bad thoughts make water bad

Zep and Normal Dude: Thank you for that link, that was a good clarificiation of the question I originally raised. I agree then, that is sloppy science. Has anyone repeated his tests but using correct scientific procedure? What were the results?



I hope you are making a joke I simply don't understand lol. No I was using it as an analogy.

But your analogy doesn't hold. You said:
Someone may not know how electricity works, but they can flip a light switch and see it work.
Perhaps you yourself do not know how electricity works. Perhaps even the common person does not know for certain how electricity works. I myself am not an expert, nor claim to be, on electricity. And yet, as you say, the common person can turn on a light switch, or turn on their computer, listen to your iPod, or go to the hospital and get an MRI scan. But somehow, somewhere, quite a lot of people do indeed know how electricity works, the rules associated with it, how to generate it, how to maintain it, etc. Without knowing how it works, they can't build reliable generators, or MRI scanners. Your computer would be useless, since sometimes it may say that 1+1 = 10, and sometimes it may say 1+1=11. We as a society have a wonderful body of knowledge on this field. The best thing is, as Linda said, you don't have to believe in the laws of electricity for things to work. It works or it doesn't work. If a Luddite walks into the room, the computers don't all magically turn off.

You'll have to forgive me, but I've heard what you said too many times by too many people on fringe science. Like selling things like magnets to help you heal, or anti-magnetic shields to protect you (sometimes even at the same store). When a skeptic asks how it works, the cop-out answer is "No one knows, but it does! So just try it and see for yourself!"
 
Hi Animus,

You are welcome. The test has been repeated on small scales, and found nothing.
 
If I may interject, I have come up with what I think is a creative way of testing the hypothesis "bad thoughts make bad water."

I simply decided to test the inverse hypothesis, "bad water makes bad thoughts."

To do so, I had half of my test subjects drink "good" water (bottled, purchased from a local supermarket), and the other half drank "bad" water (obtained from a fetid swamp).

The results were dramatic and undeniable: While those subjects who drank the "good" water underwent no observable change in the quality of their thoughts, the subjects who drank the "bad" water were immediately filled with bad thoughts, and vocalized them. At me.

Just as "if a=b, then b=a," so it must follow: if bad water makes bad thoughts, then bad thoughts make bad water.

It's just good science.

I believe I have made a breakthrough here, and hope to publish the results in a peer-reviewed journal, just as soon as the attorneys clear up some issues which my test has evidently raised.
 
The bottom line is, Bad Thoughts Doesn't Make Water Bad.

Paul

:) :) :)

Oh, let's start burning witches again.
 
If I may interject, I have come up with what I think is a creative way of testing the hypothesis "bad thoughts make bad water."

I simply decided to test the inverse hypothesis, "bad water makes bad thoughts."

To do so, I had half of my test subjects drink "good" water (bottled, purchased from a local supermarket), and the other half drank "bad" water (obtained from a fetid swamp).

The results were dramatic and undeniable: While those subjects who drank the "good" water underwent no observable change in the quality of their thoughts, the subjects who drank the "bad" water were immediately filled with bad thoughts, and vocalized them. At me.

Just as "if a=b, then b=a," so it must follow: if bad water makes bad thoughts, then bad thoughts make bad water.

It's just good science.

I believe I have made a breakthrough here, and hope to publish the results in a peer-reviewed journal, just as soon as the attorneys clear up some issues which my test has evidently raised.
Love the critical thinking behind this and can't wait until it is applied to other disciplines. Criminology, for example. Bad people+jail=good people=better society. OK lets put good people in jail and see how that too improves society. There must be so many applications of this sound scientific principle.
 
Am I funny, or right. You decide.

You're funny.

Paul

:) :) :)


This was proven with light. It's a variation of the Heisenberg uncertainty; It's a varifiable experiment, and John Wheeler is not a quack. Can I have your opinion on this; I think it's necessary for any serious discussion of this effect to continue.

The experiment:
http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/basic_delayed_choice.htm

John Wheeler:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Archibald_Wheeler

I'm preparing a longer reply to answer the questions about how the process works, what forces are at work, and how we can potential measure those forces in a satisfactory way to everyone. The woo-woo terms "aurora" and "magic" are going to be involved in my explanation, so prepare your jokes now.;)

I like your comment about burning witches.
 
I have read through the light experiment, and it is a very interesting read and interesting results. I must profess, however to being confused about something: what does this have to do with Emoto or the thoughts of the experimenter?
 
This was proven with light. It's a variation of the Heisenberg uncertainty; It's a varifiable experiment, and John Wheeler is not a quack. Can I have your opinion on this; I think it's necessary for any serious discussion of this effect to continue.

The double slit experiment has absolutely nothing to do with thought.
 
The double slit experiment has absolutely nothing to do with thought.

I swear physics teachers need to address this. The definition of 'observe' should be taught in 101, IMO. I gets so tiring hearing the same old nonsense on this.

Athon
 
The_Animus said:
I thought what Emoto found was that all of the regular distilled drops from the same bottle all froze almost exactly the same. It was only after unfreezing them, and having a person direct some sort of thought at the water did it have a different shape upon re-freezing. What is your explanation for this effect?


A clue to the answer was given eight posts earlier...


The answer lies in a question: Why are no snowflakes identical?
 
A shamanistic perspective in a sea of science.

I have read through the light experiment, and it is a very interesting read and interesting results. I must profess, however to being confused about something: what does this have to do with Emoto or the thoughts of the experimenter?

Read your own explanation for efficacy carefully - it's the old "skeptical thoughts cancel psychic vibrations" one in yet another form. Which has long since been shown to be twaddle.

There is an assumption in this forum that there are NO experiments which SUPPORT the idea: The INTENTION/THOUGHTS of the experimenter will EFFECT the outcome of the experiment in question.

I will agree that there is not a lot of scientific evidence to support it, and that it probably falls into pseudo-science for that reason. But John Wheeler's experiment is evidence that thought can effect the outcome of the experiment; whether Emoto did his experiment correctly is debatable, ofcourse. I think this should still be studied more, and that scientists like yourselves should open your mind to possibilities, instead of being superstitious of everything "woo-woo". ;)

For the record, I believe that Emoto's findings are correct, and do show initial evidence to support the claim that thoughts(alone) can effect reality. This is common knowledge in my religious teachings, and I believe it is a fundamental aspect to your understanding of reality. Without it, you are lost; deluded by the mysteries of light.

His experiment shows the effect a person's aurora can have on the objects it comes in contact with; the shapes of the ice crystals, or condition of the water, is a result of the vibrations of the person's thoughts(meditative thoughts, with deep concentration) projected outside their body via the aurora (electro-magnetic like web of energy that surrounds living things exactly like the magnetic field of a planet). The resulting snow-flake patterns can be compared with cymatic patterns, whose similiar patterns will reveal the frequency of the "thought" that created the ice crystal. The vibration of the aurora is the seed that begins the fractal formation of the ice crystal.

John Wheeler's experiment shows us that light, and therefore everything that our eyes "see" is relative to what we expect it to be. Further experiments in what we "see" will begin to reveal that we can see more colors/frequencies of the electro-magnetic spectrum than we currently use each day, and much of this "invisible" interraction between experimenter and experiment will become visible to our naked eyes once more people learn to expand their sensitivity, and spread the knowledge of what they "see.":D

The two topics are related in that YOU are people who can not see the extended spectrum, and so the idea of "invisible" energies touching the water during the experiment is ludacris to you. You want to measure these invisible energies, and aurora, and "see" them for yourselves, right ? Light is playing tricks on your eyes, and your eyes (or rather the mental process of organizing the incoming visual stimulai into logical components) are eliminating the aurora, and countless other unimportant things going on around you. To put it simply, you are in YOUR OWN WORLD. And you put yourself there.

For those of us initiated into esoteric, shamanic, or similar spiritual traditions these invisible connections between experimenter and experiment are visible(under certain conditions). Our eyes have adjusted to different frequencies(or dimensions, rather) and we are able to percieve the invisible connections in questions.

I am looking for people who are interested in exploring the science to this; and I am not interested in people who just want to call it "religion" or "hallucination" and be done with it.:D I'm attempting to seek out ways in which these EFFECTS CAN BE MEASURED. Emoto has given us a starting point.
 
I think you have misunderstood how the results of Wheeler's experiment are obtained. The results are dependant (From my understanding, feel free to corect me anyone) on the type of observation device used. The experimenters thoughts have nothing to do with it.

As a side note, I doubt very much Wheeler himself would agree with your interpretation of the experiment. He had a vey poor opinion of parapsychology I understand.
 
What is your explanation for how the two types of observation devices used affect where the particle is located and which slit it goes through? And even if it is simply a difference in the observation device used they still determine how the particle actually behaved at an earlier time
 
thoth108:

Hypothetical situation.

I am a photographer. I am given 10 random people to photograph. Each person is randomly assigned a word: 5 positive (Love, compassion, happiness, joy, life), 5 negative (death, hatred, evil, starvation, fear). Knowing what word was assigned to each person, I am now allowed to take my photographs. I am also given free reign to adjust the lighting, the exposure, the position of the person, the angle which I take the photo, and even the time of day I take the photo. I am also allowed to take 30 pictures of each person, and am allowed to select one photo of the 30 which I think best fits the assigned word. At the end of the session, I present my 10 photographs and the 10 words, and people marvel at how the photo of "evil" looks like an evil person, while the photo labeled "love" looks like the sweetest person in the word.

Of these two explanations, which best fits what occurred?
a) Thoughts alone effected reality, and simply by placing the word near the individual, the quantum wave function collapsed and manifested itself into the emotional representation of the individual
b) I'm a half decent photographer
 
The links I provided earlier referenced them I believe.

ETA: By "found nothing" I meant "inconclusive", not falsifying the premise.
 
Last edited:
Critcal thinker ?

thoth108:

Hypothetical situation.

I am a photographer. I am given 10 random people to photograph. Each person is randomly assigned a word: 5 positive (Love, compassion, happiness, joy, life), 5 negative (death, hatred, evil, starvation, fear). Knowing what word was assigned to each person, I am now allowed to take my photographs. I am also given free reign to adjust the lighting, the exposure, the position of the person, the angle which I take the photo, and even the time of day I take the photo. I am also allowed to take 30 pictures of each person, and am allowed to select one photo of the 30 which I think best fits the assigned word. At the end of the session, I present my 10 photographs and the 10 words, and people marvel at how the photo of "evil" looks like an evil person, while the photo labeled "love" looks like the sweetest person in the word.

Of these two explanations, which best fits what occurred?
a) Thoughts alone effected reality, and simply by placing the word near the individual, the quantum wave function collapsed and manifested itself into the emotional representation of the individual
b) I'm a half decent photographer

I don't think this is relative. Your argument generalizes more than it deducts, and while it's amusing I just don't think it's related. Please don't go on in another post explaining it either.

I think that a person's thoughts effect their aurora; their aurora effects reality around them. This is the basis for Emoto's experiment, and it is in line with my own understanding of reality. [insert laughter from other member's here]

I think the experiments with light show us this: the reality that we see, and swear by, is not entirely independent from our perception of it. By perceiving it, we are making it. I guess it's all in how you interpret the double slit experiment, and all of it's cousins.

The body can effect things outside of itself through unseen energies, and one day science will be able to measure these unseen energies, and we'll all look back on this and laugh.
 
I think that a person's thoughts effect their aurora; their aurora effects reality around them. This is the basis for Emoto's experiment, and it is in line with my own understanding of reality. [insert laughter from other member's here]
No aurora.
I think the experiments with light show us this: the reality that we see, and swear by, is not entirely independent from our perception of it. By perceiving it, we are making it. I guess it's all in how you interpret the double slit experiment, and all of it's cousins.
There have been thousands of experiments, NO AURORA.
The body can effect things outside of itself through unseen energies, and one day science will be able to measure these unseen energies, and we'll all look back on this and laugh.
NO the body can't effect the outside world thru so-called unseen energies.

Paul

:) :) :)

The laughing you will here is not at the so-called unseen energies.
 
I will agree that there is not a lot of scientific evidence to support it, and that it probably falls into pseudo-science for that reason.
...

Our eyes have adjusted to different frequencies(or dimensions, rather) and we are able to percieve the invisible connections in questions.
...
I am looking for people who are interested in exploring the science to this;

If you want to explore the science to this (after admitting that scientific evidence is lacking), perhaps you should begin by not misusing well-established scientific words such as "frequency".

I don't think this is relative. Your argument generalizes more than it deducts, and while it's amusing I just don't think it's related. Please don't go on in another post explaining it either.

Translation: I don't understand your point. Moreover, I don't want to understand your point, so don't bother explaining it.
 

Back
Top Bottom