Jump to content

Telekinesis, telepathy and their impact on science [Absolutely NONE]


Eldad Eshel
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

Then try the feather or something REALLY light that can be blown easily, then, put it under the bowl and try to move that. It will remain stationary.

 

The wheel thing moves about because it is unstable.. I saw some in an art display recently. The wheels were inside light bulbs so no air could get in, but they were all spinning randomly, some at different speeds and directions and some not at all.... then some start up, seeminly randomly.

 

Would be cool if we could do TK - I think it would improve my putting average at golf.

This art display is interesting, but in my case my wheel doesn't move randomly on it's own. I said this, I look at it from far, it is stationary, and will be probably forever. I approach it, "do my thing" and it spins. And it is surely not my breath.

 

Can you link me to your one with the bowl then? I only saw without the bowl, which is a well explained phenomenon.

I haven't made a video with a bowl. I can only get it to move very slightly with the bowl. Which isn't very exciting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This art display is interesting, but in my case my wheel doesn't move randomly on it's own. I said this, I look at it from far, it is stationary, and will be probably forever. I approach it, "do my thing" and it spins. And it is surely not my breath.

 

Do your thing? With the bowl? After it has had 15 mins to settle. What is this thing exactly? link me to your most convincing vid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No bowl - it has already been well explained as to how it works. I found a video of someone using a bowl.... but then they admit they cheat in another video (they used a pin hole in the table with a draft). RRs video looks honest.... but I have explained what I think is going on in that one too, so, no not yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I put a lit lighter next to it, without trying to spin it telekinetically, it does not move.


I can rule out the mundane reasons you claim it to be. Yet I know you will still rule this all out.

Anyway I want to ask all of you something, which was kind of what I was implying to in the OP.

Let's say it IS real, I mean you must give it some chance, some percent of being real. What does this then mean for science ? How would you explain it ?

Edited by Eldad Eshel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try passing the lighter under the wheel, not next to it. Careful not to set fire to it though. ;-)

 

All the examples I've watched have been fake or just delusion.... yes it moves, but it is not you moving it.

Edited by DrP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I can rule out the mundane reasons you claim it to be. Yet I know you will still rule this all out.

Anyway I want to ask all of you something, which was kind of what I was implying to in the OP.

Let's say it IS real, I mean you must give it some chance, some percent of being real. What does this then mean for science ? How would you explain it ?

"I can rule out the mundane reasons you claim it to be. "

Then do so.

"Yet I know you will still rule this all out."

No we won't; we are scientists.

However if you just pretend to have ruled them out then yes, you are right we will spot that.

 

So, until you actually do rule them out you are wasting time posting here.

 

And there's no point in science speculating on "what would happen..." when there's no chance that it will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it was movement from the heat from my hands (or any heat) I think it would move much more than it does.

 

Hoiw do you know how much more it would move? You don't.

 

 

It is not my breath and there are no air currents.

 

How do you know that? When you eliminate breath and air movements with a bowl it stops moving. That suggests you are wrong.

I put a lit lighter next to it, without trying to spin it telekinetically, it does not move.

 

That is a completely different source of heat and irrelevant.

 

I can rule out the mundane reasons you claim it to be.

 

You could, but you haven't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I put a lit lighter next to it, without trying to spin it telekinetically, it does not move.

I can rule out the mundane reasons you claim it to be. Yet I know you will still rule this all out.

Anyway I want to ask all of you something, which was kind of what I was implying to in the OP.

Let's say it IS real, I mean you must give it some chance, some percent of being real. What does this then mean for science ? How would you explain it ?

It is time to do the experiment and work out the percentage for real. I would say there is still a 50% chance it is real but it is up to you to prove that. Even if there is only minimal movement under the bowl, how much movement is there under the bowl when it is used as a control? You tell us, measure it.

For most others here the percentage is a big fat zero.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For most others here the percentage is a big fat zero.

 

I don't think it is possible to quantify that. Although the results so far would strongly suggest that "special" powers are not involved (especially as all other attempts to detect such powers have also failed).

 

Remember, we are not trying to decide between a number of causes that are known to exist. The decision is between something for which there is, so far, zero evidence and any number of things for which there is a lot of evidence. Therefore, this requires extraordinary levels of evidence to be convincing. We are nowhere near that yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE RR: "..there is a 50% chance it is real..."

 

Come on RR - what rot.. is this trolling? You have NO basis whatsoever to arrive at that figure. 50%? where did you pluck that figure from? Have you ever studied science at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE RR: "..there is a 50% chance it is real..."

 

Come on RR - what rot.. is this trolling? You have NO basis whatsoever to arrive at that figure. 50%? where did you pluck that figure from? Have you ever studied science at all?

EE was after our opinion. Darryl's videos have indicated there could be a percentage greater than zero.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE RR: "..there is a 50% chance it is real..."

 

Come on RR - what rot.. is this trolling? You have NO basis whatsoever to arrive at that figure. 50%? where did you pluck that figure from? Have you ever studied science at all?

76.26% of statistics are made up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who is Daryl? The guy with the bowl? I already said that it was clear he wasn't moving it with his mind... possibilities include micro air currents, forces from static, vibrations dislodging the thing from its precariously balanced equilibrium (which wasn't reached before he idiotically claimed TK anyway), and I have read other explanation like IR radiation (which I do not think likely - but more so than TK).

 

The only 'convincing' vids I saw were the ones that actually admitted to being fake in further vids. Don't believe all the claptrap you see on the internet, it is full of cheats, liers and complete dolts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EE was after our opinion. Darryl's videos have indicated there could be a percentage greater than zero.

 

So your 50% is based on "it might be true or it might not". That is not how statics works.

 

After thousands of people claiming to have such powers, and none of them being able to demonstrate them under controlled conditions, you have to insanely gullible to think that the probability is 50%. Possibly EE is the one person in the world who actually has a "power" but I find that far less likely than he is just fooling himself (and, apparently, you).

Edited by Strange
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So your 50% is based on "it might be true or it might not". That is not how statics works.

 

After thousands of people claiming to have such powers, and none of them being able to demonstrate them under controlled conditions, you have to insanely gullible to think that the probability is 50%. Possibly EE is the one person in the world who actually has a "power" but I find that far less likely than he is just fooling himself (and, apparently, you).

I'm just wanting him to do the experiment so I gave him a bit of encouragement.

Who is Daryl? The guy with the bowl? I already said that it was clear he wasn't moving it with his mind... possibilities include micro air currents, forces from static, vibrations dislodging the thing from its precariously balanced equilibrium (which wasn't reached before he idiotically claimed TK anyway), and I have read other explanation like IR radiation (which I do not think likely - but more so than TK).

 

The only 'convincing' vids I saw were the ones that actually admitted to being fake in further vids. Don't believe all the claptrap you see on the internet, it is full of cheats, liers and complete dolts.

We are not saying anyone is moving it with their minds, I just want to see if the wheel they focus on moves to a greater degree than the control.

How many of the failed attempts came onto Science forum first? Maybe EE is different than the others.

76.26% of statistics are made up.

That's a bit of a guess isn't it.

Edited by Robittybob1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE: "maybe EE is different to the others.."

 

How is he different!? He is using the same old psiwheel BS that has been debunked by many.

 

QUOTE: "We are not saying anyone is moving it with their minds.."

 

What!? That is exactly what is being claimed! If not then it is not telekinesis is it!?

 

I'm finished with it, unless he moves a feather under a bowl across a flat surface with out using static or some other cheat.... even then I would be sceptical as to his claim as so many have done this using cheats (for what reason? to get funding? a crap uni place, for shits and giggles?).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE: "maybe EE is different to the others.."

 

How is he different!? He is using the same old psiwheel BS that has been debunked by many.

 

QUOTE: "We are not saying anyone is moving it with their minds.."

 

What!? That is exactly what is being claimed! If not then it is not telekinesis is it!?

 

I'm finished with it, unless he moves a feather under a bowl across a flat surface with out using static or some other cheat.... even then I would be sceptical as to his claim as so many have done this using cheats (for what reason? to get funding? a crap uni place, for shits and giggles?).

The experiment only measures degrees of rotation and we are not testing for mechanism.

EE will be doing the experiment for us, that seems different.

We don't get involved with claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Was that alternative your suggestion? Whoever made the suggestion when I read it I thought it rather a nightmare to operate an experiment like that. So I left it at that, but the idea of switching the apparatus from one role to the other seems to have merit as long as it wasn't done at such a high frequency.

 

The same apparatus is used but also the alternative is being done alongside as well.

 

Calling switching every 10 minutes "high frequency" doesn't jibe here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If you don't determine what the mechanism is, how are you going to eliminate the claim of "special powers"?

Surely we only need to think in those terms if there is a statistical difference in the movement of the test and control wheels.

 

We can design an experiment looking for forces if that happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.