PDA

View Full Version : Interesting water experiment


patriots88888
19-11-09, 19:03
Can you accept this? Or do you believe it all to be complete nonsense?

I for one, do believe that negative energy and thoughts can have adverse affects on us if we're exposed to them over great lengths of time, and conversely the same for positive energy and thoughts. As far as the water crystals go, I think it's much too subjective to be completely conclusive as to the results. What someone might see as beautiful, another might see as the opposite. Still interesting though, nonetheless! :p

Any thoughts?

lkbpXRSIUnE

rZDOPQRdxJM

Quasimodo
19-11-09, 19:10
Smells like psuedoscience. How can water react to unquantifiable stimuli?

Encore
19-11-09, 19:11
Smells like psuedoscience. How can water react to unquantifiable stimuli?

Pseudoscience can simply describe the stuff that science doesn't understand yet.

PS - emphasis on "yet".

Quasimodo
19-11-09, 19:13
Pseudoscience can simply describe the stuff that science doesn't understand yet.

PS - emphasis on "yet".

Like energies that may be generated by our thoughts and emotions.

Encore
19-11-09, 19:18
Why not? Or do you just assume that we've reached the bottom of our discovering abilities and you choose this line to draw where anything beyond is plain fantasy?
I thought preconceived notions were one of the biggest enemies of the scientific mind.

I mean I'm sure people used to consider "fantasy" a lot of the things today we know for scientific fact.

Cochrane
19-11-09, 19:32
What's that video supposed to prove? Snowflakes can look pretty awesome, no doubt about that, but there's no relation to "positive energies" at all in that.

By the way, I think it needs pointing out that there is no such thing as negative energy in the physical sense, at least as far as we know. It's existence has been postulated by some theories, but so far, nobody was able to prove it. Some calculations, however, show that if we had negative energy, we could actually create wormholes. This seems pretty amazing to me.

TRfan23
19-11-09, 19:37
Error occurred please try again later :( Oh well.

Some calculations, however, show that if we had negative energy, we could actually create wormholes. This seems pretty amazing to me.

What's the difference between black holes & worm holes?

larson n natla
19-11-09, 19:39
Error occurred please try again later :( Oh well.



What's the difference between black holes & worm holes?

Black holes have infinite density and can trap an object with any mass even light cannot escape it, a worm hole however I cannot comment on.

Cochrane
19-11-09, 19:39
What's the difference between black holes & worm holes?

A black hole just sucks in everything it can find and then keeps it forever*. A worm hole is a shortcut between two points in space: You enter at one end, travel a short distance and leave at the other, and suddenly you are extremely far away from where you started.

*) there are ways for a black hole to loose weight, but it's slow and whatever comes out won't resemble what fell in at all.

larson n natla
19-11-09, 19:41
A black hole just sucks in everything it can find and then keeps it forever*. A worm hole is a shortcut between two points in space: You enter at one end, travel a short distance and leave at the other, and suddenly you are extremely far away from where you started.

*) there are ways for a black hole to loose weight, but it's slow and whatever comes out won't resemble what fell in at all.

Black holes don't have weight and its mass as far as I know cannot be decreased.

Cochrane
19-11-09, 19:47
Black holes don't have weight and its mass as far as I know cannot be decreased.

Black holes have a gravitational pull, which can be described as weight… yeah, I know, I'm just trying to weasel out of not being precise enough, sorry. But they can loose mass through Hawking radiation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation).

larson n natla
19-11-09, 19:49
Black holes have a gravitational pull, which can be described as weight… yeah, I know, I'm just trying to weasel out of not being precise enough, sorry. But they can loose mass through Hawking radiation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation).

You are amazing I am in fact taking my science physics GCSE and resit tommorrow and I had not heard about hawking radiation thank you :) .

The Great Chi
19-11-09, 19:49
I find the above rather hard to believe, unless there is scientific testing, but there again I am in a modern world, brought up to deny facts unless completely proven and not to rely to heavily on just faith and belief.

But this topic goes into the realms of the natural world of nature spirits, where nature itself is a living energy. It is all very hard to prove.

It actually goes against grain of our Materalistic world to think that there is the power of a collective being or hive type mind, where woods can communicate, where water is a living energy, etc, etc.

Being individuals with a brain enclosed and sheilded from other lifeforms, including our own kind, we find all that stuff rather hard to believe.

Yet, if you look around the whole world over the centures up to this time, there are native people who exist and live in parallel with the natural spirit world, from the red indians of america, to the japanese and chinese nature spirits.

There must be something in it all to have people throught the world believing in natures spirit. Possibly, maybe, what do you say ;)

patriots88888
19-11-09, 19:50
Why not? Or do you just assume that we've reached the bottom of our discovering abilities and you choose this line to draw where anything beyond is plain fantasy?
I thought preconceived notions were one of the biggest enemies of the scientific mind.

I mean I'm sure people used to consider "fantasy" a lot of the things today we know for scientific fact.

Yup! I agree that if we limit ourselves to strictly the 'scientific' way, then we could very well be missing out on many other great discoveries in life.

What's that video supposed to prove? Snowflakes can look pretty awesome, no doubt about that, but there's no relation to "positive energies" at all in that.

I don't believe it was necessarily trying to 'prove' anything. More to do with how we 'look' at things and the world around us, and most importantly, ourselves. There have been zero claims as this having anything to do with science. He explained that in the second video. ;)

tombraiderluka
19-11-09, 20:08
Are those for real? If they are then well they're great :tmb:

Cochrane
19-11-09, 20:12
Yup! I agree that if we limit ourselves to strictly the 'scientific' way, then we could very well be missing out on many other great discoveries in life.
But if we limit ourselves to being reasonable and not just believing something because we like it, we can avoid falling for quacks — such as this Dr. Emoto. That has a clear benefit to it.

I don't believe it was necessarily trying to 'prove' anything. More to do with how we 'look' at things and the world around us, and most importantly, ourselves. There have been zero claims as this having anything to do with science. He explained that in the second video. ;)
Okay, I just watched the second video, and it's offensively stupid. I mean, come on, it asks "will water form ice crystals like snow does?". If the guy makes observations and states them as facts, then he will be called out on the issues, no exception. How large was his sample size? How did he classify the ice crystals? What languages were used? I could go on for a long time.

Now, he says "oh, science won't believe me because it's dynamic instead of static". That is pure and utter bull****. He hides behind some arguments against traditional science that he made up just for that purpose.

Are there things that the scientific method cannot discover? Maybe. Considering it's just rational thought formalized, I rather doubt it, but maybe. But until we find something like that, the scientific method is very good at filtering out clear fraud or people who have no clue what the hell they are talking about, such as this guy.

You are amazing I am in fact taking my science physics GCSE and resit tommorrow and I had not heard about hawking radiation thank you :) .
Good luck, I'm glad I could be of use (although I seriously doubt they'll ask you that :D)!

patriots88888
19-11-09, 20:37
But if we limit ourselves to being reasonable and not just believing something because we like it, we can avoid falling for quacks — such as this Dr. Emoto. That has a clear benefit to it.


Okay, I just watched the second video, and it's offensively stupid. I mean, come on, it asks "will water form ice crystals like snow does?". If the guy makes observations and states them as facts, then he will be called out on the issues, no exception. How large was his sample size? How did he classify the ice crystals? What languages were used? I could go on for a long time.

Now, he says "oh, science won't believe me because it's dynamic instead of static". That is pure and utter bull****. He hides behind some arguments against traditional science that he made up just for that purpose.

Are there things that the scientific method cannot discover? Maybe. Considering it's just rational thought formalized, I rather doubt it, but maybe. But until we find something like that, the scientific method is very good at filtering out clear fraud or people who have no clue what the hell they are talking about, such as this guy.

I believe you're missing the bigger picture of what was being shown here! As someone who places their total beliefs and faith in science, I can certainly understand how you would miss that. The fact is, it wasn't anything to do with science. It was, as I explained already, about how we view the world around us and how positive/negative influences (such as thoughts and energy) can indeed have a (respectively) positive/adverse affect on our own individual lives.

I look at science in two ways... the good and the not so good. As much as I trust in it, if we limit everything to strictly that alone (if you really think about it) then we are indeed limiting ourselves.

Cochrane
19-11-09, 20:47
I believe you're missing the bigger picture of what was being shown here! As someone who places their total beliefs and faith in science, I can certainly understand how you would miss that. The fact is, it wasn't anything to do with science. It was, as I explained already, about how we view the world around us and how positive/negative influences (such as thoughts and energy) can indeed have a (respectively) positive/adverse affect on our own individual lives.

I look at science in two ways... the good and the not so good. As much as I trust in it, if we limit everything to strictly that alone (if you really think about it) then we are indeed limiting ourselves.

So what is the bigger picture here, then? This person says that certain words have direct effects on the formation of ice crystals. All the evidence he provides for that are pictures of ice crystals edited together with some words. This does not even come close to acceptable proof. Anything else he claims about vibration and resonance comes without any further supporting evidence. So if his basic premise (positive words cause ice crystals to look better) is flawed, then what merit do any of his other claims have?

His and your claim that this "isn't science" is wrong. He makes experiments, observations and invents theories based on those. Saying that this is, in any way, beyond science, is like creating something with an engine, four wheels, steering and the capability to do 100 mph (160 kph), but then saying "Oh no, it's no car, a car is too limiting" when questioned by the police. It just does not work like that.

patriots88888
19-11-09, 20:54
So what is the bigger picture here, then? This person says that certain words have direct effects on the formation of ice crystals. All the evidence he provides for that are pictures of ice crystals edited together with some words. This does not even come close to acceptable proof. Anything else he claims about vibration and resonance comes without any further supporting evidence. So if his basic premise (positive words cause ice crystals to look better) is flawed, then what merit do any of his other claims have?

His and your claim that this "isn't science" is wrong. He makes experiments, observations and invents theories based on those. Saying that this is, in any way, beyond science, is like creating something with an engine, four wheels, steering and the capability to do 100 mph (160 kph), but then saying "Oh no, it's no car, a car is too limiting" when questioned by the police. It just does not work like that.

I don't wish to turn this into a philosophical debate with you, it's not what this thread was intended for. However, there are certain concepts within life itself that we all have a difficult time grasping. You seem to be so centered and fixated on the details, that you seem to be overlooking the broader picture here. If you look beyond the 'experiment' itself (which I myself am skeptical of) and rather focus at the message behind it, maybe then you will see.

Cochrane
19-11-09, 21:06
I don't wish to turn this into a philosophical debate with you, it's not what this thread was intended for. However, there are certain concepts within life itself that we all have a difficult time grasping. You seem to be so centered and fixated on the details, that you seem to be overlooking the broader picture here. If you look beyond the 'experiment' itself (which I myself am skeptical of) and rather focus at the message behind it, maybe then you will see.

The message? What we say and do impacts how we live? That seems pretty obvious to me, and I don't need to leave the realm of science for that.

I'm kind of wondering why you don't want a philosophical debate here, as it seems very interesting to me. I think that today, too many people are unfairly rejecting science not for any rational reason but because it 'feels' wrong to them. The whole creationism thing goes in a very similar direction (although I don't want to accuse you of being a creationist).

There is no bigger picture here, no 'difficult concept's. It would be nice if there were, because that would make life a whole lot easier, but there is no actual evidence of this existing.

That is very sad, of course, because science does not actually lack the inspirational value that any bigger picture might have. As an example, I hear you talk about negative energy. There's no such thing in any measurable quantities on earth, it's just something people made up to sound cool. However, if actual negative energy can be created in some ways, this would allow us extremely cool new ways of space travel. That seems like a very acceptable substitute for a bigger picture right there.

Rejecting science for a bigger picture is not an intellectual advantage, quite on the contrary.

sandygrimm
19-11-09, 21:16
Wow, imagine what we can do considering we're 75% water :p

patriots88888
19-11-09, 21:27
The message? What we say and do impacts how we live? That seems pretty obvious to me, and I don't need to leave the realm of science for that.

I'm kind of wondering why you don't want a philosophical debate here, as it seems very interesting to me. I think that today, too many people are unfairly rejecting science not for any rational reason but because it 'feels' wrong to them. The whole creationism thing goes in a very similar direction (although I don't want to accuse you of being a creationist).

There is no bigger picture here, no 'difficult concept's. It would be nice if there were, because that would make life a whole lot easier, but there is no actual evidence of this existing.

That is very sad, of course, because science does not actually lack the inspirational value that any bigger picture might have. As an example, I hear you talk about negative energy. There's no such thing in any measurable quantities on earth, it's just something people made up to sound cool. However, if actual negative energy can be created in some ways, this would allow us extremely cool new ways of space travel. That seems like a very acceptable substitute for a bigger picture right there.

Rejecting science for a bigger picture is not an intellectual advantage, quite on the contrary.

The only thing which i wish to comment on in your post is the last statement mentioned. I fail to see how you would interpret any meaning in my posts as 'rejecting science'. I'm not rejecting anything here, quite the opposite in fact. I was pointing out that not everything in the universe can be rationalized through science alone. Science has greatened our awareness and much has been revealed because of it. That does not however necessarily equate to science as the only means to achieve enlightenment.

What it really all boils down to is individual beliefs. You have yours and I have mine.

Dustie
19-11-09, 21:39
But where is the description of the experiment, any documentation considering it's execution, etc.? All we have here is a sort of conclusion, but in what manner exactly was the water 'exposed' to pictures, videos, sounds and music?

patriots88888
19-11-09, 21:41
But where is the description of the experiment, any documentation considering it's execution, etc.? All we have here is a sort of conclusion, but in what manner exactly was the water 'exposed' to pictures, videos, sounds and music?

It's explained and shown in the second video.

Dustie
19-11-09, 21:46
It's explained and shown in the second video.

Right, my bad.

Rachel Croft
19-11-09, 23:11
I have seen those before. :) They are quite interesting.
I too believe that negative/positive energy has an affect on us and our surroundings.

Drone
20-11-09, 05:04
I've read somewhere that water can "remember". That's totally awesome. If it was possible to dechipher what water stored.

Punaxe
20-11-09, 14:15
The "water experiment" is absolute nonsense from a scientific point of view. Whatever other opinion you may have of it, let's at least agree that this is the case. We all know that each snowflake is virtually unique. If I freeze even a single drop of water I'll get I-don't-know-how-many crystal shapes, all different. Dr. Emoto suggests there is a pattern to be found depending on "emotional circumstances" or depending on where the water came from. This is a valid hypothesis, but he has not been able to prove it, yet he still claims it to be the case.
Have all of the millions of crystals he generated been investigated, each judged on aesthetics by an independent panel of people, et cetera? This way at least the "beauty" would have some intersubjective rigidity. But no, the crystals have been picked on their beauty to begin with, i.e. the selection was hugely subjective to the hypothesis (as dr. Emoto says himself (PDF (http://web.archive.org/web/20060202105450/www.newageretailer.com/for-retailers/emasaruemoto_web.pdf))). Even if you disagree with the double-blind method ("because we have two eyes" - what?) there is no way you can justify cherry-picking results to fit your message as good methodology, and there is no way you can accept your hypothesis.

But sure, the extended message that you could add to it is in a sense not a bad one: everything we do reflects onto everything, so do good, be happy, and the world will be a good and happy place.

But lying about it is never a good thing. This can hardly be called an experiment. The "results" are nonsense. Our emotions do not have such an influence on the physical world and it is simply wrong, even harmful to claim that we do, even if you're trying to get a greater message across. I'm sure there are vastly better ways to illustrate how doing good is a good thing.

tampi
20-11-09, 14:49
I believe in these things somehow

What can we think about these photos?
They are different ways to measure and observe the brain activity.

http://i47.************/ip1c87.jpg
http://i48.************/11s1o2g.jpg
http://i46.************/b55szl.jpg


Somehow, our brains, our bodies, transmitted waves, or different frequencies, in different situations.
Also related to temperature, we generate some radiation. Like the earth has a magnetic field, so man should also generate different frequencies.

After all, everything is an oscillation of small particles. A small particles dance.





Wow, imagine what we can do considering we're 75% water :p

When we are born! :)
Then, during life, every time we have less water.