科學家發現人類擁有神秘主義者一直都知道的神秘生物能量場
0:005:55幾千年來，神秘主義者一直在暗示人類周圍存在生物產生的能量場或光環。現在科學研究表明，這可能不僅僅是神秘主義和民間傳說。馬里蘭大學的生物化學家約翰·諾曼·漢森博士發現了這樣一個能量場可能是真實的證據，這證明了精神從業者長久以來所指出的。
漢森博士對數十名受試者進行了數百次實驗，他的結果始終可以復制。其他科學家也複製了他的結果，包括賓夕法尼亞大學生物化學和生物物理學系的威廉·范登伯格和葛底斯堡學院的物理學家威廉范德斯盧斯，他們於 3 月在《科學探索雜誌》上發表了他們的研究。 15.
先前對人類生物能源領域的研究使用了光子傳感器。漢森博士採取了不同的方法。他想知道如果生物能量場存在的話，是否有足夠的力量來推動一個扭擺——一個足夠靈敏的裝置，可以被一個微妙的力量移動。他將鐘擺掛在對象的頭頂上方，看到鐘擺的動量發生了明顯的變化。
他將鐘擺掛在對象的頭頂上方，看到鐘擺的動量發生了明顯的變化。“在進行控制實驗以排除氣流和其他偽影的影響後，得出的結論是，這些影響是由坐在鐘擺下的受試者產生的某種力場施加的，”他在 2013 年的研究中解釋說，標題為“使用扭擺平衡來檢測和表徵可能是人類生物能量場的東西”，也發表在《科學探索雜誌》上。“我們不知道任何力量，例如電磁頻譜中的力量可以解釋這些結果。可能會發現對這些令人驚訝的結果的傳統解釋，但我們可能已經觀察到一種現象，需要發展新的理論概念。”
其中一項突出的觀察是，在人類受試者離開後，人類存在的影響持續了大約 30 到 60 分鐘。在氣流等其他力的作用下，鐘擺會立即恢復到其經典的非驅動運動。
受試者的精神狀態會強烈影響鐘擺的行為。每個受試者對鍾擺的影響力大致相同，“這表明對鍾擺的影響既不需要獨特的天賦，也不需要實踐，”漢森在他在第 34 屆科學探索學會年會上發表的演講摘要中寫道。 2015 年 5 月。“然而，據觀察，一些受試者，尤其是那些多年來一直從事冥想練習的人，在冥想狀態下與非冥想狀態下產生的效果非常不同……這表明，一個人的精神狀態主體可以強烈影響鐘擺的行為。”
幾千年來，神秘主義者一直在暗示人類周圍存在生物產生的能量場或光環。現在科學研究表明，這可能不僅僅是神秘主義和民間傳說。馬里蘭大學的生物化學家約翰·諾曼·漢森博士發現了這樣一個能量場可能是真實的證據，這證明了精神從業者長久以來所指出的。
漢森博士對數十名受試者進行了數百次實驗，他的結果始終可以復制。其他科學家也複製了他的結果，包括賓夕法尼亞大學生物化學和生物物理學系的威廉·范登伯格和葛底斯堡學院的物理學家威廉范德斯盧斯，他們於 3 月在《科學探索雜誌》上發表了他們的研究。 15.
先前對人類生物能源領域的研究使用了光子傳感器。漢森博士採取了不同的方法。他想知道如果生物能量場存在的話，是否有足夠的力量來推動一個扭擺——一個足夠靈敏的裝置，可以被一個微妙的力量移動。他將鐘擺掛在對象的頭頂上方，看到鐘擺的動量發生了明顯的變化。
“在進行控制實驗以排除氣流和其他偽影的影響後，得出的結論是，這些影響是由坐在鐘擺下的受試者產生的某種力場施加的，”他在 2013 年的研究中解釋說，標題為“使用扭擺平衡來檢測和表徵可能是人類生物能量場的東西”，也發表在《科學探索雜誌》上。“我們不知道任何力量，例如電磁頻譜中的力量可以解釋這些結果。可能會發現對這些令人驚訝的結果的傳統解釋，但我們可能已經觀察到一種現象，需要發展新的理論概念。”
其中一項突出的觀察是，在人類受試者離開後，人類存在的影響持續了大約 30 到 60 分鐘。在氣流等其他力的作用下，鐘擺會立即恢復到其經典的非驅動運動。
每個受試者對鍾擺的影響力大致相同，“這表明對鍾擺的影響既不需要獨特的天賦，也不需要實踐，”漢森在他在第 34 屆科學探索學會年會上發表的演講摘要中寫道。 2015 年 5 月。“然而，據觀察，一些受試者，尤其是那些多年來一直從事冥想練習的人，在冥想狀態下與非冥想狀態下產生的效果非常不同……這表明，一個人的精神狀態主體可以強烈影響鐘擺的行為。”
有常規解釋嗎？
Van den Berg 和 van der Sluys 使用了相同的鐘擺裝置——正如 Hansen 將設計公開，鼓勵其他人復制他的結果——並觀察到它在靠近人頭時運動的相同變化。然而，他們想知道，這種變化是否可能是由於人體頭部散發的熱量引起的氣溫變化。他們說，氣溫的變化可能會導致對流。
然而，他們想知道，這種變化是否可能是由於人體頭部散發的熱量引起的氣溫變化。他們在頭部和鍾擺之間放置了一層塑料，發現對鍾擺的影響消失了。他們建議塑料要么切斷鐘擺與神秘的生物能源場，要么只是切斷熱源。
然而，漢森發表了對這項研究的回复，指出他認為體熱導致鐘擺運動的理論存在缺陷。
首先，漢森說：“如果你在對象和鍾擺之間放置一個厚塑料防護罩，[生物能場]的推力最初會抵住防護罩，而鍾擺只會對剩餘的推力做出反應推到盾牌上之後。如果推力通過護盾後繼續推向鍾擺，則違反了物理學的基本原理；即你只能使用一次力，如果它被用來推動盾牌，它就不能隨後推動鐘擺。”
漢森說范登伯格沒有考慮到的另一個因素是持續的後遺症。漢森寫道：“鐘擺物理學的一個基本原理是，如果鐘擺受到外力的驅動並且外力被移除，那麼鐘擺將立即恢復到經典的非驅動運動。”
在對象離開後，任何熱對流的積累都會迅速消散。所以對流無法解釋這些後遺症。漢森將對象的生物能量場的影響描述為以某種方式“烙印”在鐘擺上。
他說，范登伯格的研究也未能承認擺在人類受試者面前擺動的不同頻率。當對像不在時，鐘擺以單一頻率振盪。當對像出現時，它會以許多新的頻率振盪，並且會在對象離開後半小時或更長時間——這不能用氣溫變化引起的對流來解釋。
Van den Berg 和 van der Sluys 使用了相同的鐘擺裝置——正如 Hansen 將設計公開，鼓勵其他人復制他的結果——並觀察到它在靠近人頭時運動的相同變化。然而，他們想知道，這種變化是否可能是由於人體頭部散發的熱量引起的氣溫變化。他們說，氣溫的變化可能會導致對流。
他們在頭部和鍾擺之間放置了一層塑料，發現對鍾擺的影響消失了。他們建議塑料要么切斷鐘擺與神秘的生物能源場，要么只是切斷熱源。
然而，漢森發表了對這項研究的回复，指出他認為體熱導致鐘擺運動的理論存在缺陷。
首先，漢森說：“如果你在對象和鍾擺之間放置一個厚塑料防護罩，[生物能場]的推力最初會抵住防護罩，而鍾擺只會對剩餘的推力做出反應推到盾牌上之後。如果推力通過護盾後繼續推向鍾擺，則違反了物理學的基本原理；即你只能使用一次力，如果它被用來推動盾牌，它就不能隨後推動鐘擺。”
漢森說范登伯格沒有考慮到的另一個因素是持續的後遺症。漢森寫道：“鐘擺物理學的一個基本原理是，如果鐘擺受到外力的驅動並且外力被移除，那麼鐘擺將立即恢復到經典的非驅動運動。”
在對象離開後，任何熱對流的積累都會迅速消散。所以對流無法解釋這些後遺症。漢森將對象的生物能量場的影響描述為以某種方式“烙印”在鐘擺上。
他說，范登伯格的研究也未能承認擺在人類受試者面前擺動的不同頻率。當對像不在時，鐘擺以單一頻率振盪。當對像出現時，它會以許多新的頻率振盪，並且會在對象離開後半小時或更長時間——這不能用氣溫變化引起的對流來解釋。
For thousands of years, mystics have alluded to the presence of a biologically generated energy field, or aura, surrounding humans. Now scientific investigation indicates this may be more than mere mysticism and folklore. Biochemist John Norman Hansen, Ph.D., at the University of Maryland has found evidence that such an energy field could be real, lending credence to what spiritual practitioners have pointed to for eons.
Dr. Hansen conducted hundreds of experiments with dozens of subjects, and his results are consistently replicable. Other scientists have also reproduced his results, including Willem H. van den Berg of the department of biochemistry and biophysics at the University of Pennsylvania, and physicist William van der Sluys at Gettysburg College, who published their study in the Journal of Scientific Exploration on March 15.
Previous investigation of human bioenergy fields has used photon sensors. Dr. Hansen took a different approach. He wondered whether a bioenergy field, if it exists, would have enough force to push a torsion pendulum—a device sensitive enough to be moved by a subtle force. He hung the pendulum above the subject’s head and saw a clear change in the pendulum’s momentum.
He hung the pendulum above the subject’s head and saw a clear change in the pendulum’s momentum.
“After conducting control experiments to rule out effects of air currents and other artifacts, it is concluded that the effects are exerted by some kind of force field that is generated by the subject seated under the pendulum,” he explained in his 2013 study, titled “Use of a Torsion Pendulum Balance to Detect and Characterize What May Be a Human Bioenergy Field,” also published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration. “We know of no force, such as one within the electromagnetic spectrum that can account for these results. It may be that a conventional explanation for these surprising results will be discovered, but it is possible that we have observed a phenomenon that will require the development of new theoretical concepts.”
One of the outstanding observations was that the effect of the human presence continued for some 30 to 60 minutes after the human subject had already left. With other forces, such as air currents, the pendulum would immediately return to its classic, non-driven motion.
The mental state of a subject can strongly affect the behavior of the pendulum.
Every subject had roughly the same power to influence the pendulum “indicating that the effects on the pendulum require neither unique talent nor practice,” wrote Hansen in a synopsis of a talk he gave at the 34th annual Society for Scientific Exploration conference at the end of May 2015. “However, it has been observed that some subjects, especially ones that have pursued a meditative practice for many years, exert very different effects during a meditative state compared to a non-meditative state … which shows that the mental state of a subject can strongly affect the behavior of the pendulum.”
Is There a Conventional Explanation?
Van den Berg and van der Sluys used the same pendulum device—as Hansen has made the design public, encouraging others to replicate his results—and observed the same change in its movement when in proximity to a human head. They wondered, however, if this change may have been due to a change in air temperature from the heat emanated by a human head. The change in air temperature could cause convection currents, they said.
They wondered, however, if this change may have been due to a change in air temperature from the heat emanated by a human head.
They placed a layer of plastic between the head and the pendulum and found the effect on the pendulum disappeared. They suggested the plastic either cut the pendulum off from the mysterious bioenergy field, or it simply cut off the heat source.
Hansen published a reply to this study, however, noting what he sees as flaws in the theory that body heat caused the pendulum movement.
For starters, Hansen said, “If you were to place a thick plastic shield between the subject and the pendulum, the pushing force [of the bioenergy field] would initially be against the shield, and the pendulum would only respond to whatever pushing force remained after pushing against the shield. For the pushing force to survive passage through the shield and then push against the pendulum would violate fundamental principles of physics; i.e. you can only use a force once, and if it is utilized to push against the shield it cannot subsequently push against the pendulum.”
Another factor Hansen said that van den Berg failed to take into account is the persistent aftereffects. Hansen wrote: “A fundamental principle of pendulum physics is that if the pendulum is driven by an outside force and the force is removed, then the pendulum will immediately return to classic non-driven motion.”
Any accumulation of heated convection currents would quickly dissipate after the subject left. So convection currents could not explain these aftereffects. Hansen described the effects of the subject’s bioenergy field as being somehow “imprinted” on the pendulum.
He said the van den Berg study also failed to acknowledge the varied frequencies with which the pendulum oscillates in the presence of a human subject. The pendulum oscillates with a single frequency when the subject is absent. It oscillates with many new frequencies when the subject is present, and for some half an hour or more after the subject has left—something not explained away by convection currents caused by air temperature variations.
Share your stories with us at emg.inspired@epochtimes.com, and continue to get your daily dose of inspiration by signing up for the Inspired newsletter at TheEpochTimes.com/newsletter
Follow
Tara MacIsaac is an editor and reporter who has worked on a variety of topics over the course of her 10 years with The Epoch Times, including science, the environment, and local New York news. She is currently working with The Epoch Times edition based in Southern California.
沒有留言:
張貼留言