Thread: Sceptics, please explain this

Don't bait skeptics. Its not worth it. Just Co-Exist with them, don't try to bring them into inner sanctum and beyond dreaming. We like to keep these as skeptic free as possible :J

Sceptics, please explain this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lsmdnr8a3Oc

Originally Posted by Xei

Sceptics, please explain this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lsmdnr8a3Oc

I Lol'd.

Originally Posted by Xei

Sceptics, please explain this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lsmdnr8a3Oc

How the hell did he do that??

blades dont cut by pushing directly against them, they cut by the slicing motion.

as for the sledge hammer brick thing. heres a quote from my highschool physics book (had it in pdf):

Circus strongmen often perform a feat where they place a large rock on their chest, then allow another person to smash the rock with a sledgehammer. This might seem at first to be an act of extreme strength and daring. However, a quick analysis using the principle of conservation of momentum will show otherwise. Let us assume that the rock has a mass of 15 kg and that the sledgehammer of mass 3 kg strikes it at 5 m/s. Using conservation of momentum, we can show that the rock and sledgehammer will move together at just 1m/s after the impact. The large mass of the rock has dictated that the final common speed is too low to hurt the strongman. A more daring feat would be to use the sledgehammer to smash a pebble!

And from the guys stance the force is mostly on his feet not his neck.

Not sure about the iron bar thing but im not going to bother looking it up.

Originally Posted by vacant

blades dont cut by pushing directly against them, they cut by the slicing motion.

as for the sledge hammer brick thing. heres a quote from my highschool physics book (had it in pdf):

Circus strongmen often perform a feat where they place a large rock on their chest, then allow another person to smash the rock with a sledgehammer. This might seem at first to be an act of extreme strength and daring. However, a quick analysis using the principle of conservation of momentum will show otherwise. Let us assume that the rock has a mass of 15 kg and that the sledgehammer of mass 3 kg strikes it at 5 m/s. Using conservation of momentum, we can show that the rock and sledgehammer will move together at just 1m/s after the impact. The large mass of the rock has dictated that the final common speed is too low to hurt the strongman. A more daring feat would be to use the sledgehammer to smash a pebble!

And from the guys stance the force is mostly on his feet not his neck.

Not sure about the iron bar thing but im not going to bother looking it up.

Skeptics always find a way. Whether its logical, and grounded in reality like this, or illogical and crazy, just to prove somethings not real.

"Sceptics, please explain this"

Or was that not meant to be taken literally?


Anyway, the video is still impressive. Clearly the things they were doing take a lot of training and 'chi' as in, high mental focus.

Originally Posted by Kraftwerk

Skeptics always find a way. ... just to prove somethings not real.

Congratulations, you have grasped the definition of scepticism.

Perhaps a little more thought and you will start to grasp some of the virtues.

The thing with the iron stick is quite impressive, though most of the other feets in that video could've been done in a million ways, that do not involve magic.

But this is not what the Inner Sanctum is for

Originally Posted by Xei

Congratulations, you have grasped the definition of scepticism.

Perhaps a little more thought and you will start to grasp some of the virtues.

I understand Skepticism and Its virtues. The reason I believe in stuff like this is because of personal experiences I've had, things I've seen, etc etc. I just would preffer Inner Sanctum didn't become like R/S is all. Theres plenty of things I'm skeptical about, I'm not stupid Xei.

Originally Posted by Xei

Sceptics, please explain this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lsmdnr8a3Oc

OMG how did borat shrink himself... amazing, he should make another movie looking like that.

I understand Skepticism and Its virtues. The reason I believe in stuff like this is because of personal experiences I've had, things I've seen, etc etc. I just would preffer Inner Sanctum didn't become like R/S is all. Theres plenty of things I'm skeptical about, I'm not stupid Xei.

I understand and respect that but the bit I quoted seemed to be saying sceptics have some kind of vendetta to disprove things, and 'can' disprove anything they want, when of course we can only disprove things (or at least discredit the evidence) if they're not true.

The explanation of the trick with brick and sledgehammer being a bit unconvincing to me, the thing with the iron stick remains unexplained.

Originally Posted by Nick89

The explanation of the trick with brick and sledgehammer being a bit unconvincing to me

Study physics. It makes perfect sense. Actually, I don't think that explanation is complete, because it doesn't cover the "impulse" force that shoots through - but depending on what the brick is made of, most of that gets absorbed in much the same way.

the thing with the iron stick remains unexplained.

The longer the metal rod is, the more of the initial "bending" is done by its own weight. Once the thing gets started, a long metal rod bends really easily.

I think a healthy level of skepticism is a great thing to have, because SOMEBODY needs to discredit fraudulent assholes like Uri Geller.

However, I also think it's very possible to be an "open-minded skeptic" and the way I think you achieve that is by asking the right questions. "Does X exist" or "is X for real" is a silly question to ask, when you are looking at it from a practical perspective. The more useful question is, "If I pretend that X is real, do I get useful results?" It's all about adopting models that are useful for certain things. Taking it back to martial arts (I teach TKD), I find that it's a lot easier to get students to do a side kick properly if I have them pretend their energy is moving in a certain way than if I try to explain the mechanics of how they should be aligning their limbs. It's just easier to follow. Likewise, it doesn't matter whether or not "chi" as they demo it in that video is "real" - those sorts of feats of strength are best studied by pretending that chi is real, regardless of whether it is. But it's also important to note that the physics of the situation in ALL the cases they demoed are also helping the martial artists (all while looking super impressive and dangerous to the untrained eye).

Originally Posted by Nick89

The explanation of the trick with brick and sledgehammer being a bit unconvincing to me, the thing with the iron stick remains unexplained.

Therefore "chi" exists?

Skeptics, please explain this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oe3St1GgoHQ

Originally Posted by JamesLD

Skeptics, please explain this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oe3St1GgoHQ

The iron bar was impressive, but the sledgehammer made me laugh. I mean, that guy quite clearly did not him very hard at all, so all the first guy had to do was move his back up when he was hit to keep himself from being beheaded.

One of my favourite quotes:

"Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigour, and the great spaces have a splendour of their own."
~ Bertrand Russell

Originally Posted by JamesLD

Skeptics, please explain this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oe3St1GgoHQ

Please tell me you are joking.

Originally Posted by Xei

Please tell me you are joking.

of course im joking, im just poking some fun at the OP. this video is pretty cool though

OK, guys, I give up That magic trick posted by Xei is astounding, by the way.

There's a great way to test the theories of skeptics. Ask someone of the same weight/height/muscular tone to reproduce these amazing feats. Can anyone do it just because they have the right 'physics'? I think the answer is no. I disagree with the skeptics. This isn't just about physical physics, there is a mental aspect to these amazing feats. That's why it's called mind over matter.

Another example would be walking on hot coal. Skeptics also offered a great scientific argument that anyone can walk on hot coal and not get burned. The very same skeptics that offered this scientific argument however, were too chicken to try it, and it doesn't explain why so many tourists who go to these places where people walk on burning coal - get burned.

Mind is the missing element. It's the difference between whether or not you get burned, sliced or diced. And many physicists agree.

Originally Posted by juroara

There's a great way to test the theories of skeptics. Ask someone of the same weight/height/muscular tone to reproduce these amazing feats. Can anyone do it just because they have the right 'physics'? I think the answer is no. I disagree with the skeptics. This isn't just about physical physics, there is a mental aspect to these amazing feats. That's why it's called mind over matter.

There's definitely a mental aspect, and when they learn/study that mental aspect, they use "chi" as a model. That model is the best way to learn the mental aspect. But there is a difference between your model of reality, and reality itself. The map is not the territory, as they say.

Your argument, however, is like saying "this guy knows how to drive... take someone of similar physical tone who has never driven and put him in a car, and according to the skeptics, he will immediately be able to drive the car." No, sorry, that falls flat. Just like driving a car, this is a skill to be learned.

Another example would be walking on hot coal. Skeptics also offered a great scientific argument that anyone can walk on hot coal and not get burned. The very same skeptics that offered this scientific argument however, were too chicken to try it, and it doesn't explain why so many tourists who go to these places where people walk on burning coal - get burned.

Who are these skeptics who are too chicken to try it? The scientific explanation is very, very sound. In what way is it not? Also, any asshole who goes to a tony robbins retreat walks on hot coals as part of it. The "mind over matter" aspect of walking on hot coal is the same mind of matter aspect of walking up to a girl and talking to her. Just have the balls to get over your irrational fears.

People get burned on hot coals when they stay in the same place for too long instead of continually moving.

Edit to add: I thought I'd look up firewalking for you, so you can judge for yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firewalking

Not only is the physical explanation perfectly sound, but so are the listed reasons for getting burned (the first of which is the one I outlined). Please point out the flaw in scientific reasoning on that article. Also, have you ever baked a cake? Why is it that you can touch the surface of the cake RIGHT after getting it out of the oven, and it only burns you if you leave your finger there too long? Must be that you're focusing your chi into your finger, eh?


Look, I'm not calling shenanigans on the legitimacy of the monks in the video. Those people have spent their lives honing their talents, and I have nothing but respect for them. I stand in awe of their skills. I'm calling shenanigans on the asshole talk show host who completely misunderstands all of what's going on, on all levels.

Has anyone here firewalked?