Ouija board working a fact?

[carn]

You are, IMO, determined to allow into your little brain only that information which reinforces its current opinions. Many dogmatists are like that.

At least you provided evidence you have no telepathic powers. No person knowing my mind and my memories would call me a dogmatist. And the assumption that i allow only that information into my brain, which reinforces my current opinions is proven to be completely wrong by my experience, since i did at several points in my life changed my current opinion because of information, which did not reinforce my current opinions.
If it couldn’t enter my little brain, it could not have changed my opinion.

The human mind, for those who have one, is a very powerful tool. I have no doubt that Randi has the ability to “cloud men’s minds,” which may be more effective than any of his so-called magic.

Yes, Randi understood long ago that he is continously without knowledge generating a powerful anti-supernatural field around him. But before can be famous for it, he has to prove supernatural powers first.

You presume to know things which you do not, which figures. It is so much easier than actually learning anything.

Again your telepathic powers fail. And you presume to know things about my mind, which you do not know. And while your abilities to spot trickery might be limited (did you ever try on a magician?), my ability to determine whether your assumptions about my mind might be true is rather good, after all i do not suffer any mental disease and its my mind.
So take that statement seriously, you are deluding yourself about other people and your motivations.

The kind of magnet required to bend a spoon would need to generate thousands of gauss.

Fool.
At several thousand gauss, the spoons would move at deadly speed with no human capable of holding them.

Since you yak about being so keen on personal experimentation, why don’t you determine for yourself the size and power of magnet needed?

A short check showed 5 gramm magnets capable of ecerting 50 newton.
And as you are a fail at readin, i said assist, meaning he might have used a combination of his musle power and other means.
Or he might have used his musle power alone, bending spoons does not require the same muscles as other activity.

But let’s pretend that he had a 100,000 gauss magnet handy

and had contact been made, it would have required considerable obvious force to remove the magnet from the spoon.

Your dreadful ignorance of the most elementary physics principles is obvious.

This shows you have never been near such magnets and seen how they interact with metal objects. You cannot remove something from a 10 gauss magnet, if it is in contact. With 100000 gauss with your hands?
Good joke.

 

[Crux_Sancta]

This will be my last communication with you. Go buy a subscription to Skeptic magazine and join that gaggle of unimaginative dogmatists. You’ll be much happier there.

It is my understanding that most Skeptics of that ilk who have done investigation of the matter, at least ones who have actually studied the phenomena in question, are part of a movement to conceal any non-physical aspects of reality from a certain, more ignorant segment of the populace, who might be inclined to support the Roman Catholic Church if they were to know, for instance, about the happenings at Fatima, or the numerous incorruptible bodies, the stigmata, statues which cry blood…one or two things could be remarkably faked, but an incorruptible body is pretty hard to reconcile with a materialist worldview.

I do know that many of these so called “Skeptics” talk in a freakish, esoteric double-speak quite often which appears ironic to those who have more knowledge about the world, and perhaps without the knowledge of the speaker, which to me suggests some demonic, dialectical-confusion spreading impulse.

I can only snort when I read a Carl Sagan quote bidding us to understand the universe as it “actually is”…well, I agree with the statement, just not what most people would think he means. Yes, Carl Sagan, we should understand the world as it actually is…

There’s no better deception than when you’re actually telling the truth. And attempting to engage God on a metaphysical level is hilarious! Let’s play a game of chess with someone who knows all the moves, and controls and determines the rules of the game and can change them at will! Great idea!

 

[greylorn]

It is my understanding that most Skeptics of that ilk who have done investigation of the matter, at least ones who have actually studied the phenomena in question, are part of a movement to conceal any non-physical aspects of reality from a certain, more ignorant segment of the populace, who might be inclined to support the Roman Catholic Church if they were to know, for instance, about the happenings at Fatima, or the numerous incorruptible bodies, the stigmata, statues which cry blood…one or two things could be remarkably faked, but an incorruptible body is pretty hard to reconcile with a materialist worldview.

I do know that many of these so called “Skeptics” talk in a freakish, esoteric double-speak quite often which appears ironic to those who have more knowledge about the world, and perhaps without the knowledge of the speaker, which to me suggests some demonic, dialectical-confusion spreading impulse.

I can only snort when I read a Carl Sagan quote bidding us to understand the universe as it “actually is”…well, I agree with the statement, just not what most people would think he means. Yes, Carl Sagan, we should understand the world as it actually is…

There’s no better deception than when you’re actually telling the truth. And attempting to engage God on a metaphysical level is hilarious! Let’s play a game of chess with someone who knows all the moves, and controls and determines the rules of the game and can change them at will! Great idea!

We seem to be in general agreement, which is a rare experience for me on CAF.

You are right about Sagan— while I’ve long proposed that the only Bible certain to be valid is the physical universe itself, Sagan would have chosen to excerpt from that Bible only those pages which supported his atheism.

That is exactly what various Christian religious sects and their derivatives do with the scriptures. The Church is equally guilty, IMO. When I read the Gospel of Mary Magdalene some 30-odd years ago, I was dismayed that her thoughtful ideas had been purged from official Catholic teachings.

Scientists are equally guilty of selective thinking at the theoretical level. When they speak of a “Theory of Everything,” they do not even include human consciousness. There is no more serious impediment to clear thinking than belief— and it does not seem to matter what the beliefs happen to be.

I like your chess game analogy, and include a variation of it in my book. However, because I have chosen to apply physics principles to my understanding of the properties of the Creator, it was necessary to make the interesting assumption that God is actually constrained by the first and third laws of thermodynamics, which hold absolutely.

While this is unlikely to affect the inevitable outcome of a chess match between me and God, it allows me to play without the threat of mid-game rule changes.

Perhaps this shows the real reason behind endemic scientific atheism. All scientists really want is a fair game, in which they have an honest chance to figure things out. Religionists who insist upon an omnipotent God destroy the game,

Consequently, in order to engage the games of physics and theology simultaneously, I adopted the simple hypothesis that God is not omnipotent.

Thank you for a post which got me thinking of some things in ways I’d not previously done.

 

[carn]

It is my understanding that most Skeptics of that ilk who have done investigation of the matter, at least ones who have actually studied the phenomena in question, are part of a movement to conceal any non-physical aspects of reality from a certain, more ignorant segment of the populace, who might be inclined to support the Roman Catholic Church if they were to know, for instance, about the happenings at Fatima, or the numerous incorruptible bodies, the stigmata, statues which cry blood…one or two things could be remarkably faked, but an incorruptible body is pretty hard to reconcile with a materialist worldview.

You do not need to assume any ill-intent on part of the sceptics.To understand them, you should understand that science can study to some extent those things people claim to be supernatural. There are generally 2 categories, explained by example:

Some Guy, lets call him UG, claims:
“I can bend spoons (heal, divinate, find water,…)not using normal physical means, but with my mental powers.”

That claim is perfectly testable and science could study it, if conditions could be created, under which UG could not use normal physical means to bend a spoon, but the spoon is still bent. If UG passes such test, it is proven that something supernatural is going on.

Now for all these sort of claims the result is the following:
Whenever test conditions were created, where it was certain that normal means are unavaible, no result was achieved. And often when test conditions were less optimal and did not prevent all trickery, the results were back.
What can one conclude from that, except that the claims are delusions or even deliberate trickery?
Its not that Uri Geller was unable to be sucessful in one test, where maybe the evil Randi put the stage experienced Geller under such stress, that he failed. Its that no of the millions of dowsers, astrologer, card readers, spoon benders, mind readers, mediums and whatever else you can think of (if it falls into this first category) always fails the moment trickery and self-deception are excluded.
That a few of them are unable to do their thing under test conditions, ok, but all, every single one is unable to work under conditions, which exclude trickery?

There is only one logic explanation, the vast majority and maybe even all, are either deliberately fooling others or delude themselves to believe, they have these powers.

And from these point of view, the sceptics lookat the other category of claims:
“Being X can, when asked, bend spoons (heal, divinate, …) not using normal physical means.”

Science cannot do much here, as X is unavaible for discussion of test conditions.

But what is known, is that some of the people claiming such things, are frauds, deluding poor folls into giving them money or power.

So for the one category you know, lots of frauds are aroud and maybe nobody with genuine ability. With the other category, you cannot test much and at least some frauds are around. Why should it be a evil conspiration, that from that position one assumes, that they are all frauds, be they UG or the RCC?

@greylorn

You claim to understand physics and claim that a potential creator of the universe is bound by the first law of thermodynamics?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy#Noether.27s_theorem
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem

Energy conservation is the other side of the coin of unchanging physical laws and a one dimensional time. As the creator of this universe changed the physical laws from “none” into what they are, he is capable of changing the physical laws. When physical laws are changed energy is not conserved and therefore the creator of this universe being capable of at least sometimes changing the laws (at least once in creation) is not absolutely bound by energy conservation. If he could change the physical laws at will (like many claim God can) he is not bound be energy conservation.

Note, its not RCC doctrine i used, its not even any supernatural thing. Just from the known physics it follows, that if there is a universe creator, then he is to someextent not bound by energy conservation.

 

[greylorn]

…

Some Guy, lets call him UG, claims:
“I can bend spoons (heal, divinate, find water,…)not using normal physical means, but with my mental powers.”

That claim is perfectly testable… If UG passes such test, it is proven that something supernatural is going on.
…
Whenever test conditions were created, where it was certain that normal means are unavaible, no result was achieved. And often when test conditions were less optimal and did not prevent all trickery, the results were back.
What can one conclude from that, except that the claims are delusions or even deliberate trickery?

Its not that Uri Geller was unable to be sucessful in one test, where maybe … always fails the moment trickery and self-deception are excluded.
That a few of them are unable to do their thing under test conditions, ok, but all, every single one is unable to work under conditions, which exclude trickery?

There is only one logic explanation, the vast majority and maybe even all, are either deliberately fooling others or delude themselves to believe, they have these powers.

And from these point of view, the sceptics lookat the other category of claims:
“Being X can, when asked, bend spoons (heal, divinate, …) not using normal physical means.”

Science cannot do much here, as X is unavaible for discussion of test conditions.

But what is known, is that some of the people claiming such things, are frauds, deluding poor folls into giving them money or power.

So for the one category you know, lots of frauds are aroud and maybe nobody with genuine ability. With the other category, you cannot test much and at least some frauds are around. Why should it be a evil conspiration, that from that position one assumes, that they are all frauds, be they UG or the RCC?

You’ve given even less thought to the logic of your post than you have to the spelling and grammar involved.

From experience on CAF I’ve learned that pointing out logical errors to someone who cannot get his spelling right (despite an excellent spell-checker underlining every mistake in red), is similarly incapable of recognizing his logical errors when they are pointed out to him by someone else.

Your arguments are a perfect example of why bother?

@greylorn

You claim to understand physics and claim that a potential creator of the universe is bound by the first law of thermodynamics?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy#Noether.27s_theorem
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem

Energy conservation is the other side of the coin of unchanging physical laws and a one dimensional time. As the creator of this universe changed the physical laws from “none” into what they are, he is capable of changing the physical laws. When physical laws are changed energy is not conserved and therefore the creator of this universe being capable of at least sometimes changing the laws (at least once in creation) is not absolutely bound by energy conservation. If he could change the physical laws at will (like many claim God can) he is not bound be energy conservation.

Note, its not RCC doctrine i used, its not even any supernatural thing. Just from the known physics it follows, that if there is a universe creator, then he is to someextent not bound by energy conservation.

While pointing out your logical errors and incompetent understanding of physics is likely to be as successful as teaching a hamster to play piano, someone else might be reading. So for their benefit, not yours…

Energy conservation has nothing whatsoever to do with time. The Laws of Thermodynamics are entirely time independent. They have nothing to do with time, whatever it is or however many dimensions it might have.

Put simply, your statement, (emphasis mine)…“Energy conservation is the other side of the coin of unchanging physical laws and a one dimensional time,” is something that only a dreadfully ignorant person would write.

I’ll guess that two levels of ignorance are involved. The second is yours, and the first is that of the writer from whom you cribbed that particular turn of phrase.

What follows from it shows the same deep levels of understanding. Based upon the observation that you do not know squat about physical laws (except for some low-level textbook readings), I shall assume that your claim, “When physical laws are changed energy is not conserved,” is an equally incompetent statement that you invented because it suits your religious beliefs.

For others, who might have both mind and curiosity…

The time-dependent laws of physics are entirely consistent with the Three Laws of Thermodynamics.

Look at them like a Tinker Toy set. The toys, out of the factory carton, define a set of laws. They are entirely time independent. The spindles and sticks do not care if they stay in their box forever or are put to use.

Putting them to use means assembling them into various structures by putting sticks into holes, in different sequences and configurations. It is impossible to build something from tinker toys which their geometry disallows. No structure violates the laws of tinker toys, however many they might be.

The assembly of tinker toys can be made analogous to the assembly of the time-dependent laws of physics.

1. The tinker toys may not be created or destroyed. (There are obvious exceptions in this human example. The family cat peed on my set, whereupon my mother consigned them to the trash.)
2. Tinker toys will not self assemble. Any assembly made from them will, however, eventually disassemble.
3. No sequence of physical processes can restore tinker toy parts to the trees from which they were manufactured.

 

[carn]

Energy conservation has nothing whatsoever to do with time. The Laws of Thermodynamics are entirely time independent. They have nothing to do with time, whatever it is or however many dimensions it might have.

Assume for a moment time travel would be possible. Assume further someone sends back in time some object having potential energy, e.g. the international space station (it has potential energy in respect to earths surface).
Ignoring for the moment the problem of “aiming” it to the right position above earth at some previous time an observer without knowledge of the time travel would see the following:
Earth as it is, no space station,a given total energy. Then the time travelling space station appears out of nowhere.The observer cannot see any cause for it appearing, as the cause (the hypothetical time travelling device) was activated in the future. But the total energy of the system increased. So from the observers point of view energy conservation seems to be violated.

This does not prove that time travel would always violate energy conservation, but it hopefully shows, that one simply cannot declare that time and energy conservation are independent.

I’ll guess that two levels of ignorance are involved. The second is yours, and the first is that of the writer from whom you cribbed that particular turn of phrase.

The writer i cribbed from is in the end Emmy Noether:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmy_Noether
“Amalie Emmy Noether (German: ˈnøːtɐ]; 23 March 1882 – 14 April 1935) was an influential German mathematician known for her groundbreaking contributions to abstract algebra and theoretical physics. Described by David Hilbert, Albert Einstein and others as the most important woman in the history of mathematics,[1][2] she revolutionized the theories of rings, fields, and algebras. In physics, Noether’s theorem explains the fundamental connection between symmetry and conservation laws.[3]”

Of course argument from authority is stupid, so the only intent in citing this is, to make you understand,why it is rational for me to ask my next question:
When you use the word “physics” what exactly do you mean?
Because normally Einstein, Hilbert and Noether are considered to have had good understanding of that thing called “physics” and Noether claims time and energy conservation are connected (and the others likely agreed by endorsing her). So someone claiming these people are ignorant about “physics” might mean with “physics” something different.

And when discussing something, one should understand what the other side is talking about.

The time-dependent laws of physics are entirely consistent with the Three Laws of Thermodynamics.

Look at them like a Tinker Toy set. The toys, out of the factory carton, define a set of laws. They are entirely time independent. The spindles and sticks do not care if they stay in their box forever or are put to use.

Putting them to use means assembling them into various structures by putting sticks into holes, in different sequences and configurations. It is impossible to build something from tinker toys which their geometry disallows. No structure violates the laws of tinker toys, however many they might be.

The assembly of tinker toys can be made analogous to the assembly of the time-dependent laws of physics.

1. The tinker toys may not be created or destroyed. (There are obvious exceptions in this human example. The family cat peed on my set, whereupon my mother consigned them to the trash.)
2. Tinker toys will not self assemble. Any assembly made from them will, however, eventually disassemble.
3. No sequence of physical processes can restore tinker toy parts to the trees from which they were manufactured.

I cannot see any evidence in your argument regarding the time-independence of the laws of thermodynamics. It is just an attempt at an analogy, which might make your claim more easy to believe for the human mind.

Furthermore a sequence of physical processes can restore the tinker parts to the trees, one just have to split them up into their atoms and rearrange them the way they were arranged in the trees.

 

[lnslucky]

I’ve used one before and it didn’t work for me. I can’t say the same for everyone because I have heard stories of it moving on its own. And even then, I assume there is some sort of logical explanation like the wind moving it or something. But I also believe in the paranormal, so that could be the explanation too.

 

[MtnDwellar]

I am enjoying the “discussion” between greylorn and carn.

Kudos to carn for not returning insults regarding brain sizes or analogies to hamsters.

 

[greylorn]

I am enjoying the “discussion” between greylorn and carn.

Kudos to carn for not returning insults regarding brain sizes or analogies to hamsters.

Good for you! Did you notice that carn is now paying better attention to his spell checker feedback? Or that he is assembling his arguments more thoughtfully? The insults have served him well, and his style of responding to them, by removing any need for them, is indeed far better than returning them in kind.

I’m hoping that with practice and study, his grammar will come together as well. It will serve his credibility.

 

[MtnDwellar]

Good for you! Did you notice that carn is now paying better attention to his spell checker feedback**? Or** that he is assembling his arguments more thoughtfully?

I’m hoping that with practice and study, his grammar will come together as well. It will serve his credibility.

I believe that proper English grammar rules dictate that sentences do not start with a conjunction. These should not be two independent sentences, but rather conjoined clauses.

 

[Cyclophile]

Yeek! …Yes, the Quija board is a bad thing… Not in and of itself. It is just a chunk of fiberboard and a plastic pointer. Likely, it is the other members of the group using the thing that are moving the pointer around.

My understanding is that its not the board isn’t the problem, you opening yourself to contact “from beyond” (queue eerie music) that is the problem.

 

[Cyclophile]

…whoa… I should have read the entire thread before posting. Talk about a rudderless ship!

 

[greylorn]

Assume for a moment time travel would be possible. etc…

It is absurd to use a hypothetical possibility as the basis for an argument about anything else. First demonstrate; then prove.

BTW it is impossible to move in time, irrespective of direction. All motion involves space-time.

This does not prove that time travel would always violate energy conservation, but it hopefully shows, that one simply cannot declare that time and energy conservation are independent.

It shows nothing of the sort.

The writer i cribbed from is in the end Emmy Noether:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmy_Noether
“Amalie Emmy Noether (German: ˈnøːtɐ]; 23 March 1882 – 14 April 1935) was an influential German mathematician known for her groundbreaking contributions to abstract algebra and theoretical physics. Described by David Hilbert, Albert Einstein and others as the most important woman in the history of mathematics,[1][2] she revolutionized the theories of rings, fields, and algebras. In physics, Noether’s theorem explains the fundamental connection between symmetry and conservation laws.[3]”

I’ve read about her work, second hand, and tried to understand her theorem. Unfortunately, my math skills are limited to applied mathematics, and I was unable to learn the theoretical math needed to make sense of her (and many others) arguments. I regret this, because I feel that her understanding of symmetry would be helpful to my own ideas.

I believe that anyone who understood both my ideas and hers could easily understand the logic that God may have used to shape the time-dependent energy forms.

Of course argument from authority is stupid, so the only intent in citing this is, to make you understand,why it is rational for me to ask my next question:

When you use the word “physics” what exactly do you mean?
Because normally Einstein, Hilbert and Noether are considered to have had good understanding of that thing called “physics” and Noether claims time and energy conservation are connected (and the others likely agreed by endorsing her). So someone claiming these people are ignorant about “physics” might mean with “physics” something different.

Physics is a wide-ranging field, and I’m aware of most levels going on within it. My degree is just a B.S., so I’ve only been able to work in applied physics fields, such as astronomy, biochemistry, instrumentation development.

I’ve retained interest in the field and kept up, to the extent of my ability and economic practicality, by tracking the literature. Back in school, I concluded that quantum mechanics was fundamentally incorrect, so since then I’ve been working on finding the problem with QM (i have done so), and seeking the relationships between physics and the properties of God. This alternative approach to physics has been profitable. My book will explain the nature of dark energy, which several real physicists have labeled “the greatest physics mystery of the 21st century.”

And when discussing something, one should understand what the other side is talking about.

It is more important to understand what you yourself are talking about. And where that understanding is incomplete, one must appreciate your limits of understanding.

Moreover, your understanding must come from within. It may begin by studying the works of others, but until you understand their works well enough to teach them, what knowledge you might imagine that you have is mere brain programming.

More often than not, the person on the other side of an argument is an ignorant nit. If you do not understand your own position, you will be unable to tell if he is a nit or a genius.

This is why it is so easy to convince people who believe in the reality of religious mysteries which they accept on faith, of the validity of Darwinian evolution and Big Bang theories. Having been programmed to accept the illogical opinions of authority figures as truth, the natural tendency of religionists is to accept secular authority figures as well.

I cannot see any evidence in your argument regarding the time-independence of the laws of thermodynamics. It is just an attempt at an analogy, which might make your claim more easy to believe for the human mind.

Of course you cannot. So here is how to find the evidence for yourself.

1. Study the three laws. Look for the time parameter within them. You will not find it, whether you study the English language or the mathematical forms of these laws.
2. Study the other symmetrical laws of physics which relate energy to directly observable forms of reality, (matter, motion, position, charge, etc.) See if you can find a way to rewrite these without including time. When you are tired enough of that, study the Laplace transformation (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace_transform) and Hamiltonian operator.

Within these studies you will find a fascinating mix of insights and mysteries.

By study, I mean use the transform and operator to solve real physics problems. Else remain ignorant, quit pretending to know any physics, and shut up.

Furthermore a sequence of physical processes can restore the tinker parts to the trees, one just have to split them up into their atoms and rearrange them the way they were arranged in the trees.

Who’d have thought it would be that easy?

You’ll explain exactly how one might go about doing that in your next silly-post, yes?

And while I don’t expect you to accomplish this for my benefit (since I assume that such a trivial thing is barely worth your valuable time) I’ll expect at least a mention in your Nobel Prize speech, as the guy who inspired you,

 

[carn]

It is absurd to use a hypothetical possibility as the basis for an argument about anything else. First demonstrate; then prove.

As Noethers theorem claims among other things that “the principle of conservation of energy is a consequence of invariance under time translations” and so far invariance under time translations was always and everywhere observed, Noethers theorem can only be tested in thought experiments or calculations along the line “If invariance under time translations is broken,is energy conserved or not?”

To have a more simple example, assume that at a time T the gravity constant increases. This would brake the invariance as for example the fall speed of objects would be lower before T and faster after T. So it would be relevant whether some experiments are conducted before or after T, invariance under time translations would be broken.
Noethers theorem claims now that then energy is no longer conserved.

And in that case its true:

Throw an object up from lets say moons surface (that way we avoid most of friction which would make thing sjust complicated) so, that it reaches the peak position of its movement exactly at T. The height it reaches depends on the initial movement energy. At its peak position the entire energy has been transferred to potential energy. This potential energy depends on gravity constant.If then at T gravity constant increases, the potential energy increases. Then the object falls again and will have a higher speed at ground than the speed it was ejected with. So the total energy increased and energy conservation is violated.

What cannot be shown this way is, that Noethers theorem is always true, for that the math is needed. But even without math we see, that in one case Noether is correct.

Back in school, I concluded that quantum mechanics was fundamentally incorrect, so since then I’ve been working on finding the problem with QM (i have done so),

As QM explains photoelectric effect, double slit experiments and the functioning of electron microscopes with the particle and wave like nature of particles and as having particle and wave like properties of particles without having QM is a bit difficult, how do you expain these things?

How do explain the functioning of quantum computers?

Furthermore the physical science of the 20s, 30s and 40s did not only produce the in your opinion wrong QM, but also nuclear weapons. How did it happen they cooked up stupid ideas,but levelled cities?

And the theory behind nuclear weapons assumes radioactive decay, which so far can only be understoood with tunneling. How to explain radioactive decay and with that nuclear weapons without QM?

You’ll explain exactly how one might go about doing that in your next silly-post, yes?

Please distinguish two things:
-a process is not possible
-humans cannot perform a process

The wording of 3. in your post implied you claim the former. If you claimed only the latter, its true, but of no consequences for any laws of the universe, because a lot of things go on, which humans cannot achieve.

Did you notice that carn is now paying better attention to his spell checker feedback?

I do not have a spellchecker on.

The insults have served him well, and his style of responding to them, by removing any need for them, is indeed far better than returning them in kind.

Nice to be insulted because the other side thinks it improves the niveau of the conservation. Shall i return the favor?

But to keep you from learning the wrong experience, your insults did not change my writing style because they improved something inside me. Its more that i realized a certain conservation style is necessary. Unfortunately, its hard to explain without being insulting. Maybe you should, beside trying to disprove quantum physics, try to understand the various health issues that can plague the human mind?

As one post-doc once said to me: “You know, the moment you have your Ph.D. in physics, chances are high you will receive a book, leaflet or so from some poor guy trying to prove QM or relativity or both are wrong.” There were even 4 or 5 small books in the meeting room from as many different authors, each claiming to have proved some different aspect of physics wrong.

 

[billcu1]

I know a spirit board works but can’t establish as to wether the way I use it opens you up to outside influences or not. This is the mysteries realm. The high priest and priests of OT times used divination too and as it is written “all that is called evil is only called evil to conceal its holiness.”

I use herbs for medicine and the body knows what it needs and how much. I use the talking board to obtain this information. Not to commune with spirits. Asking if I need 2 capsules of herbs a day for 2 or 3 times is not opening up to anything. There are also ways to protect yourself. If anyone knows anything I don’t let me know.

B

 

[billcu1]

PLEASE,
STAY AWAY from the Ouija Board.
It is marketed as the Mystifying Oracle, and sold by Parker Brothers,
but contrary to secular opinion, it is NOT a mere game.
A board and a wooden or plastic planchette, cannot move by itself.
Sometimes the “players” are pushing the planchette.
But those into the occult know that this is not usually the case.
It is an opening for demonic activity, as you are asking unknown forces
other than Jesus Christ and his Church for hidden information.
It isn’t also known as the “Witch Board” for nothing.
If you mess with Ouija Boards, you are playing with Fire. Don’t do that. Don’t.
If you have one, break the thing and throw it out.
Then have a priest bless your house.
Love to you,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
PRAY THE ROSARY DAILY

There are certain ways needed to destroy it I hear. Occult means “hidden”. Hidden from the eyes of men.

 

[AndyF]

The Ouijia Board is not so much a mechanism in the occult practice, but a form of contract of determination to make official it’s Divinely forbidden use. It is conjuring and intrinsically mortal has a sin in severity. By it’s use the evil spirits are able to present it has proof of a case of determination by the parties against the will of God. They are with God’s sad reluctance given permission and released from the restriction of interfering with the willing partner/s.

The parties make the false assumption that they can control the type of entity that will visit. They feel this way because they make the false assumption that all entities have common amiable goals,motives and intent. The very use of the board has lowered the wall of graces that would otherwise protect obedient person/s. The effects of the board, either directly,or through personality changes(partial possession),or delayed reaction,etc are now the compounding effects of the sin of it’s use. The parties usually cannot explain or attribute the new phenomena to it’s prior use.

The bottom line will always be to be watchful and take seriously the warnings given in scripture.

 

[greylorn]

I know a spirit board works but can’t establish as to wether the way I use it opens you up to outside influences or not. This is the mysteries realm. The high priest and priests of OT times used divination too and as it is written “all that is called evil is only called evil to conceal its holiness.”

I use herbs for medicine and the body knows what it needs and how much. I use the talking board to obtain this information. Not to commune with spirits. Asking if I need 2 capsules of herbs a day for 2 or 3 times is not opening up to anything. There are also ways to protect yourself. If anyone knows anything I don’t let me know.

B

You came into this life already knowing, especially the important principles of mind-protection. Keep studying, carefully and widely. Use only that which you know, in your heart and mind to be true, and remember always that “I do not know, and at the moment cannot help,” are honest and therefore valid answers.

You have much to remember, and much to teach. When ready, a teacher will appear for you if you are prepared to be of service.

 

[greylorn]

I believe that proper English grammar rules dictate that sentences do not start with a conjunction. These should not be two independent sentences, but rather conjoined clauses.

I stand corrected, thank you. Chances are that I will repeat the same error, especially when I write late at night or early am, and treat these responses in more of a conversational than a formal style.

Yet, even then, and after a bottle of wine, I try to pay attention to basics like proper tenses. I always pay attention to words which the handy, built-in spell checker underlines in squiggly red for me. If I find that I’ve misspelled a word that I’ve not recently made-up, I will check a dictionary if necessary to get it right.

That level of basic responsibility is something which all of us should expect from everyone posting on CAF.

Being human, we all make errors and take shortcuts. We were born ignorant, and ideally are trying to improve that sorry state. Yet, someone who ignores an easily correctable error that a machine points out to him is clearly ignorant and determined to stay that way.

Make your own choices, but mine are to assume that such individuals are not intellectually responsible for anything that they write.

 

[billcu1]

You came into this life already knowing, especially the important principles of mind-protection. Keep studying, carefully and widely. Use only that which you know, in your heart and mind to be true, and remember always that “I do not know, and at the moment cannot help,” are honest and therefore valid answers.

You have much to remember, and much to teach. When ready, a teacher will appear for you if you are prepared to be of service.

How will I know when I can be of service? There are 9 lesser initiations in the 7 mystery schools but as far as I know I have never been welcomed into the temple. Unless it’s done invisibly.

B