Scientific PROOF of Teleportation, telekinesis and channeling!!!

"All those who believe in telekinesis, raise my hand. "

From what I've read, it's only stating that they have found a possible mechanism as to how psi phenomena may occur. That's not to say that it is scientific proof, just that they have found a new way in which sub atomic particles interact with one another

Here is an experiment on Teleportation that the Illuminati did.

It is called The True Story of the Philadelphia Experiment



So I think Teleportation can be done with our current technology, but the rest of what the guy says, like another poster said, is up for debate.

reply to post by Quickfix


It was to my understanding that the Philadelphia experiment was a hoax. Also wasn't it supposedly the navy who did the experiment not the illuminati?

Philadelphia Experiment - Evidence

Philadelphia Experiment

reply to post by Slevinq


Does this paper qualify as science? Let's examione the opening line of the summary:

The coherent physical theory of Psi phenomena, like remote vision, telepathy, telekinesis,
remote healing, clairvoyance - is absent till now due to its high complexity and multilateral
character

What legitimate scientist/researcher uses the word "till" instead of "until"?

The videos also use a lot of bogus nonsense, in a similar vein as What the Bleep.

In general, any claims of "psi" ability that is backed by the mysteries of quantum physics is a load of B. arbara S. treissand.

If you want to examine some real science behind teleportation & telekinesis check out Kaku's book "Physics Of The Impossible".

Well, I tried to read through the paper, got my coffee, smoke, and was all ready to understand just what it is that was being said

after 20 minutes on page 1, I decided to just stick a screwdriver through the screen as it was mocking me and making me feel stupid. Will let brilliant scientists peer review this and then if found to be positive, dumb it down to at least a batchlors degree level

Its my understanding though that this is not proof, but is just a hypothesis...this paper being the hypothesis

Here is the author's bio:
Alex Kaivarainen
some good and solid credentials overall, seems to now be drifting towards "fringe" science areas..and I say kudo's...science is about finding unexplained areas and testing/understanding them...fringe science is labelled that due to non-understanding...its sort of the job of scientists to explore the areas verses shun them.
our current mainstream scientists do a disservice by ignoring such areas.

But again, ya...will let others figure this out whom can read this stuff the same way I can read scripts

I think the most disturbing thing I seen on the thread was someone (not saying who) calling him a quack for no real reason...thats to be expected I guess as people tend to dismiss what is outside of their belief system...but the fact that said person got a few stars from others only reinforces a starting demand for ignorance.

Science is not religion folks...If you cannot accept a hypothesis simply based on a belief system (in this case that such forces cannot exist), then what you have is a religion, not a scientific view.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
What legitimate scientist/researcher uses the word "till" instead of "until"?

This guy:

Education:
[1964-1969] – a graduate of University of Petrozavodsk, Department of Physics, Russia;
[1970-1974] - postgraduate course at Laboratory of Physics of Biopolymers, Institute of Molecular Biology, USSR Academy of Science, Moscow, Russia.

Degrees:
[1974] - Ph.D. in Biophysics.
Institute of Biophysics, USSR Academy of Science, Moscow-Pushino, USSR;
[1981] - Academic senior researcher in molecular biology. USSR Academy of Science, Moscow;
[1989] - Doctor of Science in Physics & Mathematics (D. Sc.). Specialization: ‘biophysics’. Scientific and Technical Association of the USSR Academy of Science, Leningrad, USSR.

Employment in Russia (1980-1990):
Head of Laboratory of Molecular Biophysics, Institute of biology, Research Centre,
USSR Academy of Science. Petrozavodsk, Karelia - Russia.
Supervisor of number of Ph D. dissertations.
Employment during (1991-2004):
Researcher positions in different universities of Finland:
- University of Turku - Wihuri research laboratory, grant of "Koneen saatio" for book writing;
- University of Joensuu - Dept. of physics;
- University of Oulu - Dept. of Biophysics.

Short and medium-term invited visits:
- Italy (Pisa, Institute of atomic and molecular physics), 3 month visit;
- Italy (tour of lectures in Universities of Rome, Bari, Pisa, Messina);
- USA (University of Tucson, Arizona, Research Center of Consciousness);
- USA (University of Miami, FL, Dept. of physical chemistry);
- Russia (Petrozavodsk state university, Dept. of applied mathematics), short visits;
- USA (Sedona, AZ, “Flan technology Co.”, invited as a consultant), 2 months visit;
- USA (Anchorage, Alaska, invited as a consultant), 1 month visit;
- Japan (Hokkaido University, Inst. of Electronics), 3 month visit – grant of Sasakawa foundation;
- Japan (Osaka, “Muscle Co.”, invited as a consultant),10 days visit.

Scientist...not english major...grammar is not creating microwave ovens and rocketry.

Originally posted by tigpoppa
reply to post by Slevinq

 

There is nothing scientific about this paper. In fact it is just theory with no empirical evidence to support the wild claims. Looks like just another crackpot with a typewriter and too much time on their hands too me. Then again I am a scienctist and would have shredded his paper and his reputation.

Your open-mindedness is the fuel which will propel us forward.

Chakra meditation., 12 densities.

Originally posted by TimeCrisis
I don't need to know how it works, I just use it

LOL, the same here. I am of a personality type that just gets the job done, less than 1 1/2 percent of the population and don't confuse me with facts, it works. What I am saying is, I wanted to do telekinesis a year ago and focused for a few months, with major sick headaches, vibrations and all the fun stuff. I succeeded in the end doing simple stuff, it is real as well as sending energy to others. Plus a lot more is happening. Have fun!

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Scientist...not english major...grammar is not creating microwave ovens and rocketry.

With all that education he should learn proper form in publishing his work. To be fair, I nitpicked the opening line. Now I'll nitpick the rest of it. The guy is using some mysteries of quantum physics to attempt to validate pseudoscientific claims, and doing it in the 'blinding us with science' template. This is hardly new and is, in fact, the latest trend in validating magical beliefs.

Though a lengthy paper that I didn't read all the way through, I can't seem to find the experiments that validate his claims. I would expect that there is a "remote healer" that was confirmed to have "cured" a sick person, and the mechanisms involved in this process should have been documented and subject to testing so that it could be repeated and reproduced. I don't see that, but instead references to other scientific claims and lengthy formulas which require his added 2 pages of abbreviation explanations to decipher. This paper doesn't even appear to be valid for peer review.

Originally posted by dug88
Hey a quick search for bivacuum on google gave a link to another paper by the same author: www.journaloftheoretics.com...

Here's a quote from the summary:

Bivacuum, as a Matrix for Matter, Fields & Time Origination.
Virtual Pressure Waves, Virtual Replicas and Overunity Devices
Alex Kaivarainen
University of Turku,

EXTENDED SUMMARY
New concept of Bivacuum is elaborated, as a dynamic superfluid matrix of the Universe with
large domains of virtual Bose condensation, standing for their nonlocal properties. Bivacuum is
represented by continuum of subquantum particles and antiparticles of the opposite energies, with
properties of quantum liquids, separated by energy gap.

I did the same thing. This guy is the only person on Earth who uses the expression "bivacuum," and he never really defines it in a comprehensible way. If I understand it properly, "bivacuum" is an all pervading fluid composed of matter that is not matter and energy that is not energy; in other words, he's talking about "aetheric fluid." I am beginning to suspect he got his degree by being an exceptionally good Party member.

While creating this thread, i did not think that it is going to become popular, since it is one of my first attempts at finding an interesting topic.
I guess ATS is very hungry for SCIENCE. ...... as i am

So, i notice that the thread is being flagged a lot but i guess that members do not post so much on it since the ARTICLE is a lot of MATH and physics... Here's the solution i've come up with: Someone who has the understanding of such science and the time needed to just summarize briefly the main evidence and conclusions of the article. Just post it in the thread so more people can actually think about its credibility....

Thank you for your efforts.

Originally posted by Slevinq
Someone who has the understanding of such science and the time needed to just summarize briefly the main evidence and conclusions of the article.

The paper doesn't seem to have any scientific merit. It doesn't even appear to meet the basic requirements for peer review.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


I never claimed that the paper is THE PROOF , there is unfortunately no such thing as THE PROOF of anything. People on this planet are such a tough crowd, that it will take at least 50 PAPERS and 100 experiments to even convince them that they are alive, conscious and breathing.....

I simply tried to report to you about YET another evidence of the mentioned phenomenons.

I do not wish to dig other such articles, experiments and research as the sources are plenty and need only a brief google or whatever search, i do not aim to convince anybody of it. Whoever wants to believe, will believe and that is how the story goes..... Plus, considering that these phenomena are widely discussed and heard of EVEN throughout history is a testimony of its own right.

No further comments.....Yet.

This paper does not claim to be proof of these phenomena. It offers itself as, "a Possible Explanation of Psi Phenomena." A possible scientific basis for something does not constitute proof. To be proof it would have to offer compelling evidence that the hypothesized phenomena (alleged psychic phenomena in this case) are consistently, reproducibly, and verifiably described by the interaction discussed therein. It would also have to be peer reviewed, and found to be sound.

This is not proof, nor does it promote itself as proof. (That is not an assertion that these phenomena do not exist or happen.)

reply to post by Slevinq


If that is the case, you should change the name of the thread. I agree with the above poster that this is just a proposal on how these things could be possible. Stuff like this probably has to be pretty incremental too. Maybe this paper has/will casue the issue to be addressed witha bit more integrity from some scientists with pull.

Originally posted by Slevinq
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

I never claimed that the paper is THE PROOF ,

But that's the title of the OP.

Plus, considering that these phenomena are widely discussed and heard of EVEN throughout history is a testimony of its own right.

No, it isn't, any more than tales about unicorns throughout history demonstrate the existence of unicorns. Testimony does not constitute valid evidence.

I can't seem to find legitimate science or falsifiable experimentation in the paper. If I am mistaken please direct me to that portion of the paper.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Scientist...not english major...grammar is not creating microwave ovens and rocketry.

With all that education he should learn proper form in publishing his work. To be fair, I nitpicked the opening line. Now I'll nitpick the rest of it. The guy is using some mysteries of quantum physics to attempt to validate pseudoscientific claims, and doing it in the 'blinding us with science' template. This is hardly new and is, in fact, the latest trend in validating magical beliefs.

Its a hypothesis..its not a peer reviewed conclusion.
hypothesis is not about how they had proven anything, its an attempt to outline methodology on how to attempt to start proving.

What your arguing is that someone somewhere is considering challenging current understandings...says more about you than them to be complaining about it to begin with...should the scientific community simply never consider anything new because someone may object to it on religious grounds?

I appreciate what your saying overall, however, your confusing the OPs thread title (proof) with this guys hypothesis. Consider the character assassination going on already by some here not for what this guy is claiming as proof, but what someone else (then ops) has labelled on him.

not good...not good at all.

Its basically starting a rumor about someone and then others jumping on the bandwagon slamming that someone based on the rumor as if it was fact.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummerWhat legitimate scientist/researcher uses the word "till" instead of "until"?

What legitimate "skeptic" uses such an utterly weak argument? Till & until are interchangeable, by the way. Also, not all scientists/researchers are native English speakers.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
This is hardly new and is, in fact, the latest trend in validating magical beliefs.

Wanted to chime in once more on this post for this line specifically.

I find this perhaps the most telling of all. magical beliefs.

I won't go through the same tired arguments of how everything used to be considered magical, but instead, will prove to you that, by your definition, I personally am magical.

1) I can speak and you can hear me, no matter the distance (well, some caveats to that, but say...if your on earth)

2) I can think and you will be able to read my thoughts if I choose it.

3) I can draw a picture and can then have you see it, even when a million miles away.

Now, from a first glance, this is nothing but magic I am speaking of (I am sure your catching on by now where this is going).
Imagine someone 2000 years old coming across a computer or cell phone...they would see it magical.
We have the ability now, by using electricity and transistors as a medium, to make my magical claims a reality, and indeed a very normal part of life.

Now, imagine if instead of the 2000 year old man brought here, I (or you) was transported back and claimed that we could do all these things by controlling electricity and creation of mechanical devices to send this "energy" around the world. People would think I was talking magical crap.

Your mindset you wrote of how anything yet undiscovered must be magical only proves that you are unable to understand progression and development of forces in nature and their use. one day we may indeed find a force within us that allows us to bypass the technological means we are used to today to achieve what is considered magical (moving stuff via mind power, etc).

Nothing is magical, much is not currently understood, and the moment you start labelling something magical (even sarcastically) shows you are using science and todays understanding as a religion. When these things are uncovered and proven, and devices created to harnass the understanding forces to create yet more normal day to day devices, will you then say they are using magic, or they simply used a force that was previously undocumented, but fully natural and normal...

Why must there be an active application using something you do not currently understand before you accept you may not know it all? Science is not a religion...Science is not a religion...Science is not a religion.

Say it over and over until you understand...then applaud this guy whom is testing out yet unknown things to see if we can make a new cell phone one day...he may waste his entire life trying to prove something that has yet to be proven (as Einstein did in QP/unification theory in his later years)...or he may in his lifetime get enough results to go from hypothesis to theory, and perhaps even conclusion/development.