(2017-09-05, 06:47 AM)E. Flowers Wrote: [ -> ]For the same reason that people are coming with VR headsets that incorporate noise cancelling: Immersion. They played some soundtrack that was supposed to get the meditators in 'the mood'.
I agree with that but I have a minor nitpick... most VR headsets don't provide noise cancelling systems. In fact the only one that does is the most expensive (HTC vive) and their earbuds provide very basic noise cancelling.
Nitpicking over
(2017-09-05, 07:58 AM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]Because Roberta asked me to comment on the study with the speakers photograph, and because Radin said the photo wasn't relevant (even though it is in his paper) and claimed all his studies used heaphones.
If it has nothing to do with Guerrer's study, can you take it to the thread that was opened to discuss Dean's work? It's distracting and confusing.
(2017-09-05, 07:26 AM)Bucky Wrote: [ -> ]I agree with that but I have a minor nitpick... most VR headsets don't provide noise cancelling systems. In fact the only one that does is the most expensive (HTC vive) and their earbuds provide very basic noise cancelling.
Nitpicking over
You are in the future, stop nitpicking.
(2017-09-05, 08:20 AM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]Radin claimed all his studies used headphones in this thread... I'm responding to Radin, and Roberta, who said I was somehow deceiving everyone... hence pointing out the headphones.
Doesn't matter how you look at it, putting these sensitive devices on isolation tables and monitoring humidity, temperature, magnetic fields, shielding them in faraday cages etc, and finding an interesting effect, and then going on to claim the standard model may be wrong, and that you have found a new force in the world.... that's absolutely batty!!!... when you haven't done the slightested thing to measure vibration from air pressure!
Putting a 1.5 meter long device with a huge resonating cavity, together in a room with richly harmonic sounds that vary in each period, and with subjects that are told to do what they like to affect the device, then not bothering to monitor what is going on in the room, and completely ignoring vibrations from air pressure driving the device, and not measuring vibrations from air pressure at all... and then claiming you've found a new force in nature is stupid...
How about a chamomille tea?
Whether the study claims to have found a new force of nature or a way to make the best tea in the world it doesn't matter. I agree with you that a sensitive device must be shielded from all interferences.
Back to the paper linked in the OP they are using headphones and I am pretty sure that they're not blasting the volume so high that it is audible outside.
I have a pair of
open back AKG studio headphones. I tested with your example of meditation chanting you posted earlier. Using a volume level suitable for meditation there's no audible sound from outside at a distance of 1 meter. In the experiment the meditator is sitting 3 meters away from the apparatus (using closed back headphones).
To make the headphones audible at 3 meters I have to crank the volume to full blast, but in those conditions the participants would be screaming in pain with their ears bleeding!
I find it pretty difficult to see a problem with those headphones in this setup.
Re: Radin's 2012 study, they do mention that they investigated possible artifacts due to "
heat generated by proximity of the body, or sound vibrations associated with announcements of the condition assignments or performance feedback, or systematic drifts or oscillations, also failed to identify viable artifacts."
So I don't think it's fair to say that they didn't monitor the issue. Additionally meditators at the IONS lab performed better that non-meditators. I am not sure why there would be a difference if the results are merely an artifact due to sound energy.
cheers
(2017-09-05, 08:46 AM)RMax_B Wrote: [ -> ]Because your logic is buggered, I'm not going to educate you why experiment z results, does not rule out that experiment a, b, c, d, e results may be due to vibration from air pressure.
No Max, you're just wrong, thats it. Sound isn't the cause, if it was the online experiments wouldn't be significant, and the meditators wouldn't do better then non meditators.
Also will you retract and apologise to Radin for insinuating he faked or purposefully messed up the experiment in order to get a false positive to generate income for IONs?
Max. I'm not involved here but just a suggestion. You might want to withdraw some of that post above. It could get you into trouble, I don't know but is it worth it ?
(hint:libel ?)
(2017-09-05, 01:47 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]This paper needs to show that they have at least excluded vibration (not exhaustive) as a cause of changes to fringe measurements, before suggesting they have found a new force in nature. They haven't done that in this study. I can confirm your opening OP that this looks like an independent replication of Radins studies, and further that the paper is the same junk I've seen in other studies from Radin. You won't find such studies in reputable publications because they are very poor.
So instead of retracting and apologising for your fraud insinuation against Radin, you continue to act like sound/vibration might be the cause (it isn't) and you call Radin's work 'junk'. Not only are ypu arrogant, you're nasty and rude as well.
(2017-09-05, 03:07 PM)Roberta Wrote: [ -> ]So instead of retracting and apologising for your fraud insinuation against Radin, you continue to act like sound/vibration might be the cause (it isn't) and you call Radin's work 'junk'. Not only are ypu arrogant, you're nasty and rude as well.
That's our Max... In the end, I suspect that he is more annoyed by what Guerrer wrote on pages 8-9 (the protocols to prevent EM interference) because in his hypothesis all sorts of mental interactions (and apparitions as well) are dependent on EMFs.
(2017-09-03, 01:33 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]I'm a proponent for what it's worth
Hi Max
I for one don't have any issues with you trying to poke holes in something you see as flawed. That's the best spirit of these types of forums. Just curious in what way you are a proponent. Are there particular aspects of psi that you feel more strongly about? And I ask in all earnestness as it seems that members are starting to see you as someone who has a need to show that these things aren't true, but as you call yourself a proponent, I thought it might be interesting to hear "of what"? Thanks!
Berkelon
(2017-09-05, 06:06 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]Well you can start a thread on that if you like... because we don't want to make this thread too confusing. 
As soon as you take your diatribe about Dean to the relevant thread, Max.