Robittybob1

The reason I said it would be a Type 2 error in this case would be the air currents developed while reading the control would be greater than during reading the test from the "hot head" subsequent to doing the difficult mental arithmetic. This was discounted as a significant cause of heating but it is still one that EE could claim if the null hypothesis is accepted. I understood the null hypothesis to be "that there will be no statistical difference in the degree of rotation between the test and the control PSI wheels". We are not looking into air currents or vibration at this stage but these need to be eliminated from the experimental design for they could contribute to Type 1 or Type 2 errors. The skeptics will only claim there was a Type 1 error (for they expect the null hypothesis to be accepted) whereas the TK practitioners will only claim a Type 2 error (for they want the null hypothesis to be rejected). EE has alway said it was "harder" to do the test under the bowl. I have tried to define what he means by harder but in my language any task that is harder takes more energy and hence more heat is produced. So developing an argument for the TK skeptics they could also claim that the wheel turns due to the air currents produced from the practitioner's body because more energy is being used up during the times he is doing the TK test than the times he is relaxed doing the control phase.

I wasn't trying to pull out of the experiment. I'm not the TK practitioner but I was just limiting possible excuses if the experiment is claimed to have a type 2 error.

I understand you now. It wasn't that he needed to know it was moving but just that he felt (conscious) he was willing it (trying to make it) move at that time. That would definitely make my brain heat up! A hot brain could create air currents in the room. You would need to virtually to have no thought at all.

OK I have seen that been done before, so they go through the actions, if there were any, but have no mental intention (or possibly thinking "don't move" and at other time "Move". Compare the two. It is really difficult not to think in some form. In fact I have been seeing some YT discussion which proved the brain is generating the ideas before you are conscious of it. EEGs were showing the action potential for up to a second before the subject was conscious of their thought.

It was Arete's method I was more interested in, sorry Strange. This is the post you speak of. It depended on what you mean by moving it. Do you mean trying to move it?

http://www.washington.edu/news/2016/01/29/phases-of-the-moon-affect-amount-of-rainfall/ is another news site.

It will depend on whether EE can control one wheel that he is doing TK at the same time have a control wheel in the same area. We will be using the same wheel to do the control and test measurements but you have never given us any idea how you expect us to "design the experiment so that control and test measurements are taken using the same device". Of course it could be just the operator choosing, but I proposed it done by a set time period e.g. daily change. OK that frequency could be hourly but I thought 10 minutes was too frequent but I'm not the person doing the TK. It will depend on what EE feels he is able to do.

I think the tests we are going to apply will pick up if it ever moves when the person is not trying. If the amount of movement when he is not trying comes close to what happens when trying the statistical analysis will tell us its likelihood of being just a chance effect.

Do humans have a sense of direction like other animals do by picking up the direction of the Earth's magnetic field? I must have one the worst cases of lack of sense of direction. This is the first time I have read that humans have cells with magnetite as well!

You could try that blindfold test anyway. It would be worth knowing if there is any need to have it in sight. We are only guessing as to what is causing it, so trying different things will help.

Interesting, but you are assuming the person is aware it is moving as if there is some sort of feedback other than the visual confirmation. There was very little suggestion that this was the case, even though I do recall Darryl mentioning some sort of gut reaction. Does EE confirm any feeling that he associates with success? Are you sure that happens?

The only time I have experienced something akin to ESP it seemed that it was mediated through some sort of spirit entity. There was voice in my dream telling me what someone else had been dreaming about. When I broached the topic the subject and theme of the dream he had was exactly as I was informed. (Obviously I did not see any part of his dream.) This seems more like what the psychics suggest (as in the Sensing Murder series screened in NZ), but in my case with a whole lot more specificity.

I heard how Susan Blackmore set up double bling trials but in this case I can't see how you could apply it to the PSI wheel situation. It definitely didn't imply blocking the view of the PSI wheel. In her case they were proving whether these amulets had special powers. The manufacturer supposed made "fake" amulets that looked like "real" ones, and Susan was trying to show there was no significant benefits in wearing them. The distribution of the amulets were double blinded in that neither the wearer or the interviewer knew the status of the amulet. Everyone was able to see the amulet. It wasn't as if you were not aware that you were wearing it.

I have heard that if you record your dreams you become more likely to remember them. So if you work out a method of recording the melody e.g humming into your cellphone maybe you will be able to have it written out as music.

Can you remember the tunes once you wake up?

If it was possible to split the TK effect just to one of a pair, you then could try having two PSI wheels under the same bowl.

You still can't use the one wheel for test and control at the same time. My design is using the same apparatus as test and control serially, and having another nearly identical version operating parallel but in the opposite phase to pick up any environmental effects. Personally I find it a very thorough test. You could graph the amount of movement over time to see if stability (settling down on the pivot point) had any part to play. I would expect, if this was the case, that any movement to occur in either the test or control in the first day or two but little to no movement for the rest of the month. I wonder if EE will experiment to see if two wheels could be used at the same time. Can he split his focus to only one of a pair of PSI wheels? @EE - could you try this out in the uncovered situation please?

Arete - two identical wheels side by side on a table. Choose by coin flip which one is control and test subject. Next day reverse the designation and without repositioning anything do the experiment again. Continue this for a month. Compare the total rotation in the test to the control. So we are using the same equipment for the test and the control.

Has anyone ever claimed they can switch the effect on and off in 1 minute intervals? That sounds far too frequent. From what I had understood it would need to be daily. So every other day do the TK and see if the rotation is greater on TK days (the analysis as you describe). Darryl mentions it took 9 months of practice to get the wheel to move under the bowl.

I can accept that. But how do we go forward?

Have a look and see how slowly the wheel moves from 1:50 into the video to 3:30.

You missed what I mean, just like the push you think of I imagine the air molecules do the pushing, but this is still under mind control. This is said as pure imagination for I have never experienced anything like TK. For a push as in a finger would make it rock and bounce around as well. When I looked intently at the motion in Darryl's videos there was no sudden push, generally the movement starts virtually imperceptibly but you look at it again and it has moved.

Why would you choose that one. From what we see it is more like the first one - air currents.

What is wrong with the experimental design I have proposed? There would have to be independent verification.

Darryl removed any chance of air under the rim of the glass bowl by placing the bowl on a towel. I would imagine we could seal the rim-table junction with plasticine or similar for the towel would stop the movement of fine material placed under the bowl. I was thinking of testing the apparatus with a hair dryer to see clearly what effects of outside air currents would have on the wheel. What happens if you have two wheels out in the open, can you get the effect just to spin one and not the other?