bad thoughts make water bad

[lionking]

Yesterday my 11 year old daughter came home from school in Melbourne Australia telling me that her teacher told the class that bad words and negative thoughts directed at a bottle of water would make it taste bad while good thoughts and even positive messages on a sticker put on a bottle would make the water taste good. My daughter didn't believe any of this (and is now probably condemned to a lifetime of bad tasting water) but others may have.

This is a sad indictment of the education system in our region. For those who know Melbourne, we live in the Diamond Valley, where "alternative" lifestyles abound and ther are colonies of hippies in the sorrounding hills (truely). But this should not effect the education of impressionable kids.

I am unsure how to react. Should I ignore it like my daughter? Should I be accused of being an interfering humourless parent over-reacting to a bit of whimsy? What to do.......

[Miss Anthrope]

I would take it to the school, and make sure my complaint was heard.

11 year old kids are supposed to be learning things, among them science.

New age woo is like religion. Would they allow a teacher to teach creation or preach Jesus at you? This is the same. Bogus, unsubstantiated superstition. It does NOT belong in a school.

A newspaper or TV news station might be an excellent place to go as well.

[Graham Jackman]

I would take it to the school, and make sure my complaint was heard.

11 year old kids are supposed to be learning things, among them science.

New age woo is like religion. Would they allow a teacher to teach creation or preach Jesus at you? This is the same. Bogus, unsubstantiated superstition. It does NOT belong in a school.

A newspaper or TV news station might be an excellent place to go as well.

Agreed! Although it might seem harsh to take your complaint public, it would bring attention to others tempted to hawk such nonsense. Certainly, I would get media attention if the school did not take action.

[lionking]

Agreed! Although it might seem harsh to take your complaint public, it would bring attention to others tempted to hawk such nonsense. Certainly, I would get media attention if the school did not take action.
I dont suppose you have an 11 year old daughter? She would mortified if it went to the media and would be embarrassed even if I took it to the school hence my dilemma.

[Tipush]

I am willing to test that while testing my "talking to rice" experiment.

on the other hand, I think I know what the results would be.

[Miss Anthrope]

I dont suppose you have an 11 year old daughter? She would mortified if it went to the media and would be embarrassed even if I took it to the school hence my dilemma.

I have a 10.5 year old. And she'd go the media herself. But then again, she's an avowed Pastafarian of the highest order, who's read The God Delusion.

So don't embarrass her. How would it be found out school-wide that it was her mother who complained? It's fairly reasonable to ask the administration not to identify you unless required, but certainly it would not get to the students?

[lionking]

I have a 10.5 year old. And she'd go the media herself. But then again, she's an avowed Pastafarian of the highest order, who's read The God Delusion.

So don't embarrass her. How would it be found out school-wide that it was her mother who complained? It's fairly reasonable to ask the administration not to identify you unless required, but certainly it would not get to the students?
Please, please, please, father. But we are talking about a school of about 70 students, so it would porbably get out. That said, I will try to raise it confidentally. What I am most amazed about is how this can be taught in a school in the 21st century in a supposedly enlightened country. BTW I haven't given my daughter the God Delusion yet, but am delighted she is reading Harry Potter. If only her other siblings had read at her age! I have seven kids and at 11 it was Playstation or Friends!

[Zep]

This is the long-debunked laughable Emoto theory.

Go the other way. Get her to bug the teacher into having the class do the same experiment themselves. Only ensure that they know how to do good experimental design (and this is a simple experiment - it will be easy to design). In fact, I seem to recall that a number of posters here have already designed testing protocols for the Emoto experiments. This will make her (1) a keen student, (2) not a pariah among her classmates, and (3) ostensibly fully in favour of the teacher's crackpot theory.

Then see if they get the same results as Emoto! (Hint: No, they won't.) Then it will be the class as a whole who get the results, and the teacher who has to explain her previous silliness away...

[jimtron]

How about for a school project your daughter conducts a double blind study to see if the teacher is right or wrong? Let the teacher (blindly) distinguish between the "negative" and "positive" water.

[lionking]

This is the long-debunked laughable Emoto theory.

Go the other way. Get her to bug the teacher into having the class do the same experiment themselves. Only ensure that they know how to do good experimental design (and this is a simple experiment - it will be easy to design). In fact, I seem to recall that a number of posters here have already designed testing protocols for the Emoto experiments.

Then see if they get the same results as Emoto! (Hint: No, they won't.) Then let's see the teacher explain that one away...
Great idea!!! This way she can embarrass the teacher rather than be embarrassed by her father's intervention.

[jimtron]

Great idea!!! This way she can embarrass the teacher rather than be embarrassed by her father's intervention.

Yeah, I like the experiment idea, because I think it would get through to people better. Instead of saying, "no, you're wrong" and having the teacher and possibly some students think you guys are just closed minded or whatever, you can say, "hmm, this doesn't sound plausible, but why don't we see for ourselves"? It is a school after all...

[Zep]

Sorry Lionking - I edited my post after you quoted it!

[Zep]

Great idea!!! This way she can embarrass the teacher rather than be embarrassed by her father's intervention.Not quite. The teacher will embarrass herself.

[Dark Jaguar]

Hey depending on the Playstation game there might have been a lot of reading involved! (Okay, militant defending of my hobby over.)

No seriously, someone's gotta raise a big overreacting stink over this, and it might as well be you. I can't speak from experience, or even motive as I have no kids myself, but personally I'd go for confronting the teacher directly at first. It just seems like that's the proper tact, plus you can at least confirm it happened. If this teacher suggests it's true and the job is about teaching "truth", or something like that, I'd ask how this teacher figured out this factoid. Hey, the teacher could even run a class-wide test of this idea. First of course you'll need to figure out what makes "good" water different from "bad" and how you'd measure it, but after that a test should be pretty easy for the class to set up and moniter. It'd be fun and educational, if the teacher is willing to listen.

Otherwise, it's a "not proven" claim and you should go to the principal and then whoever you need to complain at to get this nonsense to stop.

[lionking]

Hey depending on the Playstation game there might have been a lot of reading involved! (Okay, militant defending of my hobby over.)

No seriously, someone's gotta raise a big overreacting stink over this, and it might as well be you. I can't speak from experience, or even motive as I have no kids myself, but personally I'd go for confronting the teacher directly at first. It just seems like that's the proper tact, plus you can at least confirm it happened. If this teacher suggests it's true and the job is about teaching "truth", or something like that, I'd ask how this teacher figured out this factoid. Hey, the teacher could even run a class-wide test of this idea. First of course you'll need to figure out what makes "good" water different from "bad" and how you'd measure it, but after that a test should be pretty easy for the class to set up and moniter. It'd be fun and educational, if the teacher is willing to listen.

Otherwise, it's a "not proven" claim and you should go to the principal and then whoever you need to complain at to get this nonsense to stop.
Thanks DJ. Firstly, don't be embarrassed about your Playstation addiction, I am alternating this forum with my favorite computer role playing game, at the ripe age of 56.
I have decided to talk to the Principal next week and suggest the experiment if the teacher in question persists in her lessons. Remember that we live in full-on hippie territory, so I expect that I will be told to respect other's beliefs. Will let you know how I go.

[SezMe]

I dont suppose you have an 11 year old daughter? She would mortified if it went to the media and would be embarrassed even if I took it to the school hence my dilemma.
Yes, but this is yet another teaching opportunity. Being mortified is not a justification for not standing up for one's principles. She may be motified but think of the lesson she will learn when Dad stands up for his principles.

[lionking]

Yes, but this is yet another teaching opportunity. Being mortified is not a justification for not standing up for one's principles. She may be motified but think of the lesson she will learn when Dad stands up for his principles.
Very good point. Parenthood is a hard gig, and you sometimes go for the line of least resistance rather than thinking of the long term lessons. I have just remembered my father confronting my teachers (Marist Brothers, sad to say) about my being held back a grade not because of my marks but because I was seven days days "too young". In retrospect he did the right thing standing up for his beliefs, even though I would have rather he didn't at the time.

[Graham Jackman]

I dont suppose you have an 11 year old daughter? She would mortified if it went to the media and would be embarrassed even if I took it to the school hence my dilemma.
I understand your anxiety. Neither of my daughters would have accepted such nonsense, but one might be embarrassed by my intervention. The suggestions to put the idea to the test are good, but it may be harder than they think to persuade the teacher. Whatever you do, don't take it lying down

[malbui]

Remember that we live in full-on hippie territory, so I expect that I will be told to respect other's beliefs.


There is of course a world of difference between respecting the beliefs of others and letting nonsense be taught as fact. I agree that direct confrontation maybe isn't the best approach, but this sort of thing has to be challenged.

[Hokulele]

For some tension relief, take your daughter to the water supply system for the school and think nasty thoughts at it for a while. See if anyone notices.

[phildonnia]

I always find a glimmer of hope in stories like this:

In the real world, we are exposed to all kinds of BS, often from figures of authority. Growing up should prepare you for this, and it sounds like your daughter is doing just fine.

I also see a potential topic for a science fair project. Reality speaks louder than any "overreacting stink".

[strathmeyer]

How about for a school project your daughter conducts a double blind study to see if the teacher is right or wrong? Let the teacher (blindly) distinguish between the "negative" and "positive" water.

See if the teacher is right or wrong? Seems like you've decided what the answer should be already, and are just out to get the teacher.

A better study would be "Gender and age differences in perception of negative and positive water".

[fishbait]

Yes, but this is yet another teaching opportunity. Being mortified is not a justification for not standing up for one's principles. She may be motified but think of the lesson she will learn when Dad stands up for his principles.Seconded. Be up-front and agressive about this outrage. If you don't take a stand and fight, who will?

Failure to confront the authorities about this nonsense due to fear of embarrassment is no better than the newage belief that warm and fuzzy feelings are more important than the truth. If standing up for the truth is embarrassing, then something is terribly wrong somewhere.

[jimtron]

See if the teacher is right or wrong? Seems like you've decided what the answer should be already, and are just out to get the teacher.How does "see if the teacher is right or wrong" equal "I've decided the answer already"? Did you see my earlier post where I said: Yeah, I like the experiment idea, because I think it would get through to people better. Instead of saying, "no, you're wrong" and having the teacher and possibly some students think you guys are just closed minded or whatever, you can say, "hmm, this doesn't sound plausible, but why don't we see for ourselves"? It is a school after all...My point is that it's better to be open minded and test it, as opposed to calling the teacher wrong. If the teacher is right, the test will reflect that. I'm interested in the truth about this. If bad thoughts negatively affect water, I'd truly like to know that. It would be surprising and exciting.

Am I skeptical that thoughts affect the quality of water? Yes, very. However, I would be happy to look at evidence that shows otherwise, and this seems pretty simple to test.

[tbm]

I'd take a bottle of swamp water, place it in front of the teacher and wait for his/her "good thoughts" make it better and then tell the teacher to drink it.

tbm

[athon]

Some excellent suggestions.

Lionking, I teach up north in the fantasy land of Canberra. Different system, slightly, but the same principles apply. You and your daughter have a choice here;

1) Forget it and move on, chalking it up to a whacky belief a teacher has
2) Challenge it vocally, asking for evidence.
3) Challenge it openly, testing the claim in or out of class
4) Challenge it publically, bringing it to the attention of other educators and perhaps the media.

This obviously moves through a spectrum from the simple to the drastic. It depends on what effects you want. Personally, I feel it depends on what support your daughter has in the form of other teachers, students and the community. With little support she'll cause waves and get little out of it. With a lot of support, you could be making a statement that demonstrates science wins over a teacher's purported 'facts'.

PM me if you'd like some help in this.

Athon

[Safe-Keeper]

New age woo is like religion. Would they allow a teacher to teach creation or preach Jesus at you? This is the same. Bogus, unsubstantiated superstition. It does NOT belong in a school.I'm gradually growing more and more convinced that superstition and alternative stuff is the new 'world religion'. People are starting to realize mythologies from the Bronze Age aren't for them, but they have an instinct that gives them a need for mysticism in their life. Hence aura reading, channeling, fortune-tellers and all that other woo.

[Locknar]

lionking - Before going "public" or complaining; perhaps you should start at the begining and ask the teacher to clarify/explain what she meant?

[vIQleS]

lionking - Before going "public" or complaining; perhaps you should start at the begining and ask the teacher to clarify/explain what she meant?

This is a good point. It's possible your child may have misunderstood / misremembered. Having said that - if the teacher confirms that this is what she's teaching, I'd write an official complaint - to the principal first, and plan to send one to the the school board etc...

[Big Les]

True. Is there a chance the teacher was talking about the psychological component of taste (so-called acquired taste etc)? She may even have been trying to explain why a child thought water "tasted bad" when it doesn't have any actual ingredient. Best to confirm, just in case.

[lionking]

I've been away for a couple of days, so am just catching up. Thank you for the constructive comments and suggestions. I have decided to speak to the Principal tomorrow and see what her reactions are. If they decide to close ranks around the teacher I will let you know. BTW, I have asked a couple of Hannah's classmates about the lesson (in an understated, humourous manner at a sleepover - wont I be sorry when these stop!) and they both confirmed her version about what the teacher said.

[Locknar]

Away? Who allowed that! :)

Kidding aside, eager to hear what folks at the school say. I'm sure what your daughter, and the others said, was accurate...though I still think you should start by asking the teacher.

It could be as simple as the teacher making a joke that went tragically wrong (ie. nobody got it, or took her seriously). Of course, it could also be a bit of "woo woo"....

[lionking]

Away? Who allowed that! :)

Kidding aside, eager to hear what folks at the school say. I'm sure what your daughter, and the others said, was accurate...though I still think you should start by asking the teacher.

It could be as simple as the teacher making a joke that went tragically wrong (ie. nobody got it, or took her seriously). Of course, it could also be a bit of "woo woo"....
I was in the Emerald City AKA Sydney and my laptop broadband card was out of order. You may not know much about Sydney (an unforgivable assumption I know) but it is recognised as one of the most expensive cities in the world to live in, and all everybody seems to talk about is the value of their properties or how they cant live where they want to. Magnificant city (and where I was born) but glad I now live in Melbourne.
Back to your point, I'm a bit like Cartman and can't abide hippies, so I am not inclined to talk to her and put up with her justifications. Life's too short.......

[Miss Anthrope]

Awesome news, Lionking. I look forward to hearing about it.

[Ethan Thane Athen]

...I have seven kids and at 11 it was Playstation or Friends!

Blimey - tv must be worse in Oz than over here in blighty. I've only found time to make 4. ;o).

[SusanB-M1]

I have decided to talk to the Principal next week and suggest the experiment if the teacher in question persists in her lessons. Remember that we live in full-on hippie territory, so I expect that I will be told to respect other's beliefs. Will let you know how I go.

reading through this thread, seems to me that making the teacher do the testing is a very good idea! I would certainly recommend an assertive approach where the Principal and the teacher concerned end up thanking you for your help! That way, you are more likely to be able to exert more influence at a later date if necessary.

This next sentence might sound patronising, but I assure you absolutely that it is not intended that way. I'm sure you probably know this, but a successful assertive conversation needs to be quite well rehearsed.

(By the way, I used to teach year 6.)

[The_Animus]

I'm confused. I thought that Emoto used proper procedure in his tests. He used a distilled bottle of water. Put a drop onto 50 different plates. Froze them. Took a photo of each individual drop. Unfroze them. Then had one blessed by a monk, or another given thoughts of love or kindness, and the rest were not touched or had though directed to them. Then they were re-frozen, and again had up close pictures taken of each one.

Could someone please explain the errors with this procedure or provide more information on what is wrong with his study?

[NobbyNobbs]

If you decide that public exposure is the way to go, don't contact the media, thereby embarrassing your daughter.

Instead, let her contact the media. Not only will the problem get fixed, but she'll be famous from being on TV and hailed by her classmates as the student who took down a teacher.

And the media will love it.

[thoth108]

I'm confused. I thought that Emoto used proper procedure in his tests. He used a distilled bottle of water. Put a drop onto 50 different plates. Froze them. Took a photo of each individual drop. Unfroze them. Then had one blessed by a monk, or another given thoughts of love or kindness, and the rest were not touched or had though directed to them. Then they were re-frozen, and again had up close pictures taken of each one.

Could someone please explain the errors with this procedure or provide more information on what is wrong with his study?

I'm with you on this one Animus. I think that Emoto's tests are a great way of showing that not only DOES the process work, but HOW the process works.

As for the class doing a test of their own, I'll have to say this; The point of this experiment is that what people think can effect the water as it is forming into ice crystals... If you are all convinced that it WON'T WORK, then that is what you will get. It sounds religous but it isn't. It all boils down to science. The point is that Emoto got results because he did it correctly(we should seek to replicate his test with more scrutiny, to verify his results in repeated tests or find out why there were apparent results in the first place). I think that most of the people in here are too focused on the negative aspects of this to give it a fair try.:o

When this experiment doesn't work it won't be a surprise to me. If it was lead by people who truly were unbiased to the possible results, and focused their MINDS with the intention necessary for the results to occur, then we could move past this "disbelief."

Can't any of you see a possible scientific explanation that PROVES Dr. Emoto's theories ?:confused:

[thoth108]

How does "see if the teacher is right or wrong" equal "I've decided the answer already"? Did you see my earlier post where I said: My point is that it's better to be open minded and test it, as opposed to calling the teacher wrong. If the teacher is right, the test will reflect that. I'm interested in the truth about this. If bad thoughts negatively affect water, I'd truly like to know that. It would be surprising and exciting.

Am I skeptical that thoughts affect the quality of water? Yes, very. However, I would be happy to look at evidence that shows otherwise, and this seems pretty simple to test.


I'm interested in this as well, and I'm really glad to get the opportunity to say that I agree with jimtron on something.

Something about the findings of Dr Emoto have always rung true with me. Just to verbalize what side I'm on. I think that the thoughts of those present during the experiment do effect the experiment; in this case the thoughts of the scientist effect the shape of the ice crystals.

Aren't there experiments where this has been proven with "light" as well ?;)

[Zep]

I'm confused. I thought that Emoto used proper procedure in his tests. He used a distilled bottle of water. Put a drop onto 50 different plates. Froze them. Took a photo of each individual drop. Unfroze them. Then had one blessed by a monk, or another given thoughts of love or kindness, and the rest were not touched or had though directed to them. Then they were re-frozen, and again had up close pictures taken of each one.

Could someone please explain the errors with this procedure or provide more information on what is wrong with his study?The answer lies in a question: Why are no snowflakes identical?

[Zep]

I'm with you on this one Animus. I think that Emoto's tests are a great way of showing that not only DOES the process work, but HOW the process works.

As for the class doing a test of their own, I'll have to say this; The point of this experiment is that what people think can effect the water as it is forming into ice crystals... If you are all convinced that it WON'T WORK, then that is what you will get. It sounds religous but it isn't. It all boils down to science. The point is that Emoto got results because he did it correctly(we should seek to replicate his test with more scrutiny, to verify his results in repeated tests or find out why there were apparent results in the first place). I think that most of the people in here are too focused on the negative aspects of this to give it a fair try.:o

When this experiment doesn't work it won't be a surprise to me. If it was lead by people who truly were unbiased to the possible results, and focused their MINDS with the intention necessary for the results to occur, then we could move past this "disbelief."

Can't any of you see a possible scientific explanation that PROVES Dr. Emoto's theories ?:confused: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.

Emoto's procedures were panned right from the start as being so uncontrolled as to be useless. Put simply, a process that can produce random results is repeated...and it produces random results (duh!). Some of these results are then selectively claimed as being "important" based on criteria selected at the time. So do the concepts "data-mining" and "subjective evaluation" mean anything?

[Normal Dude]

I think that Emoto's tests are a great way of showing that not only DOES the process work, but HOW the process works.


Really? How does it work then? One simple experiment shows the mechanics of how a near miraculous discovery in physics works? Which forces are work on the molcules of water? What are the intermolecular forces involved? What's the equation(s)? Showing whether it works or not is one thing. Showing HOW it works is considerably more work and effort.


When this experiment doesn't work it won't be a surprise to me. If it was lead by people who truly were unbiased to the possible results, and focused their MINDS with the intention necessary for the results to occur, then we could move past this "disbelief."


So any failure can be characterized as not believing enough, regardless of the controls in place. Sounds like this is no longer science. What if a skeptic administered the test but a believer did the actual "thinking/believing". Would that be acceptable, or would negative vibes ruin the experiment?


Can't any of you see a possible scientific explanation that PROVES Dr. Emoto's theories ?:confused:

No, not really. Please enlighten me as to the possible mechanics by which this takes place. Or at least why you think this is possible.

[Paulhoff]

Something about the findings of Dr Emoto have always rung true with me. Just to verbalize what side I'm on. I think that the thoughts of those present during the experiment do effect the experiment; in this case the thoughts of the scientist effect the shape of the ice crystals.

Aren't there experiments where this has been proven with "light" as well ?;)
You're funny.

Paul

:) :) :)

[lionking]

Why am I not surprised? I raised the issue of what the teacher told my daughter's class with the Principal, who gave me the impression that it was a very petty thing to raise, while still agreeing to look into it. She rang back to tell me that the teacher actually said "some people believe that thoughts can effect water etc" rather than state it as fact (as if this made it ok - many 11year-olds treat everything teachers tell them as facts) and that anyway there is some support for this position (Dr Emoto, who I didn't know about before starting this thread), and that just because something was labelled alternative it didn't mean it wasn't a valid thing to teach.
I now give up. It's my daughter's last year at this school and one or more of our children have attended this school for 22 years in a row, and I have been generally satisfied with their primary education.
The defensiveness of the Principal's response, however, leads me to think that I have put the school on notice and there will be less nonsense taught.

[athon]

Lionking, it's one of those suck it up moments, I'm afraid. I come across it regularly in education. Teach your kid how to think critically and hope that they'll become a force of influence in years to come.

Athon

[Zep]

Why am I not surprised? I raised the issue of what the teacher told my daughter's class with the Principal, who gave me the impression that it was a very petty thing to raise, while still agreeing to look into it. She rang back to tell me that the teacher actually said "some people believe that thoughts can effect water etc" rather than state it as fact (as if this made it ok - many 11year-olds treat everything teachers tell them as facts) and that anyway there is some support for this position (Dr Emoto, who I didn't know about before starting this thread), and that just because something was labelled alternative it didn't mean it wasn't a valid thing to teach.
I now give up. It's my daughter's last year at this school and one or more of our children have attended this school for 22 years in a row, and I have been generally satisfied with their primary education.
The defensiveness of the Principal's response, however, leads me to think that I have put the school on notice and there will be less nonsense taught.

That's a poor attempt by the teacher to excuse herself. It's nothing to do with "labelling" at all. It's to do with teaching children proven science and facts.

She should be asked why she doesn't teach the Earth is flat, and that it is the centre of the universe on the backs of turtles. There's an equal amount of "support" out there for that sort of bilge as there is for Emoto's twaddle. Frankly, she is insulting her profession with that sort of stance.

Incidentally, this is one reason why we withdrew our child from public school at about that age. While the private school she went to was indeed expensive (and a church school), there was none of this sort of nonsense in the science classes.

[Miss Anthrope]

Incidentally, this is one reason why we withdrew our child from public school at about that age. While the private school she went to was indeed expensive (and a church school), there was none of this sort of nonsense in the science classes.

This also one of the very reasons I home school. Most of the secular private schools in the area, within reasonable distance and cost, are all about the woo. Also why I'm teaching a class on skepticism and critical thinking to a large group of like minded kids and parents. *sigh*

[The_Animus]

Really? How does it work then? One simple experiment shows the mechanics of how a near miraculous discovery in physics works? Which forces are work on the molcules of water? What are the intermolecular forces involved? What's the equation(s)? Showing whether it works or not is one thing. Showing HOW it works is considerably more work and effort.

You do not have to know how something works to know that it works. Someone may not know how electricity works, but they can flip a light switch and see it work. 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?

[Normal Dude]

You do not have to know how something works to know that it works. Someone may not know how electricity works, but they can flip a light switch and see it work. 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?

You've missed my point and maybe the sentence I was responding to. He states that the experiment reveals HOW it works (original emphasis) as well as IF it works.

ETA: I apologize for a Wikipedia link (yuk!), but I'm in the middle of something else and didn't spend too long link hunting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masaru_Emoto

Follow the top link in the External Reading section.

[Zep]

You do not have to know how something works to know that it works. Someone may not know how electricity works, but they can flip a light switch and see it work. 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?I'll help even further by showing you the correct starting point from ND's link:Even sympathetic commentators have criticized Emoto for insufficient experimental controls, and for not sharing enough details of his approach with the scientific community. In addition, Emoto has been criticized for designing his experiments in ways that leave them open to human error influencing his findings.

In the day-to-day work of his group, the creativity of the photographers rather than the rigor of the experiment is an explicit policy of Emoto. Emoto freely acknowledges that he is not a scientist, and that photographers are instructed to select the most pleasing photographs. Emoto says that he selects the photos that he wishes for consistency. This is an explicit admission of observer bias.

So much for Emoto and science!

[fls]

You do not have to know how something works to know that it works. Someone may not know how electricity works, but they can flip a light switch and see it work.

But skepticism will not prevent the light from coming on.

Linda

[Baron Samedi]

You do not have to know how something works to know that it works. Someone may not know how electricity works, but they can flip a light switch and see it work.

Are you saying that no one knows how electricity works, or only yourself? I somehow thought that there was an entire section of physics that could explain how it works and in quite great detail.

[Locknar]

lionking - I could accept that the teacher was misunderstood and said something like "some people believe that thoughts can effect water" line, IF it had been followed with "she/he will make a point to clear up the confusion tomorrow."

Trying to defend alternative teachings and claiming there is support for it is just plain "woo woo".

[lionking]

lionking - I could accept that the teacher was misunderstood and said something like "some people believe that thoughts can effect water" line, IF it had been followed with "she/he will make a point to clear up the confusion tomorrow."

Trying to defend alternative teachings and claiming there is support for it is just plain "woo woo".

Agreed, but I think you understand that sometimes it's better not to beat my head against a brick wall and use my remaining energies to fight bigger battles!

[Locknar]

Agreed, but I think you understand that sometimes it's better not to beat my head against a brick wall and use my remaining energies to fight bigger battles!

I agree; I'd just keep a watchful eye open....you never know when "woo woo" will strike next.

On a tangent, my son's school requires students to participate in the Science Fair every year....might just have the makings for a interesting project.

[Father Dagon]

Not quite. The teacher will embarrass herself.No, the girl is going to help the teacher emarass herself. (Semantics? Did someone say semantics? I tought just I heard someone say semantics!)

[Chimera]

I bet the teacher saw the study talked about in the film "What the Bleep Do We Know?". I seem to remember this "experiment" being mentioned in the movie.

[Normal Dude]

A variation of it. I believe Bleep referenced Emoto's crystallization "experiments".

[The_Animus]

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?

Are you saying that no one knows how electricity works, or only yourself? I somehow thought that there was an entire section of physics that could explain how it works and in quite great detail.

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

[Baron Samedi]

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!"

[Normal Dude]

Hi Animus,

You are welcome. The test has been repeated on small scales, and found nothing.

[RSLancastr]

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.

[Paulhoff]

The bottom line is, Bad Thoughts Doesn't Make Water Bad.

Paul

:) :) :)

Oh, let's start burning witches again.

[lionking]

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.

[thoth108]

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.

[Normal Dude]

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?

[Cuddles]

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.

[athon]

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

[Tumblehome]

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?

[thoth108]

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.

[Normal Dude]

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.

[The_Animus]

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

[Baron Samedi]

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_Animus]

The test has been repeated on small scales, and found nothing.

Do you have a link to information regarding these repeated tests on a small scale?

[Normal Dude]

The links I provided earlier referenced them I believe.

ETA: By "found nothing" I meant "inconclusive", not falsifying the premise.

[thoth108]

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.

I think the experiments with light show us this: the reality that we see, and swear by, is not entirely independent from our [I]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.

[Normal Dude]

Thoth,

I see a million dollars in your future. :)

[Paulhoff]

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.
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 [I]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.

[NobbyNobbs]

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.

[thoth108]

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".



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

I understand your point NobbyNobb, I just don't think it's relative. Explain it more if you think it's a good one.

Pictures are too open to interpretation. The ice crystals would be more precise for scientific study.

My use of frequency in conjunction with dimension still stands from my perspective, which is based on a shamanistic understanding of the world. Let's not go into that discussion just yet, it's spiritually over your head.:D

[thoth108]

Paul

:) :) :)

The laughing you will here is not at the so-called unseen energies.

I'll be honest with you Paulhoff. You don't know about auroras, and are not "seeing" them in your daily life for a reason. You may go this entire life time and not see anything of which I speak. But that does not mean it isn't real, and your experience is not evidence that my experiences are false.

I have begun to see the unseen energies I'm talking about. There are thousands of people that I know of who are learning to see them as well, and you are still saying, "No. They're not there. Science will tell me ALL I need to know." But science doesn't see the aurora Paul. People keep telling you about them, but you can't see them, and so you and all the rest of the people who can't see auroras all get together and defend your perspective.

I was there once. I listened to what a good teacher had to say, and I practised diligently, and slowly I begin to see what others were talking about. Before I saw with my own eyes I was a non-believer. But once I saw the same chakras on a living person, with my own eyes, that a chinese seer described seeing 4000 years ago, and a South American Shaman describes exactly the same way I see it, then I began to accept the idea that I was filtering out some visual information in my daily state of mind. Little by little I see more of the unseen world each day.

Meditation leads to spiritual sight: being able to see auroras. It takes practice, and you have to know what to look for and how to encourage your mind to stop filtering out the right information. It takes PRACTICE. That's why so few succeed in getting results. It's also why scientist have yet to "discover" the chakras, and the aurora; no one in the scientific community has really, honestly tried to meditate until they get it right. It's not something easily attained (and for a very good reason, if you'll consider the consequences of everyone having soul-sight).

I really don't mind that you don't believe me, and I don't mind that you laugh at me. What you don't know is, when I'm done here chatting with you about soul-travel, and out-of-body woo-woo, and such I'm going to lay down and meditate and experience again the very things that you don't "believe" in. I know it's true from first hand experience.

I was you. Then I tried to see with my best intent. Now I'm trying to show you that it isn't impossible.;)

[Normal Dude]

But John Wheeler's experiment is evidence that thought can effect the outcome of the experiment...


Incorrect. The experimenter's thought is affecting the outcome of the experiment about as much as my thinking about brewing a pot of coffee gets it brewed. Something PHYSICAL happens that decides the outcome of the experiment. Can you tell me what it is? Hint: I've already stated what it is.


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". ;)


Please tell me how scientists are being superstitious in this regard.


John Wheeler's experiment shows us that light, and therefore everything that our eyes "see" is relative to what we expect it to be.

This view is based off of an incorrect assumption of the experiment. See above.


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


So are you claiming that these auroras and energies are a part of the electromagnetic spectrum?


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.


So in other words, everyone who doesn't agree with you is deluded?


I am looking for people who are interested in exploring the science to this

Please explain to me, in your own words, what you believe science is.



If you want to believe what you believe, fine with me. No problem at all. But when you start dragging misrepresented scientific findings and name-dropping to support your claim, I get irked. What is more, your condescending attitude of everyone who does not share your rather remarkable world view is irritating. I guess I should be thanking you for the grace of educating us lower life forms.

[six7s]

... I began to accept the idea that I was filtering out some visual information in my daily state of mind. Little by little I see more of the unseen world each day.

Meditation leads to spiritual sight: being able to see auroras. It takes practice, and you have to know what to look for...
Please describe an example (or three) of any information that can be obtained through "spiritual sight: being able to see auroras"

[Paulhoff]

I'll be honest with you Paulhoff. You don't know about auroras, and are not "seeing" them in your daily life for a reason. You may go this entire life time and not see anything of which I speak. But that does not mean it isn't real, and your experience is not evidence that my experiences are false.

No, you don't know about auroras because there are none. For one you only talk about them, you don't show how they would work, you don't prove that they are there, you only say that they do, you so-called experience has nothing to do with facts and or reality, they are only your delusion. This only shows that you haven't the slightest idea about the world around you and don’t know the right way to prove anything. I do not have to prove you experiences are false, it is on you to prove that they are real, it is no different then you having to prove that you went to Japan to anyone, just saying it doesn’t make it so, just saying that you have experiences does not make it so. A crazy person has experiences to, it does not make them true.

I have begun to see the unseen energies I'm talking about. There are thousands of people that I know of who are learning to see them as well, and you are still saying, "No. They're not there. Science will tell me ALL I need to know." But science doesn't see the aurora Paul. People keep telling you about them, but you can't see them, and so you and all the rest of the people who can't see auroras all get together and defend your perspective.
This in no way is a proof, it is no different then my saying I have seen pink flying elephants, prove to me I'm wrong.

I was there once. I listened to what a good teacher had to say, and I practised diligently, and slowly I begin to see what others were talking about. Before I saw with my own eyes I was a non-believer. But once I saw the same chakras on a living person, with my own eyes, that a chinese seer described seeing 4000 years ago, and a South American Shaman describes exactly the same way I see it, then I began to accept the idea that I was filtering out some visual information in my daily state of mind. Little by little I see more of the unseen world each day.

Sorry but delusions are not proof. 4000 years ago they had no idea about how the body was made so they came up with something to explain the unknown. Now you only show that you can’t accept the truth of how the universe works because you need magical thinking to make it work for your needs. Your needs do make it true.

Meditation leads to spiritual sight: being able to see auroras. It takes practice, and you have to know what to look for and how to encourage your mind to stop filtering out the right information. It takes PRACTICE. That's why so few succeed in getting results. It's also why scientist have yet to "discover" the chakras, and the aurora; no one in the scientific community has really, honestly tried to meditate until they get it right. It's not something easily attained (and for a very good reason, if you'll consider the consequences of everyone having soul-sight).
Well this only shows me that you meditation leads to false thinking. And you also seem to think that the scientific community is not made of people and that many of them do meditate. They have done the tests and no chakras, no auroras.

I really don't mind that you don't believe me, and I don't mind that you laugh at me. What you don't know is, when I'm done here chatting with you about soul-travel, and out-of-body woo-woo, and such I'm going to lay down and meditate and experience again the very things that you don't "believe" in. I know it's true from first hand experience.
Well if you don't mind, why are you here. I don't laugh at you, I only feel sorry for you, because you are missing so much.

I was you. Then I tried to see with my best intent. Now I'm trying to show you that it isn't impossible.
You where never me, you only see what you what to see and that is a magical world. Saying that something isn't impossible does not make it real.

Paul

:) :) :)

[NobbyNobbs]

I'll be honest with you Paulhoff. You don't know about auroras, and are not "seeing" them in your daily life for a reason. You may go this entire life time and not see anything of which I speak. But that does not mean it isn't real, and your experience is not evidence that my experiences are false.

I have begun to see the unseen energies I'm talking about. There are thousands of people that I know of who are learning to see them as well, and you are still saying, "No. They're not there. Science will tell me ALL I need to know." But science doesn't see the aurora Paul. People keep telling you about them, but you can't see them, and so you and all the rest of the people who can't see auroras all get together and defend your perspective.

I was there once. I listened to what a good teacher had to say, and I practised diligently, and slowly I begin to see what others were talking about. Before I saw with my own eyes I was a non-believer. But once I saw the same chakras on a living person, with my own eyes, that a chinese seer described seeing 4000 years ago, and a South American Shaman describes exactly the same way I see it, then I began to accept the idea that I was filtering out some visual information in my daily state of mind. Little by little I see more of the unseen world each day.


The same argument could be made for leprechauns, unicorns, fairies, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Does that mean that, by default, they exist too? If not, please explain the difference between the logic for belief in auras (I suspect this is what you mean, not auroras. Auroras exist, and can be seen occasionally on a clear night north of a certain latitude) and the logic for belief in these other ideas.

And I too do not appreciate your condescending attitude.

[Michael C]

First, to clarify (thanks to my old Concise Oxford Dictionary):

Aurora, Luminous atmospheric phenomenon radiating from earth's northern (aurora borealis) or southern (aurora australis) magnetic pole.

Aura, Subtle emanation, atmosphere diffused by or attending a person (esp. in mystical use as a definite envelope of body or spirit).

I take it that thoth108 is claiming to see people's auras. This is easy to test. First I have two questions:

1. Can you see a person's aura if that person is behind a screen?

2. Can you see a person's aura if the person is completely covered by clothing (wearing gloves, face obscured by a mask, ect.)?

[Baron Samedi]

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 understand your point NobbyNobb, I just don't think it's relative. Explain it more if you think it's a good one.


Go back to my theoretical situation. Replace taking pictures of people with taking pictures of frozen water. You now have Emoto's "experiment". If my example is not relevant to your argument about creating reality, then neither is Emoto's.

[thoth108]

I'm leaving the JREF forums. I've spent too much time here over the last month or so, thinking I was going to bring something to this place. I also arouse too much emotion; and I'm not interested in all of this petty debate. (that does not apply to all of you, just a few of the intellectual elitests around here). From my standpoint it isn't necessary to teach you all how quantum touch and energy healing works, or to defend it at all. It is what it is.

It's impossible to keep up with all the quoting and back and forth on these forum threads (I have a life); Honestly it be easier if you all would just pick up a book on auroras and find out for yourself (beyond trusting that science would have found it if it were real). There is a lot that science does not know about yet. Let's just leave it at that.:D

Oh, if you watch "What the bleep do we know??" (I'm SURE you ALL have a COPY !!!:p ), The part about "reality only being there when we check on it" is an EXACT description of how spiritual sight looks: It is REALITY when we're NOT LOOKING AT IT. All potentials at once, with the most likely ones becoming clearer as they begin to manifest; but ALWAYS what you see in the spiritual sight, precedes it's action or manifestation in the physical world. I am not that developed yet, but I will come back here when I can perform repeated tests at will. At present time I can only hold the spiritual sight for a few seconds, and I've got my own experiments to concentrate on for now.

For those of you who found my posts interesting, study from shamans; then take up esoteric literature, then learn alchemy. Science is missing the "spiritual" part of reality, and all of those teachings include it. I'll see you all outside the box. (tesseract, that is...)

Peace and Compassionate Love to you ALL ! We are all beings of LIGHT.;)

Many of you are wonderful people. Some of us are just plain weird.

[Paulhoff]

Many of you are wonderful people. Some of us are just plain weird.
To bad your going, but logical thinking is not weird to many of us here.

Paul

:) :) :)

[jsiv]

I see auroras all the time.


http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/4451/oct273yu8.jpg

[NobbyNobbs]

I'm leaving the JREF forums. I've spent too much time here over the last month or so, thinking I was going to bring something to this place. I also arouse too much emotion; and I'm not interested in all of this petty debate. (that does not apply to all of you, just a few of the intellectual elitests around here). From my standpoint it isn't necessary to teach you all how quantum touch and energy healing works, or to defend it at all. It is what it is.

Amazing. After 32 posts, you've just worn yourself out. However did you last so long? Over the last month or so, that means about a post a day, so maybe 5 minutes worth of time. I don't know how you fit it into your busy schedule.


It's impossible to keep up with all the quoting and back and forth on these forum threads (I have a life); Honestly it be easier if you all would just pick up a book on auroras and find out for yourself (beyond trusting that science would have found it if it were real). There is a lot that science does not know about yet. Let's just leave it at that.:D

And yet, in all that time, and all those posts, you still don't realize that what you're talking about is "auras", and not "auroras"?! How old are you, anyway?

Some of us are just plain weird.

:rolleyes: