Pt.
IsraTrance Senior Member
Started Topics :
236
Posts :
6106
Posted : Feb 9, 2011 19:29
Quote:
On 2011-02-09 19:06, Cardinals Cartel wrote: .
Well .. The night is come .. Ill go outside to smoke a cigarette and to talk with the moon and the stars ..
I want my cat be the president of france ....
lol, I guess your cat would make a fine President.
@Mokie the Nookie, thats a nice video, thanks!
Quote:
On 2011-02-09 18:48, willsanquil wrote:
You keep winning this thread over and over. I love it. Especially the Emoto parts, as all the super hippies LOVE to talk about the water stuff...even though its been very widely debunked. No need to look into things and see if they're actually true if they sound appealing to you
/popcorn
"We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course powerful muscles, but no personality" -Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955)
/Pass me the salt
Freeflow
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
60
Posts :
3709
Posted : Feb 9, 2011 19:51
If you want to reach higher knowledge its not about rhetoric, its about dialectic!
moki
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
38
Posts :
1931
Posted : Feb 9, 2011 22:48
it is always so boring to always need to @win@ threads.
Pt.
IsraTrance Senior Member
Started Topics :
236
Posts :
6106
Posted : Feb 9, 2011 23:17
Sometimes some ego takes over in these threads, but hopefully the steam has dissipated and we can continue this topic.
I dont have much to come with, but I would gladly read and see more
willsanquil
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
93
Posts :
2822
Posted : Feb 9, 2011 23:22
it is always so boring to see people make claims without anything solid to back them up besides random youtube vidoes and un-fact-checked pseudo scientists, or their own uniformed delusions. Not pointing fingers, this is just a general assessment of a lot of people in the psychadelic scene who, to my ears and mind, are trying too hard to find spirituality and mysticism and are ignoring scientific reality.
Mike has done a great service to us all in this thread by bringing in legit knowledge that most of us do not possess. We should all strive to be open to the possibility that we are wrong in our assessments of the world, so that we can come to better understand ourselves and our environment. That is one of the aspects of the scientific method that I love - a burning desire to be proved wrong.
You don't always need to win threads - especially if the thread is based around a back-and-forth discussion of subjective or philosphical or spiritual terms. However, I do enjoy when someone comes in with an argument or position based on psuedoscience and someone else who has some actual knowledge on the subject thoroughly explains why that person is not right. Tickles my fancy.
moki
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
38
Posts :
1931
Posted : Feb 9, 2011 23:50
well, if this was enough for you to be persuaded, then go for it. i dont see even one prove that emoto was wrong in this thread ( except the points that i mentioned myself), but you can call me blind . or stupid. i do not see any prove written here.
the magnification of the photos of hexagonal structure is not enough? was it the prove? science takes into consideration any observable phenomenon , either if the microscope has a mgnification of 100 or 100000 or 1.
i am not ignoring scientific reality at all. and this thread was only a nice example of dialectics for me, i wanted to know the enemy better next time when i go to a real scientist with a camera and the same questions. so thanks mike for showing me how weak your perspective is, you did a great service. last call for an appropriate argument and if this is all you could say, then i can calmly go to bed and sleep well and strong this night.
nor am i persuaded by facts i could read in any wikipedia article instead. wikipedia doesnt tell me what happens if D20 connects to 56 times H20 and how many variations of such connections exist. wikipedia does not tell me how water in the cell can affect my dna and what happens to my dna if there is d20 in my cell.
especially the totally unscientifical approach to a scientific observation, and the totally narrwow minded idea that the photos show nothing is simply not even worth commenting any more.
they do show something. obviously.
and by the way the theory of possibilities is simply mathematically wrong. three possibilities for each of three atoms makes 27???
no whatever. it is important for anyone to win a thread by being more certain in his ideas at the end. and i am.
Login
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
65
Posts :
1707
Posted : Feb 10, 2011 00:45
I wonder what would happen if some hippies were put though a whole year of hard sciences at a college.
That would be a good experiment, I bet it changes the molecular compositions of their neurons.
"The dedication to repetition the search for nirvana in a single held tone or an endlessly cycling rhythm is one of electronic music's noblest gestures."
Mike A
Subra
Started Topics :
185
Posts :
3954
Posted : Feb 10, 2011 01:15
Quote:
even without chemistry i see immediately that the theory of probability you suggest cannot be true. silly question, what if one isotope connects to the second isotope, what happens then? for example what happens if i have some isotopes or heavy water in my body together with light water - then it would depend completely on the quantity what variation i have. for example one molecule of heavy water together with 56 of light water. whatever. i am not persuaded at all. alone by means of mathematics this theory cannot be complete.
And:
Quote:
nor am i persuaded by facts i could read in any wikipedia article instead. wikipedia doesnt tell me what happens if D20 connects to 56 times H20 and how many variations of such connections exist. wikipedia does not tell me how water in the cell can affect my dna and what happens to my dna if there is d20 in my cell.
What you said here is just so fundamentally wrong.
"Even without chemistry"? Maybe you should learn chemistry then. And take some mathematics as well. So far you said stuff which had some mistakes, so I could correct you. Now it's just... All wrong. Sorry.
About how 3 possibilities is 27.
Quote:
and by the way the theory of possibilities is simply mathematically wrong. three possibilities for each of three atoms makes 27???
The three isotopes of hydrogen are H D and T. The three of oxygen (16,17,18) will be called X Y Z for our discussion.
So: HXH HYH HZH DXH DYH DYZ and so on... If you do this correctly, you will get 27 of them.
D2O connects to 56 times H2O? I'm not sure what you mean by that. What is "connects"?
Anyway, like I said before, the regular concentration of heavy water in light water is counted in ppm. So that would be a few D2O per one million of H2O, not 56.
Even if you could enrich it to 1/56, it would still not be able to make any significant change, as I mentioned in the article about the circadian cycle.
Sound waves DO NOT change the nuclear structure of atoms, so sound will not change the D2O/H2O ratio in water.
Quote:
so thanks mike for showing me how weak your perspective is, you did a great service
You're more than welcome! I'm glad I helped.
Quote:
i dont see even one prove that emoto was wrong in this thread
...
the magnification of the photos of hexagonal structure is not enough?
Ok, you're obviously not reading and not comprehending, and it's pissing me off a bit, since it seems like I'm writing for nothing.
First of all, quoting Mr. Emoto himself:
"Emoto freely acknowledges that he is not a scientist, and that photographers are instructed to select the most pleasing photographs."
Emoto said that himself.
So maybe they had lots of crystals, so they took the most hexagonal ones from the "blessed" water and the most ugly ones from the "polluted" samples. What about the rest?
One of the basic rules in scientific method is never discard results. You got something that does not fit your theory? One of 2 possibilities - either you need to explain the results somehow, or the theory is wrong. Simply ignoring them is NOT something you do. Emoto did just that, by showing the pictures that fit his theory.
Another thing:
Ice (the common form of it) is ALWAYS hexagonal. The preety snowflakes are hexagonal. Ice cubes in your freezer are also hexagonal. Emoto's ugly ice is also hexagonal. Then why don't we see it?
Crystal size. Snowflakes are just huge crystals. "Regular" ice is an aggregate of microscopic crystals. Being bigger will not give it any magical powers.
I'll give you an example from my own field of research.
This is Quartz:
This is also Quartz:
So yes, the one big crystal is nice to see and you may think it has "magical" powers but it is not different than the ugly chert rock. Both are composed of Silicon Oxide in trigonal structure.
Moki, I've had enough of trying to educate you. You obviously have no will to learn or to change your opinions. You take one unreproducable evidence of a questionable man as absolute truth, while ignoring the numerous evidence from different fields I gave to show you this is wrong.
There are 2 ways to do science, your way and my way.
If your way was the dominant way, we'd still be living in caves trying to light fire by hitting rocks.
But, because science is done in my way, we are able to sit in our air-conditioned room posting on electronic devices connected to a global network.
You remind me of "creation scientists". Because conventional science can't explain something (such as why we are here), it automatically means that they are correct (god created everything). No proof and no debate needed.
Have a nice day, and good luck spending your money on bogus machines to make your water healthier, while you can actually spend that money on fruit and veggies which will make you healthier for real.
Login
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
65
Posts :
1707
Posted : Feb 10, 2011 01:16
"The dedication to repetition the search for nirvana in a single held tone or an endlessly cycling rhythm is one of electronic music's noblest gestures."
Basilisk
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
168
Posts :
2984
Posted : Feb 10, 2011 01:53
Quote:
On 2011-02-09 23:22, willsanquil wrote:
it is always so boring to see people make claims without anything solid to back them up besides random youtube vidoes and un-fact-checked pseudo scientists, or their own uniformed delusions. Not pointing fingers, this is just a general assessment of a lot of people in the psychadelic scene who, to my ears and mind, are trying too hard to find spirituality and mysticism and are ignoring scientific reality.
Yeah, this grates on my nerves as well. The really annoying part is that scientific reality is filled with amazing truths. In pseudoscience we find pretty ideas without substance. In science we find beautiful concepts that are also valid and accepted descriptions of natural phenomena. Why do counterculturalists focus so much on the former? Just to be alternative? Because most did not trouble themselves to gain a scientific education? It boggles my mind.
When we say "we are all star stuff" is this spiritual or scientific? What about "we are all connected"? Or, as I recently posted, "we all have a drop of the primordial ocean within us" (here referring to osmoregulation; our physiology carries the imprint of the common origin of all earthly life beneath the waves). Much could be written about the awe-inspiring reality of DNA, for instance. Here we have a programming language shared by all living things. It is for this reason that transgenic organisms are even possible. Counterculturalists often see this as frightening but to me, it's an amazing (and almost unexpected) finding. Well, I could go on... but I'll end with a quote that very succinctly sums up what I am trying to say:
"I maintain there is much more wonder in science than in pseudoscience. And in addition, to whatever measure this term has any meaning, science has the additional virtue, and it is not an inconsiderable one, of being true." Carl Sagan
moki
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
38
Posts :
1931
Posted : Feb 10, 2011 02:51
Mike A
okey, i will write this last post about why sound DOES affect dna, just to finish the idea, because you really seem to be one of those rhetoric heads that keep repeating very reasonable non beatable scientific facts that have nothing to do with the basic thesis. so your facts are straight and right but do not prove in any way that sound does not affect dna. they just make you look impressively informed but do not support the basic idea.
question ONE : would it be reasonable to assume that isotopes of hydrogen would affect DNA in some way? would it be reasonable to assume that a different H2O-D20 ratio in my cells would affect my DNA.
if you think no, you dont need to read the next sentences. if yes, go further to 2.
2. these 27 variations are only one molecule arent they? what if i have three molecules, what would be the theory of possibilities then. what would it be with a super water cluster of 1820 molecules for example. i definitely see more than 27 variations. i see thousands of possibilities, it is another question what has been found in nature. and to come to our topic again, out of all these possibilities some will build overtone series with the hydrogene and some not. you will now say, what the * is the overtone series of hydrogene.
dont worry, i am prepared to give you an answer or at least a hint.
without losing time to explain what is it ( now, with the hope that you as a scientist do know a bit about spectral analysis ) ,the reasonable question number three is, wouldnt it be logical to ask myself how overtone series of hydrogen affect the clusters of water in my cell? if you think no, i wish you a nice day with non pseudo science.
i assume that it is one of the greatest challenges of science to clarify how would the overtone series ( in this case (minus) 50th octave) affect the clusters of water.
and i call this science. and i disagree that it is called pseudoscience. it is not. it is the very essence of science.
now i go. i know you will still not understand what i meant and will keep telling me that science is done in your way. but still i hope you will. because i wish for myself and for my friends new paradigma of scientific approaches. because i wanna be healthy, and i wanna evolve with my dna.
mk47
Inactive User
Started Topics :
118
Posts :
4444
Posted : Feb 10, 2011 06:19
Mike A
Subra
Started Topics :
185
Posts :
3954
Posted : Feb 10, 2011 10:35
Quoting your link:
Quote:
Recent work from Richard SayKally's laboratory shows that the hydrogen bonds in liquid water break and re-form so rapidly (often in distorted configurations) that the liquid can be regarded as a continuous network of hydrogen-bonded molecules.
And quoting you:
Quote:
even without chemistry
How can you expect to understand chemical phenomena without understanding chemistry?
Quote:
i know you will still not understand what i meant
I know what you meant. You don't know what you meant.
Your "overtones" are the spectral lines of the excited state of hydrogen. How is that has anything to do with sound, I don't know.
Mike A
Subra
Started Topics :
185
Posts :
3954
Posted : Feb 10, 2011 11:02
And one more thing:
The russian writer who wrote the russian book is now in jail for fraud.
moki
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
38
Posts :
1931
Posted : Feb 10, 2011 13:31
Quote:
How can you expect to understand chemical phenomena without understanding chemistry?
first of all, my words were regarding your so called theory of possibilities. i expect to understand theory of possibilities because i have proved that i do before i got my university degree based on mathematics. and based on that, i know that 27 variation is not enough for isotopes. not even mentioning that there are more than three isotopes of hydrogene, even if they are not stable or found in nature.
about the russian guy, i would like to have a name of what you mean, but it fits perfectly to my impression about you and your facts. and more important it fits to my impression and political overview of the world we live in. why does this happen to anyone who either found more about the implosion of water, or about tesla generators, or about anything that says to us more than common scientists.
yes, you dont know how this connects to sound and this is why you will not understand the meaning of antient solfeggio either. not even mentioning that this is only one side of the coin and there is much more to reality than your atheistic materialistic views that you dont even explain till the end because your emotions of being pissed over throw you in defense. if you were a chemst, you would just answer my questions or say you dont know this yet. i would respect them if you at least could bring them to light without disrespecting the opposite person every time she tells you that there is more to reality that you have seen.
