[RBM]

Wade into the controversy :-)

Following is some science behind what has typically relegated to the bin of psuedo science. Science is catching up so here is an author that has the low down on the science. The inspiration for the post is
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
from Ingo Swann's site.

Some bio of the author:

He joined Stanford University (1964) as professor in the Department of Materials Science and Engineering, and has been Emeritus Professor since 1992. During this period, and continuing, he has been consultant to government and industry in the fields of metallurgy and solid state physics. His fields of specialization are crystal growth, surfaces and interfaces, physical metallurgy, semiconductor processing, thin film formation and computer simulation. He has published more than 250 scientific papers, three technical books and has five patents issued. He was elected Fellow to the American Academy for the Advancement of Science (1966), held a Guggenheim Fellowship (1970-71), and was Distinguished Visiting Professor, School of Engineering, University of Delaware (1981-82). In 1982, he received the Humanitarian of the Year Award from the International New Thought Alliance of Churches, and in 1996 received the J. G. Gallimore Award For Innovative New Research from United States Psychotronic Association (USPA). Alongside his illustrious work in conventional science, Professor Tiller has had a long-term interest in anomalous and exceptional energies, psychotronics, Kirlian effects, healing, modes of consciousness and psychoenergetics. Within a conceptual framework that incorporates all of conventional science, he has devoted significant efforts to developing theoretical modeling to understand this combined "subtle energy" class of seemingly strange phenomena.

His book:

	Prof. Tiller's forty years of research in subtle energies and psychoenergetics has recently been brought together in his latest 1997 book SCIENCE AND HUMAN TRANSFORMATION: SUBTLE ENERGIES, INTENTIONALITY AND CONSCIOUSNESS

The original title:

SUBTLE ENERGY ACTIONS AND

PHYSICAL DOMAIN CORRELATIONS


CONSCIOUSNESS, INTENTIONALITY AND SUBTLE ENERGIES


Abstract:

Results of three uniquely different experiments are provided, each providing robust correlates of subtle energy events manifesting in the physical band of reality. Taken together, the experiments support the postulate that subtle energy signals not directly observable by physical means do create a transduced signal at the magnetic vector potential field level of the physical realms. Within the concepts of our standard electrodynamics, the transduction of the subtle energy signals generates electric and magnetic signals that have observable physical effects. The experimental results are also suggestive that human intention when applied to unseen subtle domains is the effective driver of events seen in the physical domain.

[Sir Paul]

I had a browse of the link you posted and I'm excedingly sceptical of it's validity.

[RBM]

	Originally Posted by Sir Paul To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I had a browse of the link you posted and I'm excedingly sceptical of it's validity.

Good for you !

So where's the productive dialog in the form of your skepticism explained ?

In your reputation remark you said you couldn't comment cause you hadn't read the
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
. I haven't read the book either, but the concept isn't new to me. What's new to me is how science has offered qualified proof via the scientific method.

Kind of like how the old wifes tale of chicken soup is good for what sometimes ails one - then science found a factual basis, a kernel of truth.

[PunkinA]

This seems like a great modal explanation for a general phenomena I haven't observed. It's like a Fundementals of Magic

[RBM]

	Originally Posted by PunkinA To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This seems like a great modal explanation for a general phenomena I haven't observed. It's like a Fundementals of Magic

You don't provide a link to your reference 'F of M', but
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
is what I get.

[Ither]

Also checked the linked site.

I surmise these 'energies' are essentially Vedic mantras, useful for growing plants and understanding quantum mechanics.

In other words: please!

[RBM]

	Originally Posted by Ither To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Also checked the linked site. I surmise these 'energies' are essentially Vedic mantras, useful for growing plants and understanding quantum mechanics. In other words: please!

If I recall correctly, the Vedic mantras are mentioned in the Remote Viewing literature within a historical context.

[Sir Paul]

Originally Posted by RBM To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Good for you ! So where's the productive dialog in the form of your skepticism explained ? In your reputation remark you said you couldn't comment cause you hadn't read the To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. . I haven't read the book either, but the concept isn't new to me. What's new to me is how science has offered qualified proof via the scientific method.

I shouldn't need to explain it, read it yourself, the concept is outright preposterous.

Going from the first "experiment", on the link you posted, they attempt to claim that some "strange fogging" on a developed photograph was caused by these "subtle energies" generated by the "spiritual forces" at a "high energy spiritual concert". They concluded this based around the photographer using different cameras and achieving similar results, instead of considering the possibility that he was an incompetent who left the aperture open too widely or perhaps the shutter time a fraction longer. Of course even these are unlikely considering it occurred in the 1970s when camera technology was barely beginning. However with only one instance used as evidence It really has a weak case.

And then I could continue with various reasons as to why the remainder of the document is outrageous at best, but when you look at what kind of companies are using this
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
How rediculous it is, really goes without saying. Not to mention the website on wich the link you posted is a little preoccupied with a
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
of its own.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Wow... I've used a lot of inverted commas here...

	Originally Posted by RBM To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Kind of like how the old wifes tale of chicken soup is good for what sometimes ails one - then science found a factual basis, a kernel of truth.

This is true, however in this case the goal of the "subtle energies technology" is to improve quality of mind, body and soul. Of course a healthy diet, some good exercise and a little mental stimulations could never take care of your body and mind. I'd understand if it was just a soul thing, but someone going to use a "scientifically proven remedy" over something less scientific (like a little meditation, or worshiping deity of choice) shouldn't really be concerned about their soul, especially since the soul is a... religious idea.

Back to the concept of science proven what is "already known"; exactly how many wives tales do you think have been proven with respect to those that have been disproved.

Science of course could never prove something that was incorrect, and certainly no one has ever said that "enough research will prove anything".

[RBM]

	Originally Posted by Sir Paul
	I shouldn't need to explain it, read it yourself, the concept is outright preposterous.

Yup, sure it is. But that's not the issue. The science is.

Your dismissal presumes non-control for those elements. I presume control for those elements. Which seems more likely for a scientist with his background ?

Want to flip a coin ?

This post wasn't about someone else using whatever.

	Originally Posted by Sir Paul
	Not to mention the website on wich the link you posted is a little preoccupied with a "goal" of its own.

So why did you mention it ?

[Sir Paul]

	Originally Posted by RBM To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yup, sure it is. But that's not the issue. The science is. Your dismissal presumes non-control for those elements. I presume control for those elements. Which seems more likely for a scientist with his background ? Want to flip a coin ? This post wasn't about someone else using whatever.

I resent your assumption that I am making a presumption. I have done no such thing, I merely suggested a possible flaw in their evaluation.

	Originally Posted by RBM To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So why did you mention it ?

The phrase "Not to mention" is a colloquialism which does not mean "do not mention" but more along the lines of, "much less," or, "let alone".