Eldad Eshel

Doesn't quantum teleportation break the law of the speed of light ? Anyway that's what I read.

I want to comment something, and that is how young modern science is. It is only about 100 years old, it is practically an infant, both in comparison to the overall age of humanity, and not to mention the age of planet earth or the universe. It is very young but at the same time also very arrogant and boustful, sort of like a baby bully.

Lets take a look at the law of the speed of light. Currently the nearest planet outside the solar system is around 40 light years away, which means that even if we achieve light speed travel, it will be not very efficient, to say the least. My personal belief is that in the future some kind of teleportation of space vessels will be invented, and man will be able to travel the universe.

 

To amplify this a bit: from a more pragmatic point, nothing will ever contradict the laws of physics. If such a situation were to potentially arise, we would modify the law in question (possibly just by placing a limitation of applicability on the existing law). Which is part of the reason mainstream scientists would not suggest such a thing. They know better. Some headline writers and crackpots, however, don't.

Nothing will ever contradict the laws of physics ? What about quantum teleportation ? Where as I have read information is teleported between particles. Is that not contradicting the laws of physics ?

 

Wow. I thought you were serious about this, but you're a complete crackpot. You have no idea what you're talking about. You should stop talking and go back to school.

 

I can't believe you said this.

Just shows how different we are in our mind sets, that's all.

Side note: I am able to get the wheel to move with the glass bowl over it, but only by a little bit.

There is none so blind as he who will not see.

Hoax = scam, as in not my particular case. I have no intention to fool anyone.

There was mentioned the breaking of the laws of physics. I think today's physics need a good slap in the face. Even if it means the breaking of the most strict rules. Physics have been there forever with it's strict rules, weighing down on us, not to "god forbid" be broken. I am sure alot of the laws of physics will be broken eventually, like the rule of the speed of light, which from my reading has already been scientifically broken. The current laws of physics prevent alot from us, like for example space travel. Man will have to leave planet earth one day and find a new home, hopefully physics' laws will be long broken by then.

 

Certainly not if he can't remove other possibilities. Tell them you can do it no matter how they set up the test, and they might bite. But give them results of your own tests, give them no reason to think you've faked it or misinterpreted it, show them some supportive evidence and you will probably get someone who will at least give you some more feedback. Which would most likely be more tests, but that's what he wants.

 

Without the bowl, you can remove the word "academic" from this sentence. Any testing without removing outside influence will yield NO results. It won't support either option, true or false. It will just be flawed methodology.

Can't they monitor the air and heat with machines ?

You certainly are taking a roundabout trip to wealth and fame. Two weeks should have been more than enough for you to successfully proven your telekinesis in a controlled environment to scientists. Are you in contact with an academic or scientific institution yet?

Not yet. I am waiting for my "power" to "grow". And indeed I am getting better results these days. I still am not able to spin it with the glass bowl over it which might be an academic requisite and is also my next goal. If I do not get it to move with the bowl in the next week or 2 I will contact the university.

Or it might be impossible because telekinesis doesn't exist.

You know what, till my own recent experience with telekinesis I wouldn't know how to answer your "claim". I would probably say something like "You don't really know that, and I would like to believe that it does exist". But now with my personal experience I can say confidently that it does exist.

My next step is getting the wheel to spin with the bowl placed over it, the thing is that this is harder, sort of like moving a metal spoon that is heavier. No one knows really how harder this is, it could be alot harder and could take me some time. Still, and in case this takes too much time, I believe academic testing even without the bowl will still yield positive results. I live close to a university and maybe soon I will contact them.

 

if you want to be a scientist, then you have to establish with proper procedures that you have these abilities. In that sense, you and Hydrick are alike: you have made similar claims. So the tests that were good enough to expose him should be good enough to establish your bona-fides. Or lack thereof.

I would be "debunked" only if it were really some common physical phenomenon, like the heat from my hands or air currents. Hydrick is/was a magician using a trick, the only trick in my case would be the world tricking ME.

What this boils down to is that if you expect scientific approval, you have to remove all kinds of outside influences that might possibly have an effect. That's all on you. If you haven't done this, you can't eliminate mundane reasons for the motion.

 

Another limitation you can have, as I am reminded of from reading about the debunking of James Hydrick's claims (probably from a book by or about James Randi, since he's the one who debunked): Put other objects around the device that would also be disturbed by air currents, and make the object rotate but not disturb the other objects. Hydrick was able to move objects, but not when polystyrene chips were placed nearby. Because it was done with air currents.

 

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-235636.html

 

 

After that, you would need to do a systematic test (e.g. make it go clockwise or counterclockwise on cue). But I suspect that will not be necessary.

You see me and this Hydrick are nothing alike. I consider myself a wannabe scientist, I want to learn and research and help advance science. I am by no means a "fraud guy" or some magician, and I don't take interest in illusionary magic, such as common stage magicians practise. I want to improve my telekinesis and telepathic abilities and bring them to trial in front of academics, with the major goal of advancing science and our general knowledge of the world we live in.

When I looked at the videos, particularly the first one, I thought I saw him blowing onto it. Yet when I rechecked it I didn't see the same. Was that bit edited out or was I mistaken? That is why I would like to see it being done with a mask. Then we are just left with the heat of the hands.

As I already said, I did no editing besides flip the video.

Eldad you were talking of wearing a mask. That would eliminate breath as a source of the energy. Did you try the face mask?

Well it was called "worthless" so I didn't bother.

Making it spin from far is another notch of difficulty, I have been able to do this a few times, but it is much harder.

And breathing on it. There seems to be the possibility of blowing onto it. I can't see his face while it is spinning.

I am not blowing on it .. if I was you could hear it in the audio.

I have not 1, but 3 videos for your viewing entertainment.

The only edit I have made is flip the video since it was "lying down" (from the cellphone),

so basically they are presented with no editing at all.

1 -

2-

3 -

Could you post a video of it stationary and then beginning to spin on YouTube or such like?

I will try to arrange something.

 

Since you're still not removing any other influence you may have, I would suggest this is a worthless test.

 

You mention "We don't really know", which suggests you have someone helping you. Why not set up the blind test Strange suggested?

I have no one helping me, in "we" I meant myself and all the rest of humanity.

I am going to the clinic tomorrow and I will pick up a breathing mask, the results should be the same.

So, given what you have said so far, it is pretty obvious that the motion is caused by your breath and/or moving your hands around. This is about what we would expect.

If it was from my breath it would be moving all the time or at least alot more. I also put it in a location with no air drafts, when I look at it from far it does not move at all. Without the bowl I AM still able to move it and I am sure of it, however my initial excitement has decreased severely with not being able to move it with the bowl over the wheel, which would probably be an academic requirement. You need to understand that moving it is very hard as it is and happens sort of randomly and not at all the times I try. We don't really know how this works, but with the bowl over it makes it harder and I don't know by how much, it is certainly though the next step of my "ability".

Well that is different than what you told me earlier when you said it wasn't a thought process! Do you move your hands as well?

Yes I agree that this would qualify more as a "thought process", where actual thinking is envolved. I mostly don't move my hands, but sometimes I do, anyway it shouldn't make for much of a difference.

So what do you think makes the difference when it changes direction?

Well It isn't easy at all, making it spin AT ALL isn't easy, but to change the direction I basically think of the other direction.

So it requires very little force to make it move. Can you change the direction it rotates?

Sometimes I can.

Folded paper! OK what thought processes do you go through to make it spin, for I presume it isn't always spinning? Or trembling as in your second experiment.

 

Is the folded paper then placed on a needle point? Like it isn't just placed on the table top as it is, is it?

Yes the paper wheel is on a toothpick that is standing up right.

Folded paper! OK what thought processes do you go through to make it spin, for I presume it isn't always spinning? Or trembling as in your second experiment.

I wouldn't call it a thought process, I place my hands over it (not touching of course) and stare at the wheel, working some kind of "intuition" i guess.

I bought a glass bowl, and unfortunately I cannot get it to spin with it over the wheel. I can get it to tremble at best (assuming it is from me and not something else, which is hard to pinpoint). I can still get it to spin without the bowl over it, which to me means the bowl over the wheel just makes it harder to move, in the same way that moving some other object (like a straw placed on a bottle's cap) is harder (I cannot do this yet).