cinquirer wrote:
I have extensive experiences with Qi numbering over a decade with
thousands of subjects and Qi healers from all over the world.
After months looking in physics group and internet for the atomic
model that can explain the physics of Qi and non_local effects.
I have encountered numerous models that attempt to describe it.
But it always falls short of the complete answer. Maybe the
truth is a combination of them. Maybe someone among you can make
sense what it is by the following short description of what
Qi can do (in the next paragraph). There are many physics wizards
here and one may figure out whether we are dealing with a Fifth
Force or a Qi Boson, etc. Note Qi is not biology or physics but
Bio-particle-physics that may even use substructure of the
Superstrings and beyond. Whatever Qi ultimately is. It is not a
misunderstanding of ordinary phenomenon (as explained below).


Bill Hobba wrote:
World renowned Tai Ch and Qi expert Earle Montague (who is the teacher
of my
Tai Chi teacher) believes there is noting at all mysterious about Qi -
it is
fully explainable in terms of standard ideas - nothing new is required.
In
fact he has yet to find any Qi effects that are not simply explained.
Also
after undergoing 5 years of accounted by a highly trained and very
experienced Chinese acupuncturist, and having discussed Qi at length
with
her, the idea of Qi is simply 'breath' which is just a simple model for
complex things going on in the body. It is now well known, for example,
(and the person who discovered this received a Nobel Prize), that
acupuncture works by blocking and opening gates in the body.


Bjoern replied:
Interesting. When did this happen (the Nobel Prize)? And what is meant
by "gates" here?

I am slightly sorry I mentioned it. This was explained to me by a
psychiatrist I see for depression associated with psoriatic arthritis. I
think he said it was the psychiatrist Eric Kandel who jointly won the 2000
Nobel Prize in Medicine. However I have not gone into the detail so I can
not substantiate the claim - which is why I am now not comfortable about
mentioning it - good scientific practice demands I should be able to back it
up.

Sorry
Bill