Posts
Trial 6
This trial was performed by 5 magicians, all experienced. Based on our prior research I made the prediction prior to trial #6 that the EMF would rise from the baseline .08, but not high enough to set off the alarm that kicks in at .4. Based on the previous observation that the presence of a spirit seems to add about .2 to the baseline EMF, I predicted for the first experiment that the peak EMF would be .28. Trial 5 from the same baseline peaked at .25, but at the time I considered that a statistical variation based on the presence of an experienced by unfamiliar person in the group.
This proved not to be the case. EMF did rise in conjunction with the presence of the spirit, but only to .22. Given the percentage difference between the predicted and observed values it struck me as unlikely that this was simply statistical variation, but I came away from the operation feeling like more trials would be necessary to establish a better working model to explain the strength of the EMF increase.
Trial 7
This trial was also performed by the same 5 magicians as trial 6. For this trial the temple baseline was the same as for trials 5 and 6. This allowed me to run another test from the same baseline level with the same group of people to see if I could get any more insight into developing a formula for deriving peak EMF from baseline EMF. This trial went much the same as trial 6, except this time the peak EMF only rose to .2 from .08. So the data points we now have for trials from this baseline are:
Trial 5: Baseline .08, Peak .25
Trial 6: Baseline .08, Peak .22
Trial 7: Baseline .08, Peak .20
This yields an average peak of .22 for this baseline, and since we had one more person for Trial 5 that may have been part of the reason the result of that trial was slightly higher. The other trials can be summarized as:
Trial 1: Baseline .20, Peak .41
Trial 2: Baseline .05, Peak .18
Trial 3: Baseline .12, Peak .41
Trial 4: Baseline .18, Peak .40
In all these cases the peak level occurred between the conjuration of the spirit and the license to depart, so the effect does seem to be linked to the spirit's presence rather than happening at random, but so far a completely predictable pattern has yet to emerge in terms of degree.
At .05 we got .18 for a multiplier of 3.6
At .08 we averaged .22 for a multiplier of 2.8
At around .17 we averaged .41 for a multiplier of 2.4
It seems like the multiplier increases as the baseline decreases, though the single .05 trial could turn out to be an outlier. What's clear is that the multiplier does seem to vary with the baseline, so it is not a straight additive effect as I previously hypothesized.
8 comments:
Not sure if you got my last post, but your results have already reached statistical significance.
--Cliff
Paired samples t-test: T = 7.928, p = 0.000214. Roughly one in 4,675.
What type of an EMF meter are you using.
If you have the funds, I recommend looking into one that will allow constant data capture, so that you can see real spikes, and first establishing a baseline by letting it run in the room for maybe 24 hours. EMF fluctuates regularly, and can do so due to various reasons, including just movement of people (but particularly movement of metal), and any appliances that might be going on (HVAC included).
Still, this is something I've been wanting to do, and I applaud you for taking the step. There's no reason not to see what types of measurable effects are caused by magick (unless one thinks that doing so will be offensive to their spirits and thus prevent it from working).
@Cliff: Thanks for the statistical breakdown. My main concern at this point is with the confidence interval - I want to have a bigger sample size before I do more analysis on the results.
@Methos: Some sort of tracker that will record the EMF throughout the ritual would indeed be ideal. I'd like to be able to take a readout of the levels and compare it to the different stages of the ritual to see if any other noticeable spikes occur at particular points. Hopefully one of these days I'll be able to acquire something like that.
Very cool study. If you'd asked me before, I would have expected energy to be unrelated to EM. What's happened in this since your last post? Is there a discussion somewhere? Sorry, I'm coming late to the party, trying to catch up.
Also, any testing if magick that's unrelated to spirits, or channeled energy like Reiki, affects EMF? If it's spirit-specific or not?
Like I said, very cool stuff. Thanks for posting the studies.
The thing is that the EMF shift is very small, so I'm convinced that it's an epiphenomenon rather than the magick itself consisting in some manner of EMF.
One of the subsequent observations that I've made in a couple of more recent tests is that the EMF is much less likely to manifest if you're conjuring using a material basis - it seems like the EMF is related to conjuring spirits into the space over the altar rather than into an object. There will be an article on that eventually, but I want to do a few more tests to verify it first.
As far as energy work goes, I don't seem to be able to affect the EMF detector doing Qigong, but that's not too surprising since the Chinese have been doing research on Qigong for years with much better equipment than I have and have never detected EMF related to it. I don't know about Reiki, but based on what I've read it sounds like Reiki and Qigong work based on similar principles even though their respective methodologies differ.
So it seems that EMF is particularly related to spirits, not magick in general, then. Thanks!
The Chinese research on Qigong actually found that masters produced infrasonic waves, not EMF. So that suggests to me that the EMF is spirit related, not energy-work related, especially given the ongoing paranormal research on hauntings that relates EMF to ghosts.
Post a Comment