Eldad Eshel Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 Hi, I have made what is called a "psi wheel" and am able to make it spin using my mind, and without any physical contact. I have done this many times and am 100% sure that this is telekinesis. I am not lying. I am wondering what kind of impacts this has on science. For example what are the mediums being used in telekinesis ? I also experience telepathy, since years ago, and believe it "warps" around the universe, as in two individuals can be on different sides of the universe and contact each other with telepathy instantly. I think telekinesis and telepathy can introduce new concepts into science and help it evolve.
kisai Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 (edited) Well, you have a choice. You could go to an academic or scientific institution, demonstrate what you can do for them, and they'll be terribly excited and you'll become a huge celebrity instantaneously after they verify your talent. You could then go around the country and show people your talent which will easily rake in millions of dollars. You can let scientists perform experiments on you and try to detect what you are doing and if they figure it out, it'll basically revolutionize the world as a free energy source becomes available. Gas and petrol prices will drop, the environment will improve, and I wouldn't be surprised if you wanted to run for POTUS, if you are an American citizen, you could win it. Or you could try to insist you have a gift on a forum without providing any evidence. I look forward to seeing you in the papers! Edited January 12, 2016 by kisai 4
Daecon Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 How exactly did you make this wheel? Are you sure it isn't spinning due to something else, like exposure to light? That's what an object called Crookes Radiometer does, it spins when in light.
Eldad Eshel Posted January 12, 2016 Author Posted January 12, 2016 haha, maybe I will when I'm REALLY good at it How exactly did you make this wheel? Are you sure it isn't spinning due to something else, like exposure to light? That's what an object called Crookes Radiometer does, it spins when in light. It is simple paper, cut into a square and folded
Strange Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 I assume you have large solid sheet of glass or perspex between you and this wheel? And it is isolated from any drafts or vibrations? And you are not able to touch the table it is on? And you have checked that it doesn't move when you are not trying to move it? And this has been witnessed by other people? And the tests have been done double-blind? If the answer to any of those is "no" then you do not have special powers. If the answer to all of them is "yes" then you need to do more careful tests. If those further tests are also positive, then you could apply to win the $1,000,000 prize from the Randi Foundation. (Is that still going?) 2
kisai Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 If those further tests are also positive, then you could apply to win the $1,000,000 prize from the Randi Foundation. (Is that still going?) I saw Randi in the Dragoncon parade last year in Atlanta. Judging by the state of his clothes, I would be very skeptical if he possessed a million dollars.
Strange Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 I saw Randi in the Dragoncon parade last year in Atlanta. Judging by the state of his clothes, I would be very skeptical if he possessed a million dollars. The money was placed in trust, so he wouldn't have access to it. (Not that it will ever be paid out, of course.)
Eldad Eshel Posted January 12, 2016 Author Posted January 12, 2016 From a quick google check it looks like this million dollar challenge is done with.
Strange Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 Any comments on how you did your testing? Does it approach the necessary rigour?
Eldad Eshel Posted January 12, 2016 Author Posted January 12, 2016 2 things from you list are a "no". The sheet between me and the wheel, which I currently am not in possession of, and the double blind, which requires academic grounds I guess. I will buy a glass bowl in the future to place over the wheel.
Strange Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 (edited) 2 things from you list are a "no". Then the chances are that you are mistaken. and the double blind, which requires academic grounds I guess. This just requires a couple of friends. You sit in one room with a friend (A). Another friend (B) sits in another room with the wheel. You run a series of tests. Friend A records the time and whether you are in the room or not, and whether you claim to be moving the wheel. Friend B records the times when the wheel moves. Obviously, there must be no communication between A and B during the tests. Then you compare the records and find out what proportion of the time your claims to move the wheel correspond to times when the wheel moves. I will buy a glass bowl in the future to place over the wheel. Good plan. And sit several feet away from the table. And make sure there is no bright sunlight. Edited January 12, 2016 by Strange
DrP Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 I was going to suggest the million dollar challenge also... don't know why it has stopped... no one has ever claimed it.
Sensei Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 (edited) Hi, I have made what is called a "psi wheel" and am able to make it spin using my mind, and without any physical contact. I have done this many times and am 100% sure that this is telekinesis. Great. Then you should have no problem making video on YouTube. In such way nobody will have objections about cheating, using motors, air etc. devices to move it. Edited January 13, 2016 by Sensei
Strange Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 Great. Then you should have no problem making video on YouTube. In such way nobody will have objections about cheating, using motors, air etc. devices to move it. Of course. Anything you see on YouTube must be true:
Sensei Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 (edited) Of course. Anything you see on YouTube must be true: Maybe everything what you see is not true. But that's straight way to permanent conspiracy breakdown.. With provided by you video, at least to me, objections appear immediately. But that's not the point. Saying something on forum is cheap. Does not cost effort. Just press couple keys on keyboard and send. Making and showing video require some effort. If it's just trick, you need to be quite desperate to make it. Yet another step is making trick in front of public requiring even more effort. And making trick in front of scientific community require tremendous effort to convince. If it's not trick all 3 last cases, are easy, as they happen without any effort. After making and showing what he has, I would judge by myself whether it's trick or not. And if I have objections ask for further videos with my objections fixed. Edited January 13, 2016 by Sensei
John Cuthber Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 ... don't know why it has stopped... James Randi is old and he retired.
Gees Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 Eldad Eshel; Hi. First I should tell you that I have never studied telekinesis or telepathy and know very little about them, so I do not dispute, nor do I agree with, your original post. But I have studied some of the other things that people call paranormal, and it is the information that I have gleaned from these studies that I think may be relevant to you -- primarily in relation to testing. Also consider that I am not a scientist. I am a philosopher by nature and habit, so my concern is more related to what is true. The truth is that IF the paranormal exists, we have no idea of how it works. So what are we testing for? After reviewing Strange's list, it occurs to me that we are eliminating any possibility of natural involvement, so we are testing for magic. Since we all know that magic does not exist, the people being tested are doomed to fail. Now many people will not agree that we are testing for magic, so I ask that you consider the following: I had the opportunity to speak with a woman who sees auras. She did not really want to talk about it, as she knew that most people would doubt her, but was convinced by a friend to share her experience. She has never charged money for aura reading, does not do it professionally, and sees it as something personal known mostly to her family and intimate friends. After listening to her, I believe that she actually does see auras and is not one of the charlatans, who pretend to see auras. I had the opportunity to talk to her briefly and ask some pointed questions. The following is some of what I learned. She only sees auras in face to face situations and does not see them through any medium; such as, pictures or television. She believes that a claim to see auras through a medium is hokum. She does not see auras through glass, plastic, water, or even sheer material. I forgot to ask her about window screens. She explained that she often wears sun glasses when going out in public for the express purpose of not seeing auras, as she is a strong reader, and the auras popping in and out of focus are very distracting. This information surprised me as I always thought that seeing auras meant that we all glow to one degree or another, rather than auras popping in and out of focus. Not so apparently. She explained that when viewing a crowd, each person that comes into focus brings a focus on their aura, but when her eyes move past that person the aura fades, except for some people whose auras are so strong that she sees the aura before she sees the person. While she tried to explain this, I tried to reconcile this information with anything that I could understand, and eventually realized that she was talking about the way recognition works. Imagine that you are laying in the grass looking up at a tree. If a squirrel was in the tree looking back at you, you would probably not see it initially, but after recognizing the squirrel, it would be easier to find within the leaves. The squirrel would be like the auras coming into focus. On the other hand, if an elephant were in the tree, you would not be able to miss it, and it would be doubtful that you would even know what kind of tree you were looking at. This would be like viewing a very strong aura. So recognition seems to be very much a part of aura reading. So to bring this back to my point. Every test that I have seen that invalidates aura readers put a glass, plastic, or sheer cloth shield between the reader and the target people. If what this aura reader told me is true, then there is no way that any of the aura readers could have seen the auras. It would have been impossible. So what were the testers testing for? Magic? This is why I take most "paranormal" testing with a grain of salt. Unless they can show me that they are testing for something specific, they are usually testing for magic. It puts me very much in mind of the "witch" testing that occurred a few centuries ago. In order to survive the test, one had to be a witch, which carried a death sentence. Or they had to confess to consorting with the Devil, which would sentence them to Hell, and most Christians in that time would rather die than end up in Hell. 2 things from you list are a "no". The sheet between me and the wheel, which I currently am not in possession of, and the double blind, which requires academic grounds I guess. I will buy a glass bowl in the future to place over the wheel. So if I were in your place, I would go ahead and buy the glass bowl. Then, considering the above information, I would see if the glass bowl nullified the results. After many tests, if it did seem to nullify the results, then I would try to get the wheel spinning, and then get someone or something to set the bowl between me and the wheel to see if it has an effect on the spinning. Of course, you would want to keep meticulous records on the results of your testing. If you found that the bowl affected the results of your tests, then you would be testing whether or not something that is between you and the bowl is blocked by the glass. Putting you and the wheel in separate rooms would be a little bit different. You may be testing for distance, but you also may be testing for obstructions between you and the bowl, so I would do the glass test first. Gee
Eldad Eshel Posted January 14, 2016 Author Posted January 14, 2016 I bought a glass bowl, and unfortunately I cannot get it to spin with it over the wheel. I can get it to tremble at best (assuming it is from me and not something else, which is hard to pinpoint). I can still get it to spin without the bowl over it, which to me means the bowl over the wheel just makes it harder to move, in the same way that moving some other object (like a straw placed on a bottle's cap) is harder (I cannot do this yet).
Robittybob1 Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 (edited) Folded paper! OK what thought processes do you go through to make it spin, for I presume it isn't always spinning? Or trembling as in your second experiment. Is the folded paper then placed on a needle point? Like it isn't just placed on the table top as it is, is it? Edited January 14, 2016 by Robittybob1
Eldad Eshel Posted January 14, 2016 Author Posted January 14, 2016 Folded paper! OK what thought processes do you go through to make it spin, for I presume it isn't always spinning? Or trembling as in your second experiment. I wouldn't call it a thought process, I place my hands over it (not touching of course) and stare at the wheel, working some kind of "intuition" i guess.
Robittybob1 Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 I wouldn't call it a thought process, I place my hands over it (not touching of course) and stare at the wheel, working some kind of "intuition" i guess. That is thought in my definition. It is a bit of mental effort involved. There was an additional question in my previous post could you answer that too please?
Daecon Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 Could it be possible that the heat from your hands is what's moving the wheel, and not your mind?
Robittybob1 Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 Could it be possible that the heat from your hands is what's moving the wheel, and not your mind? Well then it would be easy to prove . Place your hands over it and don't stare at it. Then if it was hot hands, which certainly is a possibility if the folded paper was some sort of turbine shape, it would spin without the need of staring at it.
Strange Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 I bought a glass bowl, and unfortunately I cannot get it to spin with it over the wheel. I can get it to tremble at best (assuming it is from me and not something else, which is hard to pinpoint). I can still get it to spin without the bowl over it, which to me means the bowl over the wheel just makes it harder to move, in the same way that moving some other object (like a straw placed on a bottle's cap) is harder (I cannot do this yet). So that conforms that it is something mundane, like a change in the way that you are breathing that causes the effect. Well done. (You could be really thorough and investigate exact;y what it is that caused the effect and lead you astray.)
Recommended Posts