This is a cautionary tale demonstrating pseudoscience and pseudoskepticism, a particular kind of pseudoscience that appears to be or is believed to be “scientific.” It is about the “Egely wheel” and human behavior. The application to LENR is that these responses are possible in this field. It is clearly possible to fake demonstrations and videos, to look totally convincing and to be, in fact, fraud, or, generally with a less convincing demonstration, mistaken, but it is also true that any clear fraud does not prove that all claims are fraud or error.
Rather, what can be derived from these is “possibility,” but translating that to “scientific reality” is a painstaking and endless process. As humans, we may need to make decisions by a certain date, but for humanity as a whole, there is no near-term and clear end date. We may sanely postpone decisions until they are necessary, considering all the risks and costs. To the case in point:
An interchange on LENR Forum led me to watch some brief Youtube videos.
Breathe in, breathe out. Unavoidable. And nonsense.
In my second Egely wheel experiment I’m wearing a scarf so as to prove that the turning of the wheel is not caused by me blowing on it. Also, I’m switching my hands in regular intervals to show that it is not some random draft that is causing the wheel to turn.
The experimenter also must blow through a rubber glove.
Try again to debunk…
Axil has pointed to two videos
This is an Egely wheel. It begins to turn when is it near the body. This is supposed to be evidence of “spiritual energy”, also known as chi, aura, orgone, animal magnetism, biofield, spin, torsion fields, etc. It is possibly also the explanation for psychokinesis and other similar effects. I’m switching my hands in regular intervals to show that it is not some random draft that is causing the wheel to turn.
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritua… and
Warning: spiritualcosmos.com was blocked in my browser because of alleged security risks. OMG! The MiB! I have not bypassed the warning. Do so at your own risk.
The uploader also has a recent response to a comment:
Chris Chris1 year ago
Has this experiment been done with the wheel enclosed in thin, clear, acrylic or glass cover, preventing air drafts?
Channing Jones Channing Jones 1 year ago
+ßØ Tard Yes, I doesn’t work then.
Channing Jones made a total of nine videos in this series. The last one was seven years ago:
Then I looked at another video that Youtube kindly pointed out for me:
There is a previous video, and this video addresses some of the “criticisms.” The video uploader comment:
Uploaded on Apr 7, 2007
For those of you who think you know how I did this, skeptics and believers alike, please go here:
And thumbs down the people who are too lazy to research the things that come out of their own mouths.
As is pointed out in a comment on that page, this is not an experiment studying the Egely Wheel. It is a social experiment, and a brilliant one.
If anyone thinks that the Mattman video proves the Egely effect is fake, read him more carefully. It proves that it is possible to create a video demonstration that will fool almost anyone, not just “believers,” through doing something unexpected. From many claims, it is likely there is some effect. The problem with the videos Axil pointed to is not that they show some possible effect, but the conclusions drawn.
The “paranormal” is not well-defined, it is simply “outside the normal.” So we see something abnormal, i.e., unexpected. Therefore flying saucers and space aliens. Therefore visible light-beings. Therefore telepathy and telekinesis. If you already think these things are real, you may see this demonstration as proof. If you think they are impossible, you will assume “they must be making some mistake.” Neither of these are a scientific approach, they are merely common thought process.
Of late I’ve been looking at some “light beings.” Just about anyone can see them, with one caveat: I see them easily and routinely, but only with my left eye. With my right eye, it is much more difficult. Anyway, look, with one eye, at the blue sky, or a patch of it. I can actually see these things under many other conditions, but this is the easiest. If you are seeing tiny dots of light moving (not merely “visual noise” which looks very different), these are the light-beings. They’ve been reported by many, as you can find with search on the internet. However, there are also bogus explanations of them. Problem is: which explanations are real and which are bogus?
It is possible to test this. As with the Egely wheel, it might be necessary to actually start looking, seeing what you see, instead of just thinking or quickly reacting and making up explanations. This actual looking is the core of science, and then, even deeper is the process of developing possible explanations, drawing conclusions from the explanations to create predictions and then looking for the predicted results. And then testing this all to pieces.
One problem: expectations can create observations. With the Egely wheel, Note this little-known fact: the human mind can do very unexpected things with the body. It can, for example, modify local metabolism, there is a long history of the study of hypnosis with this. I do not consider it impossible that how the mind is working — likely not consciously — could change perspiration and thus air flow from hand to hand. Something like the Egely wheel is extremely sensitive, and might pick up some effect, some physical connection between brain activity and the wheel. Wouldn’t that be remarkable, though? As well, it could have practical applications — as to health issues.
So someone using an Egely wheel might be training themselves to create variable convection from their hands. This is not so easy to test; however, the evidence looks good that, in that first set of videos, convection is the means by which the hands affect the wheel.
I have elsewhere written about certain parapsychological studies. There was one published study where a clear correlation was found between “guesses” at one place of a supposedly random result, and a concentration on a particular card, one out of four, having been chosen — or something like that, I am not recalling in detail. The card had been chosen by computer using a pseudorandom code. However, when the choice was made by a true random number generator, the correlation disappeared.
Skeptics pounced on this. See! Not psychic! Yeah, okay, maybe, but truly remarkable anyway!!! The human brain can detect a pseudorandom pattern from only a few instances? That is downright astonishing! And many paranormal phenomena may have these unexpected explanations.
I have also been reading lately about “belief.” I’ve been particularly looking, for personal reasons, at the Scientology mess. I’ve been trained, extensively, in the Landmark Education technology, which originated with Werner Erhard. Scientology, founded with the work of L. Ron Hubbard, has been called, generally by skeptics, “Scientology light.” What is real behind this?
Erhard did study Scientology before developing his training. In his biography, he describes his debt to Hubbard. This would mostly be about Dianetics, and the Dianetics work is about the reactive mind, and a technique for quieting it. Lately, I’ve been reading a great deal of material that has been made available because of people who left Scientology, where techniques are revealed. In particular, the techniques leading to Clear are recognizably similar to what Landmark uses in its trainings, except that it is far, far cheaper, and while Landmark has been accused of “high pressure sales,” I know all this intimately, and the accusations are misleading. Yes, people get excited. Someone who has the experience of dropping — at least for a time — the knee-jerk operation of the reactive mind, will generally be astonished.
So, in Scientology, the early stages of study and training may produce utterly amazing results. That these results may be obtainable in other ways, at far lower cost (and sometimes free, though it always takes some investment, at least of time), is not known to them, so they ascribe this to the Church of Scientology and are then easily hooked.
I’ve been very, very involved with Landmark and have seen nothing even remotely like the abuses reported for Scientology, and those abuses are quite visible as a consistent story across many reporters, such as Leah Remini.
Erhard also points out the difference between his work and that of Scientology, and his comments appear to be extensively confirmed. Hubbard did discover how to quite the reactive mind, but then what? The techniques used in Scientology are highly intrusive, and the levels beyond clear are heavily subject to suggestion. The investigative tool is the E-meter, which strongly resembles a lie detector. However, lie detectors do not actually detect lies, rather they detect emotional response. For quieting the reactive mind, all accounts I have from people who have followed this method are that it works. However, again, what then? The tool creates high potential for abuse, and the strong Church structure was designed for Church survival beyond all other goals.
So, show people something beyond the ordinary, and set up conditions that their own experience will prove this is real to them, and they will then tend to believe everything else you tell them.
The “proof” need not be conclusive. It can also simply appeal to strong desire, and other established beliefs.
Again, the possibility of abuse does not prove abuse. Scientifically, nothing is ever considered conclusively proven such that no exceptions could ever exist.
On LENR-Forum, Axil wrote an interesting post on the connection between creativity and insanity, one of the best I’ve seen from him.