My new Question

[Correa Neto]

Re: Something differant

...snip...Can Silica in granite somewhat
attracts us due to our moisture/water contents. ...snip...

No. The ammount of water in SiO2 is the same in CaCO3 (calcite - most common mineral in marbles). And if you were attracted by granites due to silica, you would be even more attracted to quartzite, that is composed by over 90% of quartz.

BTW, quartz IS NOT the most abundant mineral in granites. Thats a role played by feldspar.

...snip...Sand is silica. ...snip...

This is a wrong statement. Sand is a sediment composed by grains of a given granulometric range. The grains will be composed by a number of materials, derived from the rocks that were fragmented by erosion and weathering. Thus, the actual mineral composstion of sand willd depend on the rocks that gave origin to it, the type of weathering (that depends on climate) that they were submitted and for how long the transport/deposition medium (water or wind) was able to "work" the sediment (ex. rounding the grains). Dry climates will generate sands with lower quartz ammounts then humid climates.

...snip...Because they were buried in the blistering hot sand under the scorching desert sun, the dead were naturally preserved by rapid drying before they could decay. When a living thing dies, bacteria breaks down the body, recycling it back to the earth. But without sufficient moisture, bacteria is unable to do its job. Instead, a mummy is born! ...snip...

You made a very wrong conclusion. The basic recipe for mummy-making is just like making dry meat or fish - let it under the sun drying. Add some salt to remove moisture fro the meat if you live at an area where the air is not dry and/or you want to have more granted results. It has nothing to do with the surrounding rocks.

The sentence "But without sufficient moisture, bacteria is unable to do its job.[/b] Instead, a mummy is born![/B]" , taken from your quote has all the data you need. Tissue preservation by dehidratation. All you need is a dry condition. There are natural examples on the Andes (temperature is quite lower than Egypt), Europe (Italy) and Indonesia. The rocks in these examples are not granitic neither the bodies were buried on sand. Place a corpse inside a basalt grave on dry conditions. Chances are it´ll become a natural mummy.

...snip...You could have considered the effects to be felt of above differant building materials/stones, when we stand under these in a closed place with exposure of sun light & other cosmic rays on their outer portions. Material's effects can be like a dead effect unless these are exposed to energies. ...snip...

If the walls are thick enough, temperature inside the building will remain fairly constant, being influentiated by air circulation. Have you ever entered a big cave? Temperatures are constant throught the year, due to insulating effect of the rocks. And the same efect can be obtained with different types of rocks and concrete, for example.

If what you propose were true, the answers to the next two questions would be "yes". If they are, go for the 1 million dollars.

Are you able to know if a building was made of marble or granite if you are placed blinded inside it?

Are you claiming that you or someone else can detect what sort of rocks are surrounding him/her inside a cave or a tunnel without looking at them?

...snip...It means, we can have differanciating effects measurable or not measurable instantly, of differant substances which can be felt under them/created after these are exposed to sun light or other cosmic rays. Black or white marble---Do you want to say that differant colours are only responsible to heat differance. What about wood?. ...snip...

First of all, we are talking about light. "Cosmic rays" are not light. Now, with this in mind, note that both papers will have roughly the same chemical composition and fiber structure. Pigment is all that makes the difference. There´s nothing unusual here, and you surely experienced the efect yourself, standing under the sun with dark or light- colored clothes.

Wood suffers the same efect. Try placing light-colored and dark-colored pieces of wood under the sun.

Also, try painting them (and the rock samples) with white and black paint and placing them under the sun. The darker ones will always become hotter faster.

If what you propose is true, than the paint would not have any effect.

...snip...Most of spritual systems healing's mentionings may relate to silica, quartz crystals. (Unquote: I sometimes assume/think that if all of our problems are directly proportional to the % of elements/substances to which we are exposed directly.)

...snip...

May be a slow effect, not measurable instantly, like other cosmic rays than sun light, but can be measurable/observational in long run on continious use & therfore people uses them. ...snip...

So, viruses and bacteria are not an issue. Can you cure an amoeba infestation with crystals?

Even such a slow effect would have been already detected by science.

 

[Kumar]

Re: Re: Something differant

Correa Neto,

I give below some details of granite:

Granite Chemical Properties

The percentage composition of feldspar varies between 65-90% , of quartz can extend from 10 to 60% and that of biotite lies between 10 to 15%. However the percentage composition of each varies and accordingly impart different color and texture to the final product.

Granite is primarily composed of feldspar, quartz along with various other minerals in varying percentage,which are stated as follows:
Nominal chemical composition of various oxides
Silica(SiO2) ---------------------- 70-77%
Alumina(Al2O3) ----------------- 11- 14%
Potassium Oxide(P2O5) --------- 3 – 5%
Soda(Na2O) ------------------------ 3 – 5%
Lime ----------------------------------- 1%
Iron(Fe2O3) -------------------------- 1-2%
Iron(FeO) ----------------------------- 1 – 3%
Magnesia(Mg0) ------------------------- .5 – 1%
Titina ---------------------------------- Less than 1%(.38%)
Water(H2O) --------------------------- 0.03%

Granite Physical Properties

In terms of its physical properties granite is a unique material. These properties lending uniqueness to granite are:

Porosity/permeability
Granite has almost negligible porosity ranging between 0.2 to 4%.

Thermal Stability
Granite is highly stable thermally, therefore shows no changes with the change in temperature. Granite is impervious to weathering from temperature and even from the air borne chemicals. It is the high resistance to chemical erosion that makes granite useful for making tanks to store highly caustic material.

 

[Donks]

Kumar: Perhaps you should be looking into solid state physics and semiconductors. You'll find lots of uses and properties of Silicon there.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Can I interject and ask the perennial question?

What are people's motivations for trying to answer Kumar's questions?

Is it a genuine attempt to educate someone who has faint glimmers of the possibility of learning? An intellectual puzzle just trying to work out what he is asking, like a cryptic crossword? An attempt to corner and defeat an antagonist in debate?

The first is noble, but probably futile. The second is potentially interesting. The third is a bit cruel, IMHO.

 

[Correa Neto]

Re: Re: Re: Something differant

Kumar,

I am quite aware of chemical composition of granitic rocks. I am a geologist. So, let me help you to understand the review you provided, as well as correct some wrong statements included on it.

Lets start with the physical properties:

...snip...
Thermal Stability
Granite is highly stable thermally, therefore shows no changes with the change in temperature.
Granite is impervious to weathering from temperature and even from the air borne chemicals. It is the high resistance to chemical erosion that makes granite useful for making tanks to store highly caustic material.

Wrong. Granite is susceptible to the effects of heating/cooling cycles during the day/nigh cycle, for example. It expands when heated and contracts when cooled. Specially in hot desertic areas, and the effect leads to disagregation along weak zones such as fractures and contacts between minerals. This is called physical weathering, because no chemical reactions are involved. When using granite as mansonry stone, engineers and architects must take this in to account, leaving gaps between the slabs to avoid cracks on the slabs.

Granite is susceptible to chemical weathering, created by reactions between its minerals and water and atmosphere. Plagioclase and biotite are quite susceptible to weathering. Granite is just less susceptible to chemical weathering then other rocks, such as basalts, but more susceptible than quartzite, for example.

...snip...
The percentage composition of feldspar varies between 65-90% , of quartz can extend from 10 to 60% and that of biotite lies between 10 to 15%. However the percentage composition of each varies and accordingly impart different color and texture to the final product.

Granite is primarily composed of feldspar, quartz along with various other minerals in varying percentage,which are stated as follows:
Nominal chemical composition of various oxides
Silica(SiO2) ---------------------- 70-77%
Alumina(Al2O3) ----------------- 11- 14%
Potassium Oxide(P2O5) --------- 3 – 5%
Soda(Na2O) ------------------------ 3 – 5%
Lime ----------------------------------- 1%
Iron(Fe2O3) -------------------------- 1-2%
Iron(FeO) ----------------------------- 1 – 3%
Magnesia(Mg0) ------------------------- .5 – 1%
Titina ---------------------------------- Less than 1%(.38%)
Water(H2O) --------------------------- 0.03%

...snip...

Do not confuse the 70% SiO2 with quartz. Chemical assays for geology usually are provided in oxides. This should not be confused with mineral composition. It does not mean that the rock is compose by 70% quartz crystals and 1% of hematite (Fe2O3). For example, the 70% SiO2 are used to compose all silicate minerals that compose the granite. Most of it will be in feldspars (both K-feldspars and Na-Ca feldspars). The Al2O3 will be used in the feldspars, biotites and other minerals that may be present or not, such as amphiboles, muscovite, garnet.
Actually, very few granitic rocks reach the 60% of quartz crystals. Most are around 10-20%.

The main mineral component of granites is K-feldspar (usually microcline), as stated in the text you provide.

As for the color, usually, k-feldspar will provide a pinkish to reddish hue to the rock, while biotite- rich rocks will display shades of grey. Also, the ammount of Fe2+ or Fe3+ (respectively the Fe2O3 and FeO in the case you provided), can provide a greenish or reddish hue. Chemical weathering, metamorphism and hidrothermal alteration can also change the visual aspect of the granite.

Now, with the above in mind, please remember that quartzites are composed by 90% or more of the mineral quartz. Since quartz is composed by SiO2, you will have a rock composed by 90% or more SiO2. So, if your alleged attraction by silica were true, what would attract you more? 70% or 90%?

edited for a couple of typos I found

 

[Correa Neto]

Can I interject and ask the perennial question?

What are people's motivations for trying to answer Kumar's questions?

Is it a genuine attempt to educate someone who has faint glimmers of the possibility of learning? An intellectual puzzle just trying to work out what he is asking, like a cryptic crossword? An attempt to corner and defeat an antagonist in debate?

The first is noble, but probably futile. The second is potentially interesting. The third is a bit cruel, IMHO.

I humbly see myself as a noble enlightned knight on a crusade against pseudoscience...

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

I humbly see myself as a noble enlightned knight on a crusade against pseudoscience...

Good luck!

 

[Goshawk]

Me, I soldier on in the hope that something I say may "click" inside Kumar's head, and he'll go, "Oh! Now I see! Thank you for explaining that..."

Apparently he has at least gotten the message that silica/silicon is chemically inert, since he has for the most part dropped the subject. However, he seems to have changed his tactics to "silica/silicon is emitting cosmic rays which, among other things, can preserve mummies, and if it can preserve mummies, it must be able to preserve live human beings".

At least this is what it sounds like he's saying--"The miraculous healing powers of cosmic rays".

When he's not saying, "Cosmic rays are going to kill us all."

I would welcome a definitive statement from Kumar on what exactly he's asking us. What is it that you want from us?

 

[Correa Neto]

Well... I admit I just can´t help being ironic and sarcastic sometimes- but that´s the way I behave with everybody. And that´s not always the best way to go.

Anyway...

I consider myself open to discussions. I usually just join a discussion if I consider I can (or at least I belive I can - and sometimes I am dead wrong) contribute somehow. So, if the person is polite, and Kumar is polite, I will happilly discuss the issue and present my point of views. More than that- I will happilly (OK, some times not so happilly) change my mind and admit I was wrong.

It is my personal opinion that Kumar (Kumar, please tell if I´m wrong or not) tries do achieve two goals:

1) Evaluate points of views different than his. If he wanted no debate, just people agreeing with him, he would for sure go to another place. And that´s something I admire. Think about it- how many hit-and-run "believers" we have seen? He´s sticking around, and he is perseverant.

2) Try to provide evidence that may cause non-belivers to think "Hmmmm... Maybe there´s something here after all..." Again, that´s OK for me. A long as the discussion is polite (again sorry, sometimes I just can´t help being ironic and sarcastic)., its OK for me - even if quite often (and this not necessarily happens with Kumar) it turns out to be a monologue. He is one of the most polite "belivers" we have around here. With some, you can´t expose an opposite point of view without being labelled a moron....

The bottomline is that I would really like to be faced with some solid and uncontestable evidence favorable to paranormal events and similar. So far, I have not yet. But, I keep an eye open (to quote his sig), but with a critical mind behind it.

So, please, bring it on!

edited to add
If everybody around here were skeptics, and with the same opinion, this place would be boring as heaven
end edit

 

[Kumar]

Correa Neto,

Many thanks for understanding correctly. Although, all are nice here in real sense but you have some additional qualities of teaching as well as learning with great patience. Frankly, I tell you one fact that according to spritual's technicalities we should follow what is "current" & what is the "basic" but not intermidiate ones. Current science is meant for current age irrespective of- it is good or bad. We may not be entitled to follow intermidiate systems or sciences. Just read my postings at otherhealth BB & understand. However, I feel tissue salts system (not homeopathy which is just mother of it) can serve a purpose of 'Basic' , CMS as 'Gross' & both together may mean 'every or most things solved'. It should happen at any suitable day. But we are too much now with too many unnaturals-- then how it will happen. Let us do our duty- just try & prey for the best.

There are so many variations in this stone. I think it is used as fused silica/glass for its thermal stability. You may be knowing but I give below the given properties of Silica.

Properties of Silicon Dioxide

Silica is a transparent solid with high melting point.
Silica is inert to most chemical reagents but reacts with hydrogen fluoride to form silicon tetrafluoride, which is a colourless gas at room temperature and water.

Silica is an acidic oxide, which reacts with alkalis to form salt and water.
SiO2 + 2NaOH ==> Na2SiO3 + H2O

Silicon dioxide is a crystalline compound that transmits visible and ultraviolet light. Many crystalline forms exist, the most common of which is Quartz.

Silica being major constituent of granite, what does it means:

"Silicon dioxide is a crystalline compound that transmits visible and ultraviolet light. Many crystalline forms exist, the most common of which is Quartz".

Furthur, cosmic rays are said to have great penetrating effect, what will be the effect when these passes across the granite/silica molecules?

Regards.

Goshawk,

Since, you are not able to catch, may it be bit frustating. Good luck.

 

[Goshawk]

I'm not going to discuss the "healing properties" of glass, sand, or quartz with you any more, Kumar.

Because glass, sand, and quartz have no "healing properties".

 

[The Don]

Furthur, cosmic rays are said to have great penetrating effect, what will be the effect when these passes across the granite/silica molecules?

Cosmic rays pretty much go straight through everything. Silica (if it were present - which it isn't, we don't have tiny shards of galss in our cells) would not offer any protection.

Certainly they can zoom though several miles of rock with no problems.

We can therefore state quite categorically that even if silica had some therapeutic properties (which it doesn't) they would not be due to the fact that it is in lurking in cells protecting them from damage by cosmic rays

 

[Correa Neto]

Kumar,

Please note that I am far from being convinced by any argument so far presented by you or anyone lese. Also, if you excuse me, quite often it seems that you do not care about what we post, despite your politeness. You don´t even care thinking about it.

One example that is the silica issue. Again, SiO2 on a chemical assay report is different from quartz. Its not the chemical compound silica. It a percentage of Si and O atoms, provided as oxides. These atoms will be used to compose a number of minerals. I can send to a lab a microcline - KAlSi3O8 (formula typed from memory, may be wrong) - sample. The lab will provide a result in oxides (%SiO2, %Al2O3, etc). It does not means that there is quartz on the microcline sample. A rock can have 65% SiO2 and have no quartz! To say that a rock is made of quartz because it has silica is almost the same as saying that since we are composed by CH4 4- polymers, we are made of methane!!!! Please read all the posts carefully, and you´ll see that your reasoning has several flaws.

I would really like you to make the following exercise- Place your beliefs or faiths in one of these issues aside for a moment- the present discussion we are having would be a nice start. Then try to use a different approach, basically asking questions without a preconceived idea. Here are some examples-

-Suppose that somehow the ammount of silica in can somehow influence us. What would be the effect with rocks that have different ammounts of silica?
-Suppose we can somehow "sense" these rocks without using sight and touch. If this is true, then we can recognize rocks without using these senses.

Now, please note that you have not provided an answer to these questions.

Again, if silica somehow attracted us or had some sort of benefitial effect on us, people would preffer to live in areas composed by quartzite, and these people would be the most healthy ones! And this is not true, I can tell you. Right now, a few kilometres away from where I´m typing theres a huge quartzite (90%+ SiO2) range. I worked for years above (and even inside!) a variety of rocks. Never felt or seen any difference. It doesn´t matter if you are at a cave or a tunnel in quartzite, limestone (5% SiO2), granite (70% SiO2), a large number of schists (10 to 60% SiO2), etc. It doesn´t matter also if you are above it also.

The questions at the posts, questions that I am presenting since the begining of the discussion, are perfect examples of how flawed all this idea of quartz and silica in rocks or minerals can affect us by some mysterious energy is pure BS. Actually it can- breathe too much silica dust when working at a mine and you´ll get silicosis. Not a very benefitial effect.

BTW, quartz is not a stone. It is a mineral. And again, SiO2 at a chemical assay does not necessarily means quartz.

As for light transmittion, Kumar, all the minerals of the group called silicates -(SiO4)4- polymers- can transmit light. Carbonates can also, sulphates can, phosphates can, some oxides can also. Nothing special here.

Have you actually read what other people posted about "cosmic radiation"? Levels, types of particles, etc.? If you read, without preconceived ideas, and tought about it, again without preconceived ideas, than you already know the answer. There is no effect that can be benefitial or harmfull to us.

 

[Kumar]

Correa Neto,

Sorry to make you bit bold. But it is nothing which I am ignoring forcing or convincing. It is just due to differance in technical knowledges & language. Preconcieved-- it is ok that I am preconcieved about homeopathic effects but you are opposite. Therefore, I am not taking that in much consideration here. "Sensing" these rocks without using sight and touch may require a training provided these are differant in effects. Local people somewhat do have this sense. Furthur, zonal effects are their on health & vitality but to sense & get the effects-- it should be a instant/temporary exposure for a vibration or shocking type effect. Permanent residants near to any rock become resistant to that environment.

Now finally, we can conclude in consideration of above discussions that there can not be any measurable cosmic effect of cosmic rays(other than sunlight) on human bodies. Acoordingly, all the mentionings in any spritual or alternatve system suggesting the cosmic effects, are false without any science in them. However to assume, any effect is there of any spritual or alternative's cosmic mentioning-- that would be by, within the body (endogenous) changes but not from any outside cosmic source(except sunlight). Is it clear now?

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Kumar

1. Did you do science at all at school? If so, at what age did you stop?

2. Have you thought seriously about going and getting some college classes to take you at least to high school graduation level (around 18yrs old) in science? This would help a great deal, because the current problem is that you are, or seem to be, an adult asking questions that even a child's science education would render superfluous, but unlike a child you are bringing along a whole load of prejudices that you have acquired from reading alternative medicine's rather peculiar (i.e. wrong) version of reality. Would finances and geography allow you to get some proper teaching?

 

[Goshawk]

we can conclude in consideration of above discussions that there can not be any measurable cosmic effect of cosmic rays(other than sunlight) on human bodies.

NO. We canNOT conclude this. This is an incorrect statement. This is a wrong, scientifically false, statement. You are oversimplifying in such a way as to cause a false statement to occur.

Cosmic rays can have a "measurable effect" on human bodies.

Read, and learn, Kumar. This is from NASA.

http://aerospacescholars.jsc.nasa.gov/HAS/cirr/em/11/5.cfm

One of the biggest hazards involved in interplanetary spaceflight is exposure to radiation. During interplanetary spaceflight, once outside of the protection of Earth's magnetic field, crews will be exposed to radiation from the Sun (from solar flares) and from cosmic radiation (from the rest of the universe).

Space radiation, often considered the primary hazard associated with space flight, is also important to study since it can have a great impact on human health. In space, crew members are subjected to greater amounts of natural radiation than they receive on Earth, exposing them to possible immediate and long-term risks.

There are three major sources of radiation in space. The first, trapped belt radiation, occurs from particles found in the Earth's magnetic field.

A second type, called galactic cosmic rays (GCRs), consists of particles that originate outside the solar system.

The third type results from a solar particle event (SPE), which sometimes accompanies solar flares, and may be the most potent space radiation hazard to lightly shielded spacecraft.

Regardless of the source, large amounts of radiation exposure can lead to radiation sickness and have the potential to damage the body's chromosomes.

< snip >

Electrically charged cosmic ray particles from the Milky Way galaxy come from all directions of deep space more or less continuously. Small amounts of shielding can cut out the majority of these rays, but the remainder will give astronauts a somewhat increased risk of cancer. Using very conservative estimates, a week in space's cosmic ray environment will shorten your life expectancy by about a day. (Statistically, it is very unlikely to give you cancer; but if it does, it will shorten your life by much more than a day.) Because space itself is inherently dangerous, the chance of developing cancer due to cosmic rays is considered by most scientists to be a relatively small additional risk.

Now, then.

Astronauts in outer space are at risk from cosmic rays.

People living on the surface of the Earth are NOT at risk from cosmic rays.

It's important to distinguish between these two things.

The reason that we people here on Earth are NOT at risk from cosmic rays is because the Earth's atmosphere and magnetic field filters out most of them. Also, we evolved on this planet for the last few hundred million years, being constantly exposed to a certain level of cosmic ray bombardment, so we're used to it.

So we living here on the planet's surface are not at the same risk from cosmic rays that the astronauts are.

But it is a scientifically incorrect statement to say that cosmic rays have no measurable effect on the human body.

The correct way to phrase your statement would be to say, "Cosmic rays here on planet Earth, after having been filtered through Earth's atmosphere and magnetic field, can have no measurable effect on the human body."

Do you see the difference between those two statements?


I will also point out that astronauts in outer space are not shielded from space radiation of any form by using silicon dioxide. NASA does not equip the space shuttle and the ISS with glass or quartz lining to keep out the rays--because it doesn't work. It doesn't keep out the rays. Scientists have done considerable amount of research and thinking about what would stop cosmic rays, what would be the best shielding, and nowhere in those discussions is sand, or quartz, or glass mentioned. Silicon dioxide will not stop cosmic ray particles.

What works so far is lead.

Not glass or quartz.

Far from quartz stopping cosmic rays, cosmic rays actually go into quartz and change it, so much so that you can use it for a dating process.

Explanation here.
http://amos.physics.purdue.edu/web/primelab/samplings/body_index.html

******************

"Sensing" these rocks without using sight and touch may require a training provided these are differant in effects. Local people somewhat do have this sense.

If you know anybody who can actually do this, Randi has a million dollars he'd like to give them.

 

[DaveW]

Sorry, Hawk, you can blame the rest of us for keeping it so simple for Kumar. You are, of course, correct. But nowhere did he ever seem to indicate he was looking at the effects of cosmic radiation anywhere other than safely confined in the earth's atmosphere.

 

[Kumar]

BSM -- Badly Shaved Monkey?

NO. We can NOT conclude this. This is an incorrect statement. This is a wrong, scientifically false, statement. You are oversimplifying in such a way as to cause a false statement to occur.

Cosmic rays can have a "measurable effect" on human bodies.

Read, and learn, Kumar.

This is from NASA.http://aerospacescholars.jsc.nasa.gov/HAS/cirr/em/11/5.cfm
Now, then.

Astronauts in outer space are at risk from cosmic rays.

People living on the surface of the Earth are NOT at risk from cosmic rays.


Why you talk about earth looks round from space. Talk how it looks from here to us?Far from quartz stopping cosmic rays, cosmic rays actually go into quartz and change it, so much so that you can use it for a dating process. I previously provided this link. May be these discussiond as a result os same. But when it can effect in space--why not here. These are more scattered, more particles, more charged, more velocity etc. We are not settling it on any side & my head is .

Also, we evolved on this planet for the last few hundred million years, being constantly exposed to a certain level of cosmic ray bombardment, so we're used to it.

Are those the same or similar cosmic rays? If similar then astronauts are not used to those cosmic rays.

But it is a scientifically incorrect statement to say that cosmic rays have no measurable effect on the human body.

The correct way to phrase your statement would be to say, "Cosmic rays here on planet Earth, after having been filtered through Earth's atmosphere and magnetic field, can have no measurable effect on the human body."

Ok, as you say, now is it settled? But it also made me to say that 'earth as we(except astronauts) look & find is flat from our observations by naked eyes'.

Do you see the difference between those two statements?

Yes, I can now see the differance, thanks. Should I check remedies made from "lead" or other shielding material.


Far from quartz stopping cosmic rays, cosmic rays actually go into quartz and change it, so much so that you can use it for a dating process.

Does it makes some sense in above discussions & for furthur discussions & in gem stone therapy. Thanks.

******************

 

[Zep]

Does it makes some sense in above discussions & for furthur discussions & in gem stone therapy. Thanks.

If your "gemstone" contained notable amounts of uranium then it would DEFINITELY make a difference if applied to the human body as "therapy". Not a GOOD difference, mind you.

 

[DaveW]

Trying to understand what Kumar was saying in his last post made my head hurt