| RETURN TO TELEKINESIS PAGE - TELEKINESIS -> Theory for TK proven! | Start A New Topic | Reply |
| Post Info | TOPIC: Theory for TK proven! |
| Posted By: Placebo Posted On: Dec 28, 2004 Views: 904 | RE: Theory for TK proven! Just to clarify my above post - the intention of this exercise would not necessarily be to 'prove' TK. That would be nice, however I'm not yet able to do what Keith mentions above (regarding the covered pinwheel 2 metres away) This is in view of a more reliable exercise. No necessarily proof, but more convincing perhaps And yet with the limitations of friction, etc. I'm not about to levitate cannon balls for you guys :) Greg PS: I will still attempt the 'straw intentionality test' mentioned earlier - when I can get the chance again. Would you suggest eg. 30 seconds one direction, 30 seconds other direction? Or rather that someone tell me what to do - and log it? (Eg. my wife) |
| Posted By: alegiojon Posted On: Dec 28, 2004 Views: 898 | RE: Theory for TK proven! hello keith, i have good news, i recorded the first video, so i want to point some things: - bad things: 1) i couldn't do it with paper tonight (i don't know why) so i had to use foil instead 2) in the beginning of the video i couldn't spin it at distance at first, so i had to put my hands for a minute around the glass and then it started to spin, when it happened i removed my hands again, so it stopped from spinning, but after a minute it started to spin again at distance 3) the video is long, because i had to show lot of stuffs and the camera makes me feel a bit nervous so it's hard to keep focused. - goot things: 1) i was succesfully moving it at distance after all 2) i show lot of details, my hands, the glass, the objects around, the room, my face, and different angles of view, also i constantly showed my hands and the top of the glass to show that it wasn't being touched, i had both hands holding the camera actually 3) it shows that maybe it first spun due to the heat of my hands, (which i doubt) but then how can the rest be caused due to the heat?, i don't think it would stay so long, why do i have to stare at it then? it wouldn't have spun otherwise. well, i know a video isn't the best proof, but i think i'm trying the best i can, i'd like it to be a real proof, but it is not, i let you all make your own conclusions, and i accept any comments you can have after seeing it, however this is not the last video, i'll keep trying to record the same thing but using paper instead, and i'll also do the straw at distance, more distance than this first video actually, you'll notice it. well i first need a place to post the vid, some webspace or something, with a link so everybody could see it, i'll be doing that tomorrow, and whenever i get the video on the web i'll post the link, so be aware to check out this thread again. greetings, alegiojon |
| Posted By: The Last Random Hero Posted On: Dec 29, 2004 Views: 874 | RE: Theory for TK proven! Placebo, in response to your comments above, barriers like glass or plastic do not reduce the effect of TK. They reduce the effect of static, air and heat etc etc, can you not see the obvious? You seem like a rational and intelligent person and I find it hard to fathom how you cannot figure out something so obvious - that there is no TK at work. |
| Posted By: The Last Random Hero Posted On: Dec 29, 2004 Views: 859 | RE: Theory for TK proven! Alegiojon, what do the words 'No closer than two meters' mean to you? I don't think you want to find out if TK works, beyond all logic you already think it does and I think you'll go to great lengths to prove it. Like in your first experiment on video, it didn't work, so you changed the experiment until it did. That isn't science or discovery. I wonder how far you would have gone changing the experiment until you got the results you wanted? What your doing is poetry not science. "In science one tries to tell people, in such a way as to be understood by everyone, something that no one ever knew before. But in poetry, it's the exact opposite. " Paul Dirac http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1933/dirac-bio.html |
| Posted By: rob Posted On: Dec 29, 2004 Views: 855 | RE: Theory for TK proven! Blimey the world really is going mad, we should be going forward not messing around with bits of straws and things. Fair play to you for trying but if we were born with some weird and wonderfull power we would of been moving more than straws and pins by now, we should be at the stage of splitting the seas or moving boulders, dont you think so? |
| Posted By: alegiojon Posted On: Dec 29, 2004 Views: 823 | RE: Theory for TK proven! hello the last random hero well those words just means that i'm not closer than 2 metters. i changed the "experiment" yes, but in my case, it's because things can variate, there are good days as bad days, yesterday wasn't the best TK night, so to at least don't waste my time i recorded using foil, that was all what happened, about what you say, well i'm not really into science, but i'm here for keith actually, because he have shown respect to me and he is having an open mind too, at least more than a time ago, you can say anything you want man, but trust me, you won't change my internal belief, i know it is not static or heat, but i agree with keith that those can be causes, but that doesn't prove that TK doesn't exits, and i really wish i could be in u.s.a and talk to james randi or anyone else, if he tells me that it is heat, well, i'll go back to him again when i get more experienced, since the TK:ers i know started all like i did, and now they move more than psiwheels and straws, and i have had successes that can't be heat or static. well, i'll be waiting for your comments after you see the video. greetings, alegiojon |
| Posted By: The Last Random Hero Posted On: Dec 29, 2004 Views: 814 | RE: Theory for TK proven! Alegiojon, my reply: "i changed the "experiment" yes, but in my case, it's because things can variate..." - Like air currents, heat, static? Or anything at all that will make your psi-wheel turn? "well i'm not really into science..." - So how can we now believe you haven't just faked your TK video? I thought the basis of this whole thread was science? "...but i'm here for keith actually, because he have shown respect to me..." - I would say he's humoured you, but your perception is what counts (much like with your TK 'results') "...and he is having an open mind too." - I think he has an open mind. I also think he has successfully recreated any TK ability you or anyone here claims to have had and successfully explained them away with relative simplicity. "...but trust me, you won't change my internal belief..." - On this at least, you are absolutely right. "i know it is not static or heat, but i agree with keith that those can be causes..." - Are you trying to make me laugh? You accept the effect of TK before you accept the effects of static or heat? "...but that doesn't prove that TK doesn't exist..." - How do you prove something doesn't exist? "...the TK:ers i know started all like i did, and now they move more than psiwheels and straws..." - Shame none of them or any other TK'ers in the world have EVER proved it. Funny that. "...and i have had successes that can't be heat or static." - But you also accept that they could be possible causes as you said before. "well, i'll be waiting for your comments after you see the video." - Don't wait, here they are now: I worry that you will ever meet a guy like Charles Manson. Am I a psychic because I predict that all your future TK experiments will point you towards believing that you have telekinetic abilities? |
| Posted By: alegiojon Posted On: Dec 29, 2004 Views: 805 | RE: Theory for TK proven! ok, i'm done here. sorry keith, if you want to contact me again, do it through my mail, i can't deal with people like "the last random hero", now he'll probably say something about this post, but this is directed to you keith. i'm here not applying science, i show my things and you apply science in them. but until this point i can't keep going, i wont post the video either, although i'll send it to your personal e-mail, bye people was a pleasure being on here. alegiojon |
| Posted By: The Last Random Hero Posted On: Dec 29, 2004 Views: 801 | RE: Theory for TK proven! What am I feeling now, is it guilt? Or the sense of a job well done? |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Dec 29, 2004 Views: 794 | RE: Theory for TK proven! Hi Greg, When you do your straw test for intentionality I would suggest the following. It does mean you will need an assistant to do it properly. 1) Do not allow your hands to come anywhere near the straw as static could spoil the test. Try and keep a minimum of 12 inches (30 cm) away and avoid hand movements causing a draught. 2) Use a random method for deciding the direction you intend to make it go. Perhaps throw a dice and call odd numbers clockwise, or similar method. This will ensure that you will have no bias over which direction is selected. 3) Write down the selected direction before starting to try and move it. 4) Set yourself what you consider to be a reasonable time, for you, to get it going. Say 30 seconds, whatever. If it does not move within that time frame that counts as a failure. I expect you may think this is harsh, but it isn't. It is going to move anyway at some point even without your input, so you need to demonstrate it really is you. 5) If it goes the wrong way that also is a failure 6) Decide what qualifies as a hit. In other words, how far it has to move. I would suggest something in the order of 45 degrees as a minimum is reasonable. Any less is a failure. 7) Repeat as many times as possible. This is important. The number of times you repeat the exercise is important because we are now talking statistics and probabilities, not a good way of verifying anything. For example. I just flipped a coin 15 times. You would expect roughly 50/50 heads to tails? Not so, it just doesnt work like that. I actually got 5 heads and 10 tails. At one point scoring 8 tails in a row. The percentage works out 33% heads and 67% tails. If I claimed to be trying for tails you may think that it looked pretty good. The problem then is obvious, you need a large run to allow the probabilities to even out. Ideally at least 100. However, I do not expect you to do that, just making a point that is all. You think you score around 70%? Best of luck! Regards, Keith |
| Posted By: The Last Random Hero Posted On: Dec 29, 2004 Views: 793 | RE: Theory for TK proven! I retract my comments about Placebo being intelligent and rational after reading this passage which he wrote about himself (thanks again PPSociety). "I can fully appreciate any scepticism at the word 'telekinesis', and thank you for even taking the time to hear my point of view :) Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary proof. I completely agree..." - No, you really really don't, and that's the problem. "What would you personally consider to be extra-ordinary proof? Therein lies the problem - if I show you a moving straw, you will want to see whats under the table." - Rather than what, believing in the absolute power of TK? If David Copperfield presented himself as a mystic you'd believe he could fly, because you are niave and stupid. "And then whats next door. And examine the object. All of that is not possible for me to show you internet-lovers ;)" - And yet you're still going to try aren't you, you naughty boy. "All I can provide, is the solace in the fact that my friends and family began with scepticism too. And now find themselves at a loss to explain how I do it..." - I suspect they're probably as bright as you are. Is it true that you only need one birthday card for your mother and your sister? "...In fact, I find myself at a loss there too ;)..." - Err, wasn't there a big discussion here about air currents, heat and static? Keith, how could you be so cruel to these guys? You gave them hope when there was none, you evil scientist you! |
| Posted By: Placebo Posted On: Dec 29, 2004 Views: 908 | RE: Theory for TK proven! Hi Keith, Thanks for the advice, it sounds fairly reasonable. The rules there are a bit more controlled than usual. We'll see if I've overstated my control :/ My guests leave on the 5th, I'll have a shot at it as of then. It might take me a bit of time to get back into the swing of things, but once I'm there, I'll run a decent amount of consecutive tests (I'll not err on the side of file drawer effect) I've managed to get my hands on an antistatic mat, and wristband. And as I understand, static's worst enemy is humidity. Would it be a good idea to leave a bucket of warm water in the room for a while, remove it, and then perform the tests? In addition, before doing a run, I intend to rub a ruler in my hair (static) and move the straw around. Then humidify, place anti-static mat, etc, and do that again. Compare results. Thereafter I'll monitor the straw for 5 minutes or so, and see what kind of motion it gets by itself. Another thought I had - placing pinwheels in an arc around the straw, to detect air movement. We'll see how this goes however because I've had strange results with multiple TK toys lying aronud. I also intend to use something other than a bottle for balancing - something not oblong. Regards Greg |
| Posted By: Placebo Posted On: Dec 29, 2004 Views: 905 | RE: Theory for TK proven! Last Random Hero I was going to ignore your irrational comments, but I guess I couldn't ["Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary proof. I completely agree..." - No, you really really don't, and that's the problem.] I did not start this project to prove telekinesis. Thus this statement is irrelevant. At this point we are simply trying to create specific examples of TK to analyse, and explore [And yet you're still going to try aren't you, you naughty boy.] No, as mentioned above, I'm not trying to prove it. I'm trying to explore it. I doubt I'd make either you or Keith into believers in TK by the end of it, regardless of what happens. And I don't expect to. Once again, you're forgetting what the project is for, in my opinion. [because you are niave and stupid.] [I suspect they're probably as bright as you are. Is it true that you only need one birthday card for your mother and your sister?] I find it quite amusing how you have to resort to baseless insults in order to feel on top of things here. Particularly immature and unproductive. [Err, wasn't there a big discussion here about air currents, heat and static?] Yes, and as Keith himself explained, it does not disprove telekinesis itself Simply the specific examples he described - which is considerable. In the case of the static, I'm still unconvinced due to the distance I achieve. I hear the part about it being random movement... but hopefully further tests can answer that [Keith, how could you be so cruel to these guys? You gave them hope when there was none, you evil scientist you!] Hope in what? Exploration of the examples of TK we demonstrate? Why is that a false hope? I'm not expecting Keith to turn around and say 'WOW.. Guys.. you have amazing abilities! THis is IncReDible!!' You seem to have a warped idea of whats going on in this thread It's this waste of time, effort and emotion - in posts like this - that I like to avoid. Censorship may be 'wrong', but it sure helps to weed out baseless immaturity like this. This is a work in progress, and you're not helping it anything. Nothing in what you posted was (1) helpful (2) objective or (3) mature Have a good day Greg |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Dec 30, 2004 Views: 894 | RE: Theory for TK proven! Hi Greg, All your ideas sound good. I think placing a few psi wheels around, near the straw, is a very good idea. Using an object that is not elongated in one direction seems to be a good idea, it would prevent the straw trying to line up with it. I tried it with a few objects. It worked well with a thimble, and also with a glass globe - its actually an ornament. This does create its own problem though. The point of contact between the two surfaces is reduced even further, it's almost like balancing one marble on top of another. It does result in the straw having no 'preferred' direction to line up with, BUT, it makes it ridiculously sensitive. The straw would think about moving even if you blinked! Okay, not quite, but it is a major problem being so prone to movement. It means you have to cover it to prevent air movement problems, and, as you say, you are unable to move objects under cover. I think that overall you would be better off staying with the glass bottle because making the straw even more unstable only muddies the waters. This is why intentionality is so important. As you said in your comments to 'hero', this will not prove TK one way or the other. Even if your results showed 80% control I would not accept that as meaning anything, so you were quiet right to say that. What I am trying to do is look at the issue of TK seriously instead of just rubbishing it. Now I am not a gambling man, I think that is a mug's game, but if you were my neighbour and it was me monitoring your tests, I would be prepared to bet a huge sum of money that your results would not demonstrate any control, given a large enough sample. In this respect I am similar to Randi, in as much I also believe that with proper controls TK fades away like the morning mist in the sun. I am totally convinced that with this particular test it is static and air currents. I am of course hoping that your tests will show no control! Nonetheless, it has been very interesting and informative so far. I look forward to your results once your guests have gone. In the meantime I am exchanging emails with alegiojon regarding his video. I am waiting for some details of his demonstration so that I can duplicate it here and see what happens. Good luck with your tests. Cheers, Keith |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Dec 30, 2004 Views: 888 | RE: Theory for TK proven! Last Random Hero, I just want to clarify a couple of points here. 1) Do I think TK exists? No, totally no. I am trying to demonstrate that it doesnt exist. However, future tests may prove me wrong! 2) Am I trying to make these guys look stupid? No. I just want to be able to prove them wrong instead of just bashing them 3) Am I just 'going along with them' hoping to eventually make myself look good and them daft? I would love to look good! We all do. But by working with them instead of against them we all learn something. 4) What have I learned? That an uncovered psi wheel can't be used to test TK nor can a rotating straw. Also sharing information and points of view is a better way of communicating. 5) What does that mean, about your test so far? It just means that the two most popular methods of 'training' or 'exercising' TK are pointless. We can all do it given the right circumstances. However, That still leaves a hell of a lot of other TK claims to investigate. 6) What do I expect to find? I expect to find that nobody is going to be able to demonstrate TK. Randi has believed this for some time. 7) So why continue if my mind is made up? Because it is the only way to approach any subject. Having pre-conceived ideas should not get in the way of independent investigation and testing. I am being as fair, open minded, honest and vigilant in my tests as I possibly can be. By having TKers who are willing to make the effort to help me, provide me with information, carry out their own tests, I am hoping we will all make some progress. Simply slagging each other off achieves nothing. This way both sides are trying to prove their point logically and experimentally, which is something of a novelty. All I ask is please do not be rude to other posters on this thread, we are all working very hard on this. That's all. Thanks, Keith |
| Pages [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Next Page -> |