Are Astral Travels real or imaginary experiences?
- Thread starter qbeac
- Start date
Yes and for that he was persecuted, excommunicated and vilified by the religious bigots and because religion wanted it kept that way, how many years after he died did they finally accept his claims that contradicted their religious dogma?qbeac said:
There really was not much education either in those days and people were far more superstitious and it was for the benefit of the landed gentry and ruling classes to keep it this way. Scientific and medical knowledge has improved in leaps and bounds in the last century and with it our understanding of the world we live in and the experiences we undergo
We also used to burn witches at the stake, torture and kill people in the name of religion until they converted, throw salt over shoulder when we spill it, tremble with fear when a black cat passed in front of us.
the world used to be a very superstitious place, we moved on since then (Well I like to think so at any rate)
It would be a proof that the laws of physics are not working the way the scientific community think they are. We do not pretend to say with this experiment that "OBEs as such are real" (meaning getting out of your body), but we do pretend to say that there was a transference of information from the target (the paper with the two words written on it) to the brain (or mind) of the OBEer which should not have happened, because it would be IMPOSSIBLE for that to happen according to current physical laws.rednblack said:
We must consider that the target has two characteristics:
1) It is IMPOSSIBLE to be seeing by the OBEer. It is totally out of his physical visual reach.
2) It is "mathematically" IMPOSSIBLE to be guessed by chance (considering he repeats the experiment several times in a role with positive results. See Table 1 for more details).
Also, the results of the OBEer would be compared to the results of a control group who do not have an OBE, and we are just looking for "mathematically significant" differences in the probabilities of guessing by chance of both groups. Do you know what I mean?
qbeac.
hmmmm, very interesting, the moderators have erased from my previous posts Table 1 of the Agnostic Method with the calculations of the mathematical probabilities of guessing by chance a random number, which is the KEY element in this debate. That table has been calculated by professional mathematicians in a Math forum (www.100cia.com), and it only contains mathematical calculations and formulas… but the moderators of this web site think that is “spam” material. Incredible!!!
Well, that says it all about how open minded some of these moderators are (I hope not all of them). For those of you who would like to take a look at those calculations, I will include the link bellow, but if they erase it again, just think one thing: something similar happened with Galileo, some people of his time refused to look through his small telescope. Maybe they were afraid of what they were going to see. Here it is that table in another Science forum which has considered appropriate to look through the hole of that telescope… look for the Agnostic Method and Table 1:
- Science forum. Scientific method to verify if OBE are real or imaginary experiences:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=49410&page=1&pp=20
qbeac.
Well, that says it all about how open minded some of these moderators are (I hope not all of them). For those of you who would like to take a look at those calculations, I will include the link bellow, but if they erase it again, just think one thing: something similar happened with Galileo, some people of his time refused to look through his small telescope. Maybe they were afraid of what they were going to see. Here it is that table in another Science forum which has considered appropriate to look through the hole of that telescope… look for the Agnostic Method and Table 1:
- Science forum. Scientific method to verify if OBE are real or imaginary experiences:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=49410&page=1&pp=20
qbeac.
rednblack said:
You'd have to make it as reliable as going down the shops for some milk... Ie, nearly 100 %. Bit strange in the thousands of years man has been around walking has been a lot more reliable and proven than astral travelling.
Is likely: Nope: Can the brain project itself of a distance more than a few meters: Unlikely... I'm pretty sure we'd have noticed any structures in the brain to that by now.
We have elaborated that table ourselves in a Science forum with the help of the professional mathematicians, what’s wrong with that? That Table is the main key of this debate. Please, do you mind if I include it again here? Or at least, allow me to give the link where everybody will be able to take a look at it. Thanks. qbeac.editor said:
qbeac said:
Reading the thread in sciforums.com doesn't reveal where "professional mathematicians" have endorsed it. (Why would they...? Maths is maths and doesn't need "endorsing", justs needs to be provable) If anything they have less truck with astral projection then U75 does.
Hi editor, I have a Table made "by ourselves", a group of people from a Science forum, and this table is the KEY element in this debate (mathematical probabilities of guessing by chance a random number).editor said:
Please, can I include it again so that every body can see it? Can I include a link to it in another forum?
Thanks. qbeac.
If you read the whole thread you'll be able to find it, but here I include the links to two different Math forums where professional mathematicians have calculated and revised the values in that table. The forums are www.100cia.com and foro.migui.com, and you’ll be able to see all the calculations in the following links:jæd said:
- Foro de matemáticas. Cálculo de probabilidades de acertar por casualidad un número:
http://100cia.com/opinion/foros/showthread.php?t=5303
- Math forum MIGUI. Table 1: mathematical calculations of guessing by chance a random number.
http://foro.migui.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=1119
qbeac said:
poppycock
Comparing yourself to Galileo whose discoveries rocked the foundation of the beliefs of millions and went against the doctrines of the church , an extremly powerful body that literally ruled the "civilised" world, when all you've done is paste a load of conjecture directly from another forum, which I believe is mentioned in the FAQ's as a bit of a no-no
And the probablity of guessing a random number has very little bearing on a psychological phenomena that has been studied and documented. And while I hve no problems with the actually probability equations I fail to see how they can help you predict whether someone has had an OBE. I can see what you're trying to do in that you want to prove someone has beaten the odds and can astral travel, however to date, no-one has and seeing and I doubt they ever will, after all, they are only having a dream.
Did you know everytime I walk under a ladder someone somewhere in the world dies. I bet I can prove that statiscally too
I am not comparing myself to anybody, I am just saying: look at the Table, and argue about the Table. That's all, I would like to debate the Agnostic Method and its main table, Table 1, because in the Science forum we believe this method is a valid one to verify if these types of experiences are real or imaginary.teecee said:
Would you like to talk about this method? Do you have anything you think is wrong about it, mistakes, conceptual errors, etc.?
qbeac said:
So proof of OBE relies on people guessing something...? That would prove only that they were very lucky. Unless you can come up with physical proof (ie, OBE able to move stull in the real word, or structures in the body that can be shown to facilitate OBE) this is just can going to be BS.
qbeac said:
Yes you are you said :
"Well, that says it all about how open minded some of these moderators are (I hope not all of them). For those of you who would like to take a look at those calculations, I will include the link bellow, but if they erase it again, just think one thing: something similar happened with Galileo,"
seems like a comparison to me
Sorry a bit too busy for a proper debate so I will be taking cheap shots from the sidelines
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
If it exists it'll be because some people have an ability to somehow exist in a state of quantum superposition. Or something.
Well, I am sorry, I did not pretend to say that nor compare myself to anybody. But if I did, I am sorry, I retract from it. What I am trying to say is simple:teecee said:
People, please, take a close look at Table 1 for the Agnostic Method, take a look at the instructions of the Agnostic Method (you’ll find it in the Science forum in the previous posts), and think about it. That’s all I say.
qbeac.
qbeac said:
Nope... #35 doesn't answer my question. If it did then I wouldn't have posted. You are trying to prove something through circumstantial evidence. I could guess two hard to guess numbers/letters/etc but that wouldn't mean I'd had an OBE. It would just mean I was very lucky....
Hi jæd,jæd said:
The experiment we are proposing (reading two words taken at random from a regular dictionary) is the simplest one we can do which has a very high level of reliability. Please, take a look at Table 1 of the Agnostic Method and its instructions:
- Scientific method to verify if OBE are real or imaginary experiences:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=49410&page=1&pp=20
If the results were to be positive, then many other more sophisticated experiments may be done. For instance, with group astral travels, in which several people meet in the astral plane and exchange information. There are also several other types of more sophisticated experiments that could be considered using modern technological advances (all sort of sensors, particle accelerators, etc.), etc.
But the current experiment (the two words from the dictionary) would be a proof that the laws of physics are not working the way the scientific community think they are (in the year 2005). Let’s put it this way: we would have found an important anomaly that should not be there. And that’s quite a BIG statement indeed all by itself!
After 9 moths debating this subject in depth in the Spanish Science forum (www.100cia.com) many people there consider that would be a very big anomaly, and therefore, a very big deal in modern science! And I do too.
In other words, that would be a good enough accomplishment “to begin with”, in my personal opinion. That would imply, for instance, considering having to change or review current scientific textbooks concerning human consciousness! (Ex: psychiatric books, psychology books, neuroscience books, etc.)
However, for right now and with this first experiments and in case the resultas were to be positive, we do not pretend to say that "OBEs as such are real" (meaning getting out of your body), but we do pretend to say that there was a transference of information from the target (the paper with the two words written on it) to the brain (or mind) of the OBEer which should not have happened, because it would be IMPOSSIBLE for that to happen according to current physical laws.
We must consider that the target has two characteristics:
1) It is “physically” IMPOSSIBLE to be seeing by the OBEer. It is totally out of his physical visual reach. And no tricks, no nothing. Artificial optical devices simply cannot do that.
2) It is "mathematically" IMPOSSIBLE to be guessed by chance (considering he repeats the experiment several times in a role with positive results. See Table 1 for more details).
Also, the results of the OBEer would be compared to the results of a control group who do not have an OBE, and we are just looking for "mathematically significant" differences in the probabilities of guessing by chance of both groups. Do you know what I mean?
Un saludo. qbeac.
Hi Jaed,
Now then, in case the results of this experiment were to be positive, how would we call it? Conclusive proof, strong evidence, indication of…? In my opinion, that’s not the main point right now. The main point is obtaining those results first, and then we’ll have plenty of time to analyze what they mean.
But let's suppose that for right now we decide it to call only “indirect evidence.” Even so, it would be a quite interesting piece of evidence, because this situation would be similar to what astronomers do when trying to find planets outside of our solar system, but not by watching them directly, but by watching how their mother star moves from on side to the other: they deduce that has to be caused by the gravitational pull of an unseen planet.” You cannot see them directly, but you know they are there because what they do around them!
Well, you will be able to see a very nice example in this link, but instead of detecting the gravitational pull between a planet and its mother star, in this case is between a star and a black hole:
NASA Astronomy picture of the day archives:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap051023.html
At the Center of the Milky Way
Credit : Rainer Schödel (MPE) et al., NAOS-CONICA, ESO
Explanation: At the center of our Milky Way Galaxy lies a black hole with over 2 million times the mass of the Sun. Once a controversial claim, this astounding conclusion is now virtually inescapable and based on observations of stars orbiting very near the galactic center. Using one of the Paranal Observatory's very large telescopes and a sophisticated infrared camera, astronomers patiently followed the orbit of a particular star, designated S2, as it came within about 17 light-hours of the center of the Milky Way (about 3 times the radius of Pluto's orbit). Their results convincingly show that S2 is moving under the influence of the enormous gravity of an unseen object that must be extremely compact -- a supermassive black hole. This deep near-infrared image shows the crowded inner 2 light-years of the Milky Way with the exact position of the galactic center indicated by arrows. The ability to track stars so close to the galactic center can accurately measure the black hole's mass and perhaps even provide an unprecedented test of Einstein's theory of gravity as astronomers watch a star orbit a supermassive black hole.
Now then, in case the results of this experiment were to be positive, how would we call it? Conclusive proof, strong evidence, indication of…? In my opinion, that’s not the main point right now. The main point is obtaining those results first, and then we’ll have plenty of time to analyze what they mean.
But let's suppose that for right now we decide it to call only “indirect evidence.” Even so, it would be a quite interesting piece of evidence, because this situation would be similar to what astronomers do when trying to find planets outside of our solar system, but not by watching them directly, but by watching how their mother star moves from on side to the other: they deduce that has to be caused by the gravitational pull of an unseen planet.” You cannot see them directly, but you know they are there because what they do around them!
Well, you will be able to see a very nice example in this link, but instead of detecting the gravitational pull between a planet and its mother star, in this case is between a star and a black hole:
NASA Astronomy picture of the day archives:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap051023.html
At the Center of the Milky Way
Credit : Rainer Schödel (MPE) et al., NAOS-CONICA, ESO
Explanation: At the center of our Milky Way Galaxy lies a black hole with over 2 million times the mass of the Sun. Once a controversial claim, this astounding conclusion is now virtually inescapable and based on observations of stars orbiting very near the galactic center. Using one of the Paranal Observatory's very large telescopes and a sophisticated infrared camera, astronomers patiently followed the orbit of a particular star, designated S2, as it came within about 17 light-hours of the center of the Milky Way (about 3 times the radius of Pluto's orbit). Their results convincingly show that S2 is moving under the influence of the enormous gravity of an unseen object that must be extremely compact -- a supermassive black hole. This deep near-infrared image shows the crowded inner 2 light-years of the Milky Way with the exact position of the galactic center indicated by arrows. The ability to track stars so close to the galactic center can accurately measure the black hole's mass and perhaps even provide an unprecedented test of Einstein's theory of gravity as astronomers watch a star orbit a supermassive black hole.
qbeac said:
So... You aren't actually out to prove anything, just get results which may show that OBE may happen...? Don't expect a rush of converts...!
qbeac said:
Thats because we have a theory which explains gravity. How do you explain OBE...? (Quick now before you're banned for another cut'n'paste job)
Similar threads
