A Physicist says he got strong evidence that human mind is capable of influencing matter

Problem with these kinds of threads is so many WANT this to be true. It's just like Ufology. How many parents want their children to be special so much they'll see specialness when it doesn't exist? People don't care about real science in these cases, they just want what they believe to be confirmed. If something doesn't confirm it then it's very uncomfortable and eventually is discarded in favor of things which do, even if they're few.

I just feel that since so many people want this to be true and are vulnerable to psuedo-science then I can't trust these threads. Yet I also understand science can suffer from the spotlight effect or have its own prejudices. If science, for example, scoffs at paranormal phenomena, few will get any funding to do research. If no research is performed then nobody can prove it scientifically. In this way, science could be missing out revolutionary advances. Yet the problem is people who want paranormal phenomena to be true will use this argument everytime to suggest "We're being put down over the barrel! Science is a fraud!" They're just as guilty!

It's also possible it's real yet can't be proven. For that to be true God or the supernatural agency behind it all would have to be immensely capable of both preventing proof and correcting their mistakes.

I notice some negative or at least some whom dismiss this. It does exist, I have tested it, succeeded in the end. I am here to say, it was a painful journey and gave me severe headaches in the end. Nothing spectacular, just spinning 3-4 discs at the same time and later from a greater distance, even across town. I tried while 40 miles away with my wife on the phone and they would not move.

Then a whole lot of crap interupted my life, I quit and that brought out the final proof I needed. Same discs, same house and even the same tables with the same isolation used then, I cannot do it any longer. I know I can, but have to dedicate the enerby over a time period and perhaps get sick again to do so. Writing a book right now, so putting this aside for a while.

lol
in the first video if you look closely when the guy turns the camera toward his friends standing near him the lights are not moving
while just seconds before you can clearly see the ones for the out in the middle of the pond are moving
I would assume that this is because there's no wind that's able to affect the surface of the water at that location due to the embankment

I'm even willing to go as far as to say that they probably had someone standing far off camera who would detect the wind movement well before it arrived at the two gentlemen standing near the body of water indicating to them that the wind was about to pick up or possibly some early warning system of detecting the wind before it arrives at their location
hence this is how he knew when to do his little so-called magic trick

sorry but I say it's a joke
this isn't even science and probably shouldn't even be posted in this section of the forums

The force is just becoming real.

I have found the source of this power, its called gobbdlygook. I have big cans of if for sale for only $9.99 a piece. If you order now I will send a copy of my book titled "Becoming the BS Artist you WANT to be".

originally posted by: sailormon
I notice some negative or at least some whom dismiss this. It does exist, I have tested it, succeeded in the end. I am here to say, it was a painful journey and gave me severe headaches in the end. Nothing spectacular, just spinning 3-4 discs at the same time and later from a greater distance, even across town. I tried while 40 miles away with my wife on the phone and they would not move.

Then a whole lot of crap interupted my life, I quit and that brought out the final proof I needed. Same discs, same house and even the same tables with the same isolation used then, I cannot do it any longer. I know I can, but have to dedicate the enerby over a time period and perhaps get sick again to do so. Writing a book right now, so putting this aside for a while.

Yeah, sure...
Whatever...
Another hearsay 'testimony' with no evidence...

"Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true." - Demosthenes

originally posted by: booyakasha
There definitely needs to be more mainstream scientific research in the area.

The problem occurs when real scientific research brings results that tells there is nothing paranormal... people tend then to call research as biased/bad and rather believe in fairy tales...

There was an MIT study in the 90's about this in relation to computer generated randomness. The study later went on to explore its effects on physical randomness (pachinko style machines among others).

The study was originally allowed because it would be a decent study into the properties of randomness, but continued when it found evidence of conscious manipulation of the environment. I would post a video but it seems to be notoriously hard to find now a days, probably due to the hard to search key words. I'll update with a video if I find it.

E: Found the video, it was from Princton. vimeo.com...

Can you guys troll less please, this place used to be about research into the unknown and unexplained, now its just a # show half the time...

originally posted by: Nodrak

The study was originally allowed because it would be a decent study into the properties of randomness, but continued when it found evidence of conscious manipulation of the environment.

Except it didn't. It's not even a remotely scientific study. There's absolutely no objective way (or even defined criteria) for defining a significant event and all of the supposed correlation with the numbers is applied retrospectively. Basically, at any given point when the random numbers appear non-random (because, ya'know, that's what happens with statistical fluctuations), there's usually something going on somewhere in the world that you can associate it with.

Of course, when the numbers appear non-random and there isn't really anything significant going on that the experimenters are aware of, they don't get marked down as failures. It's the classic "OMG I was JUST about to call you!" confirmation bias. No one remembers the thousands of times your friend called you when you weren't just about to call them.

a reply to: GetHyped

Did you watch the video?

a reply to: Nodrak

Have you bothered to read anything about the experiment that doesn't conform with your beliefs? Like, actual scientific takedowns of the experiment?

Or even my post?

In my mind, it's like controlling a light switch with your mind. It's cool but you only have two options - on or off, yes or no. Maybe one of those paper fortune tellers is a better example. Fold, unfold. Fold, unfold. Fold together, unfold together. We make it fold or unfold by observing it or "measuring" it. We don't control how or what it does, only when.

a reply to: GetHyped

I read you post. I have looked into this field with great detail. The lab has been running for 28 years:
www.princeton.edu...

Sample of their control vs experiment data over 120,000 iterations.

a reply to: Nodrak

Then perhaps you would care to address anything I've said in my post.

Let's start at the beginning:

1) What is the criteria for objectively identifying what is and isn't a significant event?

2) Considering that at any given time there are numerous significant events going on in the world, how is it objectively deduced that a given statistical fluctuations of randomness is associated with the claimed significant event and not any other event?

3) Anyone can attach meaning to randomness retrospectively, so how are the so-called correlations between statistical fluctuations and arbitrarily selected significant events differentiated from simply associating any random event going on at any given time with any given random statistical fluctuation?

a reply to: GetHyped

You are obviously not looking into what I posted, so I am done after this post.

The events are an in-house machine that is proven to be random over hundreds of thousands of 'events' as you call them. They are not measuring climate change or some bull#. They discuss the relative proximity of people and the quantity of conscious observers playing a role on the magnitude of the 'events'.

By definition statistical randomness is random to a certain degree, which the study shows falls outside of the results they achieved.

I think you need to do some research.

originally posted by: Nodrak
a reply to: GetHyped

You are obviously not looking into what I posted, so I am done after this post.

You haven't addressed anything I've said so yeah, I think we're done here. Keep believing though, feels > reals.

a reply to: GetHyped

Bah one last bite.

12 Year Review white paper that should hold all your answers if you care to do some reading: www.princeton.edu...

But keep trolling...

a reply to: Nodrak

Then by all means post the pertinent parts that address specifically to my points.

I assume you've read it and not posted up random stuff you've googlef, right?

MOD NOTE..............
You are responsible for your own posts.

Posting off topic, bickering, and snide remarks do not further productive discussion of a topic.

Further off topic posts will be appropriately removed.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

correct me if I'm wrong but evidence is something factual
....correct?

call me a stickler for the rules but last I checked that would require undeniable repeatable results every single time

and last I checked random is not undeniable or repeatable
....well not on any consistent basis anyway