Thread: A.E.P Experiment (Accuracy of Ethereal Projections)

Hey. I didn't read through this thread as thoroughly as I could, so I apologize if following is redundant.

I am neither a mathematician or statistician, but I know that you don't need a high number of trials to know if you are getting significant results. Why don't you keep it simple, and start with about 10 trials. On a six sided die if you were to get just 6 colors correct in a row you're looking at ridiculous odds, 1 in 46656.

Just stay as true as you can to a strict protocol, which I know is tricky considering the nature of such tests. But we are all capable of confirmation bias, and minimizing its potential is key. Also, based on some of the challenges you've faced you could certainly simplify the experiments. First, why not eliminate the possibility of confusing multiple colors on a single die (during the OBE) by simply ensuring that only one single color of one single object is the target. For example, you could have 6 (or whatever #) distinctly colored marbles in a bag. For each trial blindly grab one and drop it into your target container, and that's it. For each subsequent trial repeat with all 6 marbles.

You mentioned it's difficult enough to accurately read a 2 digit number in that state, let alone a winning lottery number; your desire to keep the target veridical data in line with the nature of the experience is dead on.
Another poster mentioned using random pictures as targets. In some of my own experiments I was using this site.
http://www.randomword.net/
It generates a random word and accompanying picture, though I can't vouch for the statistics. My wife would print out the page with the picture and word and put that in an envelop, and that would be my target.

I hope you keep up with the research. It's exciting no matter which way the results go.

Yeah... in a row.

If it's a true "ethereal projection" you should be getting them all right at once. If its just a dream then you shouldn't.

The only thing you've succeeded in proving is that you don't have them every time (if at all) and you have no way of discerning if you actually had one or it was just blind luck. 40-50 tests is far too much error if your not having 100% accuracy.

If "ethereal projection" are erratic then you'll never have comprehensive data. You may need thousands of tests to see the slight lean. But if you put 10 dice in the jar and get them all right in one night you've practically proven your findings. Or if you don't in 20 or so tests you've disproven them.

Originally Posted by SystemsLock

If it's a true "ethereal projection" you should be getting them all right at once.

What are you basing this assumption off of exactly?

Originally Posted by SystemsLock

The only thing you've succeeded in proving is that you don't have them every time (if at all) and you have no way of discerning if you actually had one or it was just blind luck.

The way I would discern luck from "not luck" is by comparing the results of my experiment with the theoretical probability of what ought to happen by chance alone. If my results fall within what would be expected by chance alone, then that means there is most likely nothing special about EPs. If my results fall outside of what would be expected by chance alone, then that would indicate that there may be “something else” going on.

Originally Posted by SystemsLock

40-50 tests is far too much error if your not having 100% accuracy.

Ok, do you actually have any math to back that up or were you just thinking out loud?
Even at the low end of that scale, 40 trials at 100% accuracy should only happen about 1 time in every 1,428,571,428,571,428,571,428,571,428 trials...which needless to say is far beyond what needs to be accomplished in order to have a significant finding.

Spoiler for The math to back it up:

This is calculated by following equation (1/6) ^ 40 (which is the odds of getting a "hit" in a single trial by chance alone to "the power" of the number of times you have consecutively got a "hit". If I were to have accomplished this, there is a .00000000000000000000000000000748 % chance that the results would have been by chance alone. So essentially what you just said was that anything less than a 1 on 1.4 octillion chance is not enough...which to put that into perspective is over 300 times less likely than winning the Poweball lottery 3 consecutive times. (1/150,000,000 ^3 = 3.375 septillion, and this number multiplied by 300 is still only 1.01 octillion).
Have you any idea just how large these numbers are? We are not talking millions here (or billions, or trillions, or quadrillions, or quintillions, etc, etc) we are talking octillions...I don't even know if octillion is even an official word, that's how high the number is.
Fun fact: Spell check stops at "quintillion".

Originally Posted by SystemsLock

If "ethereal projection" are erratic then you'll never have comprehensive data. You may need thousands of tests to see the slight lean. But if you put 10 dice in the jar and get them all right in one night you've practically proven your findings.

If you don't have correct math to back yourself up, what you are saying completely worthless. And no matter what your opinion may be on the subject, you will still need some way to objectively quantify the data (i.e. by calculating out the probabilities) and you have made it clear to me that you do not really know what you are talking about when it comes to that area of science.
And just so that you are aware, in statistics rolling 10 dice at once is equivalent to rolling 1 die 10 separate times, in either case it is still just 10 independent variables.

Originally Posted by SystemsLock

Or if you don't in 20 or so tests you've disproven them.

Ok, this is just a lesson in logic: If 20 trials are not enough to "prove" anything, then it would follow that 20 trials are therefore not enough to "disprove" anything either. Honestly, I am starting to have second thoughts about the value of your opinion when it comes to the objectivity of this experiment.

I think you misunderstood me.

What are you basing this assumption off of exactly?

Nothing. I'm only assuming that in an ethereal projection you have a 100% accuracy rate. You're right that could be totally wrong.

Ok, do you actually have any math to back that up or were you just thinking out loud?
Even at the low end of that scale, 40 trials at 100% accuracy should only happen about 1 time in every 1,428,571,428,571,428,571,428,571,428 trials...which needless to say is far beyond what needs to be accomplished in order to have a significant finding.

I said if your not having 100% accuracy...

I'm assuming they don't happen every night, or even close to it. Then again I could be totally wrong.

Ok, this is just a lesson in logic: If 20 trials are not enough to "prove" anything, then it would follow that 20 trials are therefore not enough to "disprove" anything either

I meant 20 tests with 10 dice.

Why are you arguing all this? I wasn't attacking any of the data! I only said you would have faster and better results if you used more dice. That's all!

Sorry I haven't responded in a while. The best way to explain why is to summarize what has happened recently:

- father diagnosed with terminal cancer
- cat died
- wife got into a car accident (but is ok)
- was on a new training schedule for a week with virtually the opposite days off and shift hours compared to what I normally have.


@ Systemslock

I apologize if I misunderstood you. Nevertheless, 200 dice trials (whether its 20 x 10 or otherwise) is not necessary to get significant findings. I think 25 trials ought to be enough, and here is why. For example, if we consider the odds of getting at least 10 trials out of 25 correct (a minimum of a 40% success rate), the odds of doing this by chance alone is less than half a percent (~.474%). However, if I were to do 200 trials, the odds of getting at least 40% success is about .00000000000003%.

As you can see, though a 40% success rate with 200 trials is significantly better than with 25 trials, having a ~99.5% chance that your results were not by coincidence alone is not too shabby, and 25 trials is doable. If you are interested in how I came up with these figures, the math is somewhat complicated but this will do it for you by plugging in the raw data.

I will resume the experiment this weekend, don't forget about me.

Oh ethen...I am so very sorry to hear about your father. And your cat. And your wife. Glad she's ok though. Must be a really rough time for you. Hang in there mate.

You most certainly will not be forgotten my friend.

thank you