measuring some energy fields
|
|
Thread rating:  |
jjoensuu - 14 Jan 2007 13:11 GMT Hi all,
I recently read about something called the "jing luo meridians", which are like a form of energy flows around the human body in Chinese medicine. I have not found information on what the nature of this energy would be according to conventional physics but if it exists, it would assume it should be possible to measure it using some electronic equipment.
Does anyone know of a circuit diagram for equipment that is supposedly able to measure this energy?
[What I am also curious is what would it be measured in...amperes?]
Thanks in advance,
JJ
Bob Masta - 14 Jan 2007 15:29 GMT >Hi all, > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Thanks in advance, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you have been sucked in by pseudoscience. The "qi" or "chi" energy that they are talking about has no basis in physics and has never been shown to exist except in the minds of the believers. The evidence for the "meridians" having any special significance is pretty shaky as well. However, some of these traditional treatments *do* have an effect (besides on your wallet), which is probably due to a placebo effect: If you believe in the treatment, it seems to help. There is actually some physical evidence, in the case of pain relief, that the treatment (or any effective placebo) is due to natural opiates released by your body (endorphins). The evidence is that the treatment / placebo pain relief is blocked by administering opiate antagonist drugs (naloxone, naltrexone) which block the effects of the opiates.
One huge problem with testing these treatments is the difficulty in making the test double-blind. The practitioner certainly knows if he is doing things the traditional way or not, so that may affect his demeanor in some subtle way that the subject picks up on. If the practitioner attempts to use some non-meridian locus to serve as a control for the "real" thing, the subject may respond to the reduced expectations of the practitioner. The whole field is a big can of worms, as far as demonstrating any sort of scientific basis.
Best regards,
Bob Masta dqatechATdaqartaDOTcom D A Q A R T A Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis www.daqarta.com Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Signal Generator Science with your sound card!
default - 14 Jan 2007 16:42 GMT >Hi all, > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >JJ You have my nomination for the Phil Allison award.
Dr. Anton T. Squeegee - 14 Jan 2007 18:01 GMT > Hi all, > > I recently read about something called the "jing luo meridians", which > are like a form of energy flows around the human body in Chinese <snippety>
Sensors made from a tinfoil hat should be of tremendous help.
 Signature Dr. Anton T. Squeegee, Director, Dutch Surrealist Plumbing Institute (Known to some as Bruce Lane, KC7GR) http://www.bluefeathertech.com -- kyrrin a/t bluefeathertech d-o=t calm "Salvadore Dali's computer has surreal ports..."
ray13 - 14 Jan 2007 21:33 GMT I beg to differ
Spark photography, as it was called back in the day. Is the way to measure such energy. Or so call energy.
Apply a radio frequency to your hand, the body then re radiates and modulates infared light which then exposes photographic film. There is no doubt.
It was first made famous by a Russian named Kirlian. He used it on plants, cut a leaf in half, with RF applied, and the whole leaf would show up in the photograph. Now how could the exposed film show a whole leaf when only half the leaf was photographed? Parlor trick? Not hardly, It can be reproduced easily even time all the time, by anybody.
Now we have digital cameras, strength of the light and frequency of the light could be a basis to measure such energy.
> > Hi all, > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > http://www.bluefeathertech.com -- kyrrin a/t bluefeathertech d-o=t calm > "Salvadore Dali's computer has surreal ports..." amdx - 15 Jan 2007 01:14 GMT >I beg to differ > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > leaf when only half the leaf was photographed? Parlor trick? Not > hardly, It can be reproduced easily even time all the time, by anybody. Have you done it?
> Now we have digital cameras, strength of the light and frequency of the > light could be a basis to measure such energy. redbelly - 15 Jan 2007 01:38 GMT > Have you done it? What do you mea-ean? (Nudge nudge, wink wink ...)
Mark
Dr. Anton T. Squeegee - 15 Jan 2007 02:28 GMT < Top-posting corrected. Please do NOT top-post on Usenet newsgroups! See these links for the reasons why:
http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/gey_chr0.htm
http://www.html-faq.com/etiquette/?toppost >
> > > Hi all, > > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > > > Sensors made from a tinfoil hat should be of tremendous help.
> I beg to differ > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > modulates infared light which then exposes photographic film. There is > no doubt. Ok... First and foremost, your body -- or, for that matter, the body of ANY warm-blooded creature -- is CONSTANTLY radiating in the infrared region! It's a normal byproduct of the metabolic processes that keep us all ticking along.
If you're silly enough to deliberately apply RF energy to your body, of course some of it will re-radiate. That's a given with ANY moisture-bearing object, humans included. Since the application of such energy will likely cause at least a minimal localised heating effect, then yes -- There is every possibility that there will be increased infrared radiation from the same area.
As to being "modulated?" I don't see why it would be. Can you explain what would cause such modulation, assuming that the applied signal is CW?
> It was first made famous by a Russian named Kirlian. He used it on > plants, cut a leaf in half, with RF applied, and the whole leaf would > show up in the photograph. Now how could the exposed film show a whole > leaf when only half the leaf was photographed? Parlor trick? Not > hardly, It can be reproduced easily even time all the time, by anybody. Eegad... I don't believe I'm reading this. I thought this brand of meadow-muffins had died out decades ago!
I have two words for you: "Corona Discharge." Have a look at this site: http://skepdic.com/kirlian.html
> Now we have digital cameras, strength of the light and frequency of the > light could be a basis to measure such energy. Hey, I pride myself on keeping an open mind. If you can produce repeatable, peer-reviewed proof of the sort of energy that the original poster was referring to, then by all means do so and I will cheerfully STFU.
In other words: Pseudo-science remains pseudo-science, in my eyes, until proven otherwise.
Keep the peace(es).
 Signature Dr. Anton T. Squeegee, Director, Dutch Surrealist Plumbing Institute (Known to some as Bruce Lane, KC7GR) http://www.bluefeathertech.com -- kyrrin a/t bluefeathertech d-o=t calm "Salvadore Dali's computer has surreal ports..."
default - 15 Jan 2007 15:13 GMT > As to being "modulated?" I don't see why it would be. Can you >explain what would cause such modulation, assuming that the applied >signal is CW? It is just possible that there's some science to Kirlian photography - but not all the crap the tinfoil hat crowd seem to think.
Apply HV RF to any object, particularly some organic ones, and along with the corona you have UV light and some volatile compounds coming off the object. The scent (compounds) will fluoresce in the UV and give off secondary colors (the "modulation" )
Nothing magical, metaphysical, or mysterious, no aura, voodoo, or divine intervention - just science and explainable and reproducible.
A similar scientific instrument might be the Inductively Coupled Plasma Spectrophotometer.
Dr. Anton T. Squeegee - 15 Jan 2007 18:32 GMT > > As to being "modulated?" I don't see why it would be. Can you > >explain what would cause such modulation, assuming that the applied [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > off the object. The scent (compounds) will fluoresce in the UV and > give off secondary colors (the "modulation" ) Hmm! I didn't know this, though it does make sense.
> Nothing magical, metaphysical, or mysterious, no aura, voodoo, or > divine intervention - just science and explainable and reproducible. > > A similar scientific instrument might be the Inductively Coupled > Plasma Spectrophotometer. Now you've got me curious. Methinks I need to go do some googling...
Keep the peace(es).
 Signature Dr. Anton T. Squeegee, Director, Dutch Surrealist Plumbing Institute (Known to some as Bruce Lane, KC7GR) http://www.bluefeathertech.com -- kyrrin a/t bluefeathertech d-o=t calm "Salvadore Dali's computer has surreal ports..."
Rich the Philosophizer - 15 Jan 2007 22:24 GMT > It was first made famous by a Russian named Kirlian. He used it on > plants, cut a leaf in half, with RF applied, and the whole leaf would > show up in the photograph. Now how could the exposed film show a whole > leaf when only half the leaf was photographed? Parlor trick? Not > hardly, It can be reproduced easily even time all the time, by anybody. Has anyone ever done this with a person with an amputated finger or phantom limb? I think that'd be fascinating to see, but I don't know any amputees who might volunteer.
Thanks, Rich
jjoensuu - 15 Jan 2007 02:10 GMT OK, thanks guys for your replies. I should have been clearer about the fact that I did not so much believe in these sort of "fields" but wanted to check if there was a tool that claimed to be able to measure them. It would have been interesting to move the tool over those locations of the body where a meridian is supposed to exist (according to the literature), and check the output. But it is of course difficult to define a tool that reacts to their presense when the Chinese medical literature does not provide enough information for this purpose.
But at least I qualified for the *coveted* Phil Allison award:-)
JJ
Jon Slaughter - 15 Jan 2007 08:09 GMT > OK, thanks guys for your replies. I should have been clearer about the > fact that I did not so much believe in these sort of "fields" but [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > to define a tool that reacts to their presense when the Chinese medical > literature does not provide enough information for this purpose. Don't listen to these idiots. The fact is that it is well documented that these things exist and there explinations are based in science. That is, cells do exhibit electrical characteristics long with some cell complexes fundamentally use electricity to communicate. This is not saying that chi is real in the sense that its some special power or anything but that there is a solid basis behind it but it is misinterpreted and hyped. It is also known that the meridians correspond to special biological functions. This isn't a coincidence but is simply how the chinese have learned to map the human anatomy. Ofcoures this doesn't necessarily mean that sticking a needle in your big toe will cause you to get an erection.
Essentially, I suppose the eastern view of this is pseudoscience with a pinch of logic in it. i.e., over thousands of years the chinese have learned many things such as its no coincidence that when you chop someones arm off that the die. The problem is that they come up with some explination like "He died because he ate to much rice when the moon was green in the year of the monkey" instead of the real culprit. Ofcourse sometimes they are closer to reality than at other times. It might even be the cause that some of there results are far ahead of modern western medicine. Its not to hard to conclude that if you eat this brownish root that looks like a potato that your going to die if everyone that has eaten it before has died.
Even if the majority of this stuff is false it has shown just how powerful the human body/mind is. Mind over matter is no joke and dedicating your life to being kicked in the balls and then going around the world and doing demonstrations is just one benifit of chi.
Most of these things are hyped though and you'll find that any ordinary person can do it with just a little practice. Its nothing "special" and you can call it some type of energy if you want but in reality its just something that is extraordinary but entirely within the realm of the human body/mind. It's just not in the realmn of someone that sits on there a.s all day or doesn't have the proper mentality(if you think its going to hurt then chances are it will). If you think you have super human powers then maybe you can take a kick to the nuts and not feel it. Someone that believes in this stuff would say its chi when in reality its just that you put your mind into a certain mode that can deal with it.
Also, many of the people believe this stuff and do develope some "powers" that might seem extraordinary. Its not from any real power ofcourse and can be completely explained with science. For example, one person might be able to make there hand hotter than the other. This is not anything special as people do it all the time. Whats "special" is that person has learned how to control the ability which has probably come from much practice or a "glitch" in the person's mental or physical makeup.
A good example is a savant. These people have amazing powers but its not anything special. There just different from the average person. While it might be statistically odd its nothing out of the realm of reality.
Now, if you see someone flying around without any help then you know something up. If chi really existed then you would have seen this by now(the chinese have had thousands of years to work on it). Ultimately chi is just a mixture of reality and fantasy and most of the time its fantasy. This is not to say its a bad thing. Even the placebo effect can be a cure.
Rich the Philosophizer - 15 Jan 2007 22:28 GMT > OK, thanks guys for your replies. I should have been clearer about the > fact that I did not so much believe in these sort of "fields" but [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > But at least I qualified for the *coveted* Phil Allison award:-) The "tool" is your own felt-sense, but of course, when you do undeny it, it can take some practice to distinguish other peoples' energy fields from your own.
Good Luck! Rich
 Signature For more information, please feel free to visit http://www.godchannel.com
Rich the Philosophizer - 15 Jan 2007 22:20 GMT > Hi all, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > [What I am also curious is what would it be measured in...amperes?] There is no electronic instrument, yet, that can measure these subtle flows of energy - right now, the only known instrument for receiving these signals is the human Will-Body itself, which most intellectually- focused people are holding in deep denial.
Here might be some ideas on sensing it with yourself as the antenna, for example: http://www.godchannel.com/runengcom2.html
Good Luck! Rich
Bob Myers - 16 Jan 2007 04:31 GMT > There is no electronic instrument, yet, that can measure these subtle > flows of energy - right now, the only known instrument for receiving > these signals is the human Will-Body itself, which most intellectually- > focused people are holding in deep denial. Unfortunately, even that "instrument" doesn't seem to do much under anything resembling controlled conditions - so why, exactly, should we believe these "subtle flows of energy" actually exist?
Bob M.
Rich the Philosophizer - 17 Jan 2007 00:16 GMT >> There is no electronic instrument, yet, that can measure these subtle >> flows of energy - right now, the only known instrument for receiving [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > under anything resembling controlled conditions - so why, exactly, > should we believe these "subtle flows of energy" actually exist?
You don't have to "believe" anything you don't want to. And, of course, about "controlled conditions", you simply control your own conditions. It's an internal thing to each human, after all.
Descartes said, "I think, therefore I exist." What he meant was, "I think, therefore I _think_ I exist".
I know I exist because I can feel me.
I know these "subtle forces" are real, because I have felt and interacted with them. If you don't care to acknowledge their existence, well, you are living in your own reality, as aren't we all? ;-)
Good Luck! Rich
 Signature For more information, please feel free to visit http://www.godchannel.com
Bob Masta - 17 Jan 2007 13:45 GMT >>> There is no electronic instrument, yet, that can measure these subtle >>> flows of energy - right now, the only known instrument for receiving [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >with them. If you don't care to acknowledge their existence, well, you >are living in your own reality, as aren't we all? ;-) What you are saying is that these things "feel real" to you. Your feelings don't provide any evidence of physical reality, only of your internal workings. The question is whether they are real in the physical sense, meaning they can be measured or detected by objective third parties.
The old "OK, but it's real to me" defense is pretty lame in almost every situation. Would you claim that space aliens really do abduct some people from their beds, even if witesses say otherwise, because it "felt real to them"? Does every hallucination reflect some external reality that somehow is only detected by the hallucinator? If so, how does *his* hallucination force the rest of us to *not* detect this reality for ourselves? Were there really WMD in Iraq, but only for certain people?
Best regards,
Bob Masta dqatechATdaqartaDOTcom D A Q A R T A Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis www.daqarta.com Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Signal Generator Science with your sound card!
Bob Myers - 17 Jan 2007 17:28 GMT >> Unfortunately, even that "instrument" doesn't seem to do much >> under anything resembling controlled conditions - so why, exactly, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > about "controlled conditions", you simply control your own conditions. > It's an internal thing to each human, after all. Obviously - but if you really ARE a "philosophizer," then hopefully you've thought at least a bit about the questions of epistemology, etc. - basically, how is it, exactly, that we know what we know, or how we determine what is "true" vs. what isn't? "Why should we believe X exists?" is a perfectly valid question, and one which you have yet to answer.
> Descartes said, "I think, therefore I exist." What he meant was, "I > think, therefore I _think_ I exist". I am sure that Descartes, were he still alive, would be very glad that you're hear to explain what he said to us.
> I know I exist because I can feel me. > > I know these "subtle forces" are real, because I have felt and interacted > with them. If you don't care to acknowledge their existence, well, you > are living in your own reality, as aren't we all? ;-) So according to you, there is no single objective or "consensus" reality in which we all live, and which behaves in a consistent manner no matter who is experiencing or describing it? If that's the case, then how do you have a meaningful discussion about ANYTHING?
Additional questions - is EVERYTHING you "feel and interact with" "real" or "true"? Does perception always provide a completely accurate and trustworthy reflection of reality? Can human perception ever be "fooled" or mistaken? If so, then how can you identify "truth" through perception? (And if not, then what do you do when your perceptions present you with mutually-contradictory pieces of information?)
The notion that "we all live in our own reality" or "perception is everything" makes for some very nice-sounding New-Age-ish sorts of statements, but upon even moderately close inspection they turn out to have about as much philosophical weight behind them as a piece of tissue paper.
Bob M.
Rich the Philosophizer - 18 Jan 2007 01:14 GMT > "Rich the Philosophizer" <rtp@example.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > they turn out to have about as much philosophical weight behind > them as a piece of tissue paper. Spirit explains it nicely here: http://www.godchannel.com/reality.html Or, if you're totally cut off from your own will, you might be open to Right Use of Will: http://www.rightuseofwill.com/books.htm "Most people have felt that they must eliminate their own feelings and opinions and do what they imagined was the Will of God. Will has for so long on Earth been misunderstood, judged against, disciplined, punished and denied that most people no longer even know what their Will is. An understanding is needed here: The Will of God is not in opposition to the Will of the individual. Will expresses as intuition, feeling, emotion, receptivity and desire. Evolution of these aspects of the self can bring them into alignment and partnership with Spirit. Spirit and Will are both divine."
Good Luck! Rich
 Signature For more information, please feel free to visit http://www.godchannel.com
Bob Myers - 19 Jan 2007 00:03 GMT > Spirit explains it nicely here: > http://www.godchannel.com/reality.html > Or, if you're totally cut off from your own will, you might be open > to Right Use of Will: > http://www.rightuseofwill.com/books.htm If you consider anything presented in the above to be an "explanation," then I would have to say that you appear to be rather easily satisified and have little drive to actually determine the truth. Those pages contain a good deal of assertion, but precious little in the way of evidence or reasoning to support any of it.
In short, it is very, very easy for anyone to make any sort of assertion they like about their opinion of how the world works. Where it gets hard to actually demonstrating why anyone should accept that opinion as an adequate or "truthful" explanation. It seems the whoever wrote the above is very, very hesistant to do the work needed to fulfill the latter.
Bob M.
Rich the Philosophizer - 31 Jan 2007 03:19 GMT >> Spirit explains it nicely here: >> http://www.godchannel.com/reality.html [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > assertion, but precious little in the way of evidence or > reasoning to support any of it. So, try the experiment: http://www.godchannel.com/runenergy.html and see what your results are. How does it make you feel?
Thanks! Rich
Grostle News - 20 Jan 2007 18:51 GMT Hi JJ
Here are some links.
http://www.gocs1.com/gocs1/Psionics/ http://amasci.com/emotor/chargdet.html http://www.nexusresearchgroup.com/fun_science/static.htm
Some of these links go to good science such as the electric field detector, and this device is extremely easy to make. I don't know if it works at all or if it could assist you in your noble quest to empirically scrutinize the claim of chi force...
I didn't make the electric field detector myself because it looked to me like it wouldn't work. To use the detector in hand would, in my amateur opinion, ground out and negate any results. The human body, itself can be a ground to sensitive equipment. It also can act like a resistor or like a capacitor storing a high voltage electrostatic charge. Yet, because the electric field detector is so simple to make you might want to experiment with it in spite of my negative amateur analysis.
The Kirlian camera method is also known as "High Voltage Coronal Discharge Electrophotography." Although this technique is probably not illuminating any type of chi energy the results look much like the descriptions of the Human/Living Organism Life/Chi emanation as reported by those who claim to be able to see this (psychics, healers, clairvoyants etc.).
On rare occasions I have seen what looks like lights (auras) around people. The last time it happened I was in a waiting room, there for an appointment to see my psychiatrist.<g>
|
|
|