens if you prove that its real? if solid concrete evidence states that this paranormal behaviour IS ACTUALLY REAL!? do telekinetics become the governments new play toy?
    and will this repeat project stargate's technical remote viewing pattern.

    okay heres my 2 arguments laid out. now some personal info.

    i thought telekinesis was bollocks at first, regardless i tried it to prove myself right. okay so i started moving bits of paper...that still doesn't prove anything. sooo what about some tinfoil on a table? ...right that started moving aswell when i directed it...and what about the repulsion sensation off my fingers? coincidence? so if i try it from 15ft away...damn it still works.

    i proved myself wrong.

    im going to suggest TRYING IT. dont bother going "ooh that video looks fake" - shut up. try it, now.

    i found its one of those things that you have to sort of... "try before you buy". im positive in myself that its a real unique skill. its not just the object moving...its the feeling aswell. its almost like you can remotely "feel" the object. i still have my doubts, but it makes a good hobby and its a great thing to show friends.

    My main objective at the moment is to get it classified as "normal". why Paranormal? im also trying to figure out how it works. maybe you could help us?

    a further note: SpiritNL is a friend of mine, i have watched his unique abilities over webcam (as i have shown him mine aswell)

    any questions?

    mail me:

    cartoonimation_4_u@hotmail.com

    Thanks for your time.
    Open Your Mind

    -Psistudies.net
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by SpiritNL
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    wow. There is truly a force at work here. Fortunately, we're all safe and that force is gravity. It would seem that probability favors liar after all. Did you think no one would notice that the surface the can sits on is moving slightly, causing the can to shift? This, after all is the reason for placing the camera on the surface rather than a tripod away from the surface.

    Pure trickery. The difference between stage magicians and those that claim "telekinesis" is that stage magicians tell you up front that what their doing is s trick.
    Yep, there is a force at work here. It is called psi, or PK-force. And yes, gravity is also at work here. But, you make one mistake, the surface isn't moving. And please tell me, why are there always comments on 'how a video should be done'.

    You are so ignorant. Why can't you just even consider the fact that I am not making all this up.
    I consider it. I just consider it to be so small a chance compared to lying and delusion. In this case, a lie appears the most likely candidate. Its obvious that some trickery is afoot, particularly with the camera angle. If you really wanted to show this wasn't a trick, the camera wouldn't be so close to the can nor directly on the surface it rolls on.

    Its a trick. There is no "psi" or "pk-force" (pk-farce maybe). If you have evidence you'd show it. A video of this nature is evidence of trickery nothing more. If you could really do what you just did, you'd collect Randi's $ million or at least be on Good Morning America.

    Pure bollocks.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Quote Originally Posted by SpiritNL
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    wow. There is truly a force at work here. Fortunately, we're all safe and that force is gravity. It would seem that probability favors liar after all. Did you think no one would notice that the surface the can sits on is moving slightly, causing the can to shift? This, after all is the reason for placing the camera on the surface rather than a tripod away from the surface.

    Pure trickery. The difference between stage magicians and those that claim "telekinesis" is that stage magicians tell you up front that what their doing is s trick.
    Yep, there is a force at work here. It is called psi, or PK-force. And yes, gravity is also at work here. But, you make one mistake, the surface isn't moving. And please tell me, why are there always comments on 'how a video should be done'.

    You are so ignorant. Why can't you just even consider the fact that I am not making all this up.
    I consider it. I just consider it to be so small a chance compared to lying and delusion. In this case, a lie appears the most likely candidate. Its obvious that some trickery is afoot, particularly with the camera angle. If you really wanted to show this wasn't a trick, the camera wouldn't be so close to the can nor directly on the surface it rolls on.

    Its a trick. There is no "psi" or "pk-force" (pk-farce maybe). If you have evidence you'd show it. A video of this nature is evidence of trickery nothing more. If you could really do what you just did, you'd collect Randi's $ million or at least be on Good Morning America.

    Pure bollocks.
    OH YEAH, good idea. Go to America, sixteen year old boy, go tell your parents you're doing the Randi Challenge.

    It...is...not...a...trick. You have no knowlegde over that video. I do. So in the future, don't use 'it is'.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    6
    SpiritNL, it's an interesting video, but I'd have to agree SkinWalker, it does look rather fake (Not that I'm saying that it is) and could be achieved quite easily by several means, one of the simplest being simply blowing at the base of the can.

    Jeremy however... I feel you're being completely unreasonable and you seem more concerned with getting out of this with your ego intact rather than actually learning anything... (Just my opinion)

    P's: New to the forum btw. ^__^
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Quote Originally Posted by SpiritNL
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    wow. There is truly a force at work here. Fortunately, we're all safe and that force is gravity. It would seem that probability favors liar after all. Did you think no one would notice that the surface the can sits on is moving slightly, causing the can to shift? This, after all is the reason for placing the camera on the surface rather than a tripod away from the surface.

    Pure trickery. The difference between stage magicians and those that claim "telekinesis" is that stage magicians tell you up front that what their doing is s trick.
    Yep, there is a force at work here. It is called psi, or PK-force. And yes, gravity is also at work here. But, you make one mistake, the surface isn't moving. And please tell me, why are there always comments on 'how a video should be done'.

    You are so ignorant. Why can't you just even consider the fact that I am not making all this up.
    I consider it. I just consider it to be so small a chance compared to lying and delusion. In this case, a lie appears the most likely candidate. Its obvious that some trickery is afoot, particularly with the camera angle. If you really wanted to show this wasn't a trick, the camera wouldn't be so close to the can nor directly on the surface it rolls on.

    Its a trick. There is no "psi" or "pk-force" (pk-farce maybe). If you have evidence you'd show it. A video of this nature is evidence of trickery nothing more. If you could really do what you just did, you'd collect Randi's $ million or at least be on Good Morning America.

    Pure bollocks.
    clearly you haven't done your research guys. one psychokinetic (JoeT) called up James Randi, and they agreed on the matter. from what i re-call Randi didnt get back to him. huh. figures.
    Open Your Mind

    -Psistudies.net
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by BouyantPenguin
    SpiritNL, it's an interesting video, but I'd have to agree SkinWalker, it does look rather fake (Not that I'm saying that it is) and could be achieved quite easily by several means, one of the simplest being simply blowing at the base of the can.

    Jeremy however... I feel you're being completely unreasonable and you seem more concerned with getting out of this with your ego intact rather than actually learning anything... (Just my opinion)

    P's: New to the forum btw. ^__^
    Hi, welcome.

    When I first looked at what I've recorded, I got the same feeling. And yes, I am not saying this can't be faked. It can totally be. Just asking people to consider the fact it's not.

    - Me
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by SpiritNL
    Quote Originally Posted by BouyantPenguin
    SpiritNL, it's an interesting video, but I'd have to agree SkinWalker, it does look rather fake (Not that I'm saying that it is) and could be achieved quite easily by several means, one of the simplest being simply blowing at the base of the can.

    Jeremy however... I feel you're being completely unreasonable and you seem more concerned with getting out of this with your ego intact rather than actually learning anything... (Just my opinion)

    P's: New to the forum btw. ^__^
    Hi, welcome.

    When I first looked at what I've recorded, I got the same feeling. And yes, I am not saying this can't be faked. It can totally be. Just asking people to consider the fact it's not.

    - Me
    **Nods** I think I understand your frustration... For me it seems impossible, in the same way that existence is impossible... Although I don't completely discredit it-- as I've had my own personal experience with PK (Either that or an incredible coincidence) that sounds almost like the sort of story a primary school kid would tell around the playground to his or her rather naive friends. XD
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by BouyantPenguin
    Quote Originally Posted by SpiritNL
    Quote Originally Posted by BouyantPenguin
    SpiritNL, it's an interesting video, but I'd have to agree SkinWalker, it does look rather fake (Not that I'm saying that it is) and could be achieved quite easily by several means, one of the simplest being simply blowing at the base of the can.

    Jeremy however... I feel you're being completely unreasonable and you seem more concerned with getting out of this with your ego intact rather than actually learning anything... (Just my opinion)

    P's: New to the forum btw. ^__^
    Hi, welcome.

    When I first looked at what I've recorded, I got the same feeling. And yes, I am not saying this can't be faked. It can totally be. Just asking people to consider the fact it's not.

    - Me
    **Nods** I think I understand your frustration... For me it seems impossible, in the same way that existence is impossible... Although I don't completely discredit it-- as I've had my own personal experience with PK (Either that or an incredible coincidence) that sounds almost like the sort of story a primary school kid would tell around the playground to his or her rather naive friends. XD
    These are exactly comments I am looking for. Just asking to consider.

    It's just that since I've been into psionics 'extreme coincidences' keep occuring. I'll quote one out of my blog.

    Mathematics. So I was sitting in my class listening to a boring explanation of the teacher. I was a bit in a day dreaming state. Then he suddenly asked: What is the outcome? To the class. I wasn't really aware of what I was doing, but I just said: 2.3. And then suddenly some other students said: 2.3. And that answer was correct. The question wasn't like: 2 + 3 = ?. It was some pretty hard mathematics, with something you have to calculate on a calculator to get the right answer. It was pretty strange: me day dreaming and calling a number.
    It's almost at this point where I can't possible say it's coincidence.

    Tell me about your experience, if you want.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by SpiritNL
    Quote Originally Posted by BouyantPenguin
    Quote Originally Posted by SpiritNL
    Quote Originally Posted by BouyantPenguin
    SpiritNL, it's an interesting video, but I'd have to agree SkinWalker, it does look rather fake (Not that I'm saying that it is) and could be achieved quite easily by several means, one of the simplest being simply blowing at the base of the can.

    Jeremy however... I feel you're being completely unreasonable and you seem more concerned with getting out of this with your ego intact rather than actually learning anything... (Just my opinion)

    P's: New to the forum btw. ^__^
    Hi, welcome.

    When I first looked at what I've recorded, I got the same feeling. And yes, I am not saying this can't be faked. It can totally be. Just asking people to consider the fact it's not.

    - Me
    **Nods** I think I understand your frustration... For me it seems impossible, in the same way that existence is impossible... Although I don't completely discredit it-- as I've had my own personal experience with PK (Either that or an incredible coincidence) that sounds almost like the sort of story a primary school kid would tell around the playground to his or her rather naive friends. XD
    These are exactly comments I am looking for. Just asking to consider.

    It's just that since I've been into psionics 'extreme coincidences' keep occuring. I'll quote one out of my blog.

    Mathematics. So I was sitting in my class listening to a boring explanation of the teacher. I was a bit in a day dreaming state. Then he suddenly asked: What is the outcome? To the class. I wasn't really aware of what I was doing, but I just said: 2.3. And then suddenly some other students said: 2.3. And that answer was correct. The question wasn't like: 2 + 3 = ?. It was some pretty hard mathematics, with something you have to calculate on a calculator to get the right answer. It was pretty strange: me day dreaming and calling a number.
    It's almost at this point where I can't possible say it's coincidence.

    Tell me about your experience, if you want.

    Of course we know the brain operates on many levels, even when the thinking brain (cerebral cortex) sleeps one can answer questions; for example, a few years ago my mum asked me if I wanted McDonalds for dinner when I was asleep, to which I responded in the negative. (Really wish I had said yes)

    What I'm trying to say is it could have just been a particular part of your brain computing the answer without your knowledge.

    As for my experience: This was about four months ago, and I had just been on one of my regular forums discussing telekinesis. It was dark and I was in bed but I could still see my light-switch-- as I often do concerning things I don't understand I became frustrated and attempted it myself by turning the light switch on. Didn't work. So I went to sleep.

    In the morning I got ready for school and went about my usual routine, and noticed as I passed my light-switch that it was hanging out of the socket. I could see the wires behind it. I pushed it back in and tried to pull it back out. I couldn't.

    Like I said, it doesn't sound very believable. Don’t blame you if you don’t believe me. :P
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by BouyantPenguin
    Quote Originally Posted by SpiritNL
    Quote Originally Posted by BouyantPenguin
    Quote Originally Posted by SpiritNL
    Quote Originally Posted by BouyantPenguin
    SpiritNL, it's an interesting video, but I'd have to agree SkinWalker, it does look rather fake (Not that I'm saying that it is) and could be achieved quite easily by several means, one of the simplest being simply blowing at the base of the can.

    Jeremy however... I feel you're being completely unreasonable and you seem more concerned with getting out of this with your ego intact rather than actually learning anything... (Just my opinion)

    P's: New to the forum btw. ^__^
    Hi, welcome.

    When I first looked at what I've recorded, I got the same feeling. And yes, I am not saying this can't be faked. It can totally be. Just asking people to consider the fact it's not.

    - Me
    **Nods** I think I understand your frustration... For me it seems impossible, in the same way that existence is impossible... Although I don't completely discredit it-- as I've had my own personal experience with PK (Either that or an incredible coincidence) that sounds almost like the sort of story a primary school kid would tell around the playground to his or her rather naive friends. XD
    These are exactly comments I am looking for. Just asking to consider.

    It's just that since I've been into psionics 'extreme coincidences' keep occuring. I'll quote one out of my blog.

    Mathematics. So I was sitting in my class listening to a boring explanation of the teacher. I was a bit in a day dreaming state. Then he suddenly asked: What is the outcome? To the class. I wasn't really aware of what I was doing, but I just said: 2.3. And then suddenly some other students said: 2.3. And that answer was correct. The question wasn't like: 2 + 3 = ?. It was some pretty hard mathematics, with something you have to calculate on a calculator to get the right answer. It was pretty strange: me day dreaming and calling a number.
    It's almost at this point where I can't possible say it's coincidence.

    Tell me about your experience, if you want.

    Of course we know the brain operates on many levels, even when the thinking brain (cerebral cortex) sleeps one can answer questions; for example, a few years ago my mum asked me if I wanted McDonalds for dinner when I was asleep, to which I responded in the negative. (Really wish I had said yes)

    What I'm trying to say is it could have just been a particular part of your brain computing the answer without your knowledge.

    As for my experience: This was about four months ago, and I had just been on one of my regular forums discussing telekinesis. It was dark and I was in bed but I could still see my light-switch-- as I often do concerning things I don't understand I became frustrated and attempted it myself by turning the light switch on. Didn't work. So I went to sleep.

    In the morning I got ready for school and went about my usual routine, and noticed as I passed my light-switch that it was hanging out of the socket. I could see the wires behind it. I pushed it back in and tried to pull it back out. I couldn't.

    Like I said, it doesn't sound very believable. Don’t blame you if you don’t believe me. :P
    Yes. I have been thinking that the sub-c might have given me the answer. He could have calculated it. But how can he do something like that with my c not even knowing what the numbers of that specific calculation were. And there was a 'log' in it. Just like cosinus and sinus, something you have to do on your calculator.

    Your Sub-c might have answered the question your mom gave you.

    And your PK-experience might have been nothing more than some ordinary sleepwalking.

    But my point, I am not claiming your experience didn't occur. Others might do that. I am giving suggestions about what it might be, others just say it's false/not real.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by SpiritNL
    Quote Originally Posted by BouyantPenguin
    Quote Originally Posted by SpiritNL
    Quote Originally Posted by BouyantPenguin
    Quote Originally Posted by SpiritNL
    Quote Originally Posted by BouyantPenguin
    SpiritNL, it's an interesting video, but I'd have to agree SkinWalker, it does look rather fake (Not that I'm saying that it is) and could be achieved quite easily by several means, one of the simplest being simply blowing at the base of the can.

    Jeremy however... I feel you're being completely unreasonable and you seem more concerned with getting out of this with your ego intact rather than actually learning anything... (Just my opinion)

    P's: New to the forum btw. ^__^
    Hi, welcome.

    When I first looked at what I've recorded, I got the same feeling. And yes, I am not saying this can't be faked. It can totally be. Just asking people to consider the fact it's not.

    - Me
    **Nods** I think I understand your frustration... For me it seems impossible, in the same way that existence is impossible... Although I don't completely discredit it-- as I've had my own personal experience with PK (Either that or an incredible coincidence) that sounds almost like the sort of story a primary school kid would tell around the playground to his or her rather naive friends. XD
    These are exactly comments I am looking for. Just asking to consider.

    It's just that since I've been into psionics 'extreme coincidences' keep occuring. I'll quote one out of my blog.

    Mathematics. So I was sitting in my class listening to a boring explanation of the teacher. I was a bit in a day dreaming state. Then he suddenly asked: What is the outcome? To the class. I wasn't really aware of what I was doing, but I just said: 2.3. And then suddenly some other students said: 2.3. And that answer was correct. The question wasn't like: 2 + 3 = ?. It was some pretty hard mathematics, with something you have to calculate on a calculator to get the right answer. It was pretty strange: me day dreaming and calling a number.
    It's almost at this point where I can't possible say it's coincidence.

    Tell me about your experience, if you want.

    Of course we know the brain operates on many levels, even when the thinking brain (cerebral cortex) sleeps one can answer questions; for example, a few years ago my mum asked me if I wanted McDonalds for dinner when I was asleep, to which I responded in the negative. (Really wish I had said yes)

    What I'm trying to say is it could have just been a particular part of your brain computing the answer without your knowledge.

    As for my experience: This was about four months ago, and I had just been on one of my regular forums discussing telekinesis. It was dark and I was in bed but I could still see my light-switch-- as I often do concerning things I don't understand I became frustrated and attempted it myself by turning the light switch on. Didn't work. So I went to sleep.

    In the morning I got ready for school and went about my usual routine, and noticed as I passed my light-switch that it was hanging out of the socket. I could see the wires behind it. I pushed it back in and tried to pull it back out. I couldn't.

    Like I said, it doesn't sound very believable. Don’t blame you if you don’t believe me. :P
    Yes. I have been thinking that the sub-c might have given me the answer. He could have calculated it. But how can he do something like that with my c not even knowing what the numbers of that specific calculation were. And there was a 'log' in it. Just like cosinus and sinus, something you have to do on your calculator.

    Your Sub-c might have answered the question your mom gave you.

    And your PK-experience might have been nothing more than some ordinary sleepwalking.
    Au contraire, I KNOW my subconscious said no to the McDonalds... Frankly I think he's a right pratt for saying that, could of really used something to eat that day. Absolutely starving... X__x;

    Sleep-walking, I never thought of that, could be possible... I did mention trying to pull it out myself when I was fully awake, and I found it impossible (Just couldn't get my hands behind it, sooner pull my finger-nails out)... And when operating on theta or delta brain waves it's reasonable to assume that my physical strength would be limited. Still it's a possibility, although I'd much rather believe it was my PK. XP
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    30
    We all know we are more powerfull than we think in some cases. Ever heard of a women lifting a car because a baby was under the car?

    Not exluding it was PK at all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    6
    Yeah, I've heard of many stories like that. That little statistic that's becoming common knowledge: "The average person uses 14% of their brain"-- or something like that.

    We are of course getting of subject.

    I don't pretend to be a great neurologist or demonologist or any sort of scientist sudo of otherwise, although I still have my little uninformed opinions on things.

    My thinking brain tells me telekinesis is impossible. Although my thinking brain also tells me that existence is impossible, in fact it tells me that by all logical rights /nothing/ should exist. This is why I tend to keep an open mind about these things, since it seems there are things beyond our understanding.

    Assuming of course you do have some talents, what techniques did you use to develop your abilities?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by BouyantPenguin
    Yeah, I've heard of many stories like that. That little statistic that's becoming common knowledge: "The average person uses 14% of their brain"-- or something like that.

    We are of course getting of subject.

    I don't pretend to be a great neurologist or demonologist or any sort of scientist sudo of otherwise, although I still have my little uninformed opinions on things.

    My thinking brain tells me telekinesis is impossible. Although my thinking brain also tells me that existence is impossible, in fact it tells me that by all logical rights /nothing/ should exist. This is why I tend to keep an open mind about these things, since it seems there are things beyond our understanding.

    Assuming of course you do have some talents, what techniques did you use to develop your abilities?
    I've heard that the '10 percent of our brain useage' isn't correct and that it is 90. But just something I heard.

    Anyways. How to develope. In short:

    Getting ready. Relax and ban outside thoughts. Meditation is said to help.

    Becoming one. There is only you and the object, become one with it. Try to 'feel' that you and the object are one. You are the object. There are no other thoughts.

    Do it. Now visualize the object starting to move in the way you want. Feel/hear/smell/see it move.

    There are a lot of methods how to though. But they have one thing in commen. And that's the PK feeling. It's this feeling of control. Can't explain it. If your interested in PK and thing I might not be bullshitting all along, visit some websites.

    - www.upconline.net
    - www.psipog.net
    - www.astralprojection.com
    - www.ppsociety.com
    - www.psilinks.co.nr
    - www.psistudies.net (Co-owner there)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by BouyantPenguin
    Yeah, I've heard of many stories like that. That little statistic that's becoming common knowledge: "The average person uses 14% of their brain"-- or something like that.
    ..AAAAAARRRRGGGHHHH! *bashes head repeatedly* GOOD GOD!

    http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/tenper.html
    http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percnt.htm
    http://www.brainconnection.com/topic...=fa/brain-myth
    http://www.csicop.org/si/9903/ten-percent-myth.html
    http://www.brainconnection.com/topic...=fa/brain-myth
    http://www.bklein.de/statistics/h/Ps...cent_Myth.html
    http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/neurosc...ry/047803.html

    Is that enough links for you?

    ----EDIT----

    Sorry, the 90% bit is still a myth. We use our brain to it's full capacity. If we did not, evolution wouldn't let us have the 10% we didn't use. Evolution vs. percent myth = myth loses.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #124  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    6
    I always thought it was strange, thought it was just referring perhaps to those parts of the brain other than the cerebral cortex, the cerebellum or medulla, limbic, etc that we have no conscious control over.

    Still, it was a nice myth to think that we only use 10% of our "potential" that we could be so much more. I suppose in the end the potential is in what we know, learn and do.

    Almost disappointed.

    Oh and thank you for the tips, Spirit.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #125  
    Forum Senior Imaplanck.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    344
    Doesn't this myth derive from us only being able to use up to 10% at any one time. Any more would just lead to confusion?
    I agree, we use every part of our brain, to suggest that 90% of the neural network is never utilized, is ludicrous.
    "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeeded be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." Albert Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #126  
    Gus
    Gus is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    36
    I believe it is possible as a side effect of quantum entanglement. If particles can effect each other instantaneously ,even if they are on the other side of the universe, and if teleportation of subatomic particles is possible (which we know they can be as we have now performed this under experimental conditions) and as our brains are the complex interplay of electrons - then telepathy is also conceivable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #127  
    Gus
    Gus is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Quote Originally Posted by BouyantPenguin
    Yeah, I've heard of many stories like that. That little statistic that's becoming common knowledge: "The average person uses 14% of their brain"-- or something like that.
    ..AAAAAARRRRGGGHHHH! *bashes head repeatedly* GOOD GOD!

    http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/tenper.html
    http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percnt.htm
    http://www.brainconnection.com/topic...=fa/brain-myth
    http://www.csicop.org/si/9903/ten-percent-myth.html
    http://www.brainconnection.com/topic...=fa/brain-myth
    http://www.bklein.de/statistics/h/Ps...cent_Myth.html
    http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/neurosc...ry/047803.html

    Is that enough links for you?

    ----EDIT----

    Sorry, the 90% bit is still a myth. We use our brain to it's full capacity. If we did not, evolution wouldn't let us have the 10% we didn't use. Evolution vs. percent myth = myth loses.
    Well spotted ! However it is true that we dont know what the vast majority of our DNA does - its called "junk DNA"" 97 % in fact is of unknown function.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #128  
    Guest
    I seriously question your statistics, although I do agree. There is a saying: Lies, damn lies, and statistics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #129  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    Only 10 percent of our brain are neurons, the other cells are there - to amongst other things - to maintain the activity of those neurons.

    Why not: Our brain is only so much percent of our body, if we use our entire body for psychic capacity, we would develop powerful telepathic abilities?

    There is this focus on the brain in terms of psychic capacities, which is based on a misconception.. Merely because our thought processes occur in our brain does not mean that that brain is wholly focused on thought processes.

    If we look at various animals, we can see that they need their brain for the controlling of their muscles, and are so focused with that they can't divert their attention to thinking in advanced terms.

    Having studied psychology a bit now, I dismiss the concept completely. Yes, I welcome anyone to demonstrate that it is possible, but until that time, I put the same weight on it as I do those people who say they can fly or become invisible.
    For me, it's all new-age metaphysics, people worshipping the Eastern Tradition in resentment of the Western tradition that is sharper and more critical.

    Mr U
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #130  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by HomoUniversalis
    Only 10 percent of our brain are neurons, the other cells are there - to amongst other things - to maintain the activity of those neurons.

    Why not: Our brain is only so much percent of our body, if we use our entire body for psychic capacity, we would develop powerful telepathic abilities?

    There is this focus on the brain in terms of psychic capacities, which is based on a misconception.. Merely because our thought processes occur in our brain does not mean that that brain is wholly focused on thought processes.
    actually the percentage can vary per person I think. correct me if I'm wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #131  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Quote Originally Posted by HomoUniversalis
    Only 10 percent of our brain are neurons, the other cells are there - to amongst other things - to maintain the activity of those neurons.

    Why not: Our brain is only so much percent of our body, if we use our entire body for psychic capacity, we would develop powerful telepathic abilities?

    There is this focus on the brain in terms of psychic capacities, which is based on a misconception.. Merely because our thought processes occur in our brain does not mean that that brain is wholly focused on thought processes.
    actually the percentage can vary per person I think. correct me if I'm wrong.
    I'd be the last to attack that, even if statistical research argued against it. One should always consider the cases in which hard drug users stop neurogenesis and do not make new cells in their hippocampus or destructive diseases.

    Heck, the very structure of the brain, how the grooves look varies per brain, per individual.

    Mr U
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #132  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Gus
    I believe it is possible as a side effect of quantum entanglement. If particles can effect each other instantaneously ,even if they are on the other side of the universe, and if teleportation of subatomic particles is possible (which we know they can be as we have now performed this under experimental conditions) and as our brains are the complex interplay of electrons - then telepathy is also conceivable.
    You could be right there, I just know I moved a rock on Mars a few feet the other day, it rolled down into a crater and allowed water to flow for a short while - you can see the pictures on the Nasa website.

    Now can you explain why you think telepathy is possible from the movement of electrons in the brain (over which we have no direct control)?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #133  
    Guest
    Actually, we do have direct control. Emotions and other factors change the rate and way in which they fire for one. Thoughts do as well. We have immense control, few fail to realize it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #134  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Actually, we do have direct control. Emotions and other factors change the rate and way in which they fire for one. Thoughts do as well. We have immense control, few fail to realize it.
    THat's why I used the word 'direct' - we have a form of indirect control over electrons [thoughts actions etc] but that's all. By direct I mean you cannot direct an electron or stream of electrons to coalesce or be directed from one specified point to another. For example if you look at a bright light you are not sending a stream of electrons from the eye to the brain, electrons are involved but the synapse's exchange 'chemical' messages - if I remember correctly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #135  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Actually, we do have direct control. Emotions and other factors change the rate and way in which they fire for one. Thoughts do as well. We have immense control, few fail to realize it.
    THat's why I used the word 'direct' - we have a form of indirect control over electrons [thoughts actions etc] but that's all. By direct I mean you cannot direct an electron or stream of electrons to coalesce or be directed from one specified point to another. For example if you look at a bright light you are not sending a stream of electrons from the eye to the brain, electrons are involved but the synapse's exchange 'chemical' messages - if I remember correctly.
    You are using the term "direct" to mean "utter and complete control over every last little electron." Well naturally we don't.

    However my main point stands. You yourself can somewhat control them with varying ability. This is how people control emotions, for one. Perfect control is, of course, impossible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #136  
    Guest
    I am using the term as a physicist, where direct and indirect have very specific meanings - E.G you have no direct control over the speed of your car when driving - you have only indirect control via the accelerator, you are not pushing the car when you press the pedal.

    you are directly responsible for the speed of the car when driving and if your wife is a back seat driver she may be indirectly responsible for it's speed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #137  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    More likely: consciousness is a mirror, and we are driven by unconscious drives we can only partially understand. "I" is only a mechanism of cognition, not volition.

    Mr U
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #138  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by HomoUniversalis
    More likely: consciousness is a mirror, and we are driven by unconscious drives we can only partially understand. "I" is only a mechanism of cognition, not volition.

    Mr U
    Have they kicked you out of Philosophy Mr U?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #139  
    Guest
    megabrain, while philosophical, it is based on physical interpretation of the data.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #140  
    Guest
    In terms of Science (psuedo or otherwise), it's Bollocks and off topic (from Telekinesis), anybody else posting in the wrong section would have been trashed/deleted/removed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #141  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    Quote Originally Posted by HomoUniversalis
    More likely: consciousness is a mirror, and we are driven by unconscious drives we can only partially understand. "I" is only a mechanism of cognition, not volition.

    Mr U
    Have they kicked you out of Philosophy Mr U?
    As if they could :P

    By the way - I never considered it to be offtopic. Telepathy is controlled by the mind, and the structure and nature of that mind is important. I have found no telepathy-believers who believe they have no control over their 'powers'. In fact, most operate from an unfounded 'control'-paradigm as it is.

    This aspect of telepathy, control, I believe to be relevant.

    Mr U
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #142  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Earth(or there about)
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by HomoUniversalis
    I have found no telepathy-believers who believe they have no control over their 'powers'. In fact, most operate from an unfounded 'control'-paradigm as it is.
    Never heard of a poltergeist?

    The average power consumption of a typical adult is 100 Watts and the brain consumes 20% of this making the power of the brain 20 W. Based on a 2400 calorie diet
    Well, one of the side effects of tk is supposedly weight loss. Hmmm... I wonder if there could be some way to market that?

    *New weight loss program! Lose weight and move small objects across your desk at the same time!*

    I must say, I believe in tk because I have finally managed to do it myself in very limited amounts (but I did everything I could to ensure there were no other contributing factors, and there were none but my will that could account for its action). But the more I reasearch it the more I wonder: Exactly how is it possible?

    Someone said we can't use more than 10% of our brain at any one point because any more would lead to confusion (not stating the 10% myth!). Maybe by clearing the mind of conscious thought, you can achieve a level of consistent focus enabling you to elevate that to a higher percentage. But I'm not sure even that can account for it.

    The only explanation I can think of is that maybe the brain is actually rewiring itself in someway to create more energy than it would ever need on a normal basis. I noticed there is a ringing in my ears when I try to move an object unsuccesfully for a too long, and the base of the back of my head feels unusually hot.

    Was it Megabrain that said this? You said the brain consumes a limited amount of energy. What if the brain could modify itself? To create a greater electrical current, or generate a powerful static force in the body by directing separate, new currents?

    I'm not saying a normal brain with normal functions can do it, but what if all those excercises, meditations, mind-sets, and the constant effort puts a strain on the body? Maybe the subconscious is trying to find some way to get you to stop exerting yourself because it's harmul to you to devote so much consentration continually, and so it tries to solve the problem in any way it can, and maybe sometimes, just in those few rare instances (I think the vast majority of psions are fakes), it succeeds.

    ___________________EDIT___________________________


    Let me rephrase that. I think the vast majority of psions are "misguided" by simple physics they do not realise as occuring, or by there own imagination. I am not trying to imply they are all one big bunch of liars or idiots, they just want it to be true a little too much, and they want it to happen a little too fast.

    ___________________EDIT___________________________

    Things keep coming out wrong, I need to be more careful what I say. I of course did not mean to generalize all psions or place them all within the deceptive/dellusional category. So please do not take offense anyone.
    Genius and stupidity have one major difference. Genius has its limits.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #143  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by blazer2000x
    I must say, I believe in tk because I have finally managed to do it myself in very limited amounts (but I did everything I could to ensure there were no other contributing factors, and there were none but my will that could account for its action). But the more I reasearch it the more I wonder: Exactly how is it possible?
    OK, you have convinced yourself, now go and win the $1M prize.


    Quote Originally Posted by blazer2000x
    Someone said we can't use more than 10% of our brain at any one point because any more would lead to confusion (not stating the 10% myth!). Maybe by clearing the mind of conscious thought, you can achieve a level of consistent focus enabling you to elevate that to a higher percentage. But I'm not sure even that can account for it.
    So once you have cleared the mind of conscious thoughts, who is left at home to consciously think about moving an object?

    Quote Originally Posted by blazer2000x
    The only explanation I can think of is that maybe the brain is actually rewiring itself in someway to create more energy than it would ever need on a normal basis. I noticed there is a ringing in my ears when I try to move an object unsuccesfully for a too long, and the base of the back of my head feels unusually hot.
    THe reason that's the only reason is because of your [apparent] lack of knowledge of physics, biology, reality and psychology.


    Quote Originally Posted by blazer2000x
    Was it Megabrain that said this? You said the brain consumes a limited amount of energy. What if the brain could modify itself? To create a greater electrical current, or generate a powerful static force in the body by directing separate, new currents?
    THe brain 'modifies' itself all the time, before you carp on about 'extra electrical energy' you need to explain where it goes, and more importantly why it would not boil in the the light of the maximum power transfer theorum.

    Broadly speaking for every watt of power a generator supplies it will also dissipate the same - IF you get the figures right, otherwise it will dissipate more power than it generates. An increase of just 10% of brain energy would raise it's temperature byond the manufacturers specification, unless it's physical size increased proportionaly. The true amount of electrical energy the brain 'creates' is a tiny fraction of the energy it uses.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #144  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by blazer2000x
    Quote Originally Posted by HomoUniversalis
    I have found no telepathy-believers who believe they have no control over their 'powers'. In fact, most operate from an unfounded 'control'-paradigm as it is.
    Never heard of a poltergeist?
    Not in anything but the context of "it only exists in bad films."

    Anyway. For me it is not about what is possible, I think the film industry demonstrated this better than I could. This is about what is real and what exists. There is only need for a theory on something when it is shown to exist. When we have someone doing something we can't explain, then and only then will we need a theory.

    As for energy, it is not created but changed into different forms. This is why it is not possible to actually loose or gain energy in systems.

    Mr U
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #145  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Earth(or there about)
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by HomoUniversalis
    Quote Originally Posted by blazer2000x
    Quote Originally Posted by HomoUniversalis
    I have found no telepathy-believers who believe they have no control over their 'powers'. In fact, most operate from an unfounded 'control'-paradigm as it is.
    Never heard of a poltergeist?
    Not in anything but the context of "it only exists in bad films."
    Wow. Do your homework next time. There have been plenty of claims of poltergeists and a predominant theory among those who believe in the paranormal is that it is a telekinetic manifestation of the affected person's emotions.
    _____________________EDIT__________________
    Before you go saying there's no proof etc. remember that we were talking about telekinetic theory and the views in the general community concerning it, not actual scientific fact.
    _________________END EDIT__________________

    Quote Originally Posted by HomoUniversalis
    Anyway. For me it is not about what is possible, I think the film industry demonstrated this better than I could. This is about what is real and what exists. There is only need for a theory on something when it is shown to exist. When we have someone doing something we can't explain, then and only then will we need a theory.

    As for energy, it is not created but changed into different forms. This is why it is not possible to actually loose or gain energy in systems.

    Mr U
    I think you purposefully heard what you wanted to hear in my posts. Don't tell me the body has no access to a supply of energy, or even electricity for that matter. We obviously wouldn't be alive if we didn't. And if you don't believe an organic being is capable of generating an electric current without harming itself, go hold an electric eel. Observe the harm it inflicts on itself and the effect it has on you, and then come back to discuss your findings.

    Quote Originally Posted by HomoUniversalis
    OK, you have convinced yourself, now go and win the $1M prize.
    I wasn't even going to answer this, but I figured you would think I was avoiding it for another reason. The fact is, I really don't believe he's ever going to let anybody take the test. There was one time when both he and the person signing up agreed to all the terms for the experiment. Randi apparently forgot about him, and his website states no one has ever been able to agree to the terms. Secondly, I'm in school. I have neither the money nor the time to go gallivanting across the country with an ability I can use 5% of the time at best to prove to someone that I can do something I can't even understand.

    Quote Originally Posted by HomoUniversalis
    So once you have cleared the mind of conscious thoughts, who is left at home to consciously think about moving an object?
    This time it's my fault, I guess I wasn't clear enough in my post. By "consistent focus", I meant well... consistent focus. You think of only one thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by HomoUniversalis
    THe reason that's the only reason is because of your [apparent] lack of knowledge of physics, biology, reality and psychology.
    I took biology last year and aced the course. I am taking chemistry this year(and have an A), but I have not taken physics yet(I'm taking AP physics next year), and I have neither taken nor plan on taking psychology. As for reality, well, that's just an insult, not debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by HomoUniversalis
    THe brain 'modifies' itself all the time, before you carp on about 'extra electrical energy' you need to explain where it goes, and more importantly why it would not boil in the the light of the maximum power transfer theorum.
    The mptt can only apply if the source has a fixed internal resistance. If the brain is modifying itself, it can increase levels of conducting minerals in its cells to decrease resistance, or decrease them to increase resistance. So it cannot apply to this case. On the other topic, the brain can use the electricity to build up a static charge to manipulate objects by directing the currents through the nervous system. You could argue that this would be harmful to the body. And indeed it is, I don't know any one who thinks tk won't harm you if you use it too much, but they seem to think it gets better as you work. I disagree. You might get better at using it, but it probably has a pretty small limit. "Symptoms" of tk include weightloss and a burning sensation in the spine, hands and arms.

    Quote Originally Posted by HomoUniversalis
    Broadly speaking for every watt of power a generator supplies it will also dissipate the same - IF you get the figures right, otherwise it will dissipate more power than it generates.
    The body is not generating electricity through metal and magnetism, but by chemical reactions.
    Quote Originally Posted by HomoUniversalis
    An increase of just 10% of brain energy would raise it's temperature byond the manufacturers specification, unless it's physical size increased proportionaly.
    Or if it could modify its conductivity.

    Quote Originally Posted by HomoUniversalis
    The true amount of electrical energy the brain 'creates' is a tiny fraction of the energy it uses.
    That doesn't mean it can't 'create' more or make the rest of the body create more and then redirect it.

    That was long. It's easier if you just make one point at a time and then defend that point.
    Genius and stupidity have one major difference. Genius has its limits.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #146  
    Guest
    Well as far as I am concerned, "I haven't got the time" actually translates to "I don't want to make a fool of myself" - as for electricity in the body this is 'generated' by simple chemical process's all of which are well understood, infact there are enough elements and acids in the body to generate enough electricity to run a very very small radio [using an earpiece], hardly enough to move your average grand piano up a flight of stairs.


    Poltergeist, let me see, where's my physics book....

    Nope, nothing in there, so there's no such thing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #147  
    Guest
    ...megabrain, you have just made one of the worst "appeal to authority" fallacies of all time. "Nope, the physicists haven't had any interest in proving or disproving the possible event's, so it doesn't exist"

    How can you assume something doesn't exist, when there is no apparent evidence for it? If there is no evidence for it, how can you prove it wrong? It's a fallacy to assume it wrong because there is no evidence for it, since you can't prove it wrong.

    Similarly, this is why you can't prove claims like "I feel god" wrong, based on blind faith and no evidence, it's impossible to. It's also why our current theist, truth, has to prove evolution wrong while at the same time screaming "there is no evidence" (Hint: that means there is evidence)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #148  
    Guest
    Quite simple, I draw a line between what I believe may be possible at some time, e.g contact with aliens, intrestellar travel, the solution to quantum mechanics, origin of the universe, physics of dark matter etc and that which I consider will never be possible eg TK ghosts, and descent public transport in the UK.

    Even the tiniest shred of credible evidence for TK [for example] would open my mind to the possibility of it existing.

    So where I see not the remotest tiniest shred of evidence I 'bin it' and where there is the remotest tiniest evidence for it, it becomes a possibility.

    Yuu have to draw the line somewhere. The evidence has to be in the form of repeatable scientific experiment either conforming to physics or repeatedly demonstrating the phenomina yet to be explained.

    OK?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #149  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Earth(or there about)
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    Well as far as I am concerned, "I haven't got the time" actually translates to "I don't want to make a fool of myself" - as for electricity in the body this is 'generated' by simple chemical process's all of which are well understood,
    I'll quote myself:

    Quote Originally Posted by blazer2000x
    The body is not generating electricity through metal and magnetism, but by chemical reactions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    infact there are enough elements and acids in the body to generate enough electricity to run a very very small radio [using an earpiece], hardly enough to move your average grand piano up a flight of stairs.
    I'll quote myself again:
    Quote Originally Posted by blazer2000x
    You might get better at using it, but it probably has a pretty small limit.
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    Poltergeist, let me see, where's my physics book....

    Nope, nothing in there, so there's no such thing.
    Ok, now this is annoying. I'll quote myself again:
    Quote Originally Posted by blazer2000x
    Before you go saying there's no proof etc. remember that we were talking about telekinetic theory and the views in the general community concerning it, not actual scientific fact.
    Genius and stupidity have one major difference. Genius has its limits.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #150  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    Quite simple, I draw a line between what I believe may be possible at some time, e.g contact with aliens, intrestellar travel, the solution to quantum mechanics, origin of the universe, physics of dark matter etc and that which I consider will never be possible eg TK ghosts, and descent public transport in the UK.

    Even the tiniest shred of credible evidence for TK [for example] would open my mind to the possibility of it existing.

    So where I see not the remotest tiniest shred of evidence I 'bin it' and where there is the remotest tiniest evidence for it, it becomes a possibility.

    Yuu have to draw the line somewhere. The evidence has to be in the form of repeatable scientific experiment either conforming to physics or repeatedly demonstrating the phenomina yet to be explained.

    OK?
    Fair enough. But drawing that line tends to mean you wont be open to studying it. I, on the other hand, find entertainment in it, so I suppose it's fair. :P
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #151  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Earth(or there about)
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    Quite simple, I draw a line between what I believe may be possible at some time, e.g contact with aliens, intrestellar travel, the solution to quantum mechanics, origin of the universe, physics of dark matter etc and that which I consider will never be possible eg TK ghosts, and descent public transport in the UK.

    Even the tiniest shred of credible evidence for TK [for example] would open my mind to the possibility of it existing.

    So where I see not the remotest tiniest shred of evidence I 'bin it' and where there is the remotest tiniest evidence for it, it becomes a possibility.

    Yuu have to draw the line somewhere. The evidence has to be in the form of repeatable scientific experiment either conforming to physics or repeatedly demonstrating the phenomina yet to be explained.

    OK?
    But even if tk does seem as improbable as descent public transport in the UK, you shouldn't label it as impossible. As for the replicable scientific experiment, there as of yet isn't one for tk unless you count something like volition(old computer game, I made a version of my own with some pretty amazing results). But as for telepathy there certainly is one.
    http://www.dina.kvl.dk/~abraham/psy1.html
    I was doing a research project on the paranormal when I found this article. I urge you to read it. It's probably the best I've seen.
    I know it's kind of long, but if I could read the whole thing during one english class and still get my project done in time you know it can't be that hard.
    Genius and stupidity have one major difference. Genius has its limits.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #152  
    Guest
    Would it make you happy if I changed it to:-

    "In the light of no scientific data supporting TK I delcare it improbable ??
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #153  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    Would it make you happy if I changed it to:-

    "In the light of no scientific data supporting TK I delcare it improbable ??
    You can't declare it anything, since there is no scientific data OPPOSING it either (for that to happen there would have to be evidence for it, and you say there is non). You CAN'T have it either way, megabrain, you just have to accept the "fact" that your classification of "impossible" holds no logical basis (nor improbable, for that matter).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #154  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Earth(or there about)
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    Would it make you happy if I changed it to:-

    "In the light of no scientific data supporting TK I delcare it improbable ??
    Read the article.
    Genius and stupidity have one major difference. Genius has its limits.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #155  
    Guest
    I understand the simple test for TK is merely that it be witnessed by independant scientists who provide the material requested by the participant, no more, no less.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #156  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    You attributed the postings of Megabrain to me. I will respond only to those comments that concerned by post.

    [quote]
    Quote Originally Posted by blazer2000x
    Quote Originally Posted by HomoUniversalis
    Quote Originally Posted by blazer2000x
    Quote Originally Posted by HomoUniversalis
    I have found no telepathy-believers who believe they have no control over their 'powers'. In fact, most operate from an unfounded 'control'-paradigm as it is.
    Never heard of a poltergeist?
    Not in anything but the context of "it only exists in bad films."
    Wow. Do your homework next time. There have been plenty of claims of poltergeists and a predominant theory among those who believe in the paranormal is that it is a telekinetic manifestation of the affected person's emotions.
    _____________________EDIT__________________
    Before you go saying there's no proof etc. remember that we were talking about telekinetic theory and the views in the general community concerning it, not actual scientific fact.
    _________________END EDIT__________________
    My homework consists out of scientific theory. If you are investigating the views of the general community, you are not investigating the actual phenomenon. If you are investigating the actual phenomenon in non-scientific terms, I think that speaks for itself.
    I said - in less words - that I only knew it as existing as a literary expression. If you wish to prove its existence - do so.
    Parapsychology, by the way, is not a science.

    Quote Originally Posted by HomoUniversalis
    Anyway. For me it is not about what is possible, I think the film industry demonstrated this better than I could. This is about what is real and what exists. There is only need for a theory on something when it is shown to exist. When we have someone doing something we can't explain, then and only then will we need a theory.

    As for energy, it is not created but changed into different forms. This is why it is not possible to actually loose or gain energy in systems.

    Mr U
    I think you purposefully heard what you wanted to hear in my posts. Don't tell me the body has no access to a supply of energy, or even electricity for that matter. We obviously wouldn't be alive if we didn't.
    Interesting hypothesis. Test it, but please, don't expect me to buy into this rhetorical argument for the sake of you constructing an argument I don't agree with anyway.

    And if you don't believe an organic being is capable of generating an electric current without harming itself, go hold an electric eel.
    Who said I didn't? I'm not denying animals are capable of harnessing electrical current. However, eels do not create energy.

    Observe the harm it inflicts on itself and the effect it has on you, and then come back to discuss your findings.
    You want me to study the behaviour of eels so I can better understand what you mean when you talk about telekinesis and ghosts?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy
    You can't declare it anything, since there is no scientific data OPPOSING it either (for that to happen there would have to be evidence for it, and you say there is non). You CAN'T have it either way, megabrain, you just have to accept the "fact" that your classification of "impossible" holds no logical basis (nor improbable, for that matter).
    That's all irrelevant. You are discussing knowledge theory here - what it means to scientifically know something. For me, a planet that is discovered in 200 years does not exist. Just like God does not exist and just like Poltergeists don't exist. Someone has to prove they exist for me to believe in them. I deal in practicalities, not in subtle political correct light-headedness.

    Mr U
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #157  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Earth(or there about)
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    I understand the simple test for TK is merely that it be witnessed by independant scientists who provide the material requested by the participant, no more, no less.
    I assume you haven't read the article yet? O well.

    Nina Kulagina successfully demonstrated her abilities to numerous scientists throughout the course of her life. Although there standards weren't up to todays practices, you have to admit they were as thorough as they could be and it's pretty unlikely that if she had been using trickery she was never caught; not even once.

    You said it has to be "observed" by independant scientists. What if the average tk is so small it cannot be seen? That's where micropk comes in. The game I mentioned earlier(volition) when it was used delivered extrordinary results, yet about as much attention was paid to it as you paid to the article.

    This is exactly why you people can't believe it. You claim there is no evidence, but I just gave you evidence and you won't read it.
    Genius and stupidity have one major difference. Genius has its limits.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #158  
    Guest
    OK, point me to a reputable scientific journal with full details and I'll happily read it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #159  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Earth(or there about)
    Posts
    54
    Sorry about the mixup, I'll edit and fix it.

    Quote Originally Posted by HomoUniversalis
    My homework consists out of scientific theory. If you are investigating the views of the general community, you are not investigating the actual phenomenon. If you are investigating the actual phenomenon in non-scientific terms, I think that speaks for itself.
    I said - in less words - that I only knew it as existing as a literary expression. If you wish to prove its existence - do so.
    Parapsychology, by the way, is not a science.
    How can you be so forgetful. You were the one talking about telekinetic theory. I was responding to a mistake you made. You said that telekinetics believe they are in complete control of there power. I stated that most telekinetics accept poltergeists as a form of tk and then you opposed me by saying there was no proof for them, which is unrelated to the fact that telekinetics believe in them.

    Quote Originally Posted by HomoUniversalis
    Interesting hypothesis. Test it, but please, don't expect me to buy into this rhetorical argument for the sake of you constructing an argument I don't agree with anyway.

    Who said I didn't? I'm not denying animals are capable of harnessing electrical current. However, eels do not create energy.
    You are basing all of this on a missinterpretation of something I said. When I said the brain 'creates' energy I meant that it uses chemical reactions to produce electrical currents, not that it is somehow violating the laws of entropy and pulling energy out of nowhere. And I said that too, so please read more carefully next time.

    Quote Originally Posted by HomoUniversalis
    You want me to study the behaviour of eels so I can better understand what you mean when you talk about telekinesis and ghosts?
    Two things I find infuriating about this post. You're taking what I said out of context and putting words in my mouth. I said nothing of the behavior of eels, I was trying to help you understand the brain 'creating' energy(not tk), and I as a matter of fact do not believe in ghosts. If you're going to argue my comments, please counter things I've actually said, and not things you wish I had said because they are easier to prove wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by HomoUniversalis
    That's all irrelevant. You are discussing knowledge theory here -

    Mr U
    Yes. Because I was responding to your post about knowledge theory.

    p.s. biochemistry is not knowledge theory.
    Genius and stupidity have one major difference. Genius has its limits.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #160  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    OK, point me to a reputable scientific journal with full details and I'll happily read it.
    It doesn't have to be a scientific journal, if there are "facts" or such you call bullshit to, google them. Knock it off with the appeal to the authority fallacies. I swear...that must be a trait with all "physicists," you have it, william DEFINITELY has it...-.- at this rate, I lose faith in physicists.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #161  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Earth(or there about)
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    OK, point me to a reputable scientific journal with full details and I'll happily read it.
    I DID! Read the article already. Psychological Bulletin, 1994. It has more details than you'll ever wish for. It is complete and thorough in every way. It stays on one single topic and aspect of that topic, and covers every point. Now read it or stop saying there is no evidence.
    Genius and stupidity have one major difference. Genius has its limits.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #162  
    Guest
    IF you are referring to this:-

    http://www.dina.kvl.dk/~abraham/psy1.html

    It is NOT a reputable scientific journal it a network of a bunch of university students having a laugh.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #163  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Earth(or there about)
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    IF you are referring to this:-

    http://www.dina.kvl.dk/~abraham/psy1.html

    It is NOT a reputable scientific journal it a network of a bunch of university students having a laugh.
    Did you just randomly say it was fake?

    Here is information on the authors:
    Charles Honorton:
    http://www.parapsych.org/members/c_honorton.html

    Daryl J. Bem:
    www.dbem.ws

    Here's the journal that published it:
    http://www.apa.org/journals/bul/

    Here is the same article from different locations:
    http://dbem.ws/psi_world.html
    http://www.dbem.ws/Does%20Psi%20Exist%3F.pdf
    http://www.metapsychique.org/Does-Ps...-Evidence.html

    But just out of curiosity, what makes you say that it was made up?
    Genius and stupidity have one major difference. Genius has its limits.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #164  
    Guest
    The physics of the PSI wheel are well known and do not qualify as TK.
    If you think I am going to spend my time arguing over this rubbish forget it. IF that makes you feel you have 'won' the debate' then so what -neither you nor any other individual has ever or will ever move things by thought power UNLESS you are stoned out of your brain.

    Now, post a recognised scientific source link, eg new scientist, scientific american etc.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #165  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Earth(or there about)
    Posts
    54
    You haven't answered my question. What make's you think it is made up? They do not mention psi wheels, they discuss the ganzfield experiment. And if you will not "waste your time" with the opposing argument, then you should not have made others waste there time listening to yours in the first place. If you read it and find something wrong with the math, or think of some other explanation they did not cover, then you can argue it. That's how a debate works. If one side prevents evidence, the other must disprove that evidence or 'admit defeat' to put it one way.

    you want New Scientist?:
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/...s-detract.html

    But I want to point something out. It is not that 'recognized' sources disprove the evidence. They ignore it just like you do.

    You want to know why no one has ever been able to show you proof? This is exactly why. You're the same as every other 'skeptic' and idiot who blindly believes in psi without evidence. (not that you're an idiot) I worked, I found the data, found real people who wrote it, gave you there background, there credibility, all their sources are listed, I found no fault or flaw in their logic or math, and still you claim, "I see not the remotest tiniest shred of evidence."

    You claim the reason you have never seen evidence is because the theory is unsuported. In reality the only reason is because you have never looked, and when it has found you instead, you ignore it.

    _________________________EDIT_____________________ ___

    http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:BlajGaMB3_kJ:hopelive.hope.ac.uk/psychology/LevelH/para/New_Scientist_(2004)_Parapsychology_iv.pdf+opposit es+detract+new+scientist&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3

    article in HTML.

    hopelive.hope.ac.uk/psychology/LevelH/para/New_Scientist_(2004)_Parapsychology_iv.pdf

    article in PDF.
    Genius and stupidity have one major difference. Genius has its limits.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #166  
    Guest
    It's very simple, NOBODY has claimed any of the many prizes available for demonstrating TK, there is no hard repeatable scientific experiment for TK, you guys say it's true, you prove it, that is give me the details of an experiment I can conduct and achieve results in my lab. I don't really care how many privately owned web-sites you point to, they are at best anectdotal evidence - not something modern science relies on.

    If you believe you can demonstrate it, then give me a list of materials you need, details of the experiment, I will set it up and we'll see. If you achieve it I will ensure you get the credit and recognition due. I'll even refund your travelling expenses, and buy you a couple of drinks to celebrate. There are all sorts of internet sites claiming various phenomina to be true, since the origin of these claims is merely 'the written word' you must provide something tangible to back it up.

    Anybody can say something is 'true' or 'I can do it' I ask that you or anyone else who personaly claims the ability, simply demonstrate it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #167  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Earth(or there about)
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    It's very simple, NOBODY has claimed any of the many prizes available for demonstrating TK, there is no hard repeatable scientific experiment for TK, you guys say it's true, you prove it, that is give me the details of an experiment I can conduct and achieve results in my lab. I don't really care how many privately owned web-sites you point to, they are at best anectdotal evidence - not something modern science relies on.

    If you believe you can demonstrate it, then give me a list of materials you need, details of the experiment, I will set it up and we'll see. If you achieve it I will ensure you get the credit and recognition due. I'll even refund your travelling expenses, and buy you a couple of drinks to celebrate. There are all sorts of internet sites claiming various phenomina to be true, since the origin of these claims is merely 'the written word' you must provide something tangible to back it up.

    Anybody can say something is 'true' or 'I can do it' I ask that you or anyone else who personaly claims the ability, simply demonstrate it.
    I am almost beyond frustration. In responce to everything you said above:

    First: You have a lab? That's amazing! I've always wanted a lab, but I can't see myself getting one in the near future unfortunately.

    Second: NO YOU WONT!!! You wont conduct any experiment, you wont try to achieve anything, and if anyone else does you'll ignore it on the grounds that you're too lazy to try it yourself. It's all a lie. You won't do anything at all. Don't believe me? I can send you my Volition remake. I can show you all the results I've gotten. You can try the pinwheel thingy yourself. None of it will make any difference.

    You have to understand, the key ingredient in this experiment is a mind that is willing to attempt it. You are asking for an experiment without this factor.

    Every time you have asked for evidence, I have given it to you. In the form you've requested as well. Every time you've ignored it completely and totaly.

    I'll bet you didn't even read that new scientist article you so profoundly believed did not exist.

    *deep breaths*

    Ok. You want a testable experiment?(Why do I waste my time?) Here you go:
    The computer's RNG is programmed to provide an even distribution of numbers. This means that an equal amount of positive and negative values returned by it should balance each other out, achieving a value in the range of zero.
    Write a program. Make a dot travel across a screen by using the RNG. Either add or subtract 1-5 pixels from the value. The result is the line should flutter a little, but more or less remain in the center of the screen. Now GET SOMEONE ELSE (or try really, really hard to overcome your prejudice and open you mind). Have them/yourself concentrate on the dot. Tell yourself that it can and it will rise/fall depending on what you want to achieve. Record every test outcome. Compare it to other people's results. If your average result is different then theirs, then you know that something is going on. If your line is veering drastically off the center, then you know immediately that something is influencing it.(or you have a bad RNG) And that unfortunately has covered every single base of presentable evidence, all the way up to 'try it yourself'. If you still refuse to believe, then there is simply nothing I or anyone can do about it.

    If you "don't want to waste your time" making the program, I'll see what I can do to upload mine and post a link, but you know how hard it is to upload EXEs for free nowadays.
    Genius and stupidity have one major difference. Genius has its limits.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #168  
    Guest
    Yes I have a lab - my own personal lab - it is very well equpped - I also have a workshop for making things and a large store. This is no big deal, I am a retired design engineer - I have worked on many things in my career. Your PSI wheel - have you tried puting a glass over it and then getting it to rotate? - it rotates through convection currents it is not a phenomina - and yes I am serious that if you send me the details I will duplicate your experiments with or without you present - I have made a serious offer - YOU are deriding it, to me that is an indication you know your claim is rubbish. Now put up or admit you 'believe' you are right but in fact are not.

    Here you go, try this,

    http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Covere...l%20trick.html

    If you can disprove what Keith says, I'll listen - show me a covered psi-wheel working!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #169  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by blazer2000x
    Sorry about the mixup, I'll edit and fix it.

    Quote Originally Posted by HomoUniversalis
    My homework consists out of scientific theory. If you are investigating the views of the general community, you are not investigating the actual phenomenon. If you are investigating the actual phenomenon in non-scientific terms, I think that speaks for itself.
    I said - in less words - that I only knew it as existing as a literary expression. If you wish to prove its existence - do so.
    Parapsychology, by the way, is not a science.
    How can you be so forgetful. You were the one talking about telekinetic theory. I was responding to a mistake you made. You said that telekinetics believe they are in complete control of there power. I stated that most telekinetics accept poltergeists as a form of tk and then you opposed me by saying there was no proof for them, which is unrelated to the fact that telekinetics believe in them.
    Oh, I see what you mean now. Yes, that may be an argument against what I said. My argument was aimed more at people like Uri Gellar anyway. I was merely remarking on the peculiarity of their assumptions than making statements about the validity of their beliefs. Of course they should prove their 'powers' as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by HomoUniversalis
    Interesting hypothesis. Test it, but please, don't expect me to buy into this rhetorical argument for the sake of you constructing an argument I don't agree with anyway.

    Who said I didn't? I'm not denying animals are capable of harnessing electrical current. However, eels do not create energy.
    You are basing all of this on a missinterpretation of something I said. When I said the brain 'creates' energy I meant that it uses chemical reactions to produce electrical currents, not that it is somehow violating the laws of entropy and pulling energy out of nowhere. And I said that too, so please read more carefully next time.
    Ah come on.. My critique was easily expected. You could have been more careful in our phrasing. As for these chemical reactions, I fail to see how they somehow prove the possibility of telekinesis.

    Quote Originally Posted by HomoUniversalis
    You want me to study the behaviour of eels so I can better understand what you mean when you talk about telekinesis and ghosts?
    Two things I find infuriating about this post. You're taking what I said out of context and putting words in my mouth. I said nothing of the behavior of eels, I was trying to help you understand the brain 'creating' energy(not tk), and I as a matter of fact do not believe in ghosts. If you're going to argue my comments, please counter things I've actually said, and not things you wish I had said because they are easier to prove wrong.
    To be honest, I am wholly ignorant of views on poltergeists, as I said. You have not been particularly informative on your view of them..

    Quote Originally Posted by HomoUniversalis
    That's all irrelevant. You are discussing knowledge theory here -

    Mr U
    Yes. Because I was responding to your post about knowledge theory.

    p.s. biochemistry is not knowledge theory.
    I don't understand how any of this contributes to the existence of either poltergeists or telekinesis.

    Mr U
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #170  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Earth(or there about)
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    Yes I have a lab - my own personal lab - it is very well equpped - I also have a workshop for making things and a large store. This is no big deal, I am a retired design engineer - I have worked on many things in my career. Your PSI wheel - have you tried puting a glass over it and then getting it to rotate? - it rotates through convection currents it is not a phenomina - and yes I am serious that if you send me the details I will duplicate your experiments with or without you present - I have made a serious offer - YOU are deriding it, to me that is an indication you know your claim is rubbish. Now put up or admit you 'believe' you are right but in fact are not.

    Here you go, try this,

    http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Covere...l%20trick.html

    If you can disprove what Keith says, I'll listen - show me a covered psi-wheel working!
    _____________________EDIT_____________________

    I just realized something. You posted that after I had already given you the experiment. If you 'made a serious offer', then try the experiment I gave you.

    __________________END EDIT____________________

    I am well aware of the many ways in which a psi wheel can move because of physics and I was extremely careful. No drafts, small container, never touch the container. I think I will upload a video to youtube. I have some already on my computer, but they're kind of long so I'll have to make another, and like I said I can get it to work 5% of the time at best.

    Try the volition experiment. It's always produced amazing results.

    HomoUniversalis: (I don't see the need to quote everything you've said)

    The theory I was posing for a method of tk was the body generating fluctuating static fields to affect small objects. (hence I think it has a very small limit, the conscious mind probably can't even move a whole pound). And it was just that. A theory of how tk could be possible if it does in fact exist. (nobody can prove to you that it does).

    As to my views on poltergeists, I'm not sure I actually believe they exist, but if they do, I believe they are simply a manifestation of someone's very strong emotions through telekinesis.
    Perhaps when the subconscious is faced with a situation it can't solve it resorts to becoming a poltergeist. For example if a child wants to get attention or is angry at everyone they depend on or are subject to. Usually after a while the poltergeist succeeds at least in getting attention for the child, and then the subconscious will at least stop using tk; although the poltergeist manifestations may continue through somnambulistic dissociation until the child can learn to deal with the problem in a positive way, then it will probably be gone forever.
    For the most part poltergeists are almost completely out of control of the child's conscious thought, and there has never been an instance where they seemed to harness that power, or experience any of the symptoms usually associated with tk.

    ______________________EDIT___________________
    I just thought I'd add why I think tk has something to do with static fields.

    I've been practicing (or attempting to practice) tk for a while now. I always use the same desk and the same chair. I keep a compass on my desk at all times. It has never moved while I was practicing tk before, not even when I got the psiwheel to move. But I started noticing that, although I never moved the compass, I had to keep rotating it a little every time I sat down so it would be pointing north. I became suspicious and marked the direction it was needle was pointing, then secured the compass so it would not move. Sure enough, the next day it was pointing a few degrees further towards northeast. So, I did what I had not doen in a long time. I took the compass away from my desk. There seems to be a circle around my desk of maybe eight feet in diameter(although it stops at the wall). As long as the compass is within that diameter, it doesn't point north, but slightly north-east.
    I moved to another location to practice tk and took the compass with me. After a few days (four days to be exact), the circle had shifted to encompass the new location, while the first circle wore off after the first two days of not practicing tk there. I could find nothing responsible for this, so eventually I just went back to practicing tk at my desk, but I've never been able to explain that circle, and it's still there.
    Genius and stupidity have one major difference. Genius has its limits.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #171  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Earth(or there about)
    Posts
    54
    Here you go:
    http://digitonblaze.sitesled.com/cpwv.avi (12.5 mb)
    Sorry about the size, I wanted it to have good quality. My videos are usually smaller.

    ____________________EDIT_______________________

    It doesn't seem to be working. The video disappeared from my server file, I'll have to re-upload it.

    ____________________EDIT_______________________

    OK, it's working again. The video had disappeared from my harddrive too. I must have accidentaly deleted it when I was trying to copy it. I made another one, but it has the same name.

    I know it's not the best, but I'm very bad at tk. I have a very hard time keeping my mind focused on turning the wheel. You'd think it'd be easier to concentrate on one thing.
    Genius and stupidity have one major difference. Genius has its limits.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #172  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by blazer2000x

    The theory I was posing for a method of tk was the body generating fluctuating static fields to affect small objects
    I can tell you that is rubbish, go and look up 'static' then look up 'fluctuating' - and you might find out why this part of your post is, well.. lacking somewhat.

    I look back through your posts and do not see an experiment - if it's one of the many links, please point to it again.

    Now try this on your TK wheel, start it, stop it, reverse it. Before you do, dip your hands in icewater till they are 2 degrees below ambient temperature. - place the gold leaves around the psy-wheel to indicate even the slightest air movement. stop the experiment any time your hands are more than 2 degrees either side of ambient.

    Next go and look up the real definition of TK ie "To move a mass by power of mind alone" - so try the experiment again with your hands behind your back - did it move?

    you also need to ensure that your breath and rising air currents from your body do not disturb the air around the experiment - do you have the equipment to do this?

    If I said I had XRAY vision and could melt lead, you would want to see it before you believed it. - THat's all I'm asking - visual proof in controlled conditions. Experimentation is a science within itself if you have not studied it then you are not competent to practice it where you attempt to fool others by pretending [or having convinced yourself].
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #173  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Earth(or there about)
    Posts
    54
    A fluctuating static field would be strange, but then again, so it tk.

    It doesn't matter where my hands are, but if I get too far away, I can't do it anymore. I can make it start and stop and reverse, but only on occasion. (I told you, I'm very bad at this). I have no desire to freeze my hands, and no, I don't have all the equipment for that, and any video I make could be faked anyway. So just try the experiment I gave you. (It's right above the post you made in which you said I was denying your real offer). I'll quote it anyway:

    Quote Originally Posted by blazer2000x
    Ok. You want a testable experiment?(Why do I waste my time?) Here you go:
    The computer's RNG is programmed to provide an even distribution of numbers. This means that an equal amount of positive and negative values returned by it should balance each other out, achieving a value in the range of zero.
    Write a program. Make a dot travel across a screen by using the RNG. Either add or subtract 1-5 pixels from the value. The result is the line should flutter a little, but more or less remain in the center of the screen. Now GET SOMEONE ELSE (or try really, really hard to overcome your prejudice and open you mind). Have them/yourself concentrate on the dot. Tell yourself that it can and it will rise/fall depending on what you want to achieve. Record every test outcome. Compare it to other people's results. If your average result is different then theirs, then you know that something is going on. If your line is veering drastically off the center, then you know immediately that something is influencing it.(or you have a bad RNG)
    p.s.: make sure you have a good rng
    Genius and stupidity have one major difference. Genius has its limits.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #174  
    Guest
    Firstly what in 'RNG' do you mean RND - ie the random function? - if so I can tell you it's not random - it's psuedo random. Secondly why does it need to be a random function? if you can 'influence' digital integrated circuit signals then just draw a straight line and try and deflect that.

    Thirdly I think you might like to study statistics, it will show you that such an experiment can work, and can be repeated, - it's like saying I'm going to win the lottery for the next four weeks - and doing it - it's called coincidence.

    Now you may not believe this but I have actually designed a computer, as well as many interface cards [for industry] - I think I know what every part is for, and how every part works. Since every digital switch whether part of a random sequencer or the data in you ram is identical, can you, by thought navigate the PC rather than using a Mouse? If your answer is NO then what you think you saw by your experiment is coincidence.

    If you CAN manipulate data on your PC by thought then this is an achievment, sadly though even it, would not be TK - you will not have moved any physical matter!

    In essecnce your experiment to a knowledgable physicist is like saying,
    "You can fly, just jump off a building and try it" - I know the human frame is incapable of naked controlled flight [other than straight down]
    and therefore why waste my time and risk my neck?

    We are talking TK here, the movement of matter by mind/will power only,
    Now where's tyour experiment for TK other than the universally discredited psy-wheel?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #175  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Earth(or there about)
    Posts
    54
    I think if you can control your computer with your thoughts it should qualify as a form of tk, seeing as whatever mechanism was doing that would probably be the same as moving an object.

    As for controlling my computer with my thoughts, believe me I wish I could. The best I can do is make it play the song I want, and that's only about 50/50 chance of working. However, given that I have over 150 songs that play at random(pseudo-random, yes I already know that) 50/50 chance is pretty good for it playing the song I want.

    As for coincidence: yes you're absolutely right. It could all be coincidence. But every time I run the program while I'm not in the room, it draws a wobbly but straight line accross the screen, and I have as of yet to achieve a below level one result when trying to influence it. It could be coincidence, but it's unlikely. (I have documented every time I ever used the program). That's why I said your average results. And try it with different people to see if the program acts differently.

    Besides, a RNG (or RND as you called it, mine is random number generator that's what my book called it) has a mathematical pradictability. Simply predict its behavior from a given starting point and then see if the results achived in the test match your prediction.
    Genius and stupidity have one major difference. Genius has its limits.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #176  
    Guest
    There are programs, software and 'headsets' available on the market for those wishing to use 'brainwaves' to control their PC [in a limited form]

    If you can find one and play with it, you'll find it useful - as a standard by which you can compare results to other types of tests. I have read somewhere of people using these to try and practice tk by slowly moving the headsets away [py placing layers of card under them] - I am not surprised to see that no one has achieved their desired aim.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #177  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Earth(or there about)
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    There are programs, software and 'headsets' available on the market for those wishing to use 'brainwaves' to control their PC [in a limited form]

    If you can find one and play with it, you'll find it useful - as a standard by which you can compare results to other types of tests. I have read somewhere of people using these to try and practice tk by slowly moving the headsets away [py placing layers of card under them] - I am not surprised to see that no one has achieved their desired aim.
    I don't think tk can move something as heavy. I've heard of things like that. There was a game called mindball that I wanted to get. By I don't even get an allowance; there's no way I could afford anything like it. Maybe in the future.
    Genius and stupidity have one major difference. Genius has its limits.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #178  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    Just to weigh in on the topic, no I don't think it's possible. Maybe I'll change my mind in the future.
    By the way, nice video with the can and the magnet under the table, or string pulling it along. Super convincing. I think video cameras must have magical properties because this stuff always works on video but tends to...not work...in person.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #179  
    Guest
    It wouldn't play on my PC - it said there was an "error in the file" I guess even my PC spotted it was a fake.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #180  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    Your PC probably senses that you are a skeptic and as such, won't play the miraculous video for you. I must believe in hogwash deep down since it played for me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #181  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Neutrino
    Your PC probably senses that you are a skeptic and as such, won't play the miraculous video for you. I must believe in hogwash deep down since it played for me.
    Let me assure you I am not sceptical about TK, that implies I have doubts. I have no doubt when it comes to TK - it plain don't exist, it is impossible, it is not a 'middle' world feature. 8)

    I see nothing so far to move my position even a planckwidth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #182  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    TK is impossible thats a fact and people gotta live with it. TK is impossible for the very reason that it goes against laws of physics and is biological impossible to archive
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #183  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    TK is impossible thats a fact and people gotta live with it. TK is impossible for the very reason that it goes against laws of physics and is biological impossible to archive
    ...wow....first thing you do when you come back, you say something stupid.

    How can it be against the laws of physics, if physics doesn't cover the phenomenon?

    How can it be against biology, since we don't even understand fully the workings of life?

    you are basically throwing up walls to prevent any doubt from entering into your skull. I explained this to megabrain and he seemingly got it. Now it's your turn.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #184  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Earth(or there about)
    Posts
    54
    Just thought I'd tell you there are no magnets. And how on earth could it have strings attached when it's under a glass?(just to clarify: no strings) I have some videos where I show a compass on the table next to the glass and you see that the needle never moves while the pinwheel does, but I had to hold to camera in the air so you could see the compass clearly, and so the video is a little shaky. And it's too big to upload.

    Skepticism: The idea that nothing can ever be known for certain.

    Either you are skeptic about everything or nothing. Saying you know something for certain means you are simply choosing your beliefs like everyone else, and in such, you aren't really skeptic about anything; you just choose to believe somethings and not others.
    Genius and stupidity have one major difference. Genius has its limits.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #185  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    TK is impossible thats a fact and people gotta live with it. TK is impossible for the very reason that it goes against laws of physics and is biological impossible to archive
    ...wow....first thing you do when you come back, you say something stupid.

    How can it be against the laws of physics, if physics doesn't cover the phenomenon?

    How can it be against biology, since we don't even understand fully the workings of life?

    you are basically throwing up walls to prevent any doubt from entering into your skull. I explained this to megabrain and he seemingly got it. Now it's your turn.
    I categorically deny any accusation or suggestion that I, in any way, support the totally nonsensical gibberish of the hollywood physics of that which is called Telekinesis or psychokinesis. It is my firm belief that such
    an act is, was and always will be, impossible for any living organic creature anywhere in the universe. That is my opinion and I have a right to express it in this forum. In my opinion there is infinitely more evidence to support the notion of a deity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #186  
    Guest
    no, megabrain. Your accusation that it defies physics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #187  
    Guest
    Very well, It is my firm belief that there are no laws of physics known or otherwise which would lend themselves to the facilitation of Telekinesis or psychokinesis.

    In short, I believe in this universe, either or both of these will always be impossible.

    Quote Originally Posted by jeremyhfht
    As for telekinetics, it is possible scientifically. Since everything is composed of atoms it could be gravity you control (this may throw Einstein out the window, or not. I'm not sure), or the energy that effects an object.
    Just erm where does science say it's possible?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #188  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    TK is impossible thats a fact and people gotta live with it. TK is impossible for the very reason that it goes against laws of physics and is biological impossible to archive
    ...wow....first thing you do when you come back, you say something stupid.

    How can it be against the laws of physics, if physics doesn't cover the phenomenon?

    How can it be against biology, since we don't even understand fully the workings of life?

    you are basically throwing up walls to prevent any doubt from entering into your skull. I explained this to megabrain and he seemingly got it. Now it's your turn.
    Nope it goes against the laws and its not somehting i just throw up like that.
    There are many problems to solve for TK to be possible biological and if they were solved everyone would have and not only a few. if it did acctualy work how come no one have collected the million dollar prize to the first one doing it under controlled conditions, and when scientists look at it that its show to be no better than just guessing?
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #189  
    Guest
    Zelos,

    I understand that people who claim to be able to do TK, say they cannot do it when someone is 'standing next to them' - apparently they just can't get started until they know they are alone, - you know, it's like the same as some people in the gents toilet....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #190  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    If thats true then its false that TK works since it doesnt matter if a human is present close or if they are locked up in a room and have been stript of everything they possible could have come with except cloth.
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #191  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    913
    WHAT *!*

    This is insane. My instinct is that tk is impossible, maybe one day someone will prove it can be done, but to have so many people on a single website claim to have tk abilities, its insane.

    Forget the one million dollar prise you people could be multimillionaires within six months or fight crime, you could be the superheros who can stop bullets in midair :wink: .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #192  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    Very well, It is my firm belief that there are no laws of physics known or otherwise which would lend themselves to the facilitation of Telekinesis or psychokinesis.

    In short, I believe in this universe, either or both of these will always be impossible.

    Quote Originally Posted by jeremyhfht
    As for telekinetics, it is possible scientifically. Since everything is composed of atoms it could be gravity you control (this may throw Einstein out the window, or not. I'm not sure), or the energy that effects an object.
    Just erm where does science say it's possible?
    Always that horrible Aquinas - laws implicate a lawmaker. Indeed, the very 'laws' are never truly observed, only their effects. They are to us as motion. We do not truly see something move, we only see an object on different points, we infer the movement as we infer these rules, these 'laws'.

    Scientifically, everything is possible.. That is to say, science does not speak of the possible, it speaks of what exists. And telekinesis - according to science - does not exist.

    Well Cat, I must admit that when wearing tights I feel like flying..

    Mr U
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #193 Re: Telekinesis/Psychokinesis Possible or not? 
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    Quote Originally Posted by billco
    What are the forum members views on this topic.

    Nobody has yet demonstrated Telekinesis under laboratory conditions, there is [I believe] a $1M prize waiting to be claimed....
    Are you freaking serious??? I'm gonna be a millionare. Well not yet but, I will be. I'm sure it is possible. As to how I have no clue. I hope to be the first.
    I'll race you to it.
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #194  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    Nope it goes against the laws and its not somehting i just throw up like that.
    There are many problems to solve for TK to be possible biological and if they were solved everyone would have and not only a few. if it did acctualy work how come no one have collected the million dollar prize to the first one doing it under controlled conditions, and when scientists look at it that its show to be no better than just guessing?
    I've explained (NUMEROUS TIMES!) in this thread why that "I'll give you X dollars if you prove X exists" doesn't work.

    Similarly, evolution doesn't exist because nobody has claimed the prize numerous evangelists haven't put up. It's a logical fallacy to assume it constitutes as evidence.

    Furthermore, list a law which TK would break. Physics would have to COVER telekinetics before it could "break" observations regarding it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #195  
    Guest
    How about for every action there is a reaction - think about it!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #196  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    How about for every action there is a reaction - think about it!
    ...and?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #197  
    Guest
    In case you've forgotton, you asked which law of physics TK would break - Have a look at Newton's laws of motion for a start. TK does not conform.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #198  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    In case you've forgotton, you asked which law of physics TK would break - Have a look at Newton's laws of motion for a start. TK does not conform.
    Wrong, since TK possibly uses a force in order to create that motion, it conforms perfectly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #199  
    Guest
    Well, that's a clear indication you do not understand Newtons laws at all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #200  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    Well, that's a clear indication you do not understand Newtons laws at all.
    Well, that's a clear indication that you don't. Newtons laws of motion, which I've just double checked, are not saying anything against telekinetics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •