What more Microbes can effect?

[Kumar]

Kumar, it's spelled "grammar".

Rolfe.

Thanks. Still I am not alone. That time I was suspecting but was in hurry.

"GRAMMER

GRAMMAR



"It’s amazing how many people write to thank me for helping them with their “grammer.” It’s “grammar.” The word is often incorrectly used to label patterns of spelling and usage that have nothing to do with the structure of language, the proper subject of grammar in the most conservative sense. Not all bad writing is due to bad grammar.
"https://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/grammer.html

 

[brodski]

I somewhere had mentioned that "Dr Hahn. & Dr.Sch.(you can take other reputed scientists also Newtons etc.) thought differently and dynamically so got differently and dynamically". Look at my Sign. This can be the basis of new understandings. I know, I am wondering in jungles, but cities are already serched to maximum. We can't/may not get new knowledges/understandings in cities.

They did not, however, produce evidence. Until you can show that there [is an effect, it is nothing but mental masturbation to speculate on the cause of that effect. You may as well ask how many angles can dance on the head of a pin.

 

[Taffer]

Btw, can they carry our intact DNA, from skin particles or on surviving on us or from our metobolic bi-products etc?

No.

 

[flume]

Kumar, when that wikipedia article estimated that we had only studied 1% of microorganisms, they were basing their estimate on what we know about those types of microorganisms, how many new ones are found when sampling a new area etc. The estimate is based on known properties and definitions and characteristic features of types of microorganisms. You can't use that number to say anything about imaginary energy-beings or thought-reading creatures. Those imaginary creatures would not fall into the classifications of microorganisms.

If I made up an estimate that we only knew 1% of mouse species, that would be based on what I knew about mice, what they ate, where they lived, and how many new types of mice were found when a new area was explored. That number would only apply to mice, not lizards or dragons or angels or exploding gas planets. It might be interesting to go out looking for new mouse species and find an angel, but that would have nothing at all to do with my estimate of how many unknown mouse species there might be.

The estimate for finding something like an energy-being, which to the best of our knowledge does not exist, is zero.

You can imagine energy-beings if you want to. You can hope they exist, and you can hope that we find one some day. But that hope has nothing to do with the estimate about microorganisms.

(just to be clear, I'm guessing we know 99% of mouse species, not 1%.
Also a reminder that the accuracy of any wikipedia article varies depending on who wrote or edited it.)

 

[Mashuna]

They did not, however, produce evidence. Until you can show that there [is an effect, it is nothing but mental masturbation to speculate on the cause of that effect. You may as well ask how many angles can dance on the head of a pin.

360. They're in a circle, doing the hokey-cokey.

 

[kellyb]

I couldn't figure out what the question was, or where the OP was going with it until halfway through the thread.
Anyway, I'm not sure what the point is in figuring out how things that don't work, work.
This is a bit like pondering the mechanism behind leprechauns telepathically communicating with unicorns.
It HAS to be electromagnetism!

 

[Kumar]

flume,

"I'd be interested to know how they know how many microbes they don't know about."

Above reply looks quite valid. 1% can be just rough estimate or just much lesser ot traces, not exact. About "energy beings", it is just a thought bot basis, though ghosts, sprit etc. are thought. Still in view of traces are known about microbes, any existance are possible. Many Odd things are thought about few so we can just keep in mind, if something sometimes is noted by chance, we can dig that. We don't know, how many secrets are still a mystry in nature. We are evolved since long back, much older than science. We also don't know,what our body really know,probably enerything since the start of our evolution with whome we had interacted. [in view of thought, omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent still indescribable, we should be alike it.] So keep your eves open, till everything is unclear.

 

[PixyMisa]

No.

 

[Kumar]

Summary
The majority of eukaryotes found living in extreme environments are microbial and a central problem in the study of all microbial eukaryotes is the lack of reliable cultivation methods. Only a tiny fraction of the organisms that can be observed in environmental samples can be cultured in the laboratory, even from mesophilic environments. Extreme environments are generally more difficult to replicate in the laboratory and more difficult to keep stable. The ability to bring these fascinating creatures living into the laboratory is currently the biggest stumbling block to advancing knowledge.

Eukaryotic microbial life may be found actively growing in almost any extreme condition where there is a sufficient energy source to sustain it, with the exception of high temperature (>70ºC). For most eukaryotes, therefore, a central requirement for growth in a habitat is sufficient energy flowing through the biosphere to support a second trophic level, as illustrated by the soda lakes Simi and Nakuru (see below). If it were not for the high productivity of Lake Nakuru, the low diversity in Lake Simi could easily have been attributed to its extreme pH.

Colonisation of extreme habitats is not normally restricted to a single taxonomic group, with the exception of xerophilous habitats which are only tolerated by the fungi. Eukaryotic cells are exceedingly adaptable and not notably less adaptable than the prokaryotes, although most habitats have not been sufficiently well explored for sound generalisations.
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/research-curation/projects/euk-extreme/

Microorganisms in fiction
Microorganisms have frequently played an important part in science fiction, both as agents of disease, and as entities in their own right.

Some notable uses of microorganisms in fiction include:

The War of the Worlds, where microorganisms play important thematic and plot-related roles.
Fantastic Voyage, in which some scientists are miniaturised to microscopic size and observe micro-organisms from a new perspective
Blood Music, in which a colony of microorganisms is given intelligence
The Andromeda Strain, in which extraterrestrial microorganisms kill several people
Twelve Monkeys, James Cole (Bruce Willis) searches for a pure germ in the past, which creates a deadly plague in the future. Also, Brad Pitt (as Jeffery Goines) discusses his germaphobia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microorganism

Many mystries can be surrounding microbes.

 

[PixyMisa]

Do you actually understand any of what you just copied, Kumar?

 

[Kumar]

Do you actually understand any of what you just copied, Kumar?

Just that many mystries can surround to 1+99%. Can't possible?

Try to use "as yet" or "as per current status of sience" words with all your claims and blames.

 

[PixyMisa]

Just that many mystries can surround to 1+99%. Can't possible?

No, can't possible.

Try to use "as yet" or "as per current status of sience" words with all your claims and blames.

This is indeed good advice in certain contexts. If I'm talking about quantum gravity, then while we know that there is gravity at a quantum level, we don't have a single good model of how it works. If I'm talking about large-scale complex environmental models, then yes, there's a limit to how well we can predict the behaviour of the real world.

When it comes to homeopathy, there is no need for such a disclaimer. Homeopathic remedies are often at dilutions where they are pure solvent (i.e. water or alcohol) and thus only have the effect that pure water or alcohol would have. And when they are tested, that's exactly what they do.

There's a continuing stream of reports of homeopathic successes at either the physical or clinical level. These reports break down into two categories: Anecdotes, which are useless, and actual scientific studies. However, the scientific studies that show positive results for homeopath are invariably performed by incompetent researchers. Benveniste is a good example, because he was a very prominent French scientist and yet his research was hopelessly skewed by experimenter bias. Rustum Roy's recent paper is another good example; he's a respected materials scientist focusing on ceramics, but his research on water structure is complete drivel. He first proposes such a structure, then performs experiments on alcohol. Alcohol isn't water, something I hope you can grasp.

Homeopathy is impossible according to everything we have learned about physics, chemistry and biology over the last 200 years. At the same time, carefully controlled experiments show that homeopathy doesn't do anything.

So no, Kumar. No.

 

[Mojo]

There's a continuing stream of reports of homeopathic successes at either the physical or clinical level. These reports break down into two categories: Anecdotes, which are useless, and actual scientific studies. However, the scientific studies that show positive results for homeopath are invariably performed by incompetent researchers. Benveniste is a good example, because he was a very prominent French scientist and yet his research was hopelessly skewed by experimenter bias. Rustum Roy's recent paper is another good example; he's a respected materials scientist focusing on ceramics, but his research on water structure is complete drivel. He first proposes such a structure, then performs experiments on alcohol. Alcohol isn't water, something I hope you can grasp.

Another category, perhaps, is studies that fail to eliminate the placebo effect, spontaneous recovery, regression to the mean etc., for example Spence et al. Homeopathic treatment for chronic disease: A 6-year, university-hospital outpatient observational study.

 

[cyborg]

About "energy beings", it is just a thought bot basis, though ghosts, sprit etc. are thought.

Yes. They are thought.

The problem is that you do not grasp that thought is, and further more must be, built upon elements that do not think.

The ghosts are, quite literally, in your mind.

Still in view of traces are known about microbes, any existance are possible.

Not really.

So keep your eves open, till everything is unclear.

Well you're doing your best to achieve that goal.

 

[PixyMisa]

Well you're doing your best to achieve that goal.

Heh.

 

[Kumar]

No, can't possible.


This is indeed good advice in certain contexts. If I'm talking about quantum gravity, then while we know that there is gravity at a quantum level, we don't have a single good model of how it works. If I'm talking about large-scale complex environmental models, then yes, there's a limit to how well we can predict the behaviour of the real world.

When it comes to homeopathy, there is no need for such a disclaimer. Homeopathic remedies are often at dilutions where they are pure solvent (i.e. water or alcohol) and thus only have the effect that pure water or alcohol would have. And when they are tested, that's exactly what they do.

There's a continuing stream of reports of homeopathic successes at either the physical or clinical level. These reports break down into two categories: Anecdotes, which are useless, and actual scientific studies. However, the scientific studies that show positive results for homeopath are invariably performed by incompetent researchers. Benveniste is a good example, because he was a very prominent French scientist and yet his research was hopelessly skewed by experimenter bias. Rustum Roy's recent paper is another good example; he's a respected materials scientist focusing on ceramics, but his research on water structure is complete drivel. He first proposes such a structure, then performs experiments on alcohol. Alcohol isn't water, something I hope you can grasp.

Homeopathy is impossible according to everything we have learned about physics, chemistry and biology over the last 200 years. At the same time, carefully controlled experiments show that homeopathy doesn't do anything.

So no, Kumar. No.

Science research in thier home as per its guidelines and base accordingly. Let homeopaths research in their home as per their guidelines and base accordingly. For Truth, valid for everyone, both may need to present "absolute and final" outcome, alike universtal truth. Till that everything on both sides, can be "as yet or as per current understandings etc." Whether science is "absolute and final" in whatever it has yet understood? In practical observations and experiances, homeopaths find and say differently. Better, let everyone to live in their home asnd don't throw stones on each other by living in glass houses. Things are under process, both sides. Few gone with unclarities, new one can come.

 

[Kumar]

Another category, perhaps, is studies that fail to eliminate the placebo effect, spontaneous recovery, regression to the mean etc., for example Spence et al. Homeopathic treatment for chronic disease: A 6-year, university-hospital outpatient observational study.

As you/I gone through with many episodes about studies, either way, there is no need to continue on this issue. First try to know basis of presence of information in higher potencies and try to evalute microbial basis, if anticipating to know. About effects, I have nothing to doubt due to my observations and experiances since long back.

 

[Zep]

Homeopathic "research" is not worth the paper it is written on, Kumar. It is a whole load of wishful thinking, self-delusion, fairy-stories, and in a few notable cases, fraud. But if you wish to rely on their results to keep you and your family healthy, there is nothing we can do to stop you.

 

[Baron Samedi]

Another category, perhaps, is studies that fail to eliminate the placebo effect, spontaneous recovery, regression to the mean etc., for example Spence et al. Homeopathic treatment for chronic disease: A 6-year, university-hospital outpatient observational study.

Don't forget the last category. Even with well planned, well executed studies removing all sources of bias, you still will have Type-I Error reports being published.

 

[arthwollipot]

About "energy beings", it is just a thought bot basis, though ghosts, sprit etc. are thought. Still in view of traces are known about microbes, any existance are possible. Many Odd things are thought about few so we can just keep in mind, if something sometimes is noted by chance, we can dig that. We don't know, how many secrets are still a mystry in nature. We are evolved since long back, much older than science. We also don't know,what our body really know,probably enerything since the start of our evolution with whome we had interacted. [in view of thought, omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent still indescribable, we should be alike it.] So keep your eves open, till everything is unclear.

Wow. That's just... wow. I really don't have a comeback to that.