(2017-09-04, 02:23 PM)Roberta Wrote: [ -> ]I'm pretty sure that the instruments were in a shielded chamber separated from the meditators etc.
In this new experiment, the apparatus was on a passively damped optical table and inside a Faraday cage. The participant sat in the same room about 3m away.
(2017-09-04, 02:29 PM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]In this new experiment, the apparatus was on a passively damped optical table and inside a Faraday cage. The participant sat in the same room about 3m away.
I'm talking about Radin's experiments - sorry for not being clearer. If the issue was dealt with in other experiments and they were still significant, that and other factor that ive already mentioned point away from sound being the reason for the positive results.
(2017-09-04, 02:25 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]I've been through all of this on the last forum. Happy to do it again, but work does get in the way. In the meantime you could look up 'vibration' affecting laboratory experiments, and the three types of vibration which cause problems. You could also look up interferometers particular sensitivity to vibration, driving the devices components and cavities. You could also look at standing waves and reinforcement effects to do with speakers in different types of rooms etc. It's all available to you. You can also look up the effect of tuned speaker ports too. As meditators appear to have been given total leeway about how they affected the device, and there was no monitoring of sound within the room, I have no idea whether some meditators were make any noise themselves (chanting, or using the resonant Omm sound etc.
In Radin's experiments the instrument was in a shielded room separate from the meditators. Sound clearly isn't the reason for the results as Radin still got positive and significant results.
(2017-09-04, 10:45 AM)jkmac Wrote: [ -> ]I get what you are saying but,,, here's the way I look at it.
It's not good enough to ignore the posts. If claims are outrageous they need to be clearly and repeatedly pointed out as so, if only for the benefit of others who are trying to absorb all this information, and make decisions about what to allow into their world-view.
This is important stuff to MANY people. They are discarding old, long held beliefs and replacing them with new "strange" ones. The deserve to have the benefit of other critical minds looking at what's being said and commenting.
This is the real value of a place like this. They can go anywhere on the web and find bizzaro theories. They will come here because the claims are being well vetted from ALL SIDES, and they will be able to compare and decide.
We are ALL doing important work here I think.
I didn't mean to suggest that we should ignore what Max is saying, I meant to point out the absurdity of his position considering everything we know at this point.
(2017-09-04, 02:23 PM)Roberta Wrote: [ -> ]I'm pretty sure that the instruments were in a shielded chamber separated from the meditators etc.
Not having read all the details I have no idea.
Did you read about this or is there specific reference about the shielding from sound waves?
And... is the question of sound wave actually relevant/important? Maybe it isn't and we're just wasting our time
But I am curious if it's an issue or not.
One of the reasons I hardly ever respond to critics in online forms is that it's not possible in this format to explain experimental results, analyses, historical context, etc., in sufficient detail to satisfy everyone. There is always a "Max" out there. So I prefer to put my time into writing articles for peer-reviewed professional journals and in encouraging other qualified scientists to try to replicate our work.
That said, I'm glad that forums like this exist. These topics are interesting and important, but not everyone is interested in or adept in understanding all of the technical details. That's why I write popular books, and even then I get criticisms that they are still too technical. There's no pleasing everyone.
As for the Guerrer replication, the important point is that it was a completely independent study. I saw his preprint at the same time as everyone else and I wasn't involved in any aspect of his work. He did visit our lab early on to learn in detail how we conducted our experiments, which is sound practice for anyone interested in conducting a replication. By visiting another researcher's lab you quickly gain a sense about the competence of the investigators, you can examine the equipment and testing environment first-hand, and through all that you can decide if the reported results are credible enough to go to the considerable effort of conducting a replication. We spent time discussing many alternative explanations for what we had observed, including systematic fluctuations in sound and building vibrations, variations in ambient temperature due to movements of the human body, subtle changes in magnetic and electromagnetic fields, etc.
No one experiment is ever going to be perfect, but when you start to see converging independent replications (and within psi research there are many), that's a good sign.
- Dean Radin
I have to say that at the moment I don't see how the statistical analysis procedure can be justified.
(2017-09-04, 02:25 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]I've been through all of this on the last forum. Happy to do it again, but work does get in the way. In the meantime you could look up 'vibration' affecting laboratory experiments, and the three types of vibration which cause problems. You could also look up interferometers particular sensitivity to vibration, driving the devices components and cavities. You could also look at standing waves and reinforcement effects to do with speakers in different types of rooms etc. It's all available to you. You can also look up the effect of tuned speaker ports too. As meditators appear to have been given total leeway about how they affected the device, and there was no monitoring of sound within the room, I have no idea whether some meditators were make any noise themselves (chanting, or using the resonant Omm sound etc.
And I will ask the question again:
When this type of setup was used (over the last 40-50 years) was special attention paid to how sound affects the measurements? Hundreds of PhD's have used this equipment for as long as it has been in use in this sort of application. What is the standard protocol? I don't think I'm going out on a limb here in suggesting that this problem has either been solved or been determined not to be a problem by the experts who use the tool on a daily basis.
In anticipation of the next question/comment-
No: I have zero interest becoming a hack amateur physicist by googling it myself. This work has already been done and I have better uses for my time.
Apparently you think you can look at all the available data, by googling it, and make a better decision than the experts who use the tool every day? That's fine I guess: for you that is. I'll stick with the experts who do this for a living, thanks.
What next? Are you going tell the guys at CERN what isotope of Helium to use?
Tell me Max: have you EVER even touched one of these devices? I don't know how you could do so w/o the ability to analyze the data.
(2017-09-04, 04:21 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]I've already linked to papers of Radin's using the same device where that is not the case. You point me at the papers and claims your referring to, and I'll be able to a look.
I'm not here to make your job easy for you - I'm here to challenge your frequently erroneous claims.
(2017-09-04, 04:21 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]I've already linked to papers of Radin's using the same device where that is not the case. You point me at the papers and claims your referring to, and I'll be able to a look.
This experiment involved participants from around the world, so no one sat in the room listening to feedback etc, why did it still get a positive result?
http://deanradin.com/evidence/RadinPhysi...ys2016.pdf