Water: a video full of woo

[Michael C]

Here's what looks like 80 minutes of woo, all about water:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2933349021550318008

I didn't have the courage to look past the first few minutes: the fact that the first person to be interviewed is Rustum Roy was enough to put me off. I then started fast forwarding and dipped in to hear such incredible news as this:

"Water is the only substance on the planet that can exist in three states, liquid, solid and gaseous"

and this:

"Modern instruments have made it possible to record the fact that within each of water's memory cells there are 440,000 information panels".

I'm sure there are many more such pearls of wisdom in the video, but I just can't stick it out to the end.

[JJM]

{snip} I didn't have the courage to look past the first few minutes: the fact that the first person to be interviewed is Rustum Roy was enough to put me off. {snip}Ah, Nostrum Roy ... the Farce is strong in him.

[Third Eye Open]

Pretty entertaining stuff, apparently a group of people staring at a bucket of water can 'change its energy levels'

Love increases waters energy levels, and stabilizes the water, while aggressive emotions reduce the waters energy and make radical changes in the water.

[JJM]

More water-related nonsense from Rustum Roy (http://hawk-handsaw.blogspot.com/2008/04/more-water-related-nonsense-from-rustum.html)


http://hawk-handsaw.blogspot.com/2008/04/more-water-related-nonsense-from-rustum.html

[Starthinker]

80? It's 120 minutes of woo. I flipped through maybe a minute or two of it and couldn't bear any more. Not sure what it would take to watch the whole thing. Maybe if someone baked me a cake or something. With ice cream.

[Lonewulf]

WTF? :boggled:

[Lonewulf]

Water *expands*, doesn't contract, as it cools? What? Then how the hell does it grow solid?

[Lonewulf]

Apparently, a bunch of guys working on theories of WMDs were all "food poisoned" by water, because it was infected by their EVIL THOUGHTS!

[Lonewulf]

"The Structure of water is far more important than its chemical composition."

...

I can't stop watching. It's like witnessing a train wreck. D:

[jj]

The structure of a liquid. Right. (facepalm)

[Lonewulf]

The structure of a liquid. Right. (facepalm)

Apparently, by "structure", they mean when it's "recording information", as the "most malleable computer". D:

[Lonewulf]

Bwahahaha! Apparently, some survivors from a wreck "miraculously" turned salt water into fresh water just by imagining it to be so.

And this explains Jesus turning Water into Wine, of course! Through POSITIVE HUMAN EMOTIONS!

I got to 13 minutes, then I couldn't watch any more. They're just so vague. They say that projecting positive emotions on water and negative emotions on water "changes" the water in "opposite directions", but they didn't specify WHAT was changing, exactly.

[godless dave]

"Water is the only substance on the planet that can exist in three states, liquid, solid and gaseous"



http://geology.com/news/images/tungurahua-volcano.jpg

[Lonewulf]

http://geology.com/news/images/tungurahua-volcano.jpg

Yeah, but volcanic rock can't be a gas, right? I mean, we never see them as such, ergo...!

[ElMondoHummus]

"Water is the only substance on the planet that can exist in three states, liquid, solid and gaseous"


(*Facepalm*)

Looks like ole Mr. (Mr.?) Roy thinks that only water has a triple point (http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistryglossary/a/triplepointdef.htm). Calling any 100-level chemistry students: There's a man out there in need of correction.

Folks, I'm branching out a bit as a wootective. Any background info you can point me at that summarizes who Rustum Roy fellow is and what he (mis)represents? I know I can use the search function here, but I'm hoping that someone might have centralized info, sort of like what Gravy and a few others have done for 9/11 conspiracy peddling. From my 9/11 CT subforum participation, I'm having trouble detecting whether he's the equivalent of Steven Jones (misstates evidence and misconstructs the significance of what he discovers through his own research), Richard Gage (argues from his authority as an architect, but doesn't well support his statements with actual analysis), David Ray Griffin (misrepresents facts to draw conclusions from them), or James Fetzer (full on crock; hears the cuckoo clock sounding midnight at all hours of the day), and it's sort of an interesting challenge for me to find that out. From his mangling of a basic freshman-level chemical concept, I doubt that he's actually a trained scientist who's fallen off his rocker, but I do have Steven Jones as an analogy that shows such a thing is possible.

[JJM]

{snip} "Water is the only substance on the planet that can exist in three states, liquid, solid and gaseous" {snip}That (I believe they mean "at equilibrium") is a bit of trivia that I do not recall; but I doubt it. Regardless, it does not support their claims any more than the fact that the Earth circles the Sun.

ETA Cross-posted with ElMondoHummus (http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=12386) who mentions the term "triple-point" that I avoided.

[Earthborn]

Water *expands*, doesn't contract, as it cools?As it freezes. That one is true though. What isn't true is the claim that scientists don't understand why this happens.

What? Then how the hell does it grow solid?The water molecules align in a crystal structure that is less dense than liquid water, which is why ice floats and pipes burst.

[MrQhuest]

Wow. That was, um... entertaining. Made some popcorn and hoped to enjoy the whole video, but i could only get through the first 15 minutes. A couple of points I'd like to raise.

1. Is there any city in the world that does have a fully, or even partially closed loop water system? I mean by treating and recycling waste water into pure(ish) water for human consumption?

2. As an English speaker, I have to trust what the narrator is saying that the non-english speaking experts and saying. Can anyone verify that the non-english speaking experts are claiming what the speaker is saying?

3. I noticed that the nobel laureate (missed his name) early in the film did not say anything at all woo-ish or controversial, they just cut the interview off after about 15 seconds and moved on. Implying that this fellow was supporting their position. A video version of quote mining I suspect, but with no way investigate the source, as the rest of the interview, no doubt, is on the editing room floor.

MrQ

[Lonewulf]

As it freezes. That one is true though. What isn't true is the claim that scientists don't understand why this happens.

The water molecules align in a crystal structure that is less dense than liquid water, which is why ice floats and pipes burst.

Huh. I just learned something. :o

That "then why does ice float to the top?" question was bothering me, so I was just waiting for someone to correct me.

Is that a trait purely unique to water?

[Madalch]

Is that a trait purely unique to water?

I don't think water's unique in that respect, but other substances that do that are extremely rare. Water's the only substance I know that is more dense as a liquid than as a solid, but I suspect there are others.

I seem to recall that solid D2O will sink in ordinary water, but will float in liquid D2O.

[Lonewulf]

I don't think water's unique in that respect, but other substances that do that are extremely rare. Water's the only substance I know that is more dense as a liquid than as a solid, but I suspect there are others.

I seem to recall that solid D2O will sink in ordinary water, but will float in liquid D2O.

Well, floating in liquid D20 instead of H20 is much more important, after all. The premise is being lighter than itself in solid vs. liquid form, not another compound.

[Hokulele]

Folks, I'm branching out a bit as a wootective. Any background info you can point me at that summarizes who Rustum Roy fellow is and what he (mis)represents? I know I can use the search function here, but I'm hoping that someone might have centralized info, sort of like what Gravy and a few others have done for 9/11 conspiracy peddling. From my 9/11 CT subforum participation, I'm having trouble detecting whether he's the equivalent of Steven Jones (misstates evidence and misconstructs the significance of what he discovers through his own research), Richard Gage (argues from his authority as an architect, but doesn't well support his statements with actual analysis), David Ray Griffin (misrepresents facts to draw conclusions from them), or James Fetzer (full on crock; hears the cuckoo clock sounding midnight at all hours of the day), and it's sort of an interesting challenge for me to find that out. From his mangling of a basic freshman-level chemical concept, I doubt that he's actually a trained scientist who's fallen off his rocker, but I do have Steven Jones as an analogy that shows such a thing is possible.


IIRC, Rolfe and Badly Shaved Monkey are the heavy-weights on this topic. This thread isn't a bad intro (if you can stand it).

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=88831