| RETURN TO TELEKINESIS PAGE - TELEKINESIS -> Research | Start A New Topic | CLOSED |
| Post Info | TOPIC: Research |
| Posted By: Placebo Posted On: Jan 8, 2005 Views: 1883 | Research This might not require it's own thread, but since I found no reasonable other, here we go ... A week or two ago, I mentioned that I intended to do some extended tests on my abilities. Note that I've done tests before, but this time I'm taking it a bit further. I have not been able to do them yet, as I've had guests, and honestly - got lazy in the holiday season after my guests left. So I'll be taking a bit of time to get back into the swing of things. (I've found my abilities to be far far less consistent now - for whatever reason.) In the meantime - you can look at my blog for a description of the two tests. TK Blog = http://placebotk.blogspot.com Greg |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Jan 8, 2005 Views: 1875 | RE: Research Hi Placebo, I have looked at your site to see the details of your proposed tests. I have to advise you however that you are wasting your time trying to eliminate static. It is in fact utterly impossible to eliminate static, despite your best intentions. I would suggest you first read this site, its very good for explaining how static builds up, and why the hands are the number best material for static. Click here. Static Electricity I would then suggest you read this site because it explains that no matter what you do you cant eliminate static. Click here. Electrostatics No doubt you will have already done your own research and discovered this already. However, spraying a very fine spray of water over the prepared set up and around the room will help reduce static a little, as will the methods you have already proposed. If you do all of that then you will have reduced static to a minimum and will therefore have great difficulty in moving the straw at all, let alone controlling it. Anyway, I look forward to receiving your results, they should prove interesting. Keith ps. You say on your site that you were having trouble moving the straw, What was the weather like at the time? |
| Posted By: Placebo Posted On: Jan 9, 2005 Views: 1859 | RE: Research Hi Keith I hear what you say, however I believe that minimizing static to the point of being negligible is enough for me. Moving the straw from 30 cm, with industrial anti-static protection equipment, and a humid room - is good enough for my own sanity. Quote: [What was the weather like at the time?] Wet, and right before another thunderstorm ;) Greg |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Jan 9, 2005 Views: 1857 | RE: Research "Quote: [What was the weather like at the time?] Wet, and right before another thunderstorm ;)" This is yet another pointer to it being static. When the conditions are damp or humid static is at minimum. Good luck with your tests. |
| Posted By: Placebo Posted On: Jan 10, 2005 Views: 1840 | RE: Research Quote: [This is yet another pointer to it being static. When the conditions are damp or humid static is at minimum.] Yes, except that you'll recall that I had excellent TK during thunderstorms in the past. And during summer and thunderstorms, it's always wet here. Quote: [Good luck with your tests.] Thanks. I'm not doing good at all, regardless of weather. Everyone's gonna have to just hurry up and wait :P Greg |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Jan 11, 2005 Views: 1829 | RE: Research Hi Greg, No rush, you take your time, Spielberg can wait for the rushes :-) Just out of personal interest where do you live, I seem to think it's somewhere in South Africa? Cheers, Keith |
| Posted By: Placebo Posted On: Jan 11, 2005 Views: 1824 | RE: Research Yep - Sunny South Africa |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Jan 12, 2005 Views: 1804 | RE: Research Hi Infinity8 Im glad you have drawn our attention to that site at Princeton University and the research work they are doing. I am well aware of their work and the results they have reported. Others may not be. QUOTE....So Keith, its not just teenagers and young adults at www.ppsociety.com who think there is something to telekinesis scientists affiliated with a 26 year old program sponsored by an Ivy League University in the USA must think there is something to this as well. No they dont. Have a thorough read through that site again. Where does it say anywhere they believe there is something to telekinesis? This is just your interpretation and is very inaccurate. This is what they say....QUOTE...conducting a comprehensive agenda of experiments and developing complementary theoretical models to enable better understanding of the role of consciousness in the establishment of physical reality. This is the same as the theory for quantum mechanics in which the role of the observer alters the reality of the observed. Its not about TK ! As for their results.....QUOTE...The observed effects are usually quite small, of the order of a few parts in ten thousand on average........ Read that again so that it sinks in......of the order of a few parts in ten thousand on average. There is not a single scientific establishment in the world that accepts that as proving anything at all, other than Oh really, yawn. And finally take a note of their summary... QUOTE.....Accommodation of the observed anomalies within a functional scientific framework will require the explicit inclusion of consciousness as an active agent in the establishment of physical reality. This expansion of the scientific paradigm demands more courageous theoretical structures than exist at present, guided by more comprehensive empirical data than is now available, acquired via more cooperative interdisciplinary collaborations than are currently practiced. In other words... they havent got anything new. We already know about the observer effect at the quantum level. They are just trying to raise it up to the macro level, with very disputable data. Its believe it if you want type of data, the effect, IF real, is so small as to be almost pure background noise, which it could be. The scientific community just doesnt accept it, which comes as no surprise. Yes, they are a reputable university. No, they do not think there is something to telekinesis and have never said that. Their results prove nothing at all and they know that. That just hope that it may hint at something, but have no idea what, if anything it may be hinting at. It may be possible that they really are measuring a definite observer effect, but if so it is so very small it couldnt possibly account for the ease with which tkers think they move a psi wheel with TK |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Jan 13, 2005 Views: 1784 | RE: Research Hi Infinity8, I think I can summarise their findings very easily. Their 'deviation from norm' is incredibly small, never mind all that stuff about them being able to repeat it. The one thing that they have ommitted to mention is the one thing that destroys their argument, and every scientist knows what it is. It is not possiblt to build any machine that is completely random, it will always develop a bias. Look it up. For instance, the smallest difference in the height or placing of those slots shown in the picture that collect the balls will influence the outcome. Every casino is are aware that machines develop a bias due to wear and tear and natural irregularities in production. That will result easily in the 'deviation from norm' that they attribute to paranormal powers. It isn't, its just a well known natural fact. |
| Posted By: Placebo Posted On: Jan 13, 2005 Views: 1780 | RE: Research [It is not possiblt to build any machine that is completely random, it will always develop a bias.] Perhaps the question is exactly how small is the bias, and how small is the deviation. Since we don't have the machines available to examine, I guess we cannot determine that ourselves. However I would hazard a guess that reknowned scientists would add all the possible factors into account. Anything otherwise would be like to a sceptic such as yourself forgetting about thermals or static. In my opinion, of course. |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Jan 13, 2005 Views: 1775 | RE: Research Hi Greg, Quote..."However I would hazard a guess that reknowned scientists would add all the possible factors into account. Anything otherwise would be like to a sceptic such as yourself forgetting about thermals or static. In my opinion, of course." It takes a sceptic, such as myself, to point out to 'tkers' that thermals and static move pin wheels and straws. BTW, I note from your comments on ppsociety and your Blog that you are having a lot of trouble moving your straw now that you have eliminated static as far as possible. Interesting. I know, I know, its because you are out of practice, in your opinion. |
| Posted By: Infinity8 Posted On: Jan 13, 2005 Views: 1773 | RE: Research Interesting point Placebo. Also why would a machine give significantly different results depending upon who the test subjects and location were? If the only factor in the test results was random chance then I would think that there should have been no statistical difference yet the summary on http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/2.html said that there were. The PEAR summary seemed to indicate that the study results were significantly affected by who the test subjects were and where the test location was. (See end of my last post above.) Keith believes that the test results variations are too small too matter. Most of the psionic web sites encourage independent testing and self-education. In that spirit, perhaps the logical next step is to tackle a summary of one of PEARS experiments (for example, http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/correlations.pdf) with a good textbook on statistics and a dictionary. However considering that these tests were performed by teams of people with PhDs in math and physics, I dont know how realistic it is for the average layperson to be able to follow the details of their summary. One can always try I suppose. BTW, if anyone is aware of any other test results by institutions or people with good reputations that are available to the public, could they post them here? Thanks. Lastly I may have missed it, but I think there was a small group of people here performing typical telekinetic tests and exploring how to reproduce the effects with other means like static and heat waves. I know this was discovered by Keith and repeated successfully by Placebo for psiwheels and straws very close to human hands (and additionally in the case of psiwheels very close to steaming mugs of hot water). Well done. Has anyone come up with a way to produce telekinetic effects on covered psiwheels or straws from 6 feet away or more? Just wondering if I missed some posts. Thanks. Infinity8 |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Jan 13, 2005 Views: 1749 | RE: Research Infinity8. I have a question for you. If their results had any merit at all then why hasn't anyone else followed up on it? |
| Posted By: Placebo Posted On: Jan 14, 2005 Views: 1774 | RE: Research [BTW, I note from your comments on ppsociety and your Blog that you are having a lot of trouble moving your straw now that you have eliminated static as far as possible. Interesting. I know, I know, its because you are out of practice, in your opinion.] Sorry to burst your bubble, Keith, but I'm not using the static equipment yet. And will not until I manage to get back to the same point I was at before (which in your opinion was using static, so should be perfectly easy for me to regain) |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Jan 14, 2005 Views: 1771 | RE: Research No, you are wrong about static 'being easy to regain'. If the weather is against it, and according to you it is because it is wet at the moment, then you will not have enough static to move the straw. If on the other hand you still think you are moving the straw with TK, then why aren't you able to move it at this time? Does the weather affect TK then? How can you not be able to do something that a couple of weeks ago you were doing with no problem, and what's more doing it with "70% control". It isn't as though you have never done it and have no 'belief'. According to you you have 'been practicing' for a few months and keep getting better at it. Now, all of a sudden, your TK skills have gone. How strange! Why? To be honest I fail to understand how you can believe that. It just goes to show that no matter what results you get or do not get you will continue to believe in TK. Your ppsociety postings confirm how much you are into it. So much so, that like all 'tkers' you are unable to be objective. There is therefore no point to your 'tests'. |
| Pages [ 1 2 ] Next Page -> |