Science Proves that Auras are Real!

by 283 replies
283
Ok, some here won't except any new age stuff, unless reputable scientific research is presented to them?

Here you go!


SQUID Magnetometer

This piece of equipment has been developed since the 1930's.

And can measure our magnetic fields, and electromagnetic recently, or human Auric fields!




Being used in MRI machines, and new microscopes, ect, so this isn't airy fairy crap, but a real device widely used!


More proof that certain parts of our bodys emit magnetic fields, or if the detector uses colors to show frequency ranges, Auric fields!

David Cohen | David Cohen MIT Physicist, Father of biomagnetism

Yale Finding Aid Database : Preliminary Guide to the Harold Saxton Burr Papers

I didn't read his paper, but it covers this...

Sigh!

Two links above are from prestigious universities, so yeah, concrete proof that human beings, and most likely everything else emits very small electromagnetic fields.

And these fields, as the heart studies have shown, can change dependent on what someone is doing.

Which if shown in color,....


Science Measures the Human Energy Fieldhttp://

This site can obviously be dismissed since it isn't from a prestigious University, etc as the above ones are, but still good info,!


The heart and head are the strongest sources, and helps to even substantiate energy centres, or Chakras!


Good now that science has helped substantiate, some of my Auric visual claims, it might initiate some intelligent conversations.


Unless some here can prove that MIT and YALE are dodgy, LOL!


#off topic forum
  • If you can see auras, you should apply for some of these prizes:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...the_paranormal

    Specifically, the Stichting Skepsis prizes for observing auras.
    • [1] reply
    • Banned

      Geez I hope I'm never on the table with a "psychic surgeon" looming over me (I predict this might not go as planned...).
      • [ 1 ] Thanks
      • [2] replies
  • And what exactly do electromagnetic fields have to do with "new age"?

    I can't recall anyone on here ever doubting these fields, or even just body heat existed.

    There is nothing paranormal about them.
    • [ 5 ] Thanks
    • [1] reply
    • I got a cool shade of cerise planned for the day -- to offset my shoes.

      It is the end of the week an' I figure you gotta show some sophistication.
      • [ 3 ] Thanks
      • [1] reply
  • Banned
    [sigh] ........ again. Attention seeking.

    Why don't you do a couple more threads on auras and other crap you like to talk about. We're eager to hear more. Really.

    I would guess that most of us could give a shit less whether auras are a real thing or not and what the explanation is for them.

    Oh, and please do a selfie of you staring in the mirror for hours on end to get a glimpse of your aura. We'd love it see it. Honestly. That would be priceless.
  • @ Jill
    About your post #15 - excellent on many levels.

    @ Shane
    Like you, I find paranormal topics interesting. Unlike you, I believe very little of it. You have to realize when you espouse your beliefs in certain paranormal topics, you're going to be swimming upstream and you will encounter flak. If it's not fun for you here, as you said, talk about other topics here and talk about the paranormal at a forum where it is fun for you. One of the hardest things we can attempt is to change people's beliefs.

    @ anyone who cares to keep reading...
    In an essay by Harvey Richman and Courtney Bell, "Paranormal Beliefs Then and Now" published in 2012 in the North American Journal of Psychology, they cite a study that concludes 73-76% of people have at least one paranormal belief. In that case, you are in the minority if you have none.

    A Scientific American page poses this question for an article title: Brilliant Scientists Are Open-Minded about Paranormal Stuff, So Why Not You? Don't take that the wrong way, I'm not trying to change anyone's beliefs, it's just a counterpoint you don't often see - food for thought is all.

    Shane is right about one thing. If you don't like his paranormal topics you don't have to read his posts or threads. If you claim disinterest, yet read and post, you are getting something out of it. You might want to ask yourself what that something is. Or, could it be you feel a need to defend your own beliefs?

    I'll leave you with this thought: There have been many beliefs over the ages that were ridiculed, and yet, were later proven true. What if just one paranormal belief is real, and is only something science can't yet explain? And if one, perhaps there are more. One thing I've learned about beliefs, is that they change. See enough changes, and we learn not to be so insistent that we grasp "the truth" with a tighter grip than anyone else.
    • [ 6 ] Thanks
    • [1] reply
    • Dennis; That is certainly true. But none of the ideas that were ridiculed and then proven to be true were supernatural in nature, or paranormal.

      Let's say that there were a million ideas that were ridiculed and then proven true. I honesty think that's possible.
      How many proven explanations were found to be supernatural? 50% 10%

      No. None. So far, no belief that was ridiculed, and then proven later to be correct, was supernatural in nature.

      Although not technically proof, it does indicate something.
      • [ 1 ] Thanks
  • Banned
    Why are people labeled attackers because they don't believe in mirrors showing an energy field around a person?

    If you can see something in a mirror then you can record it on video & back up a claim, then again so can Hollywood with vampires not being able to see their own reflection in mirrors.
    • [ 1 ] Thanks
    • [1] reply
    • Common sense dictates this... Your first mistake was expecting there to be that .
      • [ 1 ] Thanks
      • [2] replies
  • I guess what is so cool is how we all gotta balance out flux of potentially mis-narrated personal experience with limited emerging certainty about alla the things goin' down if we kinda jus' died.

    I do not believe in any kinda "Noo Age", cos that was the 70s version of noo, an' it was all brown back then.

    But I also do not believe that the elevation of emotion an' imagination as a productive force for good is to be dismissed outta hand.

    But alla that is mud in a quantum universe (of which I am kinda ignorant, but I will catch up after I figure out the Epicurean angle) — unless that soft smacko of, hey, when you look into someone's eyes an' weird stuff happens, is infinitely ever always kinda QM stuff.

    Hmmm.

    Anyone dippin' in here for the incisive analysis grab bag gonna be pissed with this offerin'.

    But I have been eatin' jelly, today.

    LOTSA JELLY.

    I frickin' love jelly.

    If I had been Big Frank today, I woulda posted a pic of all my jelly.

    But I was me, an' I swamped it, an' this is a crule afterthought.
    • [1] reply
    • My name is always mud.

      Terra=the earth is round with more water than ground=water+ground=mud

      See what I mean?


      Terra
      • [1] reply
  • Um...once it was proven true it would then be science. The point I was going after is that maybe one or more of what we now call "the supernatural" are really natural things that we haven't yet developed the science to understand and explain.

    I'm not sure Whateverpedia would appreciate you using his "underpants" and "small world" in the same thought stream.
    • [ 6 ] Thanks
    • [3] replies
    • and the other two problems are

      A) the term natural and supernatural are merely relative references. unexplained phenomenon is simply incorporated into what we consider natural over time

      B) We have ton loads of things we have no explanation for and ultimately everything is unexplainable. We merely name and describe events and incorporate them into our sense of reality without further explanation. Infinite regress of explanations being the only other alternative nut that equally would be unexplainable.
      • [ 4 ] Thanks
      • [2] replies
    • It would still be science even if the cause were supernatural. For example, "Demons cause stomach pain". That could be proven to be true, even though supernatural elements could be included. It would simply mean that a supernatural belief was proven to be true. It would then be science, but it would also be true.

      What I was saying in my previous post, is that no supernatural belief, that was confirmed true or false, has ever been proven true. It simply has never happened.

      The bad argument I see is saying "We think it's supernatural because we don't really know". Although that is true, that area of "we don't know" is constantly shrinking. And supernatural causes to phenomenon are being confined to an ever shrinking area of things we don't know.

      Based on that you posted, I could say, "Supernatural/paranormal beliefs are certainties about things we do not know". In fact, I think I just said it myself.

      I'm not really saying any of these paranormal beliefs are not true. Only that they have never been found to be true, once the real cause is proven, one way or the other. And so far, that ends up being the same thing.

      For example, if auras were found to be real, and the effects could be measured and the source explained in an argument that didn't fall apart, upon close examination...that would be accepted, and considered a real law of physics. So far, that hasn't happened.

      I have nothing against auras. I don't even need proof, just a reasonable argument that doesn't fall apart the first time you think critically.
      • [1] reply
    • Exactly Right, and something I have been harkening on about for the past several years here. There can be nothing that is truly supernatural, because if it ultimately exists then it must be natural. The fact that we can't yet detect or prove it currently should not make us ridicule it out of hand.

      Science mostly works on observation, theory of the workings of that observation, testing that theory as an explanation for the workings of the observation and adoption by multiple validations that the theory is correct, however, when something else comes to light about the observation that goes further, then the theory is either modified to take account for it or even discarded in favour of a new one.

      Alleged supernatural experiences are mainly subjective to individuals so theories about them only come about based on the collective experiences of the human race since records began. You can discard a lot of it due to things like mental illness, misinterpretation and other things that fool the mind. However, if you add up the rest , you still see a uniformity in the nature of these experiences so that has been categorised and theorized on.

      The other thing to note, especially where people like Shane and to some extent myself are concerned, we have had some of these experiences. The eagerness to tell others who have not can be overwhelming and the frustrations of it falling on "show me the proof", deaf ears can be very frustrating, even though we can not. One thing about them though, they feel as natural as the here and now.

      But of course, if you seek out others who have had them too, a whole new language of discourse opens up, one of familiarity and camaraderie as you share and compare these experiences as everyday life, yeah, I get that. One that is totally alien to anyone who has never experienced them.

      If a scientist died and was faced with a fantasmagorical afterlife world where thoughts were things, would he or she say wow, look at this, I never imagined that there was so much more to it all than we ever anticipated. Or would they say, oh, more of the natural nature of things is now revealed.

      Either way, there would be initially surprise and shock, but when that subsided, total acceptance. How could there not be, the proof is all around them. Would that scientist then take up the challenge of trying to work out how it fits in as an extension of all the laws of physics/quantum physics and all the other understood natural things they had known about on Earth? Debatable..
      • [ 1 ] Thanks
      • [1] reply
  • Curiosity desupposes all facts, I guess.
  • Good grief. So who said I knew anything about your true beliefs or your most sacred beliefs? I said, "from what I know." And what would that be? Obviously "what I know" could only be based on what you yourself have posted.

    If you are highly offended, it's you who have offended yourself with your own imagination.
    • [1] reply
    • [DELETED]
      • [1] reply
    • actually I posted a harsh Retort to this post countering every thing you just said. But, hell ,I decided to delete it.

      I can get Passionate and love to debate but their comes a point where debating any more may be unhealthy.

      And bottom line : Other than this Thread ,about 99.99% of the Posts you ever published in here to your credit have been insightful and many times accurate .

      So that's good enough for me to squash it and move on
      • [ 2 ] Thanks
  • Banned
    The problem with your links and your thinking on those links is that the links do NOT prove your New Agey crap about seeing auras, assigning meaning to aura colors, energy centers (chakras), etc.

    They are merely articles on bio-electric fields that are detectable with highly sophisticated equipment and have been used for years for medical purposes, such as heart diagnosis (ECGs and MRIs,etc.).

    The article on David Cohen, for example, only talks about his research on the electric fields that the human body emits, and how to measure them. It's proof positive in my opinion of the existence of the Matrix and the forced slavery of humans to power said Matrix, using their electricity (unless of course, you opt for the red pill, and then you are forced to face the brutal reality of life). I see you chose the blue pill instead.

    The second article is merely an abstract and who knows what the full article (that you admit not reading) says.

    You don't really want intelligent conversations. You want New Age conversations, and from what I can see, you're the only one here drinking that Kool Aid... and it pisses you off that your erroneous, fabricated connections to rather ordinary medical science involving measuring electricity from the human body doesn't sell us on your New Age crapola involving colored auras with defined meanings and Chakras and mostly ... your ridiculous claim that you see auras, which is a great example of the power of suggestion and self-delusion and nothing more.

    • [1] reply
  • IMO, sure Auras are real, but nothing more than electro-chemical reactions that make colors.

    That some people can see them while others can't is not much more than some people have
    20/20 eyesight and some people have 20/60 eyesight. Some people are color blind, while
    others are not. There are explainable physiological differences.

    Dog usually have better sight, smell, and hearing than humans - but again there are explainable
    physiological differences. Blood hounds can track extremely well because of their sense of smell
    and you can look at the physical aspects of their nose to see why this is so, and why they are better
    than other dog breeds. Also, their big floppy ears help trap scent they are tracking, keeping it on their
    mind longer. (Search and rescue people only want known dogs searching an area so, for example,
    the male Bloodhound does not get more interested in the female dog he smells, or the male competition.)

    We can tell what substances, chemicals and gasses likely exist on a distance planet because
    of the colors emitted by the frequencies from those substances, chemicals or gasses.

    BUT, I don't see how, scientifically, one can make the leap from the colors (Auras) a person's
    chemical reactions cause to what is in their spirit, soul, or character.
    • [ 4 ] Thanks
    • [1] reply
    • Of course, all of that is true. But think further...what would be the physiological difference between someone being able to see auras, and the rest of us? How would their eyes be different? Their brain? Maybe nobody knows that answer yet, but the difference would be knowable, I think.

      All this is testable. For example, two people that can see auras, look at ten people. They do it at different times, and never meet before or during the experiment. What they see is recorded and compared. The two "aura viewers" cannot ask the ten people questions, just record what they see.

      I would consider the results of that test as evidence. And it would be repeatable. And then it would be accepted by just about anyone. And then a real study of what each color in the aura meant.




      First of all, a well written argument. Certainly the best here so far, and maybe the best I've read...supporting the "auras are real" idea. But we are not dogs. Auras are not smells.
      So, as an analogy, it works just fine, but as evidence, it doesn't. And like I mentioned above, what would be the differences in our eyes or brain to allow for that marked change in perception?



      Prism's break the light into its component parts, to indicate the elements present. But it isn't at all like an aura. It's simply light. I can see you already know that. But the body doesn't emanate light, as far as we know.


      On the other hand, if I were able to see the moment of everyone's death, when I first saw them (a totally unrelated idea), or read minds....or levitate.....I'd never tell anyone. First, nobody would believe me, and why would I want anyone to know?

      And....the idea would always be with me that maybe I can't really do these things, but just think I can. A scary thought.
      • [1] reply
  • (My thanks button does not seem to be working.)

    Of course, what I wrote above is rough beginnings of my theory.

    As Kurt suggested, the double blind study of people who can see Auras
    might be where to start and then investigate those people for differences
    from other humans - if they consistently and repeatedly see Auras.

    Besides physical differences, you would have to investigate such things as
    migraines, disease, diet, hormones...

    Overall, I guess I'm saying there could be individual differences that allow
    some to see Auras while others don't. (Unfortunately, such investigation
    might require autopsies.)

    Conversely, there are probably people who do not emit Auras at all, and some
    who do it intermittently (before and after a Snickers bar, or needed migraine pill,
    perhaps - lol).

    Below, I posted explanations of the scientific method because I think some people
    on both sides of these issues need more grounding in the scientific method.

    A huge error in scientific research is the human error. Essentially, this is where the
    researcher wants their theory to be right and might even alter or omit data that is
    contrary to their theory. That's why repeatability by other researchers is so crucial
    to research.

    Steps of the Scientific Method

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
    • [ 3 ] Thanks
  • Do zombies and/or vampires have auras? And if so, what color are they?
    • [2] replies
    • Mebbe they have eitherauras, bein' kinda trans- beings.
      • [ 3 ] Thanks
      • [1] reply
    • Kurt, have you been living under a rock?

      Zombies and vampires have black auras - everybody knows that!

      Of course, you have to have super special equipment to see them, and visit Transylvania or live in a zombie apocalypse...minor details....



      • [ 2 ] Thanks
      • [1] reply
  • Omc -- "Skunk" for Men!

    I almost lost the usea my legs there.
  • Hey, Fearo -- I love that you had a hippy store in an earlier incarnation.

    Didya sell many?
    • [ 1 ] Thanks
  • Obviously they should've used our resident aura-whisperer instead.

    Kay has already shown the migraine part of that to be true. I wonder what reason is behind the other aura-whisperers abilities.
  • I'm sure once science figures this out they will see I don't have an aura and really have a halo.
    • [1] reply

    • You've done nothing to deserve a halo. Look closer, it's a noose.
      • [ 1 ] Thanks
      • [1] reply
  • I wish someone could describe the aura of people like Donald trump or those people belonging to Uncontacted Amazon Tribe that were photographed by flying plane. I'm sure there are other interesting auras waiting to be seen...
    • [1] reply
    • Claude can't be seen with working man's hands.

      He avoids callus fingertips by only typing with the tip of his tongue.
      • [ 2 ] Thanks
      • [2] replies
  • Ha!

    I figured on another cool WSO involvin' Bel Canto singin' exercises an' fruit, but I figure typin' with your tongue would make a cool oral tonin' workout.

    Mebbe it would complement the idea I had for writin' on walls with your butt.

    Hmmm, so whaddya think, WF braino experts?

    Assumin' you could set things up right, would it be possible to write out a word on a wall with your butt while simultaneously typin' out sumthin' else with your tongue?

    I read sumwhere that it is fiendishly difficult to maintain two linear narratives — sentences, kinda — at the same time.

    One is a frickin' problem most times.

    Gonna set ten minutes aside later to experiment.
    • [ 1 ] Thanks
    • [1] reply
    • If you can't do it Princess, no-one can.
      We expect to see a video of this.
      • [1] reply
  • That guy, Science, is so cool. He leads us to all sorts of topics.
  • Banned
    [DELETED]
  • I love those old cartoons.

    Gotta figure we are bombarded now by real sophicticated movin' images that writhe around in full view with the captivatin' power of cardboard.

    The early Disneys were all hand-crafted, so fulla warmth, it musta been sumthin' special to watch 'em.
    • [ 1 ] Thanks
  • Still you all need to evaluate your free time meaningful moments quotient

    SIX PAGES AND GOING STRONG ON SEEING AURAS???

    Go watch some paint dry.......... the fumes alone might be more "entertaining".
    • [ 1 ] Thanks
  • Banned
    [DELETED]
  • Do you people want to take your fight back to the thread it started on. I realise this is the OTF and threads get derailed at a regular clip (I'm just as guilty of that as anyone else), however you've dragged a fight from one thread to another. Take it back to where it started and carry on there.
    • [ 2 ] Thanks
    • [1] reply
    • It's the human rottweiler following me and butting in on the threads I post on.

      Whatty, you've been a member a long time and known me long enough to know that I enjoy the humor and joke threads, and there's no malice in me. But I won't have my character slated by a liar.

      You also know Mike Anthony. Need I say more.
Join the discussion

Next Topics on Trending Feed