An idea for a psychic experiment

[vortexpoint]

I've had this idea for awhile and while it would require a cooperation of a lot of people, I find it interesting as a concept. So the theory goes that every human has at least a little bit psychic energy capable of making at least a tiny observable effect. How ever if we gather let's say 10 000 or 100 000 people to concentrate on same task there should be a lot bigger effect, right?

So if we are testing for example telekinesis we could gatherer the participants in the same room (or a stadium if we get enough people). Then in the middle we would but a scale and we would but an object on the scale. Then we would tell everybody to concentrate on lifting the object with their mind. Then we would observe if indeed the scale would show any difference in the weight of the object.

So what you guys think? Would that kind of test work and what would you think would happen?

[araucaria]

There is already plenty of scientific evidence that such things as telekinesis work; see Lynne McTaggart’s The Field for example, which reports on the findings of metaresearch combining large quantities of studies into all kinds of psychic phenomena, such as group healers reducing the violence in a given area, or prayer improving a patient’s health.


If you want to test the power of a stadium, that too has already been done. There have been soccer matches at Liverpool where the only thing preventing the ball from entering the home side’s net has been the crowd

We know perfectly well that we can move mountains if we put our collective mind to the task. All that is needed is focused intent; we are not there yet, but we are getting there.

[heretogrow]

That is an interesting idea. At home we play with a science toy that has liquid inside. It is called a hand boiler. When held in the hand the liquid rises and bubbles as if it is boiling. My family practices making the liquid rise with our minds. My dad, my daughter and I can make it rise easily even while concentrating in another room. My mom and my boyfriend can't make the liquid rise yet. They don't believe it will work.

My daughter took this toy to school and her teacher did many experiments with it, including seeing if the children could make the liquid rise with their minds. Many of them could. He concluded that the liquid was simply rising due to the room temperature. When she brought it back home we tested this theory and found that room temperature was not always a contributing factor. When the toy was left unattended and no one was concentrating on moving the liquid it sat in the open with the liquid still in the bottom. Only when we thought of the liquid did it rise to the top. You can buy one of these on amazon for about $6. It is a good way to practice and build telekinetic skills IMO.

Also try busting clouds with your mind. It is easier to bust them than it is to manifest them where you want them but that is good practice as well. We stumbled upon all this by accident. We did not know this was possible. It was one of life's little surprises that makes it so much more interesting. Belief in the process and intuition are keys to making this phenomenon successful. When there is a doubter in the group they can actually slow or stop the process. In time you will be able to sense who the one is that is doubting as well.

All in all its good fun and good practice. Just be careful with he hand boiler. It is made of glass and it is very fragile.

Much Love. And good luck testing your skills,
Julia

[RunningDeer]

I use to have three Christmas balls that looked like bubbles hanging from my ceiling by thread at different lengths over my bed. It gave the illusion that they were floating.

A friend randomly picked the ball for me to move. He’d upped the challenge and have me swing one left to right, back and forth, or make it circle. I did while the other two were stationary. Then for the grand finale he had me swing them all.

How I did it was I saw them moving in present time. I had him try it. He didn’t believe he was doing it without my help. So I told him don’t tell me which ball you pick and just make it move. It worked. He still didn’t believe he did it. Which also demonstrated that even when one doesn’t believe the abilities are there.

If you try it you may feel a sensation in the heart, stomach or belly button region. How I’d describe it’s like when you are swinging really high on the a swing and just as you’re about to come back down there’s that tickle sensation. After awhile, I streamlined it. I just saw them moving in my mind’s eye. Today, I'd go with my heart region. I've learned it's my 'hot spot'.

Dear Mike,

In case your read this post: Please, don’t ask me to prove by filming it.

• Reason A: balls are gone
• Reason B: so is boyfriend


Love, Paula

[Meggings]

It is lovely to read of these experiences. RunningDeer wrote that she'd feel the energy "in heart, stomach or belly button region". When little, I played a lot with energy for the sheer joy of it. I could make energy come out of my middle section and curve down to the ground. This lifted me up and I would run like the wind with my toes barely scraping the surface of the sidewalk. In public school I used to win red ribbons for running so fast.

A year or so ago, I visited another lifetime at Qumram in the Holy Land (about 2000 years ago), where a silent call for urgent meeting had gone out, and then from all around came wise women moving quickly over the rough ground with their toes barely touching the surface. It was the same way of travelling my soul still remembered how to do in this present body incarnation.

As we become aware of our expanded abilities, we will begin to explore them and use them. An example was a few years ago I was emailing someone in Australia and my interest was taken by his communication with SYLPHS of the air. It had not occurred to me that this could be done by simply intending it. The upshot was that I'd gone outside for something, and looked up. To my shock I recognized a sylph. I ran inside to get my camera and took this photo of it, hanging there in a clear and cloudless sky. It lasted only a few minutes, showing itself to me in recognition of my new awareness of its existence.

As we become more aware, we see more. We do more. We expand.
Attachment 29207

[vortexpoint]

Thank you all for the examples!

For the stadium experiment you would probably need to filter out all the sceptics so they don't ruin the experiment. Araucaria: While there might be some validity in your Liverpool example, it is impossible to prove.

The hand boiler sounds interesting. There's also a psi wheel which is pretty easy to make for yourself.

[Agape]

For the stadium experiment you would probably need to filter out all the sceptics so they don't ruin the experiment. Araucaria: While there might be some validity in your Liverpool example, it is impossible to prove.

You may be very right here , I recall that in old times to now ..in case of any serious magical or prayer gathering , more special it is ..
similarly to certain 'social occasions' what we do is filter the Skeptics out of the gathering , first of all .

[araucaria]

Posted by vortexpoint (here)
For the stadium experiment you would probably need to filter out all the sceptics so they don't ruin the experiment. Araucaria: While there might be some validity in your Liverpool example, it is impossible to prove.

Not necessary: they are drowned out by thousands of non-sceptics, who are fully aware of playing an active role even though they are only spectators. There is massive proof that it works: it is known as home advantage. In spectator sports, home teams invariably do highly significantly better than when playing away. And with most of the other parameters, it is a level playing field. But proof is only another name for statistical probability. You need to experience a few statistical improbabilities for yourself to understand that 100% proof is itself a statistical improbability.

[vortexpoint]

Posted by araucaria (here)

Posted by vortexpoint (here)
For the stadium experiment you would probably need to filter out all the sceptics so they don't ruin the experiment. Araucaria: While there might be some validity in your Liverpool example, it is impossible to prove.

Not necessary: they are drowned out by thousands of non-sceptics, who are fully aware of playing an active role even though they are only spectators. There is massive proof that it works: it is known as home advantage. In spectator sports, home teams invariably do highly significantly better than when playing away. And with most of the other parameters, it is a level playing field. But proof is only another name for statistical probability. You need to experience a few statistical improbabilities for yourself to understand that 100% proof is itself a statistical improbability.

The problem with home advantage in my opinion is that you really can't say how much is caused by psychic power and how much caused by psychology (if it is even possible to differentiate between the two) and other factors. Teams that are not playing in home have to travel which causes more fatique and stress, which might affect statistics.

[Tesla_WTC_Solution]

Some folks think certain forms of ESP are related to stress levels, and on that basis it's quite difficult to structure a test capable of testing ESP in those situations.
Not to say that this hasn't been going on for thousands of years... !

I guess there would need to be a division made between "on demand" ESP and "reactive" ESP;
some people don't manifest until things reach a certain point whereas others seem able to "summon" their abilities at will.

What made you think of this, OP?

[araucaria]

Posted by vortexpoint (here)

Posted by araucaria (here)

Posted by vortexpoint (here)
For the stadium experiment you would probably need to filter out all the sceptics so they don't ruin the experiment. Araucaria: While there might be some validity in your Liverpool example, it is impossible to prove.

Not necessary: they are drowned out by thousands of non-sceptics, who are fully aware of playing an active role even though they are only spectators. There is massive proof that it works: it is known as home advantage. In spectator sports, home teams invariably do highly significantly better than when playing away. And with most of the other parameters, it is a level playing field. But proof is only another name for statistical probability. You need to experience a few statistical improbabilities for yourself to understand that 100% proof is itself a statistical improbability.

The problem with home advantage in my opinion is that you really can't say how much is caused by psychic power and how much caused by psychology (if it is even possible to differentiate between the two) and other factors. Teams that are not playing in home have to travel which causes more fatique and stress, which might affect statistics.

I think you are overstating the need for laboratory conditions and scientific proof. Let me explain. Proof is merely a theoretical basis on which to experiment. It is a tenet of mainstream science that the observer has an effect on the experiment. In the two slit experiment, a beam of photons behaves differently when it is being watched. Although this is not the conventional interpretation, in terms of psychokinesis this is proof of concept, and as such a basis for engineering projects partly based on trial and error as it is scaled up.

The burden of proof has been overstated and misused. If scientific evidence is used to invalidate last month’s health recommendations before being replaced by next month’s, it flies in the face of first-hand experience and people end up rejecting the scientific method as being patently inadequate. On the other hand, if I can get you to see a picture of a young woman in one of an old woman (the well-known optical illusion, I haven’t proven anything, or even done anything, apart from observing you observing, but what you have once seen you cannot unsee: that is the incontrovertible evidence of your own eye without the need for laboratory conditions.

Take this into a football stadium. What I find interesting is the way the paranormal appears normal. Why should shouts of encouragement from supporters enable players to achieve things they didn’t know they were capable of? It is a non-paranormal psychic effect. A paranormal psychic effect would be for example when the ball is heading for goal with no one but the crowd to stop it. When it suddenly veers past the post, it is an unprovable miracle that can always be dismissed in terms of ballistic or meteorological considerations. But if the ball were suddenly to change direction completely, would that constitute proof? No, it would merely become a UFO

But science is also about predicting. I can pull off a few strange (unpredictable) things with a tennis ball, and I do it often enough for my usual opponents to expect a couple of inexplicable shots. Predicting the unpredictable is not hard science, but the reality of the phenomenon is certainly established in the mind of the predictor.

Another normal area involving the so-called paranormal is teaching. If I teach a child to ride a bike, all I do is provide a psychic boost and remove one physical parameter: a wobbly saddle. I hold onto the saddle for a short while until the psychic boost is enough to do the job. The child doesn’t learn to ride, it simply begins to ride. Riding is merely modified walking and a newborn baby walks instinctively months before its legs can bear its weight (it is a routine test at birth to check that everything is OK). We have these innate abilities that are only paranormal until they become normal. It is not a matter of waiting for science to explain it: as the saying goes, those who can, do; those who can’t, teach.

One more somewhat similar example is the placebo effect. There is no mainstream scientific explanation for why there should be such a thing as a placebo effect at all. And yet as an established part of experimental protocol (a drug must be shown to be significantly better than placebo), this unproven concept is an acknowledged part of science: it is something that has been seen and cannot be unseen. “Placebo” is Latin for “I shall please”, and as a declaration of mind taking precedence over matter, it is 100% antiscientific, at least to the extent that science fails to come to grips with mind.

[vortexpoint]

Posted by araucaria (here)

Posted by vortexpoint (here)

Posted by araucaria (here)

Posted by vortexpoint (here)
For the stadium experiment you would probably need to filter out all the sceptics so they don't ruin the experiment. Araucaria: While there might be some validity in your Liverpool example, it is impossible to prove.

Not necessary: they are drowned out by thousands of non-sceptics, who are fully aware of playing an active role even though they are only spectators. There is massive proof that it works: it is known as home advantage. In spectator sports, home teams invariably do highly significantly better than when playing away. And with most of the other parameters, it is a level playing field. But proof is only another name for statistical probability. You need to experience a few statistical improbabilities for yourself to understand that 100% proof is itself a statistical improbability.

The problem with home advantage in my opinion is that you really can't say how much is caused by psychic power and how much caused by psychology (if it is even possible to differentiate between the two) and other factors. Teams that are not playing in home have to travel which causes more fatique and stress, which might affect statistics.

I think you are overstating the need for laboratory conditions and scientific proof. Let me explain. Proof is merely a theoretical basis on which to experiment. It is a tenet of mainstream science that the observer has an effect on the experiment. In the two slit experiment, a beam of photons behaves differently when it is being watched. Although this is not the conventional interpretation, in terms of psychokinesis this is proof of concept, and as such a basis for engineering projects partly based on trial and error as it is scaled up.

The burden of proof has been overstated and misused. If scientific evidence is used to invalidate last month’s health recommendations before being replaced by next month’s, it flies in the face of first-hand experience and people end up rejecting the scientific method as being patently inadequate. On the other hand, if I can get you to see a picture of a young woman in one of an old woman (the well-known optical illusion, I haven’t proven anything, or even done anything, apart from observing you observing, but what you have once seen you cannot unsee: that is the incontrovertible evidence of your own eye without the need for laboratory conditions.

Take this into a football stadium. What I find interesting is the way the paranormal appears normal. Why should shouts of encouragement from supporters enable players to achieve things they didn’t know they were capable of? It is a non-paranormal psychic effect. A paranormal psychic effect would be for example when the ball is heading for goal with no one but the crowd to stop it. When it suddenly veers past the post, it is an unprovable miracle that can always be dismissed in terms of ballistic or meteorological considerations. But if the ball were suddenly to change direction completely, would that constitute proof? No, it would merely become a UFO

But science is also about predicting. I can pull off a few strange (unpredictable) things with a tennis ball, and I do it often enough for my usual opponents to expect a couple of inexplicable shots. Predicting the unpredictable is not hard science, but the reality of the phenomenon is certainly established in the mind of the predictor.

Another normal area involving the so-called paranormal is teaching. If I teach a child to ride a bike, all I do is provide a psychic boost and remove one physical parameter: a wobbly saddle. I hold onto the saddle for a short while until the psychic boost is enough to do the job. The child doesn’t learn to ride, it simply begins to ride. Riding is merely modified walking and a newborn baby walks instinctively months before its legs can bear its weight (it is a routine test at birth to check that everything is OK). We have these innate abilities that are only paranormal until they become normal. It is not a matter of waiting for science to explain it: as the saying goes, those who can, do; those who can’t, teach.

One more somewhat similar example is the placebo effect. There is no mainstream scientific explanation for why there should be such a thing as a placebo effect at all. And yet as an established part of experimental protocol (a drug must be shown to be significantly better than placebo), this unproven concept is an acknowledged part of science: it is something that has been seen and cannot be unseen. “Placebo” is Latin for “I shall please”, and as a declaration of mind taking precedence over matter, it is 100% antiscientific, at least to the extent that science fails to come to grips with mind.

I'm not saying laboratory conditions or undeniable proof are necessary. I just find it interesting to think if there is a way to have a measurable effect. That's why I thought about the scale because that way you could measure if the object would loose weight even if it didn't start to completely float. (This answers also your question Tesla_WTC_Solution )

Can you elaborate what you mean by "The burden of proof has been overstated and misused". As I understand, burden of proof is for those making the claims. I think scientific evidence is being used to invalidate previous theories all the time and it doesn't make scientific method inadequate. The basis of scientific method is that it is self-correcting. Theories are never absolute facts but explanations that can be replaced with better explanations if the piling evidence points so. Thomas Kuhn theorized however that science doesn't advance linearily. Instead there are paradigms which are the universally accepted theories and methods. When anomalies occur and the main paradigm is incapable of explaining them, there will emerge a new paradigm.

The placebo effect is indeed an interesting one. I'm sure there are at least some scientific theories about placebo effect. Neurological studies would be interesting but at the end of the day it is as you said: mind over matter.