| RETURN TO TELEKINESIS PAGE - TELEKINESIS -> Why Keith's Science Is Flawed | Start A New Topic | Reply |
| Post Info | TOPIC: Why Keith's Science Is Flawed |
| Posted By: Placebo Posted On: Feb 18, 2005 Views: 232 | RE: Why Keith's Science Is Flawed Regarding the simple TK exercise... I realised it would be a difficult task to come up with, so I'm not suprised at your struggling with it. I honestly can't think of anything satisfactory myself :) Regarding the cocktail stick - I'd like to plant a small spanner in that idea. I'm not trying to make an excuse here, just a personal observation for better or worse. In my experience thus far, I find a small surface area to be more difficult for TK. Eg. Bigger pinwheels are generally easier to move (even from a distance, relatively controlled environment etc). The obvious critical reply is that it is due to everyday natural forces being responsible in moving the object like a sail. Is that the reason? Maybe. Maybe not. In my opinion TK *might* involve a mundane natural force coupled WITH the ability to control it mentally. Not that I necessarily believe this, but it is an option I have not ruled out. I imagine your initial reason for the cocktail stick was to reduce the surface area which is the exact opposite of what I'm suggesting :P This obviously complicates the whole thing even more. I think that whatever we could come up with could never satisfy all the variables to perfection - some compromises would have to be made on eg. difficulty I know it sounds as if the more solutions are made, the more excuses come of it :) Part of what I want to achieve by testing it is determining which factors are more apparent than others. This may help to form an idea of what we are dealing with and where compromises in the exercises could be made. Of course, I'm also not in a situation to be the almighty spokesperson for the TK community either :P What I state here is purely based on my own thoughts on my experience at this stage I'll think more on it tonight :) (Perhaps at some point I can draw up a list/diagram/map of my perception of the commonly claimed limits, factors and observations relating to TK ) Placebo |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Feb 18, 2005 Views: 228 | RE: Why Keith's Science Is Flawed ET. If you want a sensible answer you can have it. I do not believe in TK, as you can tell. My TK page is just one of many topics on my site, as you know. Anyone that is prepared to expose their thoughts, beliefs, opinions, on a web site as I do, knows damn well that they are going to be attacked by all those that disagree. Fair enough, I have no argument with that, that after all is what the message board is for, so all can have their say. After putting up my page on TK I was constantly bombarded by tkers who claimed that I had a closed mind, wore blinkers, hide behind a safe wall, only felt happy within the safety of science, should examine it with an open mind, should try it, etc. etc. etc. This eventually really began to annoy me because it is the opposite of what in reality I am all about. When I was a teenager I believed TK was real, even though i coudn't do it. I would love even today to discover that it was real, it would be a very exciting deveopment that I would welcome. However, my experiences, research, logic, whatever, has lead me to believe that it is not real. This does not mean of course that it isn't, this is just my personal view which happens to be at odds with your personal view. I undertook all that research and all those tests in an honest attempt to discover what, if anything could explain TK, or explain why people thought they had TK. I also did it in an honest attempt to prove that I do have an open mind. I do however require proof of a thing, heresay goes in the trash. I will also argue with those that wrongly present science 'facts'. I also argue with those that challenge my logic. I also want people to look at things in a rational and scientific manner and not be misguided by mystical mumbo jumbo. I want people to be more discerning in what they accept. I hope that aswers your question. |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Feb 19, 2005 Views: 213 | RE: Why Keith's Science Is Flawed |
| Posted By: Placebo Posted On: Feb 19, 2005 Views: 207 | RE: RE: Why Keith's Science Is Flawed Fair enough - yet I feel that is not the only possible explanation as to why a cocktail stick would harder. TK may in fact be a force that is distributed over the area affected. Hence more surface area to catch it, the easier. Just as an example. "A bigger surface area means a larger object means more mass. More mass takes more energy to move. Therefore it should be harder to move by TK. (I think it moves easier because it catches air currents easier as you suggest)." No, I question your logic in this example. Larger surface area does most certainly not directly imply greater mass. The cocktail stick has more mass than a straw, but is smaller in surface area. Unless we are talking about a damn small cocktail stick, which I do not possess to test with :P The fact that it supports your theories is fair enough, but it is not the only possible theory that fits the observation :) At the end of the day, a straw complicates things in one way, and a cocktail stick in another. I'm not entirely sure exactly how much harder a cocktail stick is, because I haven't attempted it for a long stretch of time. Perhaps it can still be used for a slightly higher level of TK ability. Have you read the page on James Conrad's site regarding his sensitive TK test method? What is your general view of James Conrad's theories, if I may ask? |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Feb 20, 2005 Views: 198 | RE: Why Keith's Science Is Flawed |
| Posted By: Nick Posted On: Feb 20, 2005 Views: 190 | RE: Why Keith's Science Is Flawed Ha, it's a toothpick! Where are you from Keith? I don't know if they call it a toothpick other than in the United States or not. Maybe Cocktail Stick is a better word or someting, but Cocktail Stick made me think of those things you use for kebobs and such. |
| Posted By: Placebo Posted On: Feb 20, 2005 Views: 189 | RE: Why Keith's Science Is Flawed |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Feb 20, 2005 Views: 182 | RE: Why Keith's Science Is Flawed Nick, The reason I put up the picture of the cocktail stick was to to remove any confusion as to what it is was that I was referring to. This has clearly worked and we are all now able to agree on the object under discussion. In my country, the UK, they are sold in little plastic tubes and labelled as Cocktail Sticks, it isn't a name that I decided to call them, it's what the manufacturer calls them. What are sold as toothpicks here are flat, not round. It's just the way it is this country, not my choice. However, I am aware that in different countries dfferent names are used for all sorts of things, that is why I decided the matter needed clarification. I was right in my thinking as it transpires. |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Feb 20, 2005 Views: 180 | RE: Why Keith's Science Is Flawed Placebo, Okay, we will drop the floating tooth pick as an example as you are unhappy with it yourself, and just stick with the straw and psi wheel. My view on this is that it doesn't really matter what theories are presented as an explanation for TK because you and I do not have the knowledge, skills or equipment to be able to prove or disprove them. They are just points for discussion purposes and general interest only. I think that what you want, and I know it's what I want, is to be able to devise a DIY home test that will either prove or not the existence of TK without any doubt. After giving the matter a lot of thought I have arrived at the conclusion (again) that it is impossible. I feel that no matter what test I should suggest, tkers would be able to find an objection. The cocktail stick is a good example. I think it makes a lot of sense to use because it greatly reduces the chances of movement being caused by air currents and static, and as a bonus has less mass to move into the bargain. You respond by saying the smaller size makes it harder to move by TK. You justify this with various arguments. This is the problem. Your reasons may be right or wrong, it doesn't matter, but the point is this. You, or any tker, will always be able to come up with a reason, and because of that this negates the test in the first place. You see what I mean I'm sure. I'm not having a go at you, or saying you are wrong, but just pointing out the futility of it all. No such test for TK can be devised that would satisfy a tker and a non-tker. Just not possible unfortunately. Regarding Conrad. I do not label him as a wacko because he believes in TK. It's his methods and his thinking. I can't in all honesty be bothered to go into detail and consider the subject closed as far as I am concerned. Let's just say that someone who devises a TK scale so you can rate your TK ability by it, then has that scale go all the way up to God level.....Is this practical? Would someone with the power of God need to see where they fit into Conrads scale? Anyway, that is just minor niggle. I will leave it that. Others may like to take it up. |
| Posted By: Placebo Posted On: Feb 20, 2005 Views: 178 | RE: Why Keith's Science Is Flawed Keith "My view on this is that it doesn't really matter what theories are presented as an explanation for TK because you and I do not have the knowledge, skills or equipment to be able to prove or disprove them. They are just points for discussion purposes and general interest only." Agreed, although they also offer potential ideas for someone testing it "I think that what you want, and I know it's what I want, is to be able to devise a DIY home test that will either prove or not the existence of TK without any doubt." That is something I would like. My other goals involve becoming better :) "This is the problem. Your reasons may be right or wrong, it doesn't matter, but the point is this. You, or any tker, will always be able to come up with a reason, and because of that this negates the test in the first place. You see what I mean I'm sure. I'm not having a go at you, or saying you are wrong, but just pointing out the futility of it all." Yes, I understand what you're saying, and you may well be right :) Keep in mind that the cocktail stick shouldn't necessarily be a show stopper. We have videos of eg. Float rotating toothpicks on a desk. Assuming (for a moment) that he is geniune, it means cocktail sticks are still do-able Regarding the area effect theory.. I did a casual test with the shrink wrap, and found that I was able to swing it further with TK. However it did not feel like an area effect at all. It seemed more likely that I was concentrating on particular areas on the plastic. Of course, I have no proof that I moved it at all - this is just another casual observation on my part :) Perhaps the surface area is not a show stopper. Perhaps a cocktail stick is still a decent idea. In any event, if you have a reasonable idea in mind it may be of interest I appreciate that some TKer somewhere will find an excuse, but it may be of use all the same I acknowledge that it will neither prove or disprove TK, and any excuses can be disregarded as inevitable "No such test for TK can be devised that would satisfy a tker and a non-tker. Just not possible unfortunately." If this were a controlled scientific situation, would this be a different issue? What would be different though? Eg what techniques could be used? I ask because at the end of the day, if I run to Randi and tell him I have TK with straws... he'd have to be able to test me somehow, right? Perhaps we would not have the equipment, but it may provide some options to think on? If your answer is that the TK ability needs to be more obvious, then what do you feel would be the minimum? Spinning paper on flat surfaces? Levitation of objects? "Let's just say that someone who devises a TK scale so you can rate your TK ability by it, then has that scale go all the way up to God level.....Is this practical?" Haha... I agree. He went overboard on that one The other problem with it is that it isn't defined well enough, IMO I intend to use his scale on the lower levels as a weak, loose guide. Very loose. Greg |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Feb 20, 2005 Views: 173 | RE: Why Keith's Science Is Flawed |
| Posted By: Nick Posted On: Feb 20, 2005 Views: 169 | RE: Why Keith's Science Is Flawed >Nick, >The reason I put up the picture of the cocktail >stick was to to remove any confusion as to what >it is was that I was referring to. >This has clearly worked and we are all now able >to agree on the object under discussion. > >In my country, the UK, they are sold in little >plastic tubes and labelled as Cocktail Sticks, >it isn't a name that I decided to call them, >it's what the manufacturer calls them. What are >sold as toothpicks here are flat, not round. >It's just the way it is this country, not my >choice. >However, I am aware that in different countries >dfferent names are used for all sorts of things, >that is why I decided the matter needed >clarification. >I was right in my thinking as it transpires. Yeah, I thought that maybe that was the case. The only reason for my post was to let you know about the culture difference. It accounted for most of the misunderstanding about that cocktail stick test before the picture. |
| Posted By: Placebo Posted On: Feb 21, 2005 Views: 166 | RE: Why Keith's Science Is Flawed |
| Posted By: thegrogen Posted On: May 6, 2005 Views: 130 | RE: Why Keith's Science Is Flawed I'm surprised that this thread has not been closed yet... |
| Pages [ 1 2 3 4 ] |