View Active Topics          View Your Posts          Latest 100 Topics          Switch to Mobile

25% of American adults believe in astrology

Discuss General Topics.

Re: 25% of American adults believe in astrology

Postby NucleicAcid » 13 Apr 2010, 03:40

Craig, I would like to continue in the realm of telekinesis, because I just had a good practice session last night, and actually saw a few things that makes me think it's not static or other EM radiation.

For my usual practice setup, I use a miniature windsock made out of tissue paper to indicate any stray air currents, and a miniature seismograph to detect table vibrations, both crafted out of wire. The psiwheel is uncovered usually (I've only succeeded once at moving it uncovered, it's a psychological thing) but I've found that when the air currents and vibrations are controlled for, psiwheels won't move (makes sense). It's deliberately informal, that's why it's practice. Skeptics: I don't want to get into the existence of telekinesis right now. Some effect exist, and I am looking to figure out the mechanism a bit better.

I was using an aluminum psiwheel first of all. This would mean that any static charge would not build up in any particular point, because it is a metal, all the static charge will redistribute over the entire surface of the wheel, diffusing it. While you could still definitely put a net charge on it, it wouldn't give you directional control over it. Really? is also correct about this applying to the body as well.

One technique I was playing around with is putting my finger on the table about a centimeter away from a corner of the wheel, and trying to "pull" it to my finger. I focused and it shot surprisingly fast at my finger, and then continued to spin another 180 degrees. It seems like some sort of momentary "force" acted on it, but because I was sitting on the ground, not moving, with my hand on the wooden table, also not moving, and a metal wheel, I don't think that force was electrostatic. The effect electrostatic would predict is that it would move toward my finger and stop when the distance between the point of the psiwheel and my finger were minimized.

Furthermore, I've been able to move the wheel on many many occasions without my hands anywhere near it. As have many of my friends. My one friend almost always practices standing across the room from the target.

I highly doubt it's electromagnetic because aluminum is not ferromagnetic, and people have moved many other non-ferromagnetic substances like foam, plastic, ice. My friend has moved the psiwheel inside a Faraday cage made of window screen, inside a glass jar. We've also done experiments with anti-static wristbands, no difference. Also, the studies on random number generators (Schmidt, PEAR Labs, etc), plus my own research with radiation levels, seem to indicate quantum states, or at least probabilities, can be influenced.

All of this seems to indicate that, while electrostatic forces can definitely be influenced as a side effect, it is not the primary cause of telekinesis.
Hey, you there. Yes, you. Read more journal articles.

If what I say sounds like the teacher from Charlie Brown (Wah wahh woohh wuh waah), then you should try college. It's fun, and only costs you your soul and several tens of thousands of dollars. :)

“I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven“ - Richard Wiseman

Let's make directional hypotheses, test them repeatedly, replicate experiments, and publish results! Yay, science!
User avatar
NucleicAcid
 
Posts: 169
Joined: 26 Mar 2010, 04:20

Re: 25% of American adults believe in astrology

Postby really? » 13 Apr 2010, 10:37

NucleicAcid wrote:Craig, I would like to continue in the realm of telekinesis, because I just had a good practice session last night, and actually saw a few things that makes me think it's not static or other EM radiation.

For my usual practice setup, I use a miniature windsock made out of tissue paper to indicate any stray air currents, and a miniature seismograph to detect table vibrations, both crafted out of wire. The psiwheel is uncovered usually (I've only succeeded once at moving it uncovered, it's a psychological thing) but I've found that when the air currents and vibrations are controlled for, psiwheels won't move (makes sense). It's deliberately informal, that's why it's practice. Skeptics: I don't want to get into the existence of telekinesis right now. Some effect exist, and I am looking to figure out the mechanism a bit better.

I was using an aluminum psiwheel first of all. This would mean that any static charge would not build up in any particular point, because it is a metal, all the static charge will redistribute over the entire surface of the wheel, diffusing it. While you could still definitely put a net charge on it, it wouldn't give you directional control over it. Really? is also correct about this applying to the body as well.

One technique I was playing around with is putting my finger on the table about a centimeter away from a corner of the wheel, and trying to "pull" it to my finger. I focused and it shot surprisingly fast at my finger, and then continued to spin another 180 degrees. It seems like some sort of momentary "force" acted on it, but because I was sitting on the ground, not moving, with my hand on the wooden table, also not moving, and a metal wheel, I don't think that force was electrostatic. The effect electrostatic would predict is that it would move toward my finger and stop when the distance between the point of the psiwheel and my finger were minimized.

Furthermore, I've been able to move the wheel on many many occasions without my hands anywhere near it. As have many of my friends. My one friend almost always practices standing across the room from the target.

I highly doubt it's electromagnetic because aluminum is not ferromagnetic, and people have moved many other non-ferromagnetic substances like foam, plastic, ice. My friend has moved the psiwheel inside a Faraday cage made of window screen, inside a glass jar. We've also done experiments with anti-static wristbands, no difference. Also, the studies on random number generators (Schmidt, PEAR Labs, etc), plus my own research with radiation levels, seem to indicate quantum states, or at least probabilities, can be influenced.

All of this seems to indicate that, while electrostatic forces can definitely be influenced as a side effect, it is not the primary cause of telekinesis.


I was using an aluminum psiwheel first of all. This would mean that any static charge would not build up in any particular point, because it is a metal, all the static charge will redistribute over the entire surface of the wheel, diffusing it. While you could still definitely put a net charge on it, it wouldn't give you directional control over it. Really? is also correct about this applying to the body as well.

That charge would likely occur around the edges leaking off and definitely at places where there are points.
Here's a device demonstrating the Biefeld-Brown Effect
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBBlZ8agldE

Also, the studies on random number generators (Schmidt, PEAR Labs, etc), plus my own research with radiation levels, seem to indicate quantum states, or at least probabilities, can be influenced.

Pear was looking for micro-PK. Over 25 years of searching this group could only find at best marginal results above statistical noise. I'm unaware of PEAR ever demonstrating macro-PK or even making any attempts to look for macro-PK. Millions of trials were conducted to demonstrate micro-PK. Ask yourself this. If this affect is as pronounced as you've clearly believe it to be through your on experiments then why did it take PEAR 14,000,000 trials to find something that may just be a quirk of the random number generators PEARS used ? I'd be more impressed if the affect show up in just a few trials.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: 25% of American adults believe in astrology

Postby NucleicAcid » 13 Apr 2010, 11:17

Last time I checked, I don't run a neon sign transformer when I practice PK. Biefeld-Browning Effect does not explain the psiwheel movement. Static electricity does not explain psiwheel movement.

If this affect is as pronounced as you've clearly believe it to be through your on experiments then why did it take PEAR 14,000,000 trials to find something that may just be a quirk of the random number generators PEARS used ?


A few possibilities. Primarily, their setup is not as conducive to PK as it could be, statistically speaking. It's possible to make the output too "white," in that it's balanced (usually by Von Neumann algorithm or similar) to the point where it can't be affected. It's like gluing a psiwheel to the table. Second, they probably aren't the best people at PK (this is intentional, as it is difficult to ascertain how much telekinetic potential an individual has, it's harder than you think). I don't know if they tested any macro-telekinetics on their rig, if you have an article, I'd love to read it. I'm currently tackling both of those problems with the experiment I'm working on. Preliminarily (still in the practice stages), you can see a telekinetic run vs a noneffective run visually. You can tell if there is an effect with decent certainty within 10 runs.

My point about PEAR was that I find it unlikely that the fundamental mechanism behind macro-pk and micro-pk is any different. What is a physical object but an ensemble of probability distributions?
Hey, you there. Yes, you. Read more journal articles.

If what I say sounds like the teacher from Charlie Brown (Wah wahh woohh wuh waah), then you should try college. It's fun, and only costs you your soul and several tens of thousands of dollars. :)

“I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven“ - Richard Wiseman

Let's make directional hypotheses, test them repeatedly, replicate experiments, and publish results! Yay, science!
User avatar
NucleicAcid
 
Posts: 169
Joined: 26 Mar 2010, 04:20

Re: 25% of American adults believe in astrology

Postby really? » 13 Apr 2010, 21:31

NucleicAcid wrote:Last time I checked, I don't run a neon sign transformer when I practice PK. Biefeld-Browning Effect does not explain the psiwheel movement. Static electricity does not explain psiwheel movement.

If this affect is as pronounced as you've clearly believe it to be through your on experiments then why did it take PEAR 14,000,000 trials to find something that may just be a quirk of the random number generators PEARS used ?


A few possibilities. Primarily, their setup is not as conducive to PK as it could be, statistically speaking. It's possible to make the output too "white," in that it's balanced (usually by Von Neumann algorithm or similar) to the point where it can't be affected. It's like gluing a psiwheel to the table. Second, they probably aren't the best people at PK (this is intentional, as it is difficult to ascertain how much telekinetic potential an individual has, it's harder than you think). I don't know if they tested any macro-telekinetics on their rig, if you have an article, I'd love to read it. I'm currently tackling both of those problems with the experiment I'm working on. Preliminarily (still in the practice stages), you can see a telekinetic run vs a noneffective run visually. You can tell if there is an effect with decent certainty within 10 runs.

My point about PEAR was that I find it unlikely that the fundamental mechanism behind macro-pk and micro-pk is any different. What is a physical object but an ensemble of probability distributions?


What is a physical object but an ensemble of probability distributions?

Large collections of atoms and molecule act like classical systems. They do no act as you think they do. As Schrodinger pointed out with the cat. The cat in the box is not in a Superposition of States [He use that to demonstrate classical systems are not probabilities or the cat is not alive and dead at the same time.] and neither are the molecules in whatever object you are moving.

Personally I wouldn't use PEAR's claimed findings at all in support.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: 25% of American adults believe in astrology

Postby Craig Browning » 13 Apr 2010, 21:56

:shock: Ok... to Cerebral for me guys... I don't know about this or that study or who did what with whom... actually don't care.

I've only offered a theory based on personal experience and observation. NucleicAcid seems to have had a different form of manifestation of which I can only explain on the Metaphysical or (to be more accurate) Hermetic basis... The Mind Creates... every thought we have expresses some level of electrical discharge a.k.a. physical movement. This is where James Alan and Louise Hay get their idea of mind (thought) creating physical realities.
User avatar
Craig Browning
 
Posts: 1526
Joined: 13 Feb 2010, 05:20
Location: Northampton, MA

Re: 25% of American adults believe in astrology

Postby NucleicAcid » 14 Apr 2010, 01:02

It has nothing to do with superposition (even though recent studies have shown that electron transport through proteins requires superposition (coherence), something once thought totally impossible at biological temperatures).

What is the difference between a still object and a moving object? Classical physics says it's a difference in kinetic energy (this is a tautology, the real question then becomes, "What is kinetic energy?") Relativistic physics says (simplified) it's a difference in the object's four-vector. Quantum mechanics says it's a property of the wave function. Which one is correct? It's a trick question. Both are models, they're incomplete. Don't mistake the map for the territory.

Put on your smart helmets:

The bottom line is that an object is composed of information; the entropy of the individual components is normally, excuse me, statistically distributed (as described by the partition function of the ensemble of quantized energy states of many many particles in thermal equilibrium). A [classical] force acting on an object, say a collision, is basically applying an entropy-operator. The result is that both objects have a different entropy distribution (and therefore also changing the overall entropy distribution of the universe). This is true of everything from a proton-proton collision, to black holes consuming each other.

It is my belief that telekinesis somehow allows for applying entropy operators in a way that we do not understand the mechanism.

The mental models I use involve "carriers" of consciousness (in the way that photons are carriers of EM force) that interact with the information at the root of all energy/matter. Again, it's just a model, it's a way of massaging an abstraction into a physical concept the brain can grapple. We'll call them Consciousness Particles (CPs) for now (save your breath, they don't actually exist). CPs mediate organization - anti-entropy if you will - where two pieces of information combine to create a new piece of information. This drives emergence (increasing complexity) at the expense of "erasing" other information (generating entropy). Most interactions involve standard acts of emergence - star formation for example. However, there is nothing barring "spontaneous" emergence, e.g. a localized increase in information density, at the expense of more entropy elsewhere (essentially tunneling, but not quite). It only seems spontaneous to humans because it appears to violate spacetime locality, but locality is an illusion.

Ergo, if I push a ball with my hand, it "looks" like there is a causal link, but if I move the ball with telekinesis, it "looks" like there is no causal link, hence why telekinesis is viewed as "paranormal." However, the universe can't tell the difference in the scheme of things. Information and entropy are changing hands in both cases. In the former, it starts with the breakdown of glucose in my mitochondria to generate energy to contract my muscles to impart kinetic energy into the ball (or if you will, entropy of the still ball is traveling 'back in time' to my muscles to the mitochondria in order to "disorganize" some glucose molecules). In the latter, the entropy is still moving from point A to B, however, we can't see how it's getting there. I've noticed I get really hot whenever I do telekinesis; I'm definitely kicking off more entropy than it takes to move the object. Not a single law of physics is violated in the act of telekinesis. Saying telekinesis is impossible because it happens over a distance is like saying cell phone communication is impossible because you've never seen a radio wave. Maybe we can find the carriers responsible for mediating this interaction, maybe we won't. But just because we haven't found it yet doesn't mean it's not there.

What is the result of all this? If people have free will and consciousness, so do particles. Therefore, as Craig mentioned many writers have let on to - thoughts shape reality (to an extent).
Last edited by NucleicAcid on 14 Apr 2010, 02:20, edited 2 times in total.
Hey, you there. Yes, you. Read more journal articles.

If what I say sounds like the teacher from Charlie Brown (Wah wahh woohh wuh waah), then you should try college. It's fun, and only costs you your soul and several tens of thousands of dollars. :)

“I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven“ - Richard Wiseman

Let's make directional hypotheses, test them repeatedly, replicate experiments, and publish results! Yay, science!
User avatar
NucleicAcid
 
Posts: 169
Joined: 26 Mar 2010, 04:20

Re: 25% of American adults believe in astrology

Postby Nostradamus » 14 Apr 2010, 01:36

the entropy of the individual components is normally distributed.


This is not true. The distribution is a normal distribution in some cases. Electricity does not have a normal distribution.

Also information does not have to have a normal distribution.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: 25% of American adults believe in astrology

Postby NucleicAcid » 14 Apr 2010, 01:43

I was simplifying. It's technically not normal because the mean isn't zero. The main point is that an object is composed of many particles at all sorts of vibrational states with the mean kinetic energy being the temperature of the object at thermal equilibrium. Sorry, I'm a bit rusty. I took microscopic physical chemistry last year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_function_%28statistical_mechanics%29
Hey, you there. Yes, you. Read more journal articles.

If what I say sounds like the teacher from Charlie Brown (Wah wahh woohh wuh waah), then you should try college. It's fun, and only costs you your soul and several tens of thousands of dollars. :)

“I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven“ - Richard Wiseman

Let's make directional hypotheses, test them repeatedly, replicate experiments, and publish results! Yay, science!
User avatar
NucleicAcid
 
Posts: 169
Joined: 26 Mar 2010, 04:20

Re: 25% of American adults believe in astrology

Postby Nostradamus » 14 Apr 2010, 02:08

The mean of a normal distribution can be anything. It does not have to be 0.

Electricity does not have a normal distribution. That was one of the discoveries that helped formulate quantum mechanics.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: 25% of American adults believe in astrology

Postby NucleicAcid » 14 Apr 2010, 02:17

What are you even talking about? You're trying to broach two different things here.

Electricity does not have a normal distribution.


What does that even mean? "Electricity" isn't something that you can normally distribute. The electrons flowing through a wire follow some sort of statistical distribution, (I believe Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution similar to gasses. It might be Fermi-Dirac, depending on what you are looking at). The molecules of the wire are going to have a thermal distribution which follows the Boltzmann equation. Statistical mechanics is the bridge between QM and classical thermodynamics.

Individual electrons and their energy states are quantized. That's how the Ultraviolet catastrophe was solved (many people contributed, but primarily Maxwell), which was one of the main realizations that helped formulate QM. The other main big discovery was the photoelectric effect (Einstein taking a cue from Maxwell's paper).

And still, none of this affects my statement that telekinesis does not violate any laws of physics.
Hey, you there. Yes, you. Read more journal articles.

If what I say sounds like the teacher from Charlie Brown (Wah wahh woohh wuh waah), then you should try college. It's fun, and only costs you your soul and several tens of thousands of dollars. :)

“I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven“ - Richard Wiseman

Let's make directional hypotheses, test them repeatedly, replicate experiments, and publish results! Yay, science!
User avatar
NucleicAcid
 
Posts: 169
Joined: 26 Mar 2010, 04:20

Re: 25% of American adults believe in astrology

Postby Nostradamus » 14 Apr 2010, 02:57

Electricity in a conductor has an odd distribution. The energy distribution is affected by the Pauli exclusion principle. A conductor has some free electrons. These are restricted to energy bands.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: 25% of American adults believe in astrology

Postby NucleicAcid » 14 Apr 2010, 03:04

You just said exactly what I just said, less technically.
Hey, you there. Yes, you. Read more journal articles.

If what I say sounds like the teacher from Charlie Brown (Wah wahh woohh wuh waah), then you should try college. It's fun, and only costs you your soul and several tens of thousands of dollars. :)

“I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven“ - Richard Wiseman

Let's make directional hypotheses, test them repeatedly, replicate experiments, and publish results! Yay, science!
User avatar
NucleicAcid
 
Posts: 169
Joined: 26 Mar 2010, 04:20

Re: 25% of American adults believe in astrology

Postby Nostradamus » 14 Apr 2010, 04:13

Now I am confused. You said things have a normal distribution and I said no. I gave free elctrons as something that does not have a normal distribution.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: 25% of American adults believe in astrology

Postby Nostradamus » 14 Apr 2010, 04:14

Thinking about it, I would suspect that CO2 does not have the same distribution as other gases since it does not conform to the ideal gas law. I wonder if I can fidn any information about that issue.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: 25% of American adults believe in astrology

Postby NucleicAcid » 14 Apr 2010, 05:16

Free electrons, CO2 gas, pretty much everything follows some statistical distribution.They all don't have the same distribution, this is based on the vibrational states of the molecule. I was incorrect in saying it was "normally" distributed because not all statistical distributions are normal. But all statistical distributions follow some sort of probabilistic curve roughly the shape of the Gaussian curve. Obviously, things like thermal distribution would get lopped off at 0K.

What I meant to say was, "the entropy of the individual components of a system can be modeled using statistical mechanics. Because it is a probabilistic distribution, conceptually, macro-PK is the same as micro-PK. "


Image

All of your statistical distributions are going to take a shape similar to that, but your mean, skew, and steepness (I can't remember the word for this) are going to vary. But they're all the same general shape.
Hey, you there. Yes, you. Read more journal articles.

If what I say sounds like the teacher from Charlie Brown (Wah wahh woohh wuh waah), then you should try college. It's fun, and only costs you your soul and several tens of thousands of dollars. :)

“I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven“ - Richard Wiseman

Let's make directional hypotheses, test them repeatedly, replicate experiments, and publish results! Yay, science!
User avatar
NucleicAcid
 
Posts: 169
Joined: 26 Mar 2010, 04:20

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 4 guests