A Small Miracle

[CynicalSkeptic]

#2 is already true.

The next experiment will run at 5 pm GMT 2 June 2007 The time zones are as follows:
6 pm British Summer Time
1 pm Eastern Daylight Savings Time
12 noon Central Daylight Savings Time
11 am Rocky Mountain Daylight Savings Time
10 am Pacific Daylight Savings Time
7 am Hawaiian Time
7 pm Western Europe Summer Time

 

[rjh01]

If this was a real experiment then it would have concluded by now. They had many people in the previous one. More than what they expected. So I can see no reason why they should repeat it other than to make money.

The results should have been published already. Either that or an announcement that they will be published in a credible scientific magazine.

 

[Davide]

...So I can see no reason why they should repeat it other than to make money...

Yes, I fear you're right. Maybe I'm becoming cynical, but the Web site has convinced me that the only point of running the "experiment" even once was to make money. The whole thing looks to me to be (yet another) a scheme for separating the credulous from their money.

 

[CynicalSkeptic]

It's like they're not even trying anymore.

It's been nearly a week since the most recent experiment, and they haven't even commented on the results. It still says

We shall respond on todays experiment shortly.

Many thanks to you all for participating.

 

[Apathia]

It's like they're not even trying anymore.

It's been nearly a week since the most recent experiment, and they haven't even commented on the results. It still says

I suppose there wasn't any useful results. We'll have to buy another experiment.

 

[CynicalSkeptic]

The site has been updated.

The first experiment was an enormous success when 400 people sat in a hall in London and intended for a leaf in the University of Arizona to 'glow and glow'. The results were highly significant - so much so that the results can be seen on photographs from special imaging systems.

Cool, lets see the pictures... Oh, that's right, they're withholding data because it's going to be published.
I think this was the one that was previously referred to as the "pilot study".

The second experiment that took place was a web-based trial in which 7,000 people participated. The target this time was stringbean seeds, and again the intention was to make them glow. The results were highly significant in terms of 'glow effect', but too few beans were used to achieve a statistical significance.

Hmm, they should have realized that up front if they had designed the experiment correctly. And I wonder how many is "too few", if two leaves (as used in the first experiment) was enough.

The third experiment once again involved a leaf, and so was a web version of the successful experiment in the hall with participants intending in the same space. Computer glitches stopped many from participating, and the results were inconclusive.

Actually, I thought the computer problems happened the first time they tried to do a web-based experiment. (24-Mar-07)

So, what have we learnt?

1. Intention sent non-locally by a group of at least 400 appears to have a significant effect on distant targets.

It'd be nice to see some evidence of that, instead of mere claims.

2. A group of more than 6000 people sending intention from remote sites creates a significant effect, and is as large as 400 people in the same room.

Well it's a claimed "significant" effect, thought not a "statistically significant" effect. I believe the last half of that sentence anyway...

3. For intention to work in a scattered group, we may need to have a critical mass of more than 1000 people.

Based on what? Where is the experiment with less than 1000 scattered people? Of the experiment with just over 1000 scattered people?

4. Computer distractions or problems interfere with intention.

Uhh, I thought the problems they had interfered with coordination of the experiment, not the woo intention itself