• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Another "Chi" demonstration

Chi Lover returns

Hypernicus said:
By simply asking "what tricks are those"? How would you come to that extraordinary conclusion? Please, by all means, now is the chance to make arguments so you can clear it up once and for all, for everyone in the world, that asks a question like: "What tricks are those?" are fighting words, and not appreciated (by you only?).
Click to expand...

No, not by me only. Perhaps you are not familiar with the nuances of American English.

Hypernicus said:
Everytime someone is faced with logic they feel the urge to do a research on the person. The matters that are discussed are nearly as important as the person who can think logical. There for the ones who are not using reasoning always wants to know more about the person to try to learn more about what reasoning really is all about. Ref: Mr. Scott in the same thread.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I can't decrypt that broken English.

Hypernicus said:
More allegations without making arguments, and of course the lack of logic. I have said it before; those who can't make arguments are very poor at reasoning and thinking logical. After that he says "there is nothing wrong with that", as if that falsely accusation has to do anything with anything in this thread.
Click to expand...

Not an accusation. A guess. Computer programmers have their new programs start by saying "Hello World," and are the only people who use the double equal sign (A==A). That's why I think you are a programmer. The Hypernicus on the Astral Pulse forum has the flag of India as his (her?) avatar.

I ask you, kindly, Hypernicus, are you also the Hypernicus on the Astral Pulse forum? A simple yes or no will do.

The better we know you, the better we can understand what you are trying to tell us.
 
Logical Argument Against Chi

Hypernicus said:
I turned to this forum because James Randi is a man who can reason. No one as I read still hasn't by 25-30 years won any money, because the simple fact a man can't just simply grab the laws of nature and use it by free will. I have read a lot of great stories that are true, but none has been repeated.
Click to expand...

Wrong. The laws of nature are repeatable by definition.

The hallmarks of supernatural phenomena like Chi, as opposed to the true laws of nature, are:

1) They are not repeatable.
2) They have no practical use.

The demonstrations in the OP video fit this. So the fellow can topple bricks with his Chi force, but why is no one with that power hired to do demolition work? He can move a bowl of water, but why is no one using this power to bring water to the thirsty? He can break bottles with Chi power, so why doesn't anyone use this power in a glass recycling plant?

Do you see my logic -- my argument -- Hypernicus? Chi force is completely, utterly useless -- USELESS! It has no use at all except to demonstrate (allegedly) that Chi force exists. That makes it indistinguishible from something that is completely fabricated and non-existent.

If A is useless and disappears when tested then there's no reason to believe in A. That's my logical argument.

I await your response.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Scott said:
The hallmarks of supernatural phenomena like Chi, as opposed to the true laws of nature, are:

1) They are not repeatable.
2) They have no practical use.

The demonstrations in the OP video fit this. So the fellow can topple bricks with his Chi force, but why is no one with that power hired to do demolition work? He can move a bowl of water, but why is no one using this power to bring water to the thirsty? He can break bottles with Chi power, so why doesn't anyone use this power in a glass recycling plant?
Click to expand...

Hmmm....while you are right about the impracticality of phenomena like Chi, it isn't a hallmark that they have no practical uses. Faith healers use their powers to heal people of diseases (so they claim).

It is more a question of detectability under controlled conditions. We can show the existence of natural laws by repeated experiments, but when we manage to drag a claimant into the lab, the effect is indistinguishable from noise.

All these Grand Claims of Big Effects vanish when being put to the test. That's a hallmark of paranormal phenomena.
 
CFLarsen said:
Hmmm....while you are right about the impracticality of phenomena like Chi, it isn't a hallmark that they have no practical uses. Faith healers use their powers to heal people of diseases (so they claim).
Click to expand...

Perhaps then a rewording of my hallmark #2: No practical use can be proven.
 
Hypernicus said:
because the simple fact a man can't just simply grab the laws of nature and use it by free will.
Click to expand...

Strange how they can do exactly that when, for example, there is a video crew there to record them but not when they are subject to a scientific test under controlled conditions.

Why do you think that might be?
 
Perhaps you are not familiar with the nuances of American English.
Click to expand...


Computer programmers have their new programs start by saying "Hello World,"
Click to expand...
No programs in the world needs a "hello world" to function.

and are the only people who use the double equal sign (A==A).
Click to expand...
The computers can't be fooled, they operate with logic. Humans can lie and even deny A==A has nothing to do with logic, like yourself.

Edited to remove offensive comment.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wrong. The laws of nature are repeatable by definition.
Click to expand...
Can you not you read? I have never claimed your false statement.

The hallmarks of supernatural phenomena like Chi, as opposed to the true laws of nature, are:
1) They are not repeatable.
Click to expand...
If Chi is what the video showed, moving objects without touching them, then Chi doesn't exist at all according to the laws of nature.

The demonstrations in the OP video fit this.
Click to expand...
How can the video fit this when you have already said: "1) They are not repeatable."?

Do you see my logic
Click to expand...
I just vitnessed you shooting yourself in the foot. Here are some bandage.
 
Strange how they can do exactly that when, for example, there is a video crew there to record them but not when they are subject to a scientific test under controlled conditions.
Why do you think that might be?
Click to expand...
If you have IQ higher than your shoenumber you will draw the only conclusion possible; it is a scam.

Uri Geller is a perfect example when I searched for James Randi on YouTube. When he was represented for items that wasn't his he could not do the _tricks_.
 
I'm sensing hostility all around. Let's all take a deep breath and have a cup of tea or something.

Welcome Hypernicus.
 
Mr. Scott said:
It's possible that the wooden board they placed on the table under the bowl conceals the fishing line, feeding it into the near end, run under or inside the board, then out at the far end and down under the table where the assistant hiding below is pulling it jerkily because of his cramped situation.

That's my final guess at how they did it.
Click to expand...

I agree completely. ^5's all around.
 
I think Hypernicus is the type of woo that believes "Chi" is real, but not useful for tricks like that. He's one of those "it happens only in rare circumstances, it's never repeatable, can't be tested, and never leaves valid evidence... but it's real" type of trolls.
 
thaiboxerken said:
I think Hypernicus is the type of woo that believes "Chi" is real, but not useful for tricks like that. He's one of those "it happens only in rare circumstances, it's never repeatable, can't be tested, and never leaves valid evidence... but it's real" type of trolls.
Click to expand...
And yet, they're able to repeat it whenever there's publicity or money involved.
 
thaiboxerken said:
I think Hypernicus is the type of woo that believes "Chi" is real, but not useful for tricks like that. He's one of those "it happens only in rare circumstances, it's never repeatable, can't be tested, and never leaves valid evidence... but it's real" type of trolls.
Click to expand...

If that were true (and I'm not sure it is), would that really qualify him as a "troll"? Wouldn't that just be ignorance of the scientific method and Occam's Razor?
 
I might agree, KingMerv, it he didn't come in posting in such a condescending way.
 
That's a pretty condescending tone he came in with.

"What tricks are those?" As if trickery couldn't be done to reproduce the feats.
 
thaiboxerken said:
That's a pretty condescending tone he came in with.

"What tricks are those?" As if trickery couldn't be done to reproduce the feats.
Click to expand...

Well that is one possible interpretation, but it could also have been an honest question. As a n00b to the forum, I say he should get the benefit of the doubt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom