25% of American adults believe in astrology

[NucleicAcid]

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 , , . 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.

[really?]

[NucleicAcid]

[really?]

[Craig Browning]

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.

[NucleicAcid]

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 "" 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).

[Nostradamus]

[NucleicAcid]

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.

[Nostradamus]

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.

[NucleicAcid]

[Nostradamus]

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.

[NucleicAcid]

You just said exactly what I just said, less technically.

[Nostradamus]

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.

[Nostradamus]

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.

[NucleicAcid]

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. "




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.