controlling psi balls

[drakonwick 731]

I would have to disagree there. If there is energy involved it could be measured.

Thats a possibilty Matt! But, can you honestly say that we know and understand how every form of energy in this universe works?

Anyway, I will have to get back to you on this! Right now I must go to work.

Gooday

[The Skeptic Eric Raven 83]

I would have to disagree there. If there is energy involved it could be measured.

Exactly.

Edited December 29, 2008 by The Skeptic Eric Raven

[drakonwick 731]

Exactly.

Interesting! Thats like saying you assume that every scientist in the world understands every form of energy and how it works. (Much less how it could work with the mind and body).

A lot of people keep trying to add physical standards to a metaphysical subject and right now with the knowledge we have on such matters, it just doesn't work. I think most people agree that strange things do happen, it's when it comes to trying to understand them and figure out how they work when it becomes a serious problem.

Edited December 29, 2008 by Moro

[Mattshark 56]

Interesting! Thats like saying you assume that every scientist in the world understands every form of energy and how it works. (Much less how it could work with the mind and body).

A lot of people keep trying to add physical standards to a metaphysical subject and right now with the knowledge we have on such matters, it just doesn't work. I think most people agree that strange things do happen, it's when it comes to trying to understand them and figure out how they work when it becomes a serious problem.

Well if nothing else heat (that is not calculated for by the hands and there heat produced) would be measurable.

[Lord*Kur 3]

if psi balls were real they would be stupid

[eight bits 11,482]

Abilities such as harnessing and controlling psi/chi energies may never be able to be seen or understood on a physical level and therefore making them mostly out of range with your everyday scientists.

This stuff affects the real world or it doesn't. If it does, then that can be seen.

As for understanding, your "everyday scientist" adores things he or she doesn't understand. That's what makes work everyday for scientists, so there can be everyday scientists.

So, all we're missing with psi balls is that affecting the real world part.

[drakonwick 731]

This stuff affects the real world or it doesn't. If it does, then that can be seen.

As for understanding, your "everyday scientist" adores things he or she doesn't understand. That's what makes work everyday for scientists, so there can be everyday scientists.

So, all we're missing with psi balls is that affecting the real world part.

So, if it doesn't effect the real world as most of our minds percieve it, then it doesn't exist? Sorry! I just do not agree with that.

I will add this from BurnSides post, as to me, it seems to make good sense.

Quote - BurnSide

Existance is a human concept based on the belief that what we see is in fact real. The truth is, it is not. What we are seeing is actually the complex result of our mind taking impossible to understand formulas and patterns and re-routing them to our eyes, ears etc as what we sense.

Everything is not always what it seems to be.

[eight bits 11,482]

If you've ever read my posts (and as I recall, you have now and then), then you know that I need no lecture on the difference between what we perceive and what there is to be perceived.

Kudos for attributing perception to the mind, btw. I couldn't agree more.

My point, however, stands. If you can affect the real world, and you can detect what you are doing, then I or just about anybody else can detect what you are doing.

Of course, if you cannot detect what you suppose you are doing in the real world, then I am unapologetic in doubting that you are doing anything.

The topic of the thread is "controlling psi balls." Tell me the real world effects of psi balls. I can take it from there. If there are none, then I am happy to leave it at that. That would, after all, cool the urgency of finding out whether or not they exist.

[drakonwick 731]

If you've ever read my posts (and as I recall, you have now and then), then you know that I need no lecture on the difference between what we perceive and what there is to be perceived.

Kudos for attributing perception to the mind, btw. I couldn't agree more.

My point, however, stands. If you can affect the real world, and you can detect what you are doing, then I or just about anybody else can detect what you are doing.

Of course, if you cannot detect what you suppose you are doing in the real world, then I am unapologetic in doubting that you are doing anything.

The topic of the thread is "controlling psi balls." Tell me the real world effects of psi balls. I can take it from there. If there are none, then I am happy to leave it at that. That would, after all, cool the urgency of finding out whether or not they exist.

Indeed! I stand corrected, so I apologize.

This topic is about controlling psiballs. So in that sense, it is something that should be detectable. Everything I have ever read about psiballs shows that there is some form of energy being emitted from the hands and this should easily be able to be detected by anyone.

[eight bits 11,482]

Hey no problem.

So, now that we're on the same page, I guess we need somebody who does them to step up, or at least to say something definite that the energy does when it's emitted.

[drakonwick 731]

Hey no problem.

So, now that we're on the same page, I guess we need somebody who does them to step up, or at least to say something definite that the energy does when it's emitted.

Most of the people claiming to be able to create and control psiballs claim they can feel, and sometimes even see an energy in between their hands. If this is the case, then it should be observable by anyone.

So, yes I would enjoy seeing somone give me a demonstration of a psiball.

Personally, I would like to see something similar to this. But, recorded live in front of scientists preferably, in a controlled invironment.

This picture is of my own creation, and is in no way real.

Edited December 30, 2008 by Moro

[theGhost_and_theDarkness 15]

Most of the people claiming to be able to create and control psiballs claim they can feel, and sometimes even see an energy in between their hands. If this is the case, then it should be observable by anyone.

So, yes I would enjoy seeing somone give me a demonstration of a psiball.

A quick and easy experiment that me and a few friends tried a while back. Get a thermometer, we used one of my b/f's work ones. . .some kind of, I guess, probe thermometer which measures the temperature in only a small area. . . Make the ball and then measure the temperature around the area, and then inside it. You'll find that the temperature can get significantly higher. . . Something that, I imagine, would show up on a thermal imaging camera. . .if anyone has the money to get one of those. Its quite different than the heat that comes from your hands. Do plenty of before, during, and after thermometer readings and you'll see the differences.

[drakonwick 731]

A quick and easy experiment that me and a few friends tried a while back. Get a thermometer, we used one of my b/f's work ones. . .some kind of, I guess, probe thermometer which measures the temperature in only a small area. . . Make the ball and then measure the temperature around the area, and then inside it. You'll find that the temperature can get significantly higher. . . Something that, I imagine, would show up on a thermal imaging camera. . .if anyone has the money to get one of those. Its quite different than the heat that comes from your hands. Do plenty of before, during, and after thermometer readings and you'll see the differences.

Are you suggesting fluxuations in temperatures around your hands is actually a psiball?

I have read the exercises it says to perform in order to create a psiball. A lot of them suggest you rub your hands together and this will obviously cause heat from the friction of rubbing your hands together. So, this could cause different temperature readings around the hands.

Personally, I do like you're experiment as it can show other people whether or not they are actually creating a psiball by determining the end results for themselves. I myself, just find to many causalities that can effect this experiment, because body temperatures can be effected by many different surrounding interferences.

Regards,

Moro

Edited December 30, 2008 by Moro

[Insight 11]

Masters of Yoga and Qui Gong have been shown on thermal imaging to be able to direct visible changes of temperature around their body.

However, these people study for a lifetime, devoting themselves to the art, as opposed to watching Dragonball Z, going to Highschool, and reading internet fan-boy psi pages.

[eight bits 11,482]

A quick and easy experiment that me and a few friends tried a while back. Get a thermometer, we used one of my b/f's work ones. . .some kind of, I guess, probe thermometer which measures the temperature in only a small area. . . Make the ball and then measure the temperature around the area, and then inside it. You'll find that the temperature can get significantly higher. . . Something that, I imagine, would show up on a thermal imaging camera. . .if anyone has the money to get one of those. Its quite different than the heat that comes from your hands. Do plenty of before, during, and after thermometer readings and you'll see the differences.

Great, that's half of the experiment. Now, find somebody who doesn't "make psiballs" and tell them to think about their hands getting warmer. Just that, no psi, chi, qi, ... just think about your hands getting warmer.

Do the same measurements. You'll probably get the same results. If not, do it a few times, using the thermometer readings as feedback, and the person will very likely learn to do it.

You are increasing peripheral bloodflow, directing it toward the surface of the skin. It's probably the easiest of the autonomic functions to learn to control, because we have thermal sensory neurons near the skin surface to give us feedback.

Edited December 30, 2008 by eight bits

[Mattshark 56]

A quick and easy experiment that me and a few friends tried a while back. Get a thermometer, we used one of my b/f's work ones. . .some kind of, I guess, probe thermometer which measures the temperature in only a small area. . . Make the ball and then measure the temperature around the area, and then inside it. You'll find that the temperature can get significantly higher. . . Something that, I imagine, would show up on a thermal imaging camera. . .if anyone has the money to get one of those. Its quite different than the heat that comes from your hands. Do plenty of before, during, and after thermometer readings and you'll see the differences.

However unless you have calibrated for the changes produces by making it an enclosed space and the heat produced by the muscles moving then it is meaningless. With out the maths for this you can not make it accurate because a heat rise would be expected in that situation anyway.

[eight bits 11,482]

Yes, Matt. In other words, have somebody else to do the same things as the test subject, except not "make psi balls."

You must, however, control for the widespread and easily acquired human ability to redirect peripheral bloodflow to the hands. Otherwise, you will likely get a difference between your test and control runs.

Also, you do not need any specialized mathematical or statistical knowledge if your claim was just what Sweetsalem posted, which was qualitative (assuming you knew the error of the probe, of course, and a "significantly higher" reading meant a large difference compared to that error).

[Resonance 17]

i agree, actually. the world should start regarding invisible things as scientific fact

Wow.... I can't believe it... You seriously are that arrogant? To say something so stupid...

"The world should start regarding invisible things as scientific fact".... **In a sarcastic manner....

That would probably have been the dumbest thing i've ever heard....

AIR.... = INVISIBLe....... = SCIENTIFIC FACT..

Well there you go, your logic has been overridden.

Hehe.... no but really..

I'd say, the test you proposed sounds pretty good, but it would take multiple readings and tests to get an accurate outcome.

Edited December 31, 2008 by skater69

[theGhost_and_theDarkness 15]

Great, that's half of the experiment. Now, find somebody who doesn't "make psiballs" and tell them to think about their hands getting warmer. Just that, no psi, chi, qi, ... just think about your hands getting warmer.

Do the same measurements. You'll probably get the same results. If not, do it a few times, using the thermometer readings as feedback, and the person will very likely learn to do it.

You are increasing peripheral bloodflow, directing it toward the surface of the skin. It's probably the easiest of the autonomic functions to learn to control, because we have thermal sensory neurons near the skin surface to give us feedback.

Directing heat is, IMO, pretty much the same thing. But when that heat is concentrated in an area far enough from your body so that your body isn't a factor, that's interesting. Body heat will only register a certain distance. Get a thermometer and try it yourself. Do several different readings, one while doing nothing special, one while concentrating heat. See how far that heat will register from your body. The temperature fluctuations of a "psi ball" are different and further from the body.

You're assuming I didn't take all this into consideration. Which I did because I thought it was all a bunch of crap, tbh. Directing heat in the body is rather easy, something which I'm able to do and test, and something I tested at the time. I'm not a loon, I make my unscientific experiments as scientific as possible.

Edit: And, btw, just so everyone knows. . .I'm not saying that there's anything "paranormal" about it. I'm sure there's an explanation for it. I just want to make it clear that body heat was taken into consideration in all of its different forms and magnitudes.

Edited December 31, 2008 by Sweetsalem82103

[Moonie2012 25]

Wow.... I can't believe it... You seriously are that arrogant? To say something so stupid...

"The world should start regarding invisible things as scientific fact".... **In a sarcastic manner....

That would probably have been the dumbest thing i've ever heard....

AIR.... = INVISIBLe....... = SCIENTIFIC FACT..

Well there you go, your logic has been overridden.

Not really - the gasses in air can be cooled, pressurized, liquefied, and measured - and therefore be visible.

So no, air is NOT invisible. If you think it's such a stupid statement, name one "invisible" thing that can't be measured (besides magical psi-powers, of course).

Edited December 31, 2008 by Moonie2012

[Resonance 17]

Not really - the gasses in air can be cooled, pressurized, liquefied, and measured - and therefore be visible.

So no, air is NOT invisible. If you think it's such a stupid statement, name one "invisible" thing that can't be measured (besides magical psi-powers, of course).

Actually.. I didn't say that in different forms it 'couldn't' be measured.. I just said... it is 'invisible'... Why don't you get the definition for me.. and i'll show you...

AIR IS 'INVISIBLE' in it's normal state..which is ... an invisible GAS....

Hmm..

What now..

You going to say.. IT'S NOT INVISIBLE!! DUHHHH.. So, you're saying that you can see AIR.... without doing anything to it... I mean, step outside right now, and say.. OMFG I SEE AIR!

So, if you can't.. Then shut up.

[Moonie2012 25]

Actually.. I didn't say that in different forms it 'couldn't' be measured.. I just said... it is 'invisible'... Why don't you get the definition for me.. and i'll show you...

AIR IS 'INVISIBLE' in it's normal state..which is ... an invisible GAS....

Hmm..

What now..

You going to say.. IT'S NOT INVISIBLE!! DUHHHH.. So, you're saying that you can see AIR.... without doing anything to it... I mean, step outside right now, and say.. OMFG I SEE AIR!

So, if you can't.. Then shut up.

Wow, you're a really classy wordsmith, huh?

The point is, air is measurable - unlike fancy teen psi-powers - which is akin to what the point of the original comment was that you so quickly jumped on with all of your little "DUHHH" and "SHUT UP" and "OMFG STUPID" comments.

Edited December 31, 2008 by Moonie2012

[eight bits 11,482]

You're assuming I didn't take all this into consideration.

I made no assumption about the issue. I read your report. There was no test of the on-topic causal hypothesis presented there.

Your experiment showed that a human being could in fact warm the air at a required place. Brava.

Now that that's settled, there is no reason, based on your report, to associate what the human being was thinking about at the time with the temperature difference you observed. You need to test that, not "take it into consideration."

Have someone do the same overt things while thinking about something else. I made a suggestion about a known "something else" to think about that will reliably produce thermal effects. If there is a difference between those two situations, then measure it and report it.

You didn't measure it, but concluded that the person's intentions mattered anyway. It isn't me who's making an assumption here.

Luckily, this could easily be fixed.

[Resonance 17]

Wow, you're a really classy wordsmith, huh?

The point is, air is measurable - unlike fancy teen psi-powers - which is akin to what the point of the original comment was that you so quickly jumped on with all of your little "DUHHH" and "SHUT UP" and "OMFG STUPID" comments.

Haha... Okay fine. I won't throw out the childish comments anymore.

Either way, i didn't once say that i believed that 'psi balls' were real. I didn't once say that Air wasn't measurable.. I only said, that it's invisible.. I'm sure, seeing as you like to instantly make people retract what they said, you were bored and wanted to try and make yourself sound more intelligent. Either way, it isn't going to work.

I said, air is invisible, i suppose i should've been more specific, and said that air, in gas form, is invisible. But, of course you wouldn't exactly let me get away with that statement either..

So, AIR, without anything added to make it visible, or anything that would change it's form, is 'INVISIBLE'... HAPPY?

[Moonie2012 25]

You seem to miss the point - it's not worth arguing about anyway.

Edited December 31, 2008 by Moonie2012