Coal, are you a researcher or statistician?
I would expect you'll need a few hundreds to hire EMC chambers for 'out of hours' use. You typically need to bribe people to be subject,s I'd have no problem with newspaper advertising and paying (say) for the participation with an hours money at minimum wage. Personally I'd want as many subject as I could get.
Yes there's a possibility it's just a very rare thing - but there's a level at which 'rare' and 'an instance statistically likely in a very large sample size' become indistinguishable.
Trouble being, that 'science' and the 'scientific method' are often confused. 'Science' has become a kind of pop term for 'established thinking' and is generally used in a negative way as in 'Science doesn't know everything' (Science knows that, it why we do experiments).
As ever prevailing culture and views are the issue (not 'science'), and when most scientific research is done at least in part by people paid by either "interested industry" or via research grants, it tends to focus on the request of the piper - some might say, this inevitably biases the chances of getting the "right" result. It's fair to say that humans tend to stick with what they know and learn in the first 20-30 years and very few stay open minded after that, even scientists. The great ones (Feynman for example) kept being curious and open minded long after many other would have stopped.
Given the type of thing that might prove the existence of (say) ESP can be very simply tested, I wonder why someone hasn't just done that? Stick one person ('transmitter') in an EMC chamber (you can probably rent those cheap during the night) with the door closed (making sure there is air ingress to avoid the 'DARK IN HERE ISN'T IT?@ thing) and only a camera for observation (EMC chambers have those) and give them a (battery powered) box with a random number generator that puts up a two digit number every 10 seconds, so 0-99.
[Previously having check the sync. The boxes can be started together outside the chamber and then separated.]
The 'observer' has a similar box, with just a timer, an indicator and using a key pad type in the number he/she think is being 'transmitted', which is stored locally in (say) a pen-drive. Ideally in another room.
"Transmitter" searched (metal detector), receiver searched (same metal detector). Run 1,000 times per subject (I might allow tea breaks and potty breaks). Repeat 10 or 20 times.
For less than £10K with a nearby university, you could nail that.
Job done.
I don't say ESP/PSI doesn't exist, it's wise to not state anything like this with certainly, only that proving it's existence to a decent degree of probability would be very straightforward, and if that is the case, why hasn't someone done it, allowed peer review of the set up and independent observers, then published the paper in a respectable journal?
P.S. Invite people who think they have ESP to take part. My rules, stick with metal detector searches and I'll personally check both boxes before and after the experimenter. Ditto the metal detectors. And the camera.
PPS I kept a small paper four vane spinner balanced on a needle point under an airtight bowl for 8 months at uni. No-one ever moved it. And the two sides facing the window had a couple of pencil dots on them...for good luck
Trouble being, that 'science' and the 'scientific method' are often confused. 'Science' has become a kind of pop term for 'established thinking' and is generally used in a negative way as in 'Science doesn't know everything' (Science knows that, it why we do experiments).
As ever prevailing culture and views are the issue (not 'science'), and when most scientific research is done at least in part by people paid by either "interested industry" or via research grants, it tends to focus on the request of the piper - some might say, this inevitably biases the chances of getting the "right" result. It's fair to say that humans tend to stick with what they know and learn in the first 20-30 years and very few stay open minded after that, even scientists. The great ones (Feynman for example) kept being curious and open minded long after many other would have stopped.
Given the type of thing that might prove the existence of (say) ESP can be very simply tested, I wonder why someone hasn't just done that? Stick one person ('transmitter') in an EMC chamber (you can probably rent those cheap during the night) with the door closed (making sure there is air ingress to avoid the 'DARK IN HERE ISN'T IT?@ thing) and only a camera for observation (EMC chambers have those) and give them a (battery powered) box with a random number generator that puts up a two digit number every 10 seconds, so 0-99.
[Previously having check the sync. The boxes can be started together outside the chamber and then separated.]
The 'observer' has a similar box, with just a timer, an indicator and using a key pad type in the number he/she think is being 'transmitted', which is stored locally in (say) a pen-drive. Ideally in another room.
"Transmitter" searched (metal detector), receiver searched (same metal detector). Run 1,000 times per subject (I might allow tea breaks and potty breaks). Repeat 10 or 20 times.
For less than £10K with a nearby university, you could nail that.
Job done.
I don't say ESP/PSI doesn't exist, it's wise to not state anything like this with certainly, only that proving it's existence to a decent degree of probability would be very straightforward, and if that is the case, why hasn't someone done it, allowed peer review of the set up and independent observers, then published the paper in a respectable journal?
P.S. Invite people who think they have ESP to take part. My rules, stick with metal detector searches and I'll personally check both boxes before and after the experimenter. Ditto the metal detectors. And the camera.
PPS I kept a small paper four vane spinner balanced on a needle point under an airtight bowl for 8 months at uni. No-one ever moved it. And the two sides facing the window had a couple of pencil dots on them...for good luck
Trouble being, that 'science' and the 'scientific method' are often confused. 'Science' has become a kind of pop term for 'established thinking' and is generally used in a negative way as in 'Science doesn't know everything' (Science knows that, it why we do experiments).
As ever prevailing culture and views are the issue (not 'science'), and when most scientific research is done at least in part by people paid by either "interested industry" or via research grants, it tends to focus on the request of the piper - some might say, this inevitably biases the chances of getting the "right" result. It's fair to say that humans tend to stick with what they know and learn in the first 20-30 years and very few stay open minded after that, even scientists. The great ones (Feynman for example) kept being curious and open minded long after many other would have stopped.
Given the type of thing that might prove the existence of (say) ESP can be very simply tested, I wonder why someone hasn't just done that? Stick one person ('transmitter') in an EMC chamber (you can probably rent those cheap during the night) with the door closed (making sure there is air ingress to avoid the 'DARK IN HERE ISN'T IT?@ thing) and only a camera for observation (EMC chambers have those) and give them a (battery powered) box with a random number generator that puts up a two digit number every 10 seconds, so 0-99.
[Previously having check the sync. The boxes can be started together outside the chamber and then separated.]
The 'observer' has a similar box, with just a timer, an indicator and using a key pad type in the number he/she think is being 'transmitted', which is stored locally in (say) a pen-drive. Ideally in another room.
"Transmitter" searched (metal detector), receiver searched (same metal detector). Run 1,000 times per subject (I might allow tea breaks and potty breaks). Repeat 10 or 20 times.
For less than £10K with a nearby university, you could nail that.
Job done.
I don't say ESP/PSI doesn't exist, it's wise to not state anything like this with certainly, only that proving it's existence to a decent degree of probability would be very straightforward, and if that is the case, why hasn't someone done it, allowed peer review of the set up and independent observers, then published the paper in a respectable journal?
P.S. Invite people who think they have ESP to take part. My rules, stick with metal detector searches and I'll personally check both boxes before and after the experimenter. Ditto the metal detectors. And the camera.
PPS I kept a small paper four vane spinner balanced on a needle point under an airtight bowl for 8 months at uni. No-one ever moved it. And the two sides facing the window had a couple of pencil dots on them...for good luck
Trouble being, that 'science' and the 'scientific method' are often confused. 'Science' has become a kind of pop term for 'established thinking' and is generally used in a negative way as in 'Science doesn't know everything' (Science knows that, it why we do experiments).
As ever prevailing culture and views are the issue (not 'science'), and when most scientific research is done at least in part by people paid by either "interested industry" or via research grants, it tends to focus on the request of the piper - some might say, this inevitably biases the chances of getting the "right" result. It's fair to say that humans tend to stick with what they know and learn in the first 20-30 years and very few stay open minded after that, even scientists. The great ones (Feynman for example) kept being curious and open minded long after many other would have stopped.
Given the type of thing that might prove the existence of (say) ESP can be very simply tested, I wonder why someone hasn't just done that? Stick one person ('transmitter') in an EMC chamber (you can probably rent those cheap during the night) with the door closed (making sure there is air ingress to avoid the 'DARK IN HERE ISN'T IT?@ thing) and only a camera for observation (EMC chambers have those) and give them a (battery powered) box with a random number generator that puts up a two digit number every 10 seconds, so 0-99.
[Previously having check the sync. The boxes can be started together outside the chamber and then separated.]
The 'observer' has a similar box, with just a timer, an indicator and using a key pad type in the number he/she think is being 'transmitted', which is stored locally in (say) a pen-drive. Ideally in another room.
"Transmitter" searched (metal detector), receiver searched (same metal detector). Run 1,000 times per subject (I might allow tea breaks and potty breaks). Repeat 10 or 20 times.
For less than £10K with a nearby university, you could nail that.
Job done.
I don't say ESP/PSI doesn't exist, it's wise to not state anything like this with certainly, only that proving it's existence to a decent degree of probability would be very straightforward, and if that is the case, why hasn't someone done it, allowed peer review of the set up and independent observers, then published the paper in a respectable journal?
P.S. Invite people who think they have ESP to take part. My rules, stick with metal detector searches and I'll personally check both boxes before and after the experimenter. Ditto the metal detectors. And the camera.
PPS I kept a small paper four vane spinner balanced on a needle point under an airtight bowl for 8 months at uni. No-one ever moved it. And the two sides facing the window had a couple of pencil dots on them...for good luck
Trouble being, that 'science' and the 'scientific method' are often confused. 'Science' has become a kind of pop term for 'established thinking' and is generally used in a negative way as in 'Science doesn't know everything' (Science knows that, it why we do experiments).
As ever prevailing culture and views are the issue (not 'science'), and when most scientific research is done at least in part by people paid by either "interested industry" or via research grants, it tends to focus on the request of the piper - some might say, this inevitably biases the chances of getting the "right" result. It's fair to say that humans tend to stick with what they know and learn in the first 20-30 years and very few stay open minded after that, even scientists. The great ones (Feynman for example) kept being curious and open minded long after many other would have stopped.
Given the type of thing that might prove the existence of (say) ESP can be very simply tested, I wonder why someone hasn't just done that? Stick one person ('transmitter') in an EMC chamber (you can probably rent those cheap during the night) with the door closed (making sure there is air ingress to avoid the 'DARK IN HERE ISN'T IT?@ thing) and only a camera for observation (EMC chambers have those) and give them a (battery powered) box with a random number generator that puts up a two digit number every 10 seconds, so 0-99.
[Previously having check the sync. The boxes can be started together outside the chamber and then separated.]
The 'observer' has a similar box, with just a timer, an indicator and using a key pad type in the number he/she think is being 'transmitted', which is stored locally in (say) a pen-drive. Ideally in another room.
"Transmitter" searched (metal detector), receiver searched (same metal detector). Run 1,000 times per subject (I might allow tea breaks and potty breaks). Repeat 10 or 20 times.
For less than £10K with a nearby university, you could nail that.
Job done.
I don't say ESP/PSI doesn't exist, it's wise to not state anything like this with certainly, only that proving it's existence to a decent degree of probability would be very straightforward, and if that is the case, why hasn't someone done it, allowed peer review of the set up and independent observers, then published the paper in a respectable journal?
P.S. Invite people who think they have ESP to take part. My rules, stick with metal detector searches and I'll personally check both boxes before and after the experimenter. Ditto the metal detectors. And the camera.
PPS I kept a small paper four vane spinner balanced on a needle point under an airtight bowl for 8 months at uni. No-one ever moved it. And the two sides facing the window had a couple of pencil dots on them...for good luck
Which other dimension would this be exactly?
The Dimension Where Everything Weird Happens, of course.
Ah I see. So your contention is that there is a dimension (unspecified) where the PA activity is happening, So, presumably people with the gift have access to this dimension?
Exactly. If you can observe it (A), then you must be within the same dimension. People with the 'gift' (B) as you say, (and if they are to be believed) must have the ability to enter this other dimension at will; or, are able to create their own 'dimensional bubble.' This, as far as I know, is the only way to either (A) Observe P.A. (B) Effect change within our own dimension. If it were not so, then the dimension we live in would be Chaos.
So..if my experiment (which as I stated was to 'disprove' ESP), used people that could enter 'dimensional bubble' it would work right?
He does say:
dreeness . said:
Ray Hyman said:
Wiktionary said:
Jessica Utts said:
Jessica Utts also said:
