flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > our thoughts if analyze from quantum subatomic level

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
vid wrote:
If you have credentials for doing such works, if it is peer reviewed, and if there are more independent studies with similar results, then chance of fake decreases very rapidly.
I assume the independent studies are also on the net, right? Wink

Also, what does 'credentials' mean? If it means that I have to be "trustworthy" (e.g a physicist), then how are you supposed to know? From a piece of paper called degree? Paper represents trust?

vid wrote:
Unless all these are satisfied, you can usually find some criticism of work, so checking is not THAT hard. Still, such fakes are rare, and "using exception to rule out common case" fallacy argument applies again.
Eh, criticism is hard to find and especially if you're not "significant". People criticized NASA for the moon-fake-videos. Did 80% of the people take them seriously? I doubt it.

Criticism is not always apparent, and besides, it'll be just a "your point" vs "my point" (in this case, the criticizer's point vs the article writer's point).

Third, criticism is also something that I can write however I want Wink
Post 28 Apr 2008, 14:51
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
Also, what does 'credentials' mean? If it means that I have to be "trustworthy" (e.g a physicist), then how are you supposed to know? From a piece of paper called degree? Paper represents trust?

In vast most cases, it represents fact that you have lot of knowledge from area. Rare exception doesn't matter to common rule.

Quote:
People criticized NASA for the moon-fake-videos. Did 80% of the people take them seriously? I doubt it.

Public opinion doesn't matter - facts do. NASA accepted and refuted this criticism. Those interested in truth study both sides of debate and see who's arguments are the "last words", who has the final answer and who doesn't.

You can choose to not put much confidence in science if you want - for me it is best way on getting knowledge we have.
Post 28 Apr 2008, 15:27
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
vid wrote:
Public opinion doesn't matter - facts do.
And what are the facts? A piece of text on the internet saying "From my experiments, I've concluded that blablabla" Question

vid wrote:
NASA accepted and refuted this criticism.
With money it's easy to get popular and win this game Wink
Post 28 Apr 2008, 15:38
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8867
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
everything is nothing.
all is emptiness in reality. at least 99.9999% is empty.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-S3c1U4FPA

so real.
Post 25 May 2009, 13:33
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Yes, my theory is that there are two kinds of energy: positive and negative. "Everything" is positive energy because we cannot see/perceive the negative (this isn't as much a hypothesis since it's based on the mathematical negative solution to the FULL equation for E, not the simplified E=mc^2 which is actually the square root of that).

Positive energy attracts itself, and repels negative energy. That is, opposites repel. This is called gravity. It is the 'opposite' effect of electromagnetism, where opposites attract. Kinda cool Laughing
Post 25 May 2009, 23:12
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8867
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
if everything is atom, and what is that actually coz the atom to merged and formed, and then become material and object? another atom? but since everything is atom? kinda weird.

unless there are different kinds of atom.
Post 27 May 2009, 06:33
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17248
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Sure, there are ~90+ naturally occurring elements (atoms). But, there is at least another level further down, sub-atomic particles. Google for them.
Post 27 May 2009, 06:41
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
"sub-atomic" particles are all made up of the same thing: positive energy Razz

"charge" is because of the sub-atomic-rotational momentum, depending on direction (clockwise/counter-clockwise).

sounds weird?
Post 27 May 2009, 19:18
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
sleep^2 wrote:
...unless there are different kinds of atom.
Here's a chemistry course from Canada.
Post 27 May 2009, 21:04
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8867
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
so back to my original question.

does any scienties seriously analyze these atoms, check their pattern before using thoughts (like the japan thinking water) on them, then see the result after applying thoughts on them?

if thoughts could modify the atoms pattern, that could mean we may possibly need more mental power or energy or ... watever, and we can modify everything.

eg. bend a spoon with thoughts. or etc.
Post 27 May 2009, 21:40
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Other theories is that water is alive, so rather than us changing it, it changes itself.
Post 27 May 2009, 22:47
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
sleep^2 wrote:
...bend a spoon with thoughts...
You of course, wish to discuss telekinesis, a subject outlined in the physics forums with sufficient disdain to satisfy my skepticism.

However, here is something which is real:

Paralyzed humans (and unfortunate laboratory animals as test subjects) with a microprocessor based, electrode array detector, neuro-mechanical prosthesis implanted into the cerebral neocortex, which then allows them to move objects, by thinking--as opposed to the conventional method, i.e. action potentials transmitted from neocortex through the brain descending via the spinal cord to spinal nerves then to the muscles which contract to perform the same movement.
Post 28 May 2009, 10:12
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
tom tobias wrote:
You of course, wish to discuss telekinesis, a subject outlined in the physics forums with sufficient disdain to satisfy my skepticism.
That is your reason to reject it? Because it was met by other people with disdain?

(I don't disagree about it being fake, at least the story outlined there, but I've got my own reasons for that, since there's no further data, rather than faith in "the physics forum" dudes like they are gods or something)


tom, what do you think about the water molecule 'shape' changing according to external factors like music, singing, sad events/happy events, etc...? (it is real)

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 28 May 2009, 23:23
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
tom, what do you think about the water molecule 'shape' changing according to external factors like music, singing, sad events/happy events, etc...? (it is real)

Isn't this the thing called "psychotronics"? I think that if it was "real" (i quess by real you meant scientifically demonstrable), people who have demonstrated it should go claim James Randi's million dollars. Has anyone tried it yet? If not, why? Such amount would surely greatly help to any serious researcher of this supposed phenomena.

Btw, feel free to point me to experiments that conviced you this phenomena is real.

Psychotronic experiments I have heard of so far had extremely vague prediction, like "X will be affected by Y", not saying specifically how exactly affected, eg. very prone to false positive due to external factors. And the "X" was usually something already very prone to be influenced by external factors, like RNGs or organism growth.

PS: It is very interesting to see you, who challenges everything, objectivism, scientific methods, honesty of majority of scientists, universally accepted physical laws, etc., to suddenly call something "real", when the subject is paranormal phenomena. To me, this stinks with some bias.
Post 29 May 2009, 13:54
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Who the hell said anything about paranormal? Honestly vid I think you're too narrow minded because you only see two sides of the equation when there are an infinite to be discovered.

I don't remember the links at all, I did a quick search and came up with a russian movie though.

http://www.data.bg/f.php?fid=49762629

Here are some things I stored before in my archives, if you're interested (I'm not able to do thorough search right now...). Note this is a straight copy-paste, I hope the image links still work.

Quote:
The water, chemical formula H2O, is a indivisible part of our life. Let's start from the fact that a regular human has approximately 45 litres of water inside his body (Thats approximately 9 times his blood). When loosing appox. 5% of the water the human becomes very thirsty, appox. 10% - the human starts feeling very dizzy, appox. 20% - the humann dies. But this is diversion from the theme, so I change it back to where I started. So do we know what is really the water?
This is very perplexing, but the water has memory. It remembers every material it gets in contact with, the information is then keeped in the molecular groups' "memory såctor".

A normal molecular group:
Image

One of the molecules leaves it's group:
Image

And a new one joins:
Image

Except that, the water also has different crystalic forms, whick can be seen with a microscope, depending on the environment. They can be positive and negative, with theese we can understand how "feels" the water inside us. Mainly in the brain. And we feel as the water in our brain, because he controlles our emotional centres.

Negative:
Image

After hearing the word "Hitler": [my opinion is that it is the emotion, not the word, that makes it arrange like that]
Image

Water after "hearing" Jerk:
Image

After "hearing" I hate you:
Image


Positive:
After "hearing" Soul:
Image

After "hearing" Love:
Image

After "hearing" Hope:
Image

After "hearing" Love and thankfulness:
Image

After Bethoven's 6th symphony:
Image

After Bach's aria on string G:
Image

After Mozart's 40th symphony:
Image

After a Muslim prayer:
Image

After a Buddhist prayer:
Image

After a Christian prayer:
Image

Sanctified water:
Image

Feel free to make what you want of it, I'm not giving out any interpretation, just some stuff I found some years ago Smile

(you may come up with alternative explanations to do whatever possible to make it not anything special, or like me, say that water is alive -- either way none of them involve 'paranormal' but it seems that anything non-mainstream to you must be crackpottery... Rolling Eyes)

I think it's water in our bodies and brains that makes us emotional Very Happy

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 29 May 2009, 15:08
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
Who the hell said anything about paranormal? Honestly vid I think you're too narrow minded because you only see two sides of the equation when there are an infinite to be discovered.

Your method of "discovering" still seems very biased towards the paranormal. And yes, I, along with most scientists, consider claims you cite to fall into paranormal area. Let us see why:

Quote:
This is very perplexing, but the water has memory.

Check out current status of science regarding water memory, something claimed as a fact by your source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_memory

Made up in order to "explain" homeopathy, supported by experiments only until double-blind test was brought in (eg. fraud).

Let's take a look at the quack who spreads this nonsense about water reacting to emotions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masaru_Emoto

Certified by University of Alternative Medicine, talking about some "vibrations", doing extremely subjective experiments where people performing experiment are instructed to hand-pick only positive results, claiming that "crystals are spirits", etc. Especially interesting is the thing I mentioned in my last post, that you chose not to react to: He was in fact challenged by James Randi to replicate results of double-blind study he claims to have performed, to get million dollars. WHY didn't he accept this challenge, if his claims are true? I think answer is clear - he can't prove his claims by real experiment, so he rather keeps on whoring in new age communities by popular books and movies, instead of actually proving his claims and making money quick.
Post 30 May 2009, 13:14
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Well that is certainly interesting I had no idea about Masaru Emoto, and I wasn't talking about those claims Wink

But thanks because I couldn't find it with google these days (I did some years ago though) for some reason, it should have been brought up.

I *know* that it is not scientific because it's not predicting anything (much like biologic cells were some centuries ago) even though everyone knew that cells had 'life'. What I'm saying is that there's nothing paranormal about it, but that doesn't mean it is science. There's more colors than black and white.

But just a thought: doesn't paranormal depend on the classification of normal? What's "normal"? Razz

EDIT: Reading more about the wikipedia link:

wikipedia wrote:
In 2006, Emoto published a paper together with Dean Radin and others in the peer-reviewed Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing, in which they describe that in a double blind test approximately 2000 people in Tokyo could increase the aesthetic appeal of water stored in a room in California, compared to water in another room, solely through their positive intentions.
But then it says:
wikipedia wrote:
James Randi, founder of the James Randi Educational Foundation, has publicly offered Emoto one million dollars if his results can be reproduced in a double-blind study.
Didn't he already did it? Confused

wikipedia wrote:
Randi has also stated that he does not expect to ever have to pay the million dollars.
really open minded.

What is most interesting is that a research that would show or suggest profit would INSTANTLY get recognition without any need for a double blind test, "controlled experiments", or independent studies (especially if it's expensive!). Talk about bias Rolling Eyes

EDIT2:
wikipedia wrote:
In his Nature letter, Benveniste also implied that Randi was attempting to hoodwink the experimental run by doing magic tricks, "distracting the technician in charge of its supervision!" He was more apologetic on Quirks and Quarks, re-phrasing his mention of Randi to imply that he had kept the team amused with his tricks and that his presence was generally welcomed. He also pointed out that although it was true two of his team-members were being paid for by a homeopathic company, the same company had paid for Maddox's team's hotel bill.


also btw:

wikipedia wrote:
Third-party attempts at replication of the Benveniste experiment have produced mixed results. Nature published a paper describing a number of follow-up experiments that failed to find a similar effect in 1993 and an independent study published in Experientia in 1992 showed no effect. However, an international team led by Professor Madeleine Ennis of Queen's University of Belfast claimed to have succeeded.
but yeah cherry-pick only those that debunk it Rolling Eyes

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 30 May 2009, 15:36
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Borsuc wrote:
Well that is certainly interesting I had no idea about Masaru Emoto, and I wasn't talking about those claims Wink

Is there someone else making same claim, independently from him?

Quote:
I *know* that it is not scientific because it's not predicting anything (much like biologic cells were some centuries ago) even though everyone knew that cells had 'life'. What I'm saying is that there's nothing paranormal about it, but that doesn't mean it is science. There's more colors than black and white.

No, you are wrong. It predicts that music or thoughts can affect shape of crystal in a way discernable by human. This prediction contradicts much of our current scientific knowledge.

Quote:

wikipedia wrote:
In 2006, Emoto published a paper together with Dean Radin and others in the peer-reviewed Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing, in which they describe that in a double blind test approximately 2000 people in Tokyo could increase the aesthetic appeal of water stored in a room in California, compared to water in another room, solely through their positive intentions.
But then it says:
wikipedia wrote:
James Randi, founder of the James Randi Educational Foundation, has publicly offered Emoto one million dollars if his results can be reproduced in a double-blind study.
Didn't he already did it? Confused

He claims he did. Randi is apparently sceptical of that claim, and therefor wants him to reproduce the experiment under his supervision.

Quote:
wikipedia wrote:
Randi has also stated that he does not expect to ever have to pay the million dollars.
really open minded.

I don't see anything wrong about that. He has seen so many fakes and not a single real "psychic" or whatever for several decades, so what should he expect? Important thing is that money is there, and if someone who can demonstrate anything paranormal according to protocol agreed by both sides, will get them.

Quote:
What is most interesting is that a research that would show or suggest profit would INSTANTLY get recognition without any need for a double blind test, "controlled experiments", or independent studies (especially if it's expensive!). Talk about bias Rolling Eyes

Well, our society is driven by profit, so I don't see that as surprising. I wouldn't call it bias though.

wikipedia wrote:
In his Nature letter, Benveniste also implied that Randi was attempting to hoodwink the experimental run by doing magic tricks, "distracting the technician in charge of its supervision!" He was more apologetic on Quirks and Quarks, re-phrasing his mention of Randi to imply that he had kept the team amused with his tricks and that his presence was generally welcomed. He also pointed out that although it was true two of his team-members were being paid for by a homeopathic company, the same company had paid for Maddox's team's hotel bill.

Poor apologetics from exposed fraud. Since when can distracted supervision cause "real" effects to stop working?

Quote:
wikipedia wrote:
Third-party attempts at replication of the Benveniste experiment have produced mixed results. Nature published a paper describing a number of follow-up experiments that failed to find a similar effect in 1993 and an independent study published in Experientia in 1992 showed no effect. However, an international team led by Professor Madeleine Ennis of Queen's University of Belfast claimed to have succeeded.
but yeah cherry-pick only those that debunk it Rolling Eyes

There was one claim of successful replication of at least 5 unsuccessful (see this), yet I am the one cherry-picking, yeah? Surely a claim with such score shouldn't be uncritically presented as established fact, like your source did.
Post 30 May 2009, 17:00
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
vid wrote:
Is there someone else making same claim, independently from him?
No I meant that, that Masaro guy is much more 'extreme' than what I was talking about in this case.

vid wrote:
No, you are wrong. It predicts that music or thoughts can affect shape of crystal in a way discernable by human. This prediction contradicts much of our current scientific knowledge.
Notice what I said was that emotion itself 'lives' in water, so to speak. Nothing to do necessarily with "music" or "words", at least how I perceived it. This doesn't mean it's separate case from us -- for all I know, our emotions would actually come from water!

vid wrote:
He claims he did. Randi is apparently sceptical of that claim, and therefor wants him to reproduce the experiment under his supervision.
Or under his trickery. Look at how many rules he added during session with some participants. Actually he disqualified some guy because his "stuff" would have led to "damage" to himself.

vid wrote:
I don't see anything wrong about that. He has seen so many fakes and not a single real "psychic" or whatever for several decades, so what should he expect? Important thing is that money is there, and if someone who can demonstrate anything paranormal according to protocol agreed by both sides, will get them.
Or disqualified before it even gets under the test, because of "new rules" added in the meantime Rolling Eyes

vid wrote:
Well, our society is driven by profit, so I don't see that as surprising. I wouldn't call it bias though.
Why not? It's the perfect embodiment of bias.

vid wrote:
Poor apologetics from exposed fraud. Since when can distracted supervision cause "real" effects to stop working?
He's a magician after all. Razz

vid wrote:
There was one claim of successful replication of at least 5 unsuccessful (see this), yet I am the one cherry-picking, yeah? Surely a claim with such score shouldn't be uncritically presented as established fact, like your source did.
No I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about Randi, who says there is NO such successful experiment.

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 30 May 2009, 18:02
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8867
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
a friend of mine said, everything is vibration.

idk if there are scientific studies that show that vibration (anykind) could actually affect human?.. or water? or ...?

thats why people chant, afom said.
Post 30 May 2009, 18:06
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar.

Powered by rwasa.