I have just heard back from Russian physicist Dr Konstantin Korotkov about our latest Intention Experiment last Friday, January 18, and the results were overwhelmingly powerful. This time, it appears we had an even stronger effect.
This experiment was set up roughly similar to our last Water Experiment on November 30, with two differences. This time, we used a stronger intention and also set up an identical beaker of water with distilled water from the same source, which would not be sent intention and was to act as our control.
Inside each beaker Dr. Korotkov placed an electrode, attached to his Galvanic Discharge Visualization (GDV) machines.
Remember, his GDV machines, which make use of state-of-the-art optics, digitized television matrices and a powerful computer, work first by stirring up the photonic signals from a substance like water so that they will shine millions of times more intensely than normal. The GDV machine then records this faint pulse via photography, measurements of light intensity and computerized pattern recognition.
As with our November experiment, Dr. Korotkov took measurements before we sent intention, during the time we sent intention and afterward.
However, this time, we extended the time when our initial recording was made, so that we took readings several times in the 90-minute period before intention was sent. We also took readings continuously during the 10 minutes of our intention and then for a half hour after our intention.
Here's how he divided it:
0 – 20 min – Stabilization of the process
20 – 90 min – “Before” data
91 – 101 min – “Intention” data
101 – 133 min – “After” data
Our control beaker of water sat in the same room as the 'intention' beaker, two metres away and also underwent identical readings.
Making the water 'glow'
This experiment was different from our first because we'd decided to focus our intention on a specific outcome. In our first experiment, we simply asked our participants to send 'love' to the water. This time, we decided to focus on change in the light signal from the water, by asking our participants to send an intention to make the water 'glow' and 'glow'. I also asked our participants to visualize the water beaker glowing to aid the process.
In our data, we found a highly significant statistical difference between data in the intention period and the period after the intention, compared with our previous measurements. This difference was highly significant, and Dr. Korotkov demonstrated it via several parameters, after examining the area (spread) of light, it’s ‘intensity’ For those of you of a scientific bent who have asked , I’ll show you a number of graphs.
The actual statistics of differences are showing in the graph as follows.
These numbers represent the statistical change between two periods, as noted in the first column. Any figure printed in red represents a significant change. As you can see, these figures show that our effect was highly significant, in scientific terms.
In the control sample, there was no difference in area, but there were some differences in intensity, when comparing the overall before and after, and the 10 minutes before and after.
Interestingly enough, there was no difference in the intensity of light before intention or afterward, only during the time intention was sent. Our water was glowing when we told it to, and no more.
Here’s a graph showing the change in the area and intensity of light combined in the experimental sample. The blue is before intention; the red afterward.
In the control sample of water there was no difference in the area of light, but there was a difference between the intensity before the Intention and then afterward, particularly 10 minutes before and afterward. On the other hand, there was no difference in intensity before and after for the experimental sample.
This is a huge confounding of expectations. Dr. Korotkov assumed that since the samples were in such close physical proximity, there would have been a certain amount of intention ‘contamination’. The fact that there wasn’t also represents a highly significant result.
From this evidence, says Korotkov, we can conclude that ‘after the Intention time, readings for the experimental sample changed significantly compared with previous data. This may be considered as an effect of intentional remote influence. The absence of such changes in the control sample proves that it was not related to variations in environmental or experimental conditions.’
In our experimental sample, waves of variation in the readings for the area and intensity of light occurred practically from the very beginning of the stable period (the first 20 minutes). In the control sample, these variations were much smaller. A similar phenomenon was witnessed for the statistics measuring the intensity of light. The graphs below show the differences in the experimental water before and after intention. The arrow shows the time when intention was sent:
You can also see that the spread of the light and its intensity was far lower in the controls, when you compare graphs showing all the area and intensity across the entire time of the experiment:
As with our previous experiment, the strongest effects were recorded 10 minutes after the Intention time, as though there was a delay of 10 minutes before the target recorded our effect.
In the graph denoting the measurements of the area of light of experimental sample, there is a group of high peaks after 110 min. This amplitude was not noted in the previous recordings during the first 20 minutes. It appears that it took the water some time to accept our influence, but afterward it became more stable than before.
Future shock to water?
The most interesting effect is shown if you look at a time-line graph measuring the area of light emissions over the entire experiment. It appears to have two parts: the initial stable part and then a part showing clear variations. Those variations appeared to start 90 minutes before we began our experiment. This could be that our participants were thinking about the upcoming experiment in the hour and half before we began.
Or it could be a precognitive effect, so that people already registered their future shock on the water in some manner. It might even be due to a more prosaic cause. The countdown clock on our site was resetting itself to coincide with the time of our participants’ computers, so that some people were sending intention earlier than others (we’ll fix this next time). We can only speculate about the reason for this effect.
Nevertheless, this variation from clear cause-effect prevents us from stating unequivocably that intention was the cause. We can only make the assumption, from the data, that it was our thoughts that had an effect.
What does this all mean? We now have demonstrated twice that sending an intention to water changes its light signal, and that asking water to ‘glow’ increases that light, compared with controls.
This suggests that we have the ability to change the very structure and signaling of water. So it’s good preparation for our next stage of these experiments, which is to see if we can make bacteria in polluted water mutate, in order to clean up the sample.
This also represents our first baby step in demonstrating that intention can clean up our polluted waters. This is also an interesting demonstration of how our intentions affect other things made of water – namely us.
Dr. Korotkov has made the extraordinary decision to publish his raw data on our site, so that anyone is free to examine it. For all the scientists among you who would like to view this, the files are available here.
Powerful effects for small numbers
Interestingly, although our effect was stronger, we had less than half the number of participants (709). Three quarters were regular meditators, and nearly two-thirds had read The Intention Experiment. Almost a third were participating for the first time.
Although half were from America and the UK, and other English speaking countries, we also had a good showing from my Dutch contingency in The Netherlands (58), many from Germany, Belgium and most European countries. In total, participants hailed from 48 countries. The most farflung were from Malaysia, Japan, Hong Kong, Latvia, India and Latin American countries such as Peru and Uruguay.
This showing wasn’t bad, considering that this is a replication experiment. Nevertheless, we heard from a number of you, who wrote to say that you did not receive instructions, even though you’d signed up. We’re investigating what happened, but our customer service people have been alerted to instruct readers in what to do if you don’t receive our instructions via email. We’ll also examine other ways to make sure you get through next time.
We did have a special Intention Experiment portal an hour before the experiment to allow you to sign up right then and there. That enabled participants to click straight through to the experiment if they are registering at the last minute. So let’s both work to boost the numbers on the next experiment. We’ll ask all of you to help replicate this in future months.