Bitcoin Forum

This is pseudo science. The guy claims that he remote viewed Jesus Chris! And don't insult quantum physics...

I don't see any problems with remote viewing Jesus Christ.

Paradigm shifts are painful, I understand.
You're probably still missing the times when geocentric model was popular.
That was a real "hard" science unlike the pseudo-scientific-heresy of Copernicus and Galileo Galilei.

I don't see any problems with remote viewing Jesus Christ.

Paradigm shifts are painful, I understand.
You're probably still missing the times when geocentric model was popular.
That was a real "hard" science unlike the pseudo-scientific-heresy of Copernicus and Galileo Galilei.

In fact I can't remember any established theory in the past which wasn't turned upside down by its successor. So what makes you think that this time is going to be different?

Because he can't. If he was to say that its possible to build a machine it would be a little more plausible. This is just outright lies or he's crazy.

Unlike you I actually took quantum physics in the college for a semester. And brining up Copernicus & Galilei is so ridiculous, they fought against men who talked to and saw their god (Jesus).

LOL.

Assuming it's possible to remote-view other locations in space, I see no reason why it would not be possible to remote-view other locations in time. After all, Space and time are merely the warp and the weft of the same fabric: Spacetime. Of course, that first assumption is pretty big, and I'd need to see some repeatable experiments to believe it.

How secure is Bitcoin vis-a-vis attempts to remote view someone else's private keys? Is this something the development team is working on?

Is this one of dank's sockies?

Predicting the future is now called remote viewing :/ ?

That's a great question!
I've always wondered this myself.
Even brain-wallet won't help much against remote-viewing "attack" :)

The answer that Ed Dames found when attempting to remote view some russian spy was that there are guardian angels that would prevent any unauthorized access to the information.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQrAG0ZgWe0

aahhhhh crop cycles..... now i understand :)

--> Its getting interesting .... :P

uhhhh angels again.... spy stuff ...... things we can't describe .... no labels .... all so true ... not discussing with science.....

--> Its getting interesting .... :P

I'll be far more interested in this if:
a) He performs, under controlled conditions, an actual experiment that confirms his theory.
b) His results are independently confirmed by other researchers.

Until then, this is not science. It's just one man's imagination, aided by a partial knowledge of quantum mechanics.

OTOH if he's able to perform an experiment successfully (under controlled conditions) the results of which cannot be explained by other known phenomena and especially if other researchers can duplicate his results, then I'll change my mind.

I'll be far more interested in this if:
a) He performs, under controlled conditions, an actual experiment that confirms his theory.
b) His results are independently confirmed by other researchers.

Until then, this is not science. It's just one man's imagination, aided by a partial knowledge of quantum mechanics.

OTOH if he's able to perform an experiment successfully (under controlled conditions) the results of which cannot be explained by other known phenomena and especially if other researchers can duplicate his results, then I'll change my mind.

If you watch some of his other videos he invites everybody to review the data and duplicate the experiment.
He is definitely not alone and not the first one to perform remote viewing.

In fact even a "single" remote viewing experiment consists of multiple sessions performed by several individuals and each session is given a weight based on the clarity of the results.
The overall outcome of the experiment is determined as success only if enough sessions independently demonstrate the same result. So it sounds like scientific method to me.

If you watch some of his other videos he invites everybody to review the data and duplicate the experiment.
He is definitely not alone and not the first one to perform remote viewing.

In fact even a "single" remote viewing experiment consists of multiple sessions performed by several individuals and each session is given a weight based on the clarity of the results.
The overall outcome of the experiment is determined as success only if enough sessions independently demonstrate the same result. So it sounds like scientific method to me.

How is the success of a result measured?

How is the success of a result measured?

Assuming he's not a charlatan, his (and others') results are valid only if adequate controls are in place. In almost all papers I've read that have attempted to prove something that would completely rewrite known science, there is some variable that's not being controlled. A good recent example is the FTL neutrino claim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light_neutrino_anomaly).

The procedures are quite rigid, they determine the properties of the target in a binary format (yes/no).
For example, is target man-made or natural? Is it solid or liquid/gas? and so on.

So, they use this?

http://delhi4cats.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/20q.jpg

They use a naturally grown one, which is your body ;)

The procedures are quite rigid, they determine the properties of the target in a binary format (yes/no).
For example, is target man-made or natural? Is it solid or liquid/gas? and so on.

So if enough number of independent sessions converge to the same results, the experiment is considered successful.

You can watch this video as an example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWkr7pOWQZ0

I see. So, these "studies" are just basically games of 20 questions. Gotcha.

Their evidence is people agreeing with each other. Is there literature of some sort (not a book) that I can see.

The video implies some knowledge of quantum physics and some understanding of wave-functions, but the concepts explained in the presentation itself are quite easy to grasp.
Here is the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hm5L8z34sNg

No, the evidence is that the converging result of the sessions matches the target in case if it's physically accessible after the fact. And of course you want to train yourself and demonstrate results on "easy" targets first.

I mostly gathered what I know from videos, so I cannot recommend any literature at the moment.
Will post later if I find something interesting.

I'll be far more interested in this if:
a) He performs, under controlled conditions, an actual experiment that confirms his theory.
b) His results are independently confirmed by other researchers.

Until then, this is not science. It's just one man's imagination, aided by a partial knowledge of quantum mechanics.

OTOH if he's able to perform an experiment successfully (under controlled conditions) the results of which cannot be explained by other known phenomena and especially if other researchers can duplicate his results, then I'll change my mind.

I haven't watched this video but you should know that Controlled Remote Viewing has been confirmed in environments by Ingo Swann and others at the Stanford Research Institute during the 1970s if i recall correctly.

edit:  just read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingo_Swann

Remote Viewing

If someone could alter the field simply by looking at it, that would come even closer to the premise that each of us is imbedded in the field. An intriguing proof of this was provided by a machine built by physicists at Stanford called a SQUID, or superconducting quantum interference device. It’s enough for us to know that this device, which measures the possible activity of subatomic particles, specifically quarks, is very well shielded from all outside magnetic forces. This shielding begins with layers of copper and aluminum, but to insure that no outside force can affect the mechanism, exotic metals like niobium and “mu metal” wrap the inner core.

In 1972 a SQUID was installed in the basement of a laboratory at Stanford, apparently doing nothing except tracing out the same hill-and-valley S-curve on a length of graph paper. This curve represented the constant magnetic field of the earth; if a quark passed through the field the machine would register it by changes in the pattern being drawn. A young laser physicist named Hal Puthoff (later to become a noted quantum theorist) decided that aside from its main use, the SQUID would make a perfect test of psychic powers. Very few people, including the scientists at Sanford, knew the exact inner construction of the machine.

A letter Puthoff wrote in search of a psychic who would take up the challenge was responded to by Ingo Swann, a New York artist with psychic abilities. Swann was flown to California without being told in advance about either the test or the SQUID. When he first saw it, he seemed a bit distracted and baffled. But he agree to “look” inside the machine, and as he did, the S-curve on the graph paper changed pattern — something it almost never did — only to go back to its normal functioning as soon as Swann stopped paying attention to it.

A startled Puthoff asked him to repeat this, so for 45 seconds Swann concentrated upon seeing the inside of the machine, and for exactly that interval the recoding device drew a new pattern, a long plateau on the paper instead of hills and valleys. Swann then drew a sketch of what he saw as the inner workings of the SQUID, and when these were checked with an expert, they perfectly matched the actual construction. Swann was vague about whether he had changed the magnetic input that the machine was built to measure; he offered that he thought he was affecting its niobium core. But it also turned out that if he merely thought about the SQUID, not trying to change it at all, the recording device showed alterations in the surrounding magnetic field. In the years since 1972, many other experiments in remote viewing have successfully taken place.

Yeah, but nah. It doesn't sound like an experiment to me:

http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/the-great-afterlife-debate/

The above is not an experiment. There was no aim, no replication, no determination of extraneous variables. Just a scientist and a psychic artist futzing with a machine that at least one of them didn't understand.

If you watch some of his other videos he invites everybody to review the data and duplicate the experiment.
He is definitely not alone and not the first one to perform remote viewing.

In fact even a "single" remote viewing experiment consists of multiple sessions performed by several individuals and each session is given a weight based on the clarity of the results.
The overall outcome of the experiment is determined as success only if enough sessions independently demonstrate the same result. So it sounds like scientific method to me.

It's not about rewriting the current science.
It's more about resolving something that current science doesn't have an answer for.

You can watch this video as an example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWkr7pOWQZ0

and with time they developed a protocol for Controlled Remote Viewing that was used by the military for training...

A keen enquiring mind is a good thing to have. However, keep in mind that converging results in experiments are only as strong as the experiment itself. If variables are not controlled for, you can end up with a false positive (or negative) result. This has occurred in every experiment I know in psychic abilities the had a positive result.

My guess is there is some such variable or some misunderstanding of statistics occurring here. I could be wrong so I look forward to your next posts on the subject.

...

life on mars ... ..... secret war weapons in irak .. oh.... they an be false sometime but letz get in there anyway cause were 'mericanns are always true.... energy on mars .... artificial structures .... pictures of the inside ot that structure....  Black military projects..... flights that i personally don't know jack about it must be some sort of secret black mars mission..... Why isn't anybody telling me anything :( ima a proper scientist ;:::(

Clicking on the link is cheating. I recommend remotely-viewing the video. It's excellent! But a word of warning: it is DEFINITELY not safe for work - there is a surprising amount of nudity (although it's never gratuitous and always advances the narrative).   Oh, and Jennifer Lawrence does a great job as narrator. ;)

I haven't watched this video but you should know that Controlled Remote Viewing has been confirmed in environments by Ingo Swann and others at the Stanford Research Institute during the 1970s if i recall correctly.

edit:  just read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingo_Swann

I like to keep an open mind but this leads me to believe it's totally bogus like most other military spending. 

It has a Wiki Page so it must be right ...

What is your source of the "truth"?
Watching TV? Reading glossy paper magazines?
If a glossy paper magazine says that a group of highly-respected,
well-known scientists discovered the "truth", would you just accept it?
Wouldn't it concern you that they all get paid with that very paper money we've all learned to distrust?

Honestly, and I'm not trying to pick a fight, but that's the pot calling the kettle black. Have you performed the experiments you mentioned? As far as I can tell, you're taking the word of a less respected poorly paid scientist. Is that your definition of "truth"?

I preferred it when you were posting some interesting (although in my opinion likely highly flawed) experimental results. Please leave out the strawman arguments and ad hominem attacks. You know BR0KK was just baiting you, right?

As far as I can tell, you're taking the word of a less respected poorly paid scientist. Is that your definition of "truth"?

I preferred it when you were posting some interesting (although in my opinion likely highly flawed) experimental results.

anyone else here tried hemisync?

Awwww water that can talk to each other .... so cute:P

So if i musicanize my water with some dark heavy metal  i could probably kill someone with negative impact ?
 

No, you'll kill them with heavy metal toxicity. (http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/814960-overview)

oh jes thats what i meant!

this thing that OP described (posted) runs pretty deep :) .... What will we discover next ????

last Saturday on December 08 russian prime minister followed the case of australian prime minister and officially confirmed presence of extra-terrestrial intelligence on Earth.

What do you mean? The Australian Prime Minister has never discussed openly in public or anywhere in the public record Australia's capture of extra terrestrials and use of them in experimental labs.

I think the article where I picked it up was talking about this:
http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/411942/20121206/pm-julia-gillard-confirms-2012-mayan-calendar.htm#.UMiOkR2HOPK
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ebtj3gDaE64
Yes, not exactly about extra-terrestrials, but rather about extra-dimensionals, which are all forms of consciousness anyway :)

Interlagos, you know that's a piss take, right? It was meant to be funny, not taken at face value.

His bullshit filters are OFF. He has opened his mind so far that everything just wanders right on in. Everything will be taken at face value.

I think the primary thing people forget is how much easier it is to be wrong than right.

...
Interlagos, you know that's a piss take, right? It was meant to be funny, not taken at face value.

If I stick my biological tuning fork in a light socket will it change my frequency?

Everything is information (jokes are not excluded) and the Universe doesn't do meaningless things.

Everything becomes meaningful because u give the Information meaning.... that doesn't imply that everything happens for a reason.... The universe does a lot meaningless things :/

You say alot of vaguely insightful things, as do the various youtube videos you keep posting rather than in depth evidence... However, the important thing is to actually do something useful for others. I mean actually useful not just they interpreted in such and such way and it is useful. Pretty much any non status quo idea can only help people on that front whether BS or not.

I only say what needs to be said and only do what needs to be done! ;)

If you took quantum physics you should already know that there isn't anything solid in reality anyway. it all boils down to probabilities of observing something. At quantum level the existence itself is waving.
But "mainstream" science still doesn't know what causes the alleged collapse of the wave-function, because they still don't understand what the consciousness is.

The explanation given in the presentation doesn't need to deal with the collapse of the wave-function because there isn't any. It only assumes that conscious observer has its own frequency pattern and can form ensembles with other frequency patterns via constructive and destructive interference. It unifies the conscious observer with everything else in the system making an implicit assumption that everything else is also made of consciousness (this wasn't mentioned in the video, just an extrapolation on my part).
There is a saying - you will not perceive what you're not a vibration of - that sum's it up nicely.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMqtiFX_IQQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMqtiFX_IQQ)

This video is about the famous double slit experiment,that supports your point,its pure acceptable science  :)

Nobody have been able to find how and why the presence of an observer affects a physical phenomenon. Many spiritual things can be derived from this like "Reality exists due to observer".

Some Relevant history from Wiki
Another thing worth mentioning here, about collapse of wave-function of a particle, to a single point, on being observed.This problem can be best illustrated by the famous cat experiment of Schrodinger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat). It was interpreted by Everett (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Everett_III) by many worlds theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation) in 1957.

This video is about the famous double slit experiment