Conscious universe getting more support by scientists.

page: 27
42
<< 24  25  26    28 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus
reply to post by sirnex
 


So you can ignore it again?

No thanks, do your own homework.


Poser, you never posted any actual experiments that have been PERFORMED. Don't hand me that BS. The article you linked me too was an unperformed experiment with conjectured results and your passing it off as if it really happened and the results were really obtained.


It's simple, you can't because no such experiment actually exists that proves your assertion.




posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


I'm not sure if your mental block is comprehension or preconceived notions but I don’t really care…

"The measurement effect. With sublime understatement, this phenomenon is referred to as "the measurement effect." When we measure (or detect, or see, or quantify, or determine, or otherwise gain knowledge of) something at the quantum level, the very act of measurement will have an effect on the thing itself. To all intents and purposes, the act of a sentient being in seeking a measurement will cause the thing to have a property which can be measured, and thereby produce a definite property that can be measured.

Since around 1927, the standard quantum mechanical explanation for the difference between results in the double slit experiments particularly, and for the measurement effect generally, is that in one set of experiments, we know (or more precisely, we can in principle know)[2a] which slit the electron went through; and in the other set of experiments, we don't know (i.e., we cannot know even in principle)[2a] which slit the electron went through. This conclusion is one facet of the "Copenhagen interpretation" of quantum mechanics (so named because it was developed by Niels Bohr's institute located in Copenhagen, Denmark), which represents the closest thing to a consensus among physicists for the last seventy years or so.

The difference is whether we know. The difference is whether we choose to have the information available.

If we demand to know which slit the particle went through, then a particle must appear at one slit or the other so that we will have an answer to our question; and so our curiosity has caused there to be a particle at one of the slits, and now there is a particle; and if there is a particle at one slit or the other, it must obey the rules for particle motion, and so it does.

Conversely, if we do not demand to know which slit the particle went through, no particle need appear at either slit; and so we have not caused there to be any particle, and now there is no particle; and if there is no particle at either slit, the system remains free to roam the universe in whatever form seems most pleasing to itself.
And all of this is determined at the time we demand the knowledge, not at the time we institute any mechanical processes for obtaining the information."

www.bottomlayer.com...

"These situations are principally derived from the phenomenon known as "delayed choice," proposed by John Wheeler, see Quantum Theory and Measurement, J.A. Wheeler and W.H. Zurek, eds. Princeton Univ. Press (1983). The QM predictions have been experimentally realized and verified"

At least one quantum eraser double slit experiment has been accomplished with electrons. I. Neder, et al., "Entanglement, Dephasing, and Phase Recovery via Cross-Correlation Measurements of Electrons," Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 036803 (2007-Jan-19), e-print at arxiv.org... This is said to be the electron equivalent of "ghost interference" as reported by D. Strekalov, et al., "Observation of two-photon 'ghost' interference and diffraction," Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 3600 (1995), which is nicely described in P. Chingangbam, et al., "Two particle ghost interference demystified," e-print at arxiv.org... See also Qureshi T., et al., "Quantum Eraser Using Spin-1/2 Particles" (2005), e-print at arxiv.org...

The experimental realizations of delayed choice of which I am aware have all been accomplished with photons. This is mainly due to the ingenious scheme developed by Marlan O. Scully which employs entangled pairs of photons to accomplish which-path measurement 1) with no interaction; and 2) with the ability to manipulate the which-path information. M.O. Scully and K. Drühl, Phys. Rev. A 25, 2208 (1982). For pedagogical purposes, I have continued to use electrons as the quantum units under discussion. With recent successes in achieving entanglement among atoms, it seems likely that these experiments may be repeated in the near future with various quantum units of matter (if this has not already been achieved). QM being what it is, there is no question but that the results will be consistent with those obtained with photons.

Summary of the basic idea of delayed choice experiments is available at
www.bottomlayer.com...
For an elegant delayed choice experiment, see Yoon-Ho Kim, et al., "A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser", Phys.Rev.Lett. 84 (2000) 1-5 xxx.lanl.gov... Commentary on this experiment is available at
www.bottomlayer.com...

Another excellent experiment is reported at G. Scarcelli, Y. Zhou and Y. Shih (Dep't of Physics, Univ. of Maryland). "Random Delayed-Choice Quantum Eraser via Two-Photon Imaging." (Dec. 22, 2005) arxiv.org...

Recently, a group advised by Alain Aspect reported a successful delayed-choice experiment with single photons and direct intervention by the experimenter. V. Jacques, et al., Experimental realization of Wheeler's delayed-choice GedankenExperiment (Oct. 31, 2006), e-print www.arxiv.org...

Paul Kwiat and Rachel Hillmer describe "A Do-It-Yourself Quantum Eraser" in the May 2007 edition of Scientific American . All you need is a laser pointer and some polarizing filters, and they even tell you where to get the polarizing filters. If I were still in high school, this would be my science project!



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 



I'm not sure if your mental block is comprehension or preconceived notions


You should really verify your sources rather than being so damn lazy. Science isn't so sensationalized, believe it or not.



The measurement problem in quantum mechanics is the unresolved problem of how (or if) wavefunction collapse occurs. The inability to observe this process directly has given rise to different interpretations of quantum mechanics, and poses a key set of questions that each interpretation must answer.
source


but I don’t really care…


Obviously!



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
You should really verify your sources rather than being so damn lazy. Science isn't so sensationalized, believe it or not.



Again, calling something sensationalized doesn't refute the experimental results...

Your fear of the implications of these experiments doesn't make me lazy...sorry.

Let me post your responce for you.


Originally posted by sirnex
No! No! Not possible! Do some scientific research!!!! That voodoo magic stuff isn't scientific!!


The only difference between science and magic is understanding...



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 



Again, calling something sensationalized doesn't refute the experimental results...


God you dumb as hell, you can't get results from an UNPERFORMED experiment. Are you truly that flipping retarded? Did you actually READ the article you continuously link to?



Your fear of the implications of these experiments doesn't make me lazy...sorry.


There are no implications from conjectured results of an unperformed experiment. We can speculate till we're blue in the face about a plethora of possible scenarios, speculation isn't proof.



Let me post your responce for you.


Please don't misrepresent me you moron.



The only difference between science and magic is understanding...


Go quote from the actual science and experiments the article is sensationalizing. Go UNDERSTAND what your trying to learn about.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
There are no implications from conjectured results of an unperformed experiment. We can speculate till we're blue in the face about a plethora of possible scenarios, speculation isn't proof.



Refusing to look at the evidence doesn't make it disappear...



Or does it?!


"If what you say is true," he said (in effect), "then I may choose to know a property after the event should already have taken place." Wheeler realized that in such a situation, the observer's choice would determine the outcome of the experiment – regardless of whether the outcome should logically have been determined long ago.

"Nonsense," said the reductionists. "Rubbish," said the materialists. "Completely absurd," said the naïve realists. "Yup," said the mathematicians.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 04:37 PM
link   
For the sake of literature and argument, look at My Big Toe by Dr. Thomas Campbell who was the physicist for the Monroe Institute back in the 1970's and who has worked for Nasa and the Dod.

books.google.com...=onepage&q=&f=false

His triology is pure cogntiive reality from a first hand researcher of that state. Brilliant work if you are willing to go down that rabbit hole.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 



Refusing to look at the evidence doesn't make it disappear...


You haven't show any evidence despite my many inquiries to do so.


As for Wheeler, he's a Quantum Carbon Chauvinist.


I doubt you'd understand what that mean's though.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Just another excellent book by a Physicist tacking the concious model of reality is "A Course on Consciousness",
by Stanley Sobottka
Emeritus Professor of Physics
University of Virginia

faculty.virginia.edu...

Next to My Big Toe by Dr. Thomas Campbell, this is quite an excellent read and has my two thumbs up.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by YouAreDreaming
 


I haven't taken a look at My Big TOE yet, but this other book here has me a tad disenchanted with it right off the bat. It appears to be claiming an explicit knowledge of what consciousness is and how it arises when in light of all other sciences dealing with consciousness knows nothing about and admits to knowing nothing about the nature of consciousness.

I also dislike the derogatory sounding commentary of how materialism is assumed as if idealism is not assumed. Both are equally assumed and one has to take an objective look at what evidences point to what. As it stands, idealism has no tangible evidence in it's favor whereas materialism does (in my opinion). Idealism is an unscientific point of view as it posits no measurable and viable mechanism to determine the validity of what it claims is true of reality. With materialism, we have measurable and quantifiable predictions and some have proven accurate enough to give us great technological achievements.

I'm still reading through everything, hopefully some research or evidence will be mentioned other than mere hypocritical conjecture.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


What you will find, as you will always find are the thoughts of others in their attempts to describe what you already naturally possess as consciousness. I fully agree that science and technology has advanced so far ahead of mysticism and belief. We know a computer is a computer and we can call a dice a dice even if we cannot predict what number it will roll.

Like any fanaticism however, our faith in Science also exists if we do not always question the result or the test. There are many theories that exist which do expand past ideas however real that they appear as still theories.

When we look our world from the sociological standpoint we have the blunt fact that humans are subjective creatures who will believe just about anything. Children believing in Santa Clause is just about as good as it gets next to Christians believing in Jesus. Or Moslems believing in Mohammad and Allah.

I see things from my own ideologies and certainly they will never be how you perceive the same data because I branch into two very real reality systems in my endeavour to understand the relationship I have with those systems.

Physical Reality does exist, and it is imperial. I don't refute that, and I agree with even the most ancient of Greek philosophers Democitrus when he says it's made of atoms.

That said, even Plato was converging on another reality which existed as idealism and he was not wrong in assuming that this idealistic reality existed as thought and triangles.

Both Plato and Democitrus were right. There are two aspects of reality. Physical Reality, this one you defend with much logic, reason and rigor.

And Cognitive reality, the origin of consciousness and exists only as a mind-generated phenomena of consciousness. What exists in the Cognitive reality is just thought. It is a mind-generated construct, nothing more.

To understand the mind/body relationship between Physical Reality we need to also understand the dualism of Cognitive reality and the role it plays to the subjective Observer. Cognitive reality suffers from many many pitfalls that Physical Reality because it's imperial simply will never suffer from.

The first flaw is that it's perception orientated and limited to the sensory apparatus response to stimuli. The data that the mind receives from the body is in very minute doses and that gives our subjective conscious vantage point a mental interpretation.

That interpretation can and is... often flawed. Yet despite those flaws, we still all manage to reach a census of the Objective stimuli that caused the reaction to stimuli in the form of a purely mind-generated conscious response.

Where I like to descend deeper into Cognitive reality is that it also has a sad fate. It exists only when we are conscious, and goes away when we are not. Unlike physical reality, cognitive reality suffers collapse and expansion at a much more accelerated rate then the Big Bang in the big reality.

However, if you believe in expanding and collapsing reality, nothing holds more true to what happens to us when we fall asleep and wake up. Our cognitive reality collapses. What happens when we die is quite a mystery because materialists will say that is the final collapse and we are done.

Cognitive reality is also subject to terrible bouts of hallucinations and delusions and runs rampant with belief systems and false truisms. Each of us have to cultivate and nurture this reality as if it was our own. Well, that is because it is our own. It only exists because we exist to observe it.

Consciousness is really a cognitive state and is trapped in this cognitive reality. There is no wonder our world is so messed up with so many belief systems, cults and bad information. It stems from the enigma of human consciousness and human error. Let's face it, we are wrong more often then we like to admit.

That said, I entertain two paradigm realities, Physical Reality and cognitive reality. Both in my opinion are real, and have value for interpretation and exploration.

In cognitive reality, we also have dreams. Dreams are a great source of fun for me because I can often control my dreams and experience micro-virtual reality experiences that are actually better then life. I certainly don't want to create anything less if I take the reigns of what dreaming means.

Yet, as wonderful as it is... each dream dies when I wake up. A tragic collapse of organized thought now left to flawed memory and sleep induced amnesia.

The big kick... is there a connection between Physical Reality and Cognitive Reality, is there some type of Quantum connection that physicists are prescribing too? Is it too early to tell? Is it wishful thinking on the parts of those trying to connect consciousness to wave function collapse? That is the paradox of subjective reality vs. objective reality. We will always sit fighting the war of materialism and idealism rather then seeing how both play a role in what we personally subscribe to as, our reality.

All I can say is, I have had my share of profound experiences with things like precognitive dreams, so much so I personally know a connection but not in any weight that is worth trying to convince others who do not. I can only speculate and theorize as to the very nature of the result. I have my personal anecdotal evidence, but it may as well be Santa clause to someone else due to the sad fact I cannot record everything I see in a dream, and replay it in reality. I can just sit on my fence and watch the chaff of wheat blow in the wind.


[edit on 5-1-2010 by YouAreDreaming]



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by YouAreDreaming
 


I'm only going to reply to a couple of points made tonight and get at the rest tomorrow.


Physical Reality does exist, and it is imperial. I don't refute that, and I agree with even the most ancient of Greek philosophers Democitrus when he says it's made of atoms.


That sounds contradictory given another statement you made in a different thread. I forget which thread it was right now, but something to do with electromagnetic reality. I fail to see how such a theory would give rise to a physical reality consisting of matter. Perhaps you can explain it to me, I didn't find much through google on this train of thought.


Both Plato and Democitrus were right. There are two aspects of reality. Physical Reality, this one you defend with much logic, reason and rigor.

And Cognitive reality, the origin of consciousness and exists only as a mind-generated phenomena of consciousness. What exists in the Cognitive reality is just thought. It is a mind-generated construct, nothing more.


I don't refute a "cognitive reality", I only refute that a cognitive reality is the only true reality. Or that thought without action can change physical reality.


The big kick... is there a connection between Physical Reality and Cognitive Reality, is there some type of Quantum connection that physicists are prescribing too? Is it too early to tell? Is it wishful thinking on the parts of those trying to connect consciousness to wave function collapse? That is the paradox of subjective reality vs. objective reality. We will always sit fighting the war of materialism and idealism rather then seeing how both play a role in what we personally subscribe to as, our reality.


The only issue I have with this is that quantum theory and wave/particle duality have nothing to say about conscious observation. It also appears with what is known thus far that consciousness can't directly observe as everything collapses the minute it interacts with our senses. When science speaks of the observer effect, it isn't talking about a human conscious observer, it's talking about interactions as simple as two electrons colliding. There is no real inherent paradox from my understanding, the paradox lies within the sensationalization of the science itself. When we decide to arbitrarily define the 'observer' as a conscious entity without showing what consciousness is or how it arises, it's no wonder that quantum theory seems so at odds with our understanding of reality. This is why I keep telling Jezus to get off that stupid site and look at the science itself.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 07:18 PM
link   
I would recommend anyone with an interest in this to read "The Field" by Lynne McTaggart and "The Holographic Universe" by Michael Talbot. Both well written and thought provoking books



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
That sounds contradictory given another statement you made in a different thread. I forget which thread it was right now, but something to do with electromagnetic reality. I fail to see how such a theory would give rise to a physical reality consisting of matter. Perhaps you can explain it to me, I didn't find much through google on this train of thought.


And I treated it as an idea, less then a theory. An idea that all there is, is energy frequencies that convey reality and could potentially have organized reality that overlaps this current frequency band we can perceive and be entirely different.

We know radiowaves, light, and other forms of electromagnitism can create patterns of information. All it needs is the right interface tuned into the right frequency to interpret the information. That is exactly the model of perception we have. We perceive a band of information from this energy band and interpret it.

It's just an idea, I am not claiming any validity to the concept other then it logically makes sense if we purely base it on frequency based perception alone, then perhaps there is other reality, or just other information in reality as found on flowers when observed at the Ultraviolet spectrum.

It lends into a multi-verse verses only one Universe theory. Fractal reality also may subscribe to this. The holographic principle may give merit to it. I don't know, it's just an interesting concept to think about.



I don't refute a "cognitive reality", I only refute that a cognitive reality is the only true reality. Or that thought without action can change physical reality.


For us conscious humans, cognitive reality is the reality we fundamentally exist in, everything else is just external stimuli helping us form a census of what that reality might actually be like. I think it's the true reality for the conscious observer only, because once the conscious observer stops generating it, it's totally irrelevant as to the source for that observer. It's the one we take to the grave with us. It's the one we render from limited sensory information that only gives us a small window of perception as to what is really out there in the external stimuli.

That said, the external stimuli is still it's own reality and only perceived in the true reality of the conscious observer. That is my interpretation of reality dualism found in physical reality and cognitive reality.



The only issue I have with this is that quantum theory and wave/particle duality have nothing to say about conscious observation. It also appears with what is known thus far that consciousness can't directly observe as everything collapses the minute it interacts with our senses. When science speaks of the observer effect, it isn't talking about a human conscious observer, it's talking about interactions as simple as two electrons colliding. There is no real inherent paradox from my understanding, the paradox lies within the sensationalization of the science itself. When we decide to arbitrarily define the 'observer' as a conscious entity without showing what consciousness is or how it arises, it's no wonder that quantum theory seems so at odds with our understanding of reality. This is why I keep telling Jezus to get off that stupid site and look at the science itself.


That's the argument that Einstein had regarding Wolfgang Pauli and Werner Heisenberg research. They were wrong, he was right. End of discussion.

I don't have their research or any evidence other then the hearsay theory myself. I like that physicists are starting to link consciousness to realtiy based on experiences that I have to understand and make sense of such as:

Precognitive dreams that I have had, and other quirks that I haven't talked much about which tell me something bigger is going on then we know.

Hence the attraction to the conscious connection for me. I know with no faith or belief that I have had some, not all dreams come true. I am trying to understand why and how. I may get there, and may epic fail.

At any rate, I will always stand corrected, adopt new ideas and theories until they no longer fit certain models as I try to build out my little TOE with this whole quagmire of existence I have to make sense of. Beer at a pub helps.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
You haven't show any evidence despite my many inquiries to do so.



Pretending the experiments don't exist doesn't refute their results.

Experiments have shown that it is not an issue of measurement but an issue of knowledge to a conscious observer. If the information is available the wave function collapses.

Instead of trying to manipulate those facts to fit your theories you might think about changing your theories to fit the facts.

I understand the implications of the experiments are profound but that doesn’t mean we should dismiss them because they are disturbing to us…



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 06:34 AM
link   
reply to post by YouAreDreaming
 



It's just an idea, I am not claiming any validity to the concept other then it logically makes sense if we purely base it on frequency based perception alone, then perhaps there is other reality, or just other information in reality as found on flowers when observed at the Ultraviolet spectrum.


Ah OK, my misunderstanding then. Sorry about that!



That said, the external stimuli is still it's own reality and only perceived in the true reality of the conscious observer. That is my interpretation of reality dualism found in physical reality and cognitive reality.


When phrased like that, I agree with you. I just find it a stretch of the imagination when others claim absolute truth that a materialistic reality doesn't exist at all, that it's 'assumed'.


That's the argument that Einstein had regarding Wolfgang Pauli and Werner Heisenberg research. They were wrong, he was right. End of discussion.


You can't simply state a 'wrong' and then tell me end of discussion. I don't do that, I ask you to cite sources.


I don't have their research or any evidence other then the hearsay theory myself. I like that physicists are starting to link consciousness to realtiy based on experiences that I have to understand and make sense of such as:


Then in my view, it's not wrong if you can't provide anything to refute it. I can quote directly from the observer effect that literally says the 'observer' need not be conscious at all.


These experiments demonstrate a puzzling relationship between the act of measurement and the system being measured, although it is clear from experiment that an "observer" consisting of a single electron is sufficient -- the observer need not be a conscious observer.
source

OK, so how is this wrong when this is what it explicitly states? You've already admitted you have no evidence, well I've showed you mine. Is it still wrong? Do you claim to be more knowledgeable in quantum theory than a quantum physicist?


Precognitive dreams that I have had, and other quirks that I haven't talked much about which tell me something bigger is going on then we know.

Hence the attraction to the conscious connection for me. I know with no faith or belief that I have had some, not all dreams come true. I am trying to understand why and how. I may get there, and may epic fail.


I personally don't subscribe to precognitive dreams as time does not exist. You can't see an event that has not happened nor can information of a future event travel back through a medium that doesn't exist in which to be seen.


At any rate, I will always stand corrected, adopt new ideas and theories until they no longer fit certain models as I try to build out my little TOE with this whole quagmire of existence I have to make sense of. Beer at a pub helps.


An admirable trait and I can only hope this is stated with absolute honesty. This is also what I strive towards. I look at what new discoveries are being made, what new research suggests and what the evidence shows us. I used to think a lot of things in science were solid, unmoving and unchanging. I no longer think this anymore and I've found newer theories that better explain (in my opinion) what is observed without inventing unseens or unfalsifiable ideas.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 06:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 



Pretending the experiments don't exist doesn't refute their results.


Your starting to come across as a prepubescent twelve year old pretending/wishing he/she is smart. Your argument is devoid of any critical thought and regardless of me pointing out *direct from the article mind you* that this "experiment" you keep BS-ing on about has not been performed and that the results are not tangible, only conjectured, you still feel the mind numbing need to go on and on about how right it is. Your simply a delusional little boy who *WANTS* to be right. I'm sorry, we don't all get what we want. You can keep repeating yourself as much as you like, if you can't read or understand what you read, then you probably shouldn't be attempting to argue it.


Experiments have shown that it is not an issue of measurement but an issue of knowledge to a conscious observer. If the information is available the wave function collapses.


And I've asked you to cite your sources from any credible scientific articles. Why is this such a difficult request?


Instead of trying to manipulate those facts to fit your theories you might think about changing your theories to fit the facts.


I would advice you not to talk to yourself on the forum. You are the only one here manipulating things, and they aren't even facts. Your continuously arguing conjectured results as if they were proof of something. The article clearly informs you that the experiment is unperformed and that the results are only conjectured, not real.


I understand the implications of the experiments are profound but that doesn’t mean we should dismiss them because they are disturbing to us…


You need to grow up. When your ready to discuss this with a mediocre of intelligent thought and effort put in behind your arguments rather than long tracts of quoted text and a couple of sentences, then shoot me a U2U. For now, I'm done with you and your infantile ramblings of unperformed experiments and conjectured results. Please grow up, I beg you.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 08:14 AM
link   
What about the Masaru Emoto rice experiment? If you don't know it, look here:



Before you start bashing this, have you tried it? No? Then don't bother replying until you tried it yourself. And if you're too lazy, there are tons of videos on youtube of people that have tried it. Here, I'll help you:

www.youtube.com...

You think all those people would actually force the results on purpose? If there's ANY indication of consciousness or intention being an influence on the outer world, this is the start of it.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 10:15 AM
link   
Great video! It just makes you think how can you honestly debunk this when there’s so many people over youtube getting the same results.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 



What about the Masaru Emoto rice experiment? If you don't know it, look here:


Haven't heard of this one, but I did hear about his debunked ice crystal experiment.


Before you start bashing this, have you tried it? No? Then don't bother replying until you tried it yourself. And if you're too lazy, there are tons of videos on youtube of people that have tried it. Here, I'll help you:


I have rice, I have water. If this is a real thing then the effects should be reproducible. I'll start the experiment later today. I'll record any observations at the end of one full week as well as take pictures. At the conclusion of the experiment I'll post a new thread on my results. Does that sound fair?

If there is anything I should record down that you think might be important, let me know and I'll make sure I take note of it.


You think all those people would actually force the results on purpose? If there's ANY indication of consciousness or intention being an influence on the outer world, this is the start of it.


He did in fact 'force' the results with the ice crystals from what I have read. If he was capable of fudging the results of one "experiment", then why not another?

In another thread someone posted something about some guy who changed the PH level of water through intention. I didn't have the $200 for his 'special device that stores intention', so I utilized intention directly from the source (myself) in an attempt to replicate the results. Nothing happened and rather than conceding to the possibility that perhaps it was all just bunk to begin with, people decided to tell me that my "mind powers" just were strong and focused enough.





new topics
top topics
 
42
<< 24  25  26    28 >>

log in

join