On Jan 1, 2018, at 11:43 PM, JACK SARFATTI <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > wrote:
The PSI EXPERIMENTS OF BEM show LOCAL RETROCAUSAL ENTANGLEMENT MESSAGING
"While most labs in the psych department were harshly lit with fluorescent ceiling bulbs, Bem’s was set up for tranquility. A large tasseled tapestry stretched across one wall, and a cubicle partition was draped with soft, black fabric. It felt like the kind of place where one might stage a séance.
“Well, extrasensory perception, also called ESP, is when you can perceive things that are not immediately available in space or time,” Bem said. “So, for example, when you can perceive something on the other side of the world, or in a different room, or something that hasn’t happened yet.”
It occurred to Wu that the flyer might have been a trick. What if she and the other women were themselves the subjects of Bem’s experiment? What if he were testing whether they’d go along with total nonsense?
“I know this sounds kind of out there,” Wu remembers Bem saying, “but there is evidence for ESP, and I really believe it. But I don’t need you to believe it. In fact, it’s better if you don’t. It’s better if I can say, ‘Even my staff don’t believe in this.’
Most of you seem NOT to have the slightest understanding of what Huw Price and Rod Sutherland have shown.Sure, under certain SPECIAL conditions Alice can message Bob INSTANTLY IF they share a COMMON REST FRAME OF REFERENCEHOWEVER, IF BOB MOVES AT V IN OPPOSITE DIRECTION TO ALICE’S SIGNAL HER SIGNAL SEEM TO COME TO HIM AT SPEED c^2/V > c.In fact however, the information moves consistently with relativity in the back from the future -> forward back to the future zig zag.But the more general idea which FEW OF YOU SEEM ABLE TO GRASP is that the space-time separation between Alice sending the message and Bob receiving and locally decoding it without a classical key signal from Alice DOES NOT MATTER!Bob can receive and understand useful information - a message with meaning BEFORE Alice decides to send it.There is nothing Bob can do to prevent it once he receives it.Bob’s free will is limited in that situation.Bob can choose to try and fail, or he can just submit to FATE without unseemly wrangle - just as we all do according toTHE RULE OF NATURAL LAW that place limits on our free will and desires.There are no paradoxes.
Search Results
[PDF]1979-precognitive-remote-viewing-stanford - Princeton University
Journal of Parapsychology, Vol.43, March 1979. PRECOGNITIVE REMOTE VIEWING IN. THE CHICAGO AREA: A REPLICATION. OF THE STANFORD EXPERIMENT. By BRENDA J. DUNNE AND John P. BISAHA. ABSTRACT: The ability of untrained individuals to describe a remote geographical site where an agent will ...
[PDF]precognitive remote viewing in the chicago area: a replication of ... - CIA
18 The Journal of Parapsychology vated Puthoff and Targ (1976b) to investigate further the precognitive aspects of remote viewing by altering their experimental protocol. The new protocol required the percipient to describe the remote target during a 15-minute period commencing 20 minutes before the target was selected …
Harold E. Puthoff - Wikipedia
Dr. Hal Puthoff, PhD, on CIA History of Top Secret Remote Viewing ...
Dec 9, 2015 - Uploaded by MAJIC12FILMS
Inside Knowledge About Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Could Lead ...
You visited this page.
On Jan 1, 2018, at 11:07 PM, Ruth Kastner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > wrote:
Stan, the fact that you characterize the psi experiments as 'showing FTL results' demonstrates that you're not a skeptic.You've already concluded that if the evidence is correct, that it demonstrates FTL.I've been trying to point out for the past several years that the evidence (if corroborated) is not necessarily a demonstration of FTL signaling. That conclusion depends heavily on particular assumptions about the nature of the underlying processes.
On Mon, Jan 1, 2018 at 7:57 PM, Ruth Kastner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > wrote:
Stan: what is under discussion is WHETHER FTL SIGNALING (i.e. controllable signaling) IS POSSIBLE.Yes there are proofs that say no, but DK is contesting this.I've argued that his scheme doesn't work but sure, it would be interesting to test it.
From: Stanley A. KLEIN [mailto:This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. ]
Sent: Monday, January 1, 2018 9:18 PM
To: Ruth Kastner
Subject: Re: Addendum RE: No preferred frame of reference in relativity
Ruth, thank you, thank you.So at least on this list can we agree that when when we use the word "signal" there is no ability for FTL communications.
Paul, I'm always talking about relativistic QM. Why would I ever want to go to the nonrelativistic approximation??Stan
On Mon, Jan 1, 2018 at 5:09 PM, Ruth Kastner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > wrote:
Why the semantic controversy about the word 'signal'? What about all the 'no-signaling' proofs?Obviously these are about the impossibility of FTL 'signals'.Can we limit controversy to things that are actually controversial? Why generate more?
From: Paul Zielinski <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. >
Sent: Monday, January 1, 2018 3:55 PM
To: Stanley A. KLEIN; Brian Josephson