jambo372 said:
Why do telekinetics like Nina Kulagina and Julius Krmessky appear to give off abnormally high levels of electrical activity in experiments ?
http://www.fpc.edu/pages/Academics/behave/psych/web93-3.htm
Well that's certainly an interesting article quoted. Interesting in the sense that it's an excellent example of pseudoscientific BS. The writers clearly have no understanding of basic logic or scientific method let alone electromagnetic physics. I couldn't resist commenting on a few extracts:
One well-known experiment that tested micro-PK was actually performed in the basement of the Varian Physics Building at Stanford University. At this time, Ingo Swann was the main target concentrated on. The main reason this experiment was performed was to determine whether rapport between man and magnetometer was actually possible (Targ and Puthoff, 1977). What Ingo Swann's purpose was, to affect a small magnetic probe that was located in a vault below the floor of the building. It was strongly shielded by a mu-metal magnetic shield, an aluminum container, copper shielding, and most important, a superconducting shield, the most effective type of shield known (Targ and Puthoff, 1977).
Ingo was shown the set up and told that if he were to affect the magnetic field in the magnetometer, the affect would result in a change in the output recording. He then "focused" on the interior of the magnetometer, at which time - after about a five second delay - the frequency of the oscillation doubled for about thirty seconds (Targ and Puthoff, 1977).
The straight- forward interpretation was that the magnetic field was decaying at twice the rate expected. It was also explained that perhaps "something was wrong with the equipment", and that the output would have been more impressive if Swann could have stopped the field change altogether (Targ and Puthoff, 1977).
So, in the concluding effects, the experiment was proven to be quite successful. Many of the observers could not believe that a human being could have such an effect on such strong magnetic fields, therefore a suggestion that there was a fault in the equipment proved that there was a definite unexplainable occurrence that happened.
Certainly a "creative" reinterpretation of the results. The researchers (as if I need to make any comment about the usual suspects Targ and Puthoff) conclude that perhaps "something was wrong with the equipment" - and the overall conclusion of the article writers is that "the experiment was proven to be quite successful" and "a suggestion that there was a fault in the equipment proved that there was a definite unexplainable occurrence that happened". Yeah, right!
By the way, these guys certainly did not major in English grammar (or logic for that matter).
Not enough detail is given to evaluate the experiment but it seems to imply that the magnetometer probe was inside the "shield" with the magnetometer itself outside. If that was the case, then the probe was NOT shielded, the wires leading into the shield would have compromised it. Not only that but if the shield was superconducting (and it would have to be a cryogenic one to be superconducting) then the wires passing through that portion of the shield would almost certainly have been superconducting themselves along part of their length which would have caused havoc with stray currents. Not to mention thermocouple effects. It's hardly surprising they thought there was "something wrong" with the equipment!
In the former Soviet Union, research was being completed on psychokinesis from the use of a EEG, or electrocardiograph chamber. An EEG is a force field detector that determines the presence of a human's ability to produce an " invisible, electrical, aura " (Ostrander, 1970).
O.K. Firstly an EEG is an "electroencephalogram", it is similar to, but distinctly different from an ECG or "electrocardiograph". And an EEG is a basic electrical voltage detector (multichannel) that has nothing to do with "force field detection" or "electrical auras". Facts, are just
so inconvenient when they get in the way of a good story aren't they?
Mikhailova was able to display light objects of plastic material and metal from 10 to 50 grams. During this process the EEG indicated an electrostatic fluctuating field.
I can also "display light objects of plastic material and metal". I have one or two on my mantlepiece, prominently displayed. I guess I must be "psychokinetic"!
And if the EEG was capable of measuring an electrostatic field then it was clearly not an EEG... Or maybe it was just faulty - which of course must prove that the experiment was a success!
One finding was that the energy level is higher and more electric away from the body which proved that distance plays a role in psychokinesis. Another finding was that not only does the heart rate increase upon the rise of energy but that the brain and heart work together as one unit in the production of the electrostatic energy (Ostrander, 1970).
Someone clearly doesn't know what "energy" means in physics.
Due to the numerous, recorded results proving that energy is responsible for the process of psychokinesis, why are there 77% of scientist studied who still remain skeptical about psychokinesis?
Right! So I guess if the results PROVE that "energy is responsible for the process of psychokinesis", then they must have also "proved" that psychokinesis actually exists first, no? Somehow I missed that "proof" - darn it! I wonder why they haven't claimed their million bucks from Randi yet? I would imagine that one reason why 77% of scientist (sic) studied remain skeptical is because they don't consider ungrammatical articles, riddled with misconceptions of basic physics to be "proof" of psychokinesis!
A ball then should be easy to move by psychokinesis right? Wrong Forwald states " the reason stems from the fact that psychokinesis does not involve any force " (Long, 1972). He goes on to state that " the nature of the phenomenon lies in the allowed quantum mechanical states of the system and the associated probabilities for those states "(Long, 1972). He based his theory on the question of the dependence of the magnitude of the cube deflection on cube material and construction (Long, 1972). Through research, Forwald was able to defend his theory and develop a strong conclusion to the study. Despite finding numerous mistakes made in the past study of psychokinesis, Forwald was able to prove its existence without intervention or repetitive error.
Uh huh, "psychokinesis does not involve any force". Yeah, who could dispute such an obvious fact!
And of
course it is all due to "quantum mechanics".
Anyway, I note once again that PK is "proved".
However, from a scientific viewpoint there needs to be more clear cut evidence into the phenomena. Since there has not been any clear cut evidence to date is remains a phenomena until there is documentation available to us which will prove how and why psychokinesis is an existing conscious power. This will, unfortunately, require time and with that time we can search for our own clues into the phenomena of psychokinesis.
But, by the end of the article, it appears that despite having been "proved" numerous times above, there is no clear cut evidence of it. Now that THAT is a clever trick, proving something without any evidence!
That last bit though does prove conclusively however that someone is sorely in need of a course in basic remedial English....!
There are dozens of funny bits in this article, so many I couldn't be bothered to comment, except to say, what a load of utter BS! And it's hosted on the web site of a college no less. I hope they don't think this adds to their academic credibility.
