Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Stellar

Interesting experimental results

24 posts in this topic

About an hour ago I was in a lab alone finishing up an experiment. When cleaning up I decided to try a couple things with the oscilloscope. I tried the following experiment two different ways. One where I was grounded to the oscilloscope, and one where I was not. I positioned the probe about 5 cm from my cupped left hand. No matter how hard I tried or what I thought about, I did not succeed in changing the waveform on the oscilloscope. The electric field at that position never changed, no matter how much I "willed" it to. Just so you guys know...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nothing has to come from your hands, place the probe near your head (brain) to see if you get other results, then you have to tune the scope to the correct frequency. worth the try anyhow lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried placing it to my head also... nothing happened.

Hahah, funny, tune the scope to the correct frequency... yeah, you dont really know what on oscilloscope is, do you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pictures Please :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's an oscilloscope, and what are you trying to prove?

Please repeat it in dumb language please, for us non-good-at-science-people please?

Angel x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An oscilloscope is something that measures electric fields/currents, etc. I showed that you cant alter any sort of electric field at a distance with meerly your thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

aaaaaaaaah...thanks, i knew i'd heard about it in physics!

Angel x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What's an oscilloscope, and what are you trying to prove?

Please repeat it in dumb language please, for us non-good-at-science-people please?

Angel x

Nerdy factual demo of an oscilloscope

Awesome "hacking" of an oscilloscope for funky looking pictures

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
About an hour ago I was in a lab alone finishing up an experiment. When cleaning up I decided to try a couple things with the oscilloscope. I tried the following experiment two different ways. One where I was grounded to the oscilloscope, and one where I was not. I positioned the probe about 5 cm from my cupped left hand. No matter how hard I tried or what I thought about, I did not succeed in changing the waveform on the oscilloscope. The electric field at that position never changed, no matter how much I "willed" it to. Just so you guys know...

Good think no one walked in on you...I can only imagine the look on the faces of your colleagues as you tried to explain you were attempting to measure a " psi-ball"...or better yet, attaching a probe to your head... :lol: You would never live it down if I was the one that caught you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i would suggest thinking this through a little more carefully before reaching conclusions.

how to make better measurements:

- what was the scope probe gain? 1X? 10X? 100X? i would even suggest not using a probe, but something with a large surface area. As you know, the electric field is in volts/meter, hence something with a large surface area will give you a larger magnitude.

- construct a faraday cage around yourself to block out noise.

- draw a schematic.

if someone can answer this:

i know that our neurons can produce electric fields, but how does a self-sustaining electric field travel through space without any observable charge carriers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

An oscilloscope is something that measures electric fields/currents, etc. I showed that you cant alter any sort of electric field at a distance with meerly your thought.

only that your scope or probes aren't sensitive enough to pick up brain waves, those are measurable, also you are able to tune the scope but the range is not sensitive enough to measure thought (electrical impulses). you would need a Electroencephalogram for that.

Edited by MarkSteven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick post before I head off to work.

1. It didnt look all that bad when I was doing it.

2. Noise is not a concern. No faraday cage is needed. The noise is miniscule, and would not block out any sort of electric field that would be strong enough to accomplish what some people say they can do.

3. A bigger surface area on the probe is not necessary for the same reason as above... Plus... if the strength is 1 V/m, the induced current will be 1 volt at 1 m from the source, regardless of the size of the probe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
An oscilloscope is something that measures electric fields/currents, etc. I showed that you cant alter any sort of electric field at a distance with meerly your thought.

I know I'm just being irritating, but you actually showed that YOU can't alter any sort of electric field at a distance with merely your thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know I'm just being irritating, but you actually showed that YOU can't alter any sort of electric field at a distance with merely your thought.

So are you suggesting that psions are physiologically different? They have an organ capable of doing that which I dont have?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Well, Stellar, B has a point there. You made a casual attempt to investigate someone else's claim. You did things in good faith, what you imagine a claimant would do, and you got no result.

What can be inferred from this? You are not currently able to do this feat. The possibility remains that you could do it, or that indeed you cannot do it, but that others can.

Example: I cannot currently write with my left hand. I am convinced, however, that there are other people who can. I do not think that these people are "physiologically" different from me, except perhaps at the level of the subtle details of synaptic connections, etc.

Moreover, I know at least one person like me, a rightie, who learned to write with her left hand when she injured her right wrist. Therefore, I do not rule out the possibility that even I might accomplish the feat if I worked at it more than a single session of desultory screwing around, ending with "nope, that doesn't work" when I lost interest in trying further.

I hold no brief for the ability that you investigated, and admire both that you tried it for yourself and that you reported what happened. Nevertheless, there is only so much that can be inferred from any sample of size one, and surely not a universal generalization.

You win the experimental method prize, B gets the logic laurels.

Edited by eight bits

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, Stellar, B has a point there. You made a casual attempt to investigate someone else's claim. You did things in good faith, what you imagine a claimant would do, and you got no result.

True, but I find that it does put to rest certain arguments psions use... ie: "Well, everyone's got an an EM field around them! Its that EM field responsible for ..."

What has the experiment shown? It has shown, to a reasonable degree, that the bodies natural EM field is very faint, drowned out by ambient noise, and not influenced by just thought. Do you not agree that this is evidence against the people who claim to blow up lightbulbs and short circuit computers *unintentionally*?

What can be inferred from this? You are not currently able to do this feat. The possibility remains that you could do it, or that indeed you cannot do it, but that others can.

True. I never said this experiment was proof of anything. It is, however, counter evidence (theres a difference between proof and evidence). Understanding that someones EM field is naturally too weak to be of any significance, and also that thought does not change this, along side knowing that my physiology is no different, in essance, than anyone elses here, serves as evidence against those who claim to unintentionally affect electronics unintentionally. The experiment factors out the human electric field, affected by their random thoughts, as a cause, and therefore the explenation is narrowed down to "lies", "coincidence" or "some other unknown and mysterious force that has nothing to do with electricity, yet affects electronics".

Example: I cannot currently write with my left hand. I am convinced, however, that there are other people who can. I do not think that these people are "physiologically" different from me, except perhaps at the level of the subtle details of synaptic connections, etc.

Are you missing your left hand? Are you an amputee? Then you can write with your left hand. You might not be able to write as "neatly" as your left handed friend, but you can still do it. And how will you become better? By practicing it. So, by your own example, how would people become good at EK? By practicing EK... which means you could already do it to some degree to start with...

And of course, this is definitly nothing conclusive... the sample size was just myself, afterall, but if anyone is willing to come to Ottawa to participate in the experiment, I can get us back into that lab. It will have to be soon though!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is nothing grand or wonderful about having to constantly buy and replace light bulbs.

I have no reason to lie about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stellar, Angel asked you

what are you trying to prove?

and you answered

I showed that you cant alter any sort of electric field at a distance with meerly your thought.

So, when you now write,

I never said this experiment was proof of anything.

That's slicing the luncheon meat a bit thin. You said that you showed something, in answer to a question about what you were trying to prove.

It is good of you to acknowledge that there is a difference between showing something and providing evidence about it. So, it was neighborly of B to point out the logical gap between what you said you showed and the evidence which you provided. B's post advanced the thread, and has now resulted in your clarifying your original report. Bravo.

And Bella - Wolfgang Pauli, a great scientist, famously endured a similar situation. And his colleagues accepted that it was true. Real scientists can tolerate inconvenient facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's slicing the luncheon meat a bit thin. You said that you showed something, in answer to a question about what you were trying to prove.

Ahh, yes, forgive me. I was in a rush and didnt put enough thought into phrasing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
An oscilloscope is something that measures electric fields/currents, etc. I showed that you cant alter any sort of electric field at a distance with meerly your thought.

Dude, that doesn't prove a thing. Your test did not disprove the possibility, it was just inconclusive. If you are a scientist of any kind, you should know the difference. All you proved was that YOU, not everybody, just YOU can't alter electrical fields with your thought, and every psion here has explicitly stated that all kinds of psionic manipulation take a lot of time and effort to achieve, even if you've already shown signs of ability. So since you've shown no signs of ability and never trained, you wouldn't be able to do it even if it is possible. In fact, there is no way to ever disprove the possibility of psionic activity since the absence of evidence does not give evidence for the opposite. The only way you could have a conclusive experiment is if you tested on somebody and they COULD change the readings. By the way, there has been someone who has been able to light a small LED from his fingertips and he was studied extensively by many established scientists who could not find any trick behind it. Now I'm not saying that this ONE test subject can prove that there are many psychics out there, but he is one bit of evidence of hopefully many more to come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if you'll read my post, I clearly stated that its not proof, but it is evidence. Is it conclusive? Hell no, but it is something, and unless one of the psions volunteers to be tested, I dont see much more I can do at the moment. And you're right, absense of evidence is not evidence of absense... but that has nothing to do with this situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, sorry, I read the rest of the thread after posting. But it's still not evidence unless you test someone who has trained with electrokinesis, and since you have not there is no evidence at all that other people could not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, sorry, I read the rest of the thread after posting. But it's still not evidence unless you test someone who has trained with electrokinesis, and since you have not there is no evidence at all that other people could not.

That would be hard to find since nobody has ever even come close to peforming it. :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I know that it would be hard to find someone proficient enough to affect equipment, but all I'm saying is that testing on a "normal" person (someone who has never tried or trained) is too unreliable of a test to prove or even give evidence of anything at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.