View topic - Wow NI must see this, and you must too.

PsiPog.net Forum Index » Skepticism » Wow NI must see this, and you must too.

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Wow NI must see this, and you must too.
Author	Message
Posted on Wed Jan 25, 2006 10:33 pm
LOTRfool Joined: 13 Jan 2006 Posts: 518	I'd rather not pick sides on this one, so I'll stick with saying I don't know.
Back to top
Posted on Wed Jan 25, 2006 11:06 pm
TelekinesisBoy Joined: 15 Jan 2006 Posts: 24	____________________________________________________________ More I hate to say this, but the irony just makes me laugh with glee. You try to explain this with science, while science DENIES telekinetic powers entirely. I hate to say it guys, but phsyics says it is impossible. ____________________________________________________________ really? i learned science to say NOTHINGS IMPOSSIBLE science is the study of things and how they work...so in this case science would be studing how this works...NOT HOW IT CANT OE WONT WORK plus i feel a little anger in the way you write your post i think that mabey you where upset that you where pretty much proven wrong by a very intelegent person so maybe you had to try to prove yourself right (which is hard because you are talking to people who have performed PK) I also feel that mabey you just dont know how to beleive and accept things...you are of course a common skeptic of the world this is jsut my opinion...plz dont rant on me for it...thanks
Back to top
Posted on Thu Jan 26, 2006 3:40 am
ErikJDurwoodII Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 16	Well, there?s nothing I can say that hasn?t been said before. Just because it doesn?t fit with our archaic physical model of science doesn?t mean it doesn?t exist. The_Zack sums it up in that the quantum sciences, as a subset of conventional physics, aims to explain the seemingly unobservable things that conventional physics can?t grasp. That doesn?t mean that good old fashioned physics will be thrown away as it does a good job explaining the observable interactions of the physical world. However it just doesn?t support anything that relies on variables that can?t be observed (physically). I.E. the mind. Zarin, I have debated with skeptics like you for many, many years. You sit on your throne spouting the same old things. You claim the ?laws? are absolute and unchanging. You say that if it?s not predictable and observable, then it?s not real or it doesn?t exist. There was an older gentleman a few years back who was a master of physics in his day, he taught at universities and won awards for his craft. But when the quantum sciences came about, he despised them with a passion claiming it was all bunk. That all of science must fit the classical model and the smallest particle was merely sub-atomic. Fact was, after he retired, he confessed that he was simply scared of quantum science. He knew just about all there was to know about physics. He was a respected leader of his field. But this new system he just couldn?t understand. He was scared. He was frightened that he would loose his power as he became the ?idiot? again. It is a common thing to be against change. Especially if you don?t understand it. But change will still happen and progress will still proceed. All around you the world will change to newer and greater modes of thinking. The mavericks that were once ridiculed for their beliefs will be the ones who may save the world from its intellectual stagnation and possible demise. You claim I don?t understand your points, but in fact, I do. I understand where you?re coming from probably more than you will know. I just don?t agree with you that the existence of PK has been entirely dis-proven. We just don?t have a solid testable model to work with to ?prove? our theories. But we?re working on it. We continue to get good results and we keep at it. And this is not a replacement for classical physics either, it?s a subset of physics dealing with non-physical quanta which classical physics can?t predict. You make such a tall order challenging us to ?lift a car over a house.? That?s like going up to a physicist and saying ?now that you have entangled two particles, built a teleporter and send me to the moon!? It?s like going up to a chemist and asking ?Now that you have that new protein string figured out, alter my DNA so I can regenerate my limbs overnight!? All you are saying is that ?there is no amount of proof you can give me that will satisfy me as I will pick apart any evidence you throw at me with stretched and cyclical logic.? I don?t find it un-reasonable for you to require a certain degree of ?proof? to challenge your views. Perhaps you can make a request that is more ? reasonable. You need to understand something. I am a man of science. I don?t just wake up in the morning and decide what to devote time to. I take everything 50/50 until I can test positive, or negative. It took over two years of research and experimenting to get to the point where I felt there was something to this PK stuff. It?s been a year since and I have worked with many individuals across the globe on the subject both in the scientific aspects as well at the more spiritual and metaphysical aspects. I have had over 9 years of experience studying and working with theoretical physics in the past. I recently worked with my local university on projects relating to this, and time after time, test after test, I ran into results that could not be explained by conventional physics, but they were results that still produced a test success. Experiments with a 98% success rate, some theories of classical physics don?t get that kind of reliability. Just because it doesn?t fit to conventional physics that it means it?s false, we just don?t have a complete theoretical system that supports it. But we?re working on it. Using quantum mechanics, we are forging a system of theories that may allow for things like PK to work even with a conventional model of physics above it. I have invested a lot of time and money into this and be assured, if I found it to be a dead end, I would have stopped by now. Can a psi-wheel be affected by static electricity, heat thermals, and even the cascade of light? Sure. But that?s what tests are for. The conditions of the test are supposed to eliminate external variables as best as possible while preserving the goal of the experiment. I have a prototype benchmarking tool that is able to give some strong evidence to a passive non-physical energy that affects its rotation. Here?s the original design: The testing conditions of this device include a level surface, even lighting conditions and that the practitioner be at least three feet from the device. The dome is a sealed glass chamber that has had 70% of the air removed. The wheel is static guarded and made of non-magnetic materials. The device is auto-leveling and has a photo sensor to count rotations up to a tenth of a degree in both directions. The center bearing is a polar-biased magnetic bearing giving for 360 degree rotation with almost no friction whatsover. The current prototype is not nearly as exact, however, it respond positively to direct command from a distance. The direction of rotation is arbitrarily chosen and the duration of rotation is also chosen at random. Success is determined if the wheel rotates in the intended direction for the intended period of time for a set duration, say fifteen minutes. Even the poorly built prototype is able to hold up to this testing. It shows matching behavior to the intended direction so well that it almost eliminates all possible variables that could interfere with the results. Simply put, if it isn?t the mind influencing this rotation, then this is one crazy coincidence. Physical science has little to no idea what the mind is. It goes beyond abstraction using current science. That doesn?t mean the mind doesn?t exist, just that we have not learned what it is yet. As far as science is concerned, we?re just getting started. Once again, I respect your views and defend your right to have them, but the fact that you simply cannot accept that I feel differently is something that nobody can fix. This post has gone off-topic enough so I will just leave it here. I?m done posting in this thread. There is no point in dragging this out any more. We?ll just keep repeating the same things. You can keep on believing that the world fits inside the little box of 400 year old laws and tired logic while I continue my research that continues to provide empirical evidence to support my theories. Take care. - Erik J. Durwood II (P.S. Off-Topic, I like your photographs. While our views on science differ, I can?t help but respect talent when I see it. I like the Konica Minolta DiMAGE Z10 digital camera too. I bought a Fiju FinePix s602 a few years back and it never seemed to have the built-in quality the Z10 had. Mine has pretty piss-poor light sensitivity ^__^)
Back to top
Posted on Thu Jan 26, 2006 2:49 pm
the_zack Joined: 16 Jan 2006 Posts: 13	Holy crap that regulation psiwheel is sweet!!!!!!!!!!!! Wow I want one of those! Nice post.
Back to top
Posted on Thu Jan 26, 2006 4:12 pm
Eldibs Joined: 12 Jan 2006 Posts: 909	Zarin, I would give up if I were you. You're fighting an uphill battle on your own against an army. And for the most part, nobody here really cares how much debunking you can do.
Back to top
Posted on Thu Jan 26, 2006 4:38 pm
CryoDude Joined: 19 Jan 2006 Posts: 180	Eldibs wrote: Zarin, I would give up if I were you. You're fighting an uphill battle on your own against an army. And for the most part, nobody here really cares how much debunking you can do. couldn't have said it better myself
Back to top
Posted on Thu Jan 26, 2006 6:23 pm
LucidSteve Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 38	Zarin wrote: Newton's Laws as you read this you will find that it speaks of objects moving without contact forces. Such things as magnets, or gravity. And I won't even link on how magnetism works, if you don't know, then you must have the knowledge base of a 10 year old. First of all, it's quite obvious, you havent tried TK on your own...but you just quote what other skeptics say in other sites. If you had tried TK seriously, you wouldnt argue at all. Anyway. Now you refer to Newton's Laws. To know, all the laws and all the equations are TAKEN from experiences...all are empirical. That means, when Newton said about the gravity, he had some base (all the objects fall)...we all know about the metal spheres he was throwing. He didnt say anything about TK, or abilities to atract - repel objects, because he didnt have any experience of that. Try to think of that, and dont be so sure. There are thousands of people who clain they did TK. All are mistaken?
Back to top
Posted on Thu Jan 26, 2006 6:58 pm
PotentiaL Joined: 12 Jan 2006 Posts: 46	That is one sweet psiwheel, I'd love to try and spin it Sorry for the off-topic post but that thing is amazing.
Back to top
bleh on Thu Jan 26, 2006 7:39 pm
kayimbo Joined: 17 Jan 2006 Posts: 23	the only thing i would add is in the future keep in mind we don't have to respond to this. these trolls will ruin our forums if we let them.
Back to top
Posted on Thu Jan 26, 2006 7:41 pm
mattz1010 Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 885	It's time to play Xgen's favourite pass-time! It's called Chop the Post! Zarin wrote: I guess I should be more specific for you. PHYSICS which is a branch of science, denies it. Because the subject relates only to physics... Oh, no it doesn't. It relates to common sense, proof, thermodynamics, and alot of other things, none of which I can remember as of now, but I'm sure just about anybody else here could name a few more. Quote: One could assume, especially since you "psychics" have such great mental capactiy. Use some logic mb? They always said assumptions were the mother of all fuckups. Quote: @TKgpp Dictionary.com wrote: Science - The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. Physics - Physical properties, interactions, processes, or laws I'm not sure why you looked at an encyclopedia for a word definition... most humans would look in a dictionary. I would rather look in a real dictionary than one on the internet. I guess that doesn't make me a 'normal' human? Quote: Dictionary.com wrote: Dictionary - A reference book containing an alphabetical list of words, with information given for each word, usually including meaning, pronunciation, and etymology. Encyclopedia - A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically. Psi-wheel in a glass case? Three objects in that case: Foil, pushpin, AIR. You cannot begin to imagine the powers that air can have over something. I'm going to have to say: Close minded. Very, very close minded. First of all, an encyclopedia can also display dictionary definitions, because some have encyclopaedia references in it to, relating to articles, people, and such. Didn't you think of that? I mean, come on, you're the rational-thinking, intelligent person. About that psiwheel. I'll have a video up in an hour or so, depending on upload speed, etc....I'll take the sound out of it, because, unless you want to hear shitty quality music in the background (due to the camera's low ability to capture sound) to reduce file size. I'll go from the basic steps of creating a psiwheel, and then get a glass and put it over the wheel. Then, i'll turn the fan on, to prove the wheel won't move under the glass. You're really stubborn, aren't you? And I won't hesitate to 'fix' any details you have. I'll tape the goddamn glass to the ground, if you're really going to be that much of an asshole. Quote: @ErikJDurwoodII Again, with the assumptions, it appears I need to be frank and descriptive to those with low logical capacities. Paint, does not have a blur tool. Paint, was used to add the text. Photoshop, or GIMP (however I am not familier with GIMP) does contain a blur tool. Again, with the assumptions, it appears I need to be frank and descriptive to those with low logical capacities. Paint, does not have a shadow tool. Nobody would go to the pain of putting a white version of the text at the top, then placing the black, 1 pixel left and 1 pixel above, and erasing some parts and blending others to look like real shadow. Nor, is that option available in paint. Photoshop does contain a blur tool. Do you want to see my bathroom? Do I have to take a video and a picture to prove to you that my walls can get scratched and DULL out? Could it possibly be from a doorstop? Are you really going to point out the smallest of points, all of which have many logical explanations, and then go "OMG0RZ IT WAS PHOTOSHOP LOL!!!!111"? Quote: Physics, has something called "laws" which if broken... well to be honest, they have never been broken to my knowledge. Well, finish your sentence. If they're broken, then what? Have they been proved wrong? Are you afraid of being wrong? Are you afraid of the possibility of your knowledge of physics to it's fullest extent, past that of scientists, is wrong? Quote: Because the mind does not give off a force, something that is ESSENTIAL to the movement of an object, it is but plain to realize "Gee, maybe because I'm not giving any force to this thing, it won't move." Because the mind does not give off a force...And where's your proof. Do you have videotapes, unedited ones, that prove that there's no psychic force, at all, coming from the mind? No. I didn't think so. Second of all, your second point becomes null, with my first argument. So, until you can faux my first, don't try to continue on with the rant. Quote: Newton's Laws as you read this you will find that it speaks of objects moving without contact forces. Such things as magnets, or gravity. And I won't even link on how magnetism works, if you don't know, then you must have the knowledge base of a 10 year old. You know, it's funny. Most of Newton's Laws are being replaced by Quantum Physics. Such things as magnets or 'omg! gravity!', concepts we've NEVER heard of before, right? Last time I heard, a psiwheel doesn't spin from gravity. And if it did, and was on an angle, (or else it wouldn't spin), it would need some detectable force to push it back up. There is nothing that supports infinite movement without continued force...(Whatever that word is. Something that has to do with continuous.) Quote: Now because I need to use small words for you folks apparently... Your brain, is not magnetic. Your brain, does not gravitate things to or from you. Hm. And I thought you earlier said we were supposed to be extremely smart and shit like that. If you really are going to be an 'intelligent' Homo Sapiens, I would reccomend reading the rest of the skeptics and modern sciences forums. They do contain things such as what psi is, and what forces they effect. Have you even maybe considered the existing possibility of the fact that psi ISN'T powered by magnetics? No. I didn't really think so. Quote: A possible explaination for the psiwheel is static electricity. Now you might be going "Dude, the psiwheel doesn't have to be metal!" well you know what? Neither do things affected by static electricity. Something so non-metalic as a LEAF could be affected. Having said that, static electricity can move things not in direct contact with it, or things that are concealed. It acts like magnetism. If you were to put a magnet in a glass case, could I use another magnet to move it? Yeah. Hm. And how does this psiwheel move all by itself, even from static electricity, if I do happen to be across the room? Does static electricity just move by itself, from you, across the room, to the wheel? No. It would affect objects near you. You know, since you're such a master of the 'obvious', you'd know something about grounding. Grounding would neutralize the static electricity forces, eh? No, really. Second of all. Do you see their hands following the wheel while it moves? No. That would then mean that their hands are NOT static-ly charged. If they were, they would have to then move their hands along with the wheel to spin it, which would also create wind force, thus, also moving the wheel. The only possible way that the wheel could move by itself, with your hand being positively or negatively charged, is that the wheel's alternating edges have the same charge as your hands and the middle has no charge. Therefore, the forces would push the wheel, attract the next edge, but then would have continued momentum to get past halfway of the next edge of the wheel. Quote: So without further ado, I present you with a challenge, that if completed, I will never EVER question tk again. Levitate a car, a full size car that you could drive. Using your "powers", lift it over a house, recording the ENTIRE process, showing the sky so you don't cheat with your silly helicopters You do that, I won't question again. Until then, Physical Science denies it. Hm. Have you even thought of how PK works? If you do, (Which I'm pretty sure you aren't, because you're taking a pretty biased view on this, so I won't bother to explain it. Some things in life, you actually have to learn for your self [Gasp! Z0mg!]) you'd know that it's impossible to get that recorded. I don't need to explain. As I say: learn for yourself, the truth. The truth won't set you free, but at least you'll know whether you're fucked in the afterlife or not. Quote: Humans are so egotistical. They think they are gods amoung other animals for their accomplishments, while we have done nothing but build ruin. We act so powerful, and claim we can do things with nothing but our mind. While we cower in fear if a wild animal is near us. Pathetic. ALSO, to the_zack, anybody could say anything, and thanks to technological advancements in video editing, anybody can claim anything. Who's to say that story is true at all. Again, assumptions. And, stereotypes. You're basing this on the world as a whole, and not even the world. You're not even seeing the point of this argument. And by saying the whole world is exactly like this, you put yourself in this stereotype, then proceed to insult it. Point 2: You're just a moron. Hypocritical, and annoying at that too. First of all, you want us to get a video of us lifting a car. Then you say we can edit the video. So, why do you propose something impossible to you? Are you really this ignorant to evidence? I mean, now I can't prove to you that the wheel won't move while under a glass. You just basically said: I want evidence! But I won't believe it if you show me everything even. You edited it. You fight against all odds, those including of your own 'proof'. And yet you continue to battle foolishly, to only your own ends. There's two things you could possibly be at this moment, and none of them have to do with either skeptic, or cynic. It's narcissist, and elitist. As the ever-wise say: "pwnt."
Back to top
Jeez. on Thu Jan 26, 2006 8:20 pm
73_Energy Joined: 23 Jan 2006 Posts: 23	Whats that guy's problem? Maybe he tried to be psychic but failed and got mad at the world? And why would someone (such as NI) lie like that to people? Other people aren't really as bad as some people think, we're all human, so why fight. Work together to find a solution that fits both sides of an argument.
Back to top
Posted on Thu Jan 26, 2006 8:37 pm
Eldibs Joined: 12 Jan 2006 Posts: 909	Whatever his problem is, it appears he is in for a very heavy pwning from mattz1010, as if the ones he has already received weren't enough. Quote: Are you really going to point out the smallest of points, all of which have many logical explanations, and then go "OMG0RZ IT WAS PHOTOSHOP LOL!!!!111"? <sarcasm type="extreme"> Why explain things logically, when you can blame photoshop? I mean, it's not like NI would ever have a scratch on his wall, his hand obviously slipped when he was photoshopping that picture, and he conveniently forgot about the undo function. </sarcasm>
Back to top
Posted on Fri Jan 27, 2006 9:52 am
randywm Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 510	I stick by NI. Hes been a contributing member to psi community. i think i can trust him
Back to top
Posted on Fri Jan 27, 2006 3:35 pm
the_zack Joined: 16 Jan 2006 Posts: 13	Wow we sure got some great responses to this!
Back to top
Posted on Fri Jan 27, 2006 11:39 pm
mattz1010 Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 885	Sure as hell we did. And before I make my next point, I'm going to point out I have no idea how to fuck around with AVI, MPG, WMV, or any other sort of - (aha, VOB) - video program..or anything like that. I have no knowledge of screwing around with that stuff, and I'm horrible with photoshop. Just to let you know. I'm going to record a really long video, that does many things. 1) videotapes me creating the psiwheel and setting it up to prove there's no fucking around going on. 2) videotapes me blowing air, and trying to get it to look like it's spinning psychically. 3) videotapes me using a fan to do the previous 4) videotapes me putting the psiwheel UNDER A GLASS, and then blowing air to it 5) repeat 4 with fan. 6) tapes the glass to the ground, repeats 7) uses a magnet to 'move' the coin under the glass, will have the camera moving around to prove i'm not hiding anything Small thing though, the magnet I have is attracted to the coin...so it couldn't possibly push it away unless I charged the coin beforehand. So...yeah. That's basically it, I'm going to prove all the skeptics, with their crackpot theories wrong. (Notice the wobble when you blow on the wheel)
Back to top

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

PsiPog.net Forum Index » Skepticism » Wow NI must see this, and you must too.