Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"Proving" the existance of chi

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    "Proving" the existance of chi

    Let me preface by saying that I neither believe nor disbelieve in "chi" but instead am seeking to define a repeatable, quantifiable scientific experiment using readily available technology in hopes of proving or disproving beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of "chi" and the human ability to harness it. Please limit any comments to this post to additions/substitutions/comments on the given experiment.

    1: Select a group of 12-24 persons of varying age, race, gender etc. hereafter referred to as the "experimental group"

    Based on my understanding of chi as the bioelectric current present in the human body I propose to use a simple voltmeter to detect changes in an electric field.

    Experiment Steps:

    1: Following the pre-test/post-test experimental pattern test each person in the experimental group for "chi" by having them place their hands a fixed distance (6"?) apart and using the voltmeter to test for electric current between their hands either from palm to palm or by using a conductive plate (copper) suspended equidistant from both hands. Repeat this test three times and take the average.

    2: Instruct each person on the fundamentals of "chi", breathing, focus etc.

    3: Conduct another series of tests under the same criteria as step one but have each subject in the experimental group attempt to focus their "chi" repeat the experiment three times and take the average.

    Now comes the hard part. How do we determine if any changes in the reading were in fact statistically significant? At this point I do not have an answer for this but I would appreciate any thoughts on the subject.
    I do not aspire to be great, or even good, I hope to suck a little less then last class.

    #2
    You're going to check for a bioelectric current as evidence of chi? I'd say that's more likely evidence of a working nervous system... you going to include corpses in your test groups?

    Comment


      #3
      How do you know that chi is an electrical current and not something else?

      When you find the results, if they're in the negative the chi people will only refute it by saying your test subjects didn't truely believe in chi and therefore either weren't affected or didnt affect anything. using logic on these sorts of people is an ultimately useless exercise.

      Comment


        #4
        Proof chi exists!

        But then, I saw David Copperfield make the statue of liberty disappear. His chi must be strong.

        Comment


          #5
          This is only slightly less dumb than keying Fedor's car.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by ignatzami
            Let me preface by saying that I neither believe nor disbelieve in "chi" but instead am seeking to define a repeatable, quantifiable scientific experiment using readily available technology in hopes of proving or disproving beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of "chi" and the human ability to harness it. Please limit any comments to this post to additions/substitutions/comments on the given experiment.

            1: Select a group of 12-24 persons of varying age, race, gender etc. hereafter referred to as the "experimental group"

            Based on my understanding of chi as the bioelectric current present in the human body I propose to use a simple voltmeter to detect changes in an electric field.

            Experiment Steps:

            1: Following the pre-test/post-test experimental pattern test each person in the experimental group for "chi" by having them place their hands a fixed distance (6"?) apart and using the voltmeter to test for electric current between their hands either from palm to palm or by using a conductive plate (copper) suspended equidistant from both hands. Repeat this test three times and take the average.

            2: Instruct each person on the fundamentals of "chi", breathing, focus etc.

            3: Conduct another series of tests under the same criteria as step one but have each subject in the experimental group attempt to focus their "chi" repeat the experiment three times and take the average.

            Now comes the hard part. How do we determine if any changes in the reading were in fact statistically significant? At this point I do not have an answer for this but I would appreciate any thoughts on the subject.
            This is gh3y because you need to have chi defined first. You can't test for something if you don't know what it is.

            Originally posted by black mariah
            This is only slightly less dumb than keying Fedor's car.
            + rep X 10393098798374

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by MrMcFu
              This is gh3y because you need to have chi defined first. You can't test for something if you don't know what it is.
              Exactly. If you were going to set up all manner of recording devices.. electrical, chemical, magnetic, photographic, and then record some "CHI MASTERROFLTACO!!!!" throwing his students around in order to figure out what chi is, then yeah go for it. It would be a waste of time, energy (not the chi kind, the real kind), and money that could be better spent buying me a new guitar, but it would be the correct way to go about this.

              Comment


                #8
                Hmm, the assumption of chi to be measurable via voltage is propbaly too much... that wouldn't be a good test. Since the nature of "chi" is ill defined, it will probaly be impossible to measure it's actual existence. And since the defining factor of chi is that it should be able to effect the outside world, one should focus on measuring the effect chi has on the outside world....

                So one should first take a chi-basd feat, examine it, and what the intended consequence is... of course, the problem is now finding some feat whose effect can be properly measured and compared to the effect caused by someone who doesn't use chi... but in theory, to verify the presense of something you cannot measure, one could measure the effect. If there is no effect, does it really even matter if it exists or not... ?

                (And there are multitudes of statistical significancy tests you can apply to evaluate the data... that's usually the easy part...)

                Regards,

                mja

                Comment


                  #9
                  Definitely agree with mja, MrMcFu, et all.

                  You got do define what is is and what it can do before you set up an experiment for it.

                  This is only slightly less dumb than keying Fedor's car.
                  That is sig worthy material.
                  ______
                  Xiao Ao Jiang Hu Zhi Dong Fang Bu Bai (Laughing Proud Warrior Invincible Asia) Dark Emperor of Baji!!!

                  RIP SOLDIER

                  Didn't anyone ever tell him a fat man could never be a ninja
                  -Gene, GODHAND

                  You can't practice Judo just to win a Judo Match! You practice so that no matter what happens, you can win using Judo!
                  The key to fighting two men at once is to be much tougher than both of them.
                  -Daniel Tosh

                  Comment


                    #10
                    I was just pretty sure this guy was a troll.

                    Now I see I was wrong.

                    I liked this situation better under the assumption he was a troll.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      The method also assumes that basic instruction in chi will have a measurable effect, and that no-one in the test group has any previous experince with chi or a similar phonomenon under a differant name.

                      If your comitted to the reasarch then the suggesting of testing a selection of individauls who claime to be able to use chi already (idealy ones who agree what it is) would be a sensible 1st step. If possible multiple devices to measure any changes should be used.

                      Then, using any devises wich have registerd, compare the 'Chi users' to a control group of non-using individuals who have no previous experinece in anthing related of similar to chi. Instruct both to attempt a simple task that the chi users caim is possible though chi, but not other wise (in you experimnt this would be genearting a current in the copper plate without touching it). Then crossover & after basic instuction in chi, retest the non-users to attempt agian using chi & the users to attempt the same NOT to use chi.

                      For a good sientific standard you would then need to perform a double blind trial, where results are recorded not linked to individauls when analising that data i.e. give each subject a number that is logged as theirs by a 3rd party, a seperate individaual with knownoladge of the subjects chi expirence should then give the instuctions & perform the test.

                      On analysis a comparison of the results of all (usin & non using) individauls agianst the average of the non-using subjects before and after the training and see if ther is a significant differance between the groups deviation from this. A comparions of the average performance of the groups would also be useful, this would give you some reliable data to disscus

                      If a statasition wants to mention the correct tests or any dlinding errors please do i'm a little rusty on that bit.

                      (In addition a good group to include would be other individuals who have experince in somthing other than chi which claims similar poweres to those tested. these shoudl be instruucted initally to use there own training then none then, after instruction chi.)
                      Last edited by Nate1481; 7/08/2006 7:40am, . Reason: clarificaton
                      "This won't hurt me a bit..." - My training partner.:new_astha

                      Comment


                        #12
                        umm Chi,Qi,Ki is just breath. Its the ancient way of saying, if you breath your muscles work better. I can prove that. Muscles need oxygen to work, breath gives your body oxygen. QED.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by black mariah
                          This is only slightly less dumb than keying Fedor's car.
                          Nominate black mariah for n00b of the month.
                          Sumus extra manum tuam.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by pl4zM4
                            umm Chi,Qi,Ki is just breath. Its the ancient way of saying, if you breath your muscles work better. I can prove that. Muscles need oxygen to work, breath gives your body oxygen. QED.
                            Try telling that to the people that insist you can use Chi to propel people across the room.

                            Originally posted by mrblackmagic
                            Nominate black mariah for n00b of the month.
                            :thumbsup:

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by Afrin
                              Proof chi exists!

                              But then, I saw David Copperfield make the statue of liberty disappear. His chi must be strong.
                              I can't beleive I watched that whole fucking video. My honor demands that you suffer greatly for this.

                              Comment

                              Collapse

                              Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                              Working...
                              X