It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What is Astral Travel

page: 5
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by esteay812
 


I think your onto something esteay. I had my first out of body experience as a child. I knew not what was happening...the heaviness of my body frightened me upon return...it was most uncomfortable. I assumed this was a normal thing for me only given the responses of those I attempted an explanation with.

As I got older in my teens and early twenties my dreams became precognitive. Curious I began to shop the bookshelves of libraries and book stores seeking some explanation and back in those days they were hard to find.

I came to the conclusion that I was leaving my body because I was feeling and smelling the astral environment I found myself in as I was seeing future events.

I had never meditated, studied any new age thought and to this day know little of the mechanics that would explain it but it occurred early in my life. It feels to me that my brain in a delta state sends out and receives electrical information including that of smell and sound and I simply follow.

Now days after two years of steady meditation I am able to control the destinies of my astral travel, it is like lifting out of an over starched suite.

For bsbray11....I am receiving a fine education from your posts. I shall take advantage of your reading list.




posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Elieser
 


The one constant for me is that I am always aware of an invisible tether to my sleeping body. About half of my travels I will see colors that are just a bit off such as grass being more blue than green.



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
It just appears so coincidental and lucky for researchers such as Tiller that these so called energies just happen to be undetectable by all of science except him and his ilk.


Do you have links to scientists that tried to replicate Tiller's experimental work and were unable to do so?

Tiller worked with a number of other scientists when he was performing these experiments. After all, he does have access to a staff at MIT. The thing about science is that its validity is bore through repetition, and everything he did was reproducible. So do you have the links to the scientists that tried reproducing it and failed, or are you just assuming that no one else would be able to prove the same thing, based on your admittedly limited understanding of the subject?


I'm not asking the OP to provide the evidence for a mechanism himself, instead I am asking him to provide the mechanism from Tiller since I don't have the personal time to review all of Tiller's papers


It should be clarified that the OP posted nothing about Dr. Tiller, and that I am not the OP.


and the OP claims to be familiar with all of Tiller's work and see's no fault in it.


Wrong. Again, I am not the OP, which does not speak much to your attention span (ie being able to remember who you are talking to). But also, I did not claim to be familiar with all of Tiller's work. I purchased a single book for about $10 that was full of technical data. I chose that book specifically because it was full of technical data, and because I am an engineering student and wanted to review it for myself.

The only reason I have not posted specific data from specific experiments is because the book is in the trunk of a friend of mine's car, as she was helping me move but I still haven't gotten a chance to get it back, along with a number of other personal belongings. I don't care if you think it's going to be the end of the world if I don't post the data, because it still can be 100% legitimate without you having ever laid eyes on it. You seeing it has absolutely no bearing on its validity. I find it arrogant that you think (a) I have something personally to prove to you, and (b) the data is invalid until you see it. You keep admitting you haven't seen the data so you can't say for sure, but then you turn right around from this humble statement and start attacking it. I have said time and again I have no interest in catering to your ego. And that your ego and personal opinions have nothing to do with this man's work, again, a tenured MIT doctorate and materials engineering professor. Not just some quack off the street. And just because I don't know of other similar work does not mean it doesn't exist. You would also be very naive and arrogant for assuming no such other work exists. The simple fact that MIT continues to fund this man and his research speaks to the caliber of minds that are bearing with this on-going research and see great potential in it. Again, I have nothing to gain by arguing with you about this, don't care in the least for your ego or sense of self-worth in your opinions, and you could never have seen any of this information or have the slightest clue about it for all I could care. Am I being clear? Do you understand what I am saying?

I can be more frank: I don't care enough about you, to give a damn what you think about any of this. Get over yourself.

Maybe that is clear enough.



Well then let's define the usage of energy here.


Energy has a very specific definition in physics. I originally thought you already knew this, but apparently not. It is a technical definition.


In physics, energy (from the Greek ἐνέργεια - energeia, "activity, operation", from ἐνεργός - energos, "active, working"[1]) is a scalar physical quantity that describes the amount of work that can be performed by a force, an attribute of objects and systems that is subject to a conservation law. Different forms of energy include kinetic, potential, thermal, gravitational, sound, light, elastic, and electromagnetic energy. The forms of energy are often named after a related force.


en.wikipedia.org...

Forms of energy are not limited to those listed. By technical definition, anything that has the ability to do "work" (another technical term that is carefully defined) is energy. Work is equivalent to movement or displacement; essentially the ability to cause a change in a system. Again, these are technical terms that have already been defined.

And though you don't seem to be able to comprehend this at all, I will say for the nth time that this form of energy has yet to be quantified, measured in discrete units, etc. Only its ability to influence EM fields has been documented, and that influence HAS been documented with quantified data, in discrete measured units. There are particular amperages and voltages associated with the influence of this force, as per Dr. Tiller's work, which is all detailed in full technical glory if you simply find the appropriate source. It is not my responsibility to guide you to that source, short of you purchasing the same book that I own, called "Science and Human Transformation: Subtle Energies, Intentionality and Consciousness."


As far as known to science and myself at this point in time, energy is an inherent property of matter and it is unknown to science of any novel strange forms of matter being produced during the early growing stages of a human fetus.


You are extrapolating data that does not exist. As long as you choose to make things up and pretend they are what Dr. Tiller is showing in his work, then you are obviously going to be extremely confused.

Aside from that, "novel" energies are by definition going to be little-known or understood to conventional scientific wisdom. Look up the word "novel" if that does not make sense to you. I suppose you are trying to argue, again, that if conventional science does not already accept something, then it is not valid. Remember all those "smart ass" posts where I mocked you, saying, "Of course we already know it all, there is no use looking for anything new, case closed, stop all on-going research, etc..." it's because I have a point. I want you to go ahead and make your argument explicitly, that if something has not yet been discovered by science, then it does not exist. Go ahead and say it, because you keep dancing around it as if it's a logical assertion when it obviously is not. You say I am being a "smart ass," well then what does that make you? Another kind of rear-end that is the opposite of "smart"? So go ahead, and make your case, that if we don't already know about it, it doesn't exist. I would love to hear where you are going with this.


Again, it would seem highly coincidental and fortunate for Tiller and his ilk to be the only one's in recent years out of at least let's say seventy-five years of serious research


Can you cite instances of other studies from the past 75 years into the same phenomena Tiller has studied and continues to study at MIT? I will remember asking you this, as well as asking you to support your implied argument that science already knows everything relevant here. I want to see you try to justify both claims.


From everything currently known to be true


By who? You already admitted you have not seen Tiller's data, and it is obvious to me, someone who has seen it, that at least half of what you are asserting about his work is pure nonsense and demonstrates a clear lack of understanding on your part.

On one hand you humbly admit your ignorance, and on the other you continue to lash out against this new science as if it's the devil. How do you really see yourself as any different to the people who jumped on Copernicus' ass as soon as he came out saying the Earth revolved around the Sun? Because previous to him, no one had been able to prove that, either. I don't think you even know what "fallacious logic" is or means, honestly. Which means you also don't even understand what "logic" is in the first place.

Until you can demonstrate that you are even competent enough to understand the implications of everything you have been saying so far, I really don't see what good it would do to even post Tiller's experimental data. You keep falling back on completely fallacious arguments anyway. What is going to be different once you see the data? Do you actually think there is logic to fallacious logic? What do you think the word "fallacious" means, technically?


I'm going to recap the three questions I specifically want answered from this post, for clarity and brevity's sake:


1) Show me where other scientists have tried to replicate Tiller's laboratory work, either successfully or unsuccessfully. Since you claim that no one else has been able to do it.

2) Show me all the other studies from the past 75 years (or however long) into the same phenomena that Tiller is studying in his experiments.

3) Explain what logic there is in your repetitive argument that if science has yet to quantify something, then it does not exist.


If you are unable to answer any of those three questions, then ask yourself: why are you so damned hell-bent on trying to discredit all of this, when it's obvious you literally do not know what you're talking about?



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 



Do you have links to scientists that tried to replicate Tiller's experimental work and were unable to do so?


No, I don't and as I stated before I also haven't found any information on Tiller beyond the one website you gave me and a very vague Wikipedia article on Tiller. If you have any links yourself, I would love to see them.


Wrong. Again, I am not the OP, which does not speak much to your attention span (ie being able to remember who you are talking to). But also, I did not claim to be familiar with all of Tiller's work. I purchased a single book for about $10 that was full of technical data. I chose that book specifically because it was full of technical data, and because I am an engineering student and wanted to review it for myself.


Your correct to a point, when I was replying to the other person, I assumed he/she meant you when using 'OP'.


I find it arrogant that you think (a) I have something personally to prove to you, and (b) the data is invalid until you see it. You keep admitting you haven't seen the data so you can't say for sure, but then you turn right around from this humble statement and start attacking it.


How presumptuous, I am not attacking the data I haven't seen. What I am attacking is the line of logic utilized in which states that only pseudo-scientists have been able to discover that in which the whole of modern science has been unable.


I have said time and again I have no interest in catering to your ego. And that your ego and personal opinions have nothing to do with this man's work, again, a tenured MIT doctorate and materials engineering professor.


Again, how presumptuous, Michael Behe has a PhD in BioChemistry and yet he uses the god of the gaps arguments in attempt to disprove the Theory of Evolution. Tenure means squat when you created idiotic unfounded ideas that defies everything else known.


And just because I don't know of other similar work does not mean it doesn't exist. You would also be very naive and arrogant for assuming no such other work exists.


Well, at least I am not alone with faulty memory. I did state that there was a similar thing done by some Japanese man and the work was found to be a hoax and falsified.


And though you don't seem to be able to comprehend this at all, I will say for the nth time that this form of energy has yet to be quantified, measured in discrete units, etc. Only its ability to influence EM fields has been documented, and that influence HAS been documented with quantified data, in discrete measured units.


Really? Reading a review of his book it appears he describes and defines this force. Weak electromagnetic force. At least now we understand that this is not some new form of energy and now we at least know that this 'energy' is incapable of detaching from the human body and skip along it's merrily little way!

[EDIT TO ADD]

Just so we don't run around and claim I'm being deceptive here again, let's post part of the review.


Chapter 1 introduces the power of weak electromagnetic forces to govern cellular behavior in the brain and in biological systems. The author then calls attention to an ancient way to treat bodily disturbances by accessing acupuncture points that have recently been shown to activate weak electromagnetic forces.

LINK


Acupuncture has been shown to 'activate' a fundamental force required by all matter in order to function? Honestly... let's 'deactivate' that force and see how much matter still exists for acupuncture to 're-activate'.

[EDIT TO ADD MORE]

WOW! Did you know Tiller is into Kirlian effects?! A very well understood phenomenon that many pseudo-scientists like to claim is an aura? Man, this other review I found is just chock full of fun things Tiller believes in! I am also having a slight... well huge problem with finding information about him being at MIT. However, I have found his Stanford University bio page and a few thing's talking about him being at Stanford University, or rather retired, including book reviews. I also found a paper of his giving a basic description of his theory which I'll review tomorrow.

[edit on 25-10-2009 by sirnex]



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


First of all, I take it as a sign that you already see the faults in your own arguments since you blatantly ignored the 3 specific questions I pinned to you throughout my post, and then numerated again specifically at the end. Total cop out. You've made it clear that you have no case for bitching and moaning about things that you've made clear that you don't even understand.



Originally posted by sirnex

Do you have links to scientists that tried to replicate Tiller's experimental work and were unable to do so?


No, I don't and as I stated before I also haven't found any information on Tiller beyond the one website you gave me


Then you are admitting that your statement that this phenomena is "undetectable by all of science except him and his ilk" is completely erroneous and irrelevant since as far as either one of us knows, no one has even tried to replicate his studies, which would be a prerequisite for your statement to be true.



Your correct to a point, when I was replying to the other person, I assumed he/she meant you when using 'OP'.


OP = original poster / original post.



How presumptuous, I am not attacking the data I haven't seen. What I am attacking is the line of logic utilized in which states that only pseudo-scientists have been able to discover that in which the whole of modern science has been unable.


Again, can you cite specific examples of anyone else being unable to reproduce Tiller's work? I am still waiting.

And can you establish that Tiller's work at MIT is NOT "modern science"?


Tenure means squat when you created idiotic unfounded ideas that defies everything else known.


Can you demonstrate that Tiller's work "defies everything else known"?


Well, at least I am not alone with faulty memory. I did state that there was a similar thing done by some Japanese man and the work was found to be a hoax and falsified.


No, that was not the same work as Tiller's. Though I do not believe you have sufficient basis to declare that man's work fraudulent if it's the same man I think you are talking about. You are just leaning on your obvious intellectual bias again.



Really? Reading a review of his book it appears he describes and defines this force. Weak electromagnetic force. At least now we understand that this is not some new form of energy and now we at least know that this 'energy' is incapable of detaching from the human body and skip along it's merrily little way!


For the umpteenth time you are demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of his work despite me explaining this part to you several times. I will do so again. Tiller demonstrated that awareness can draw measurable EM energy to any part of the body upon which it focuses. The EM energy measured itself does not travel from the brain all the way to there. It is generated spontaneously there by another form of energy, which is yet not quantified or measured. I'm not sure whether your reading comprehension is to blame, or whether you are trolling, or whether you just cannot understand the words I am typing. In no case are you making a strong argument here.



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Since you cannot even answer 3 simple questions when I pin them to you, and since you either (a) cannot see the logic in those questions, or (b) are intentionally ignoring them like a troll, I'm doing what I should have done before I started taking you seriously again, and am ignoring the rest of your posts. I have nothing to gain by arguing about this with you, you have never read and don't even understand the work you are criticizing, and in general all of your arguments are classic fallacies and you have no legitimate case for criticism at all. The closest you come is to say it is not yet well understood scientifically, which I would agree with. The rest, pure bullocks.

So, once again, you win. You already know it all. You obviously don't even understand the science you are talking about, but yet you know it all. Because you have to be right. This is seriously my last post to you. Maybe one day you will reconsider why you even post on internet forums. Until then, may your ignorance serve you well in life, you and every other doubting Thomas that was apparently never taught to think straight in the first place.



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 



First of all, I take it as a sign that you already see the faults in your own arguments since you blatantly ignored the 3 specific questions I pinned to you throughout my post, and then numerated again specifically at the end. Total cop out. You've made it clear that you have no case for bitching and moaning about things that you've made clear that you don't even understand.


Hmm, let's see why I didn't bother answering those by answering them now!


1) Show me where other scientists have tried to replicate Tiller's laboratory work, either successfully or unsuccessfully. Since you claim that no one else has been able to do it.


False accusation, this was never a claim of mine.


2) Show me all the other studies from the past 75 years (or however long) into the same phenomena that Tiller is studying in his experiments.


False accusation, your taking a generalized statement and applying it only towards Tiller's particular work.


3) Explain what logic there is in your repetitive argument that if science has yet to quantify something, then it does not exist.


Again, false accusation. This was never a claim of mine either. What I am stating is that I find the logic of, just because the rest of science can't figure out, observe, measure or detect only what pseudo-scientists have been able to doesn't make the science faulty, is questionable to myself.


Then you are admitting that your statement that this phenomena is "undetectable by all of science except him and his ilk" is completely erroneous and irrelevant since as far as either one of us knows, no one has even tried to replicate his studies, which would be a prerequisite for your statement to be true.


I have no idea if his work has been replicated in exactness, but like I said, I have heard of similar falsified proven hoaxed work. I've actually been thinking about doing an experiment myself and see if I can alter PH levels of water with my super duper quantum psychic powers of my detached conscious mind! I know the wife has PH strips lying around the house somewhere!


Again, can you cite specific examples of anyone else being unable to reproduce Tiller's work? I am still waiting.


I'm still unsure why your waiting. I'm pretty positive that I have already mentioned lack of information regarding Tiller and his work beyond what was already given and found.


And can you establish that Tiller's work at MIT is NOT "modern science"?


Hell, I can't even establish he has anything to do with MIT period.


Can you demonstrate that Tiller's work "defies everything else known"?


Yes, a review of the book in which I posted part of in which discusses Tiller stating

acupuncture points that have recently been shown to activate weak electromagnetic forces.


Now I don't know what you've read, but everything I have learned states that this force is always active and if changed slightly we'd all kiss our collective super magical conscious *ss' buh bye.



No, that was not the same work as Tiller's. Though I do not believe you have sufficient basis to declare that man's work fraudulent if it's the same man I think you are talking about. You are just leaning on your obvious intellectual bias again.


No, not exact but similar enough for the point. It's not me stating he's a fraud, it's the investigations stating he was a fraud. Wish I could remember the guy's name as I'm having trouble trying to remember the key words to search for to find the report on him.


For the umpteenth time you are demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of his work despite me explaining this part to you several times. I will do so again. Tiller demonstrated that awareness can draw measurable EM energy to any part of the body upon which it focuses. The EM energy measured itself does not travel from the brain all the way to there. It is generated spontaneously there by another form of energy, which is yet not quantified or measured. I'm not sure whether your reading comprehension is to blame, or whether you are trolling, or whether you just cannot understand the words I am typing. In no case are you making a strong argument here.


Do you have magic powers? I've been meaning to ask that. Like, do you regularly astral travel or move things with your mind or communicate telepathically? Are you clairvoyant at all?



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by esteay812
 



Originally posted by esteay812
reply to post by v01i0
 

Very strange, but accounts like this are out there.


Indeed the world is full of strange stories, but the sad fact is that I have to rely on my own personal experiences - not stories.

But to get in to the discussion at hand (sorry I have been absent for days due the computer crash):

I tend to think that energy is matter, but more subtle and fine-grained form of it. Actually, my opinion is that everything is matter. I am unsure whether our brains can affect matter directly, but I tend to think that law of attraction is something that is ad-hocly correct.

Then again, I don't know.

Once I read this nice analog about the fine and more rough materials; you can take a piece of wood and imbue it with water. Then you can take water and imbue it with gases and so on. The basic principle being that it is possible to imbue rougher materials with more fine ones.

Easily enough one can confirm preceding in practice.

I don't know about souls and such, but from personal experience I tend to think that our psyche is capable of picking up weak signals that does not normally enter our consciousness. Then, in certain conditions - be it asleep or in conscious meditation - these weak signals can enter our consciousness through dreams or even "visions".

-v

[edit on 26-10-2009 by v01i0]



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by 4stral4pprentice
 



Originally posted by 4stral4pprentice
reply to post by v01i0
 


there are practices you can do to prove astral projection is real, it requires a window, some tape, and a deck of cards, one of which you pick randomly and tape to the window, then you project and keep a clear focus when looking at what the card is on the other side.


I suspect that this isn't proof for astral travel, but rather seeing (unconsciously) the card with the help of the light that shines through the card and the window, for it is said that human eye can sense a change of a single photon. Otherwise, you could just pick a card and take it to another room and project yourself there to take a look of that card?

-v

[edit on 26-10-2009 by v01i0]



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Alright, I attempted to conduct an experiment in changing the PH of water by conscious will. My results came out as, negative effect.

I used tap water from my kitchen faucet and a PH indicator test kit called 'Deluxe pH', which includes pH UP and pH DOWN bottles to adjust the PH level of the water. Mind you, this kit is for fish tanks.

I used one control glass of water divided into equal parts in two other glasses for a total amount of three glasses from one cup.

I tested the control cup first and got a nice light bluish hue.

I tested the 'positive thoughts' cup after talking to the cup and thinking only nice thoughts towards it. After testing this cup, the hue was the same as the control cup.

I tested the 'negative thoughts' cup after talking to the cup and thinking bad thoughts towards it. After testing this cup, the hue was the same as the control cup and the positive thoughts cup.

Preliminary results from this experiment indicate to me that the human brain is incapable of directly effecting the PH level of water.



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex


Preliminary results from this experiment indicate to me that the human brain is incapable of directly effecting the PH level of water.


I am going to qualify the statement above by replacing the word "human" with "my'.



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Witness2008
 


So what does that mean? Only some people are capable of this feat or at least the one's who have the $250 to spare for Tillers special UED? Do you have to 'believe in it' in order for it to 'work'?



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


I have not spent one cent on a book, class or anything for that matter in order that my brain, mind and spirit work together to make things possible for myself.

Frankly I do not know the mechanics that could make it all so...I only know for myself that it is so.



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 



Originally posted by sirnex
Do you have to 'believe in it' in order for it to 'work'?


Well, at least this seems to be the case with religions.

Besides, you can't draw conclusive conclusions regarding whole humanity when you fail to do it by yourself. For example, even if I can't play chess properly, it doesn't mean that anyone else can't either.

-v

[edit on 26-10-2009 by v01i0]



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Witness2008
 


So you were successful with the above experiment? Any tips or advice in how I may achieve a positive result myself?



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by v01i0
 


True, I can't necessarily speak for the whole of humanity, but I figure we're all alike enough that this should be a trait achievable by anyone regardless of gender, race, color, or belief..

I mean, is the effect only realizable by those who strongly believe or create enough of a positive/negative thought towards the changes in the PH level of the water? If say, negative thoughts bring about certain PH imbalances that can be construed as having been caused by negative thoughts, then should I not have at least had a 'positive' result in that regard?



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


It is not an experiment I have tried and doubt that I will. I can count on one hand how many times I have had to prove something to myself throughout my life.

Have you ever been near a total stranger that you either were repulsed by or attracted to and did not know why?



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Witness2008
reply to post by sirnex
 

Have you ever been near a total stranger that you either were repulsed by or attracted to and did not know why?


Pheromones, especially with the ladies. Also personal preference and personal experiences towards certain looks. Never once have I thought "Gee, now that's weird, there must be some supernatural explanation that science hasn't discovered yet for that!"



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


So if the brain can pick up chemical signals sending information that effect the body and mind it seems to me that external or internal electrical signals could store as much or more information causing various affects on our environment.

The study of pheromones is still on going and fairly new...I suggest that this subject deserves even more study.



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Witness2008
 


So your suggesting that the electrical signals are stored directly in the chemical compounds driven off by the skin that cause the information of whether or not a person of the opposite sex is good for mating and not that the electrical signals are generated when the chemical compounds are received by the olfactory nerves which produce the electrical signals as shown by current science?



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join