ElfoodStampo
Well-Known Member
If you would have watched the video past the first 3 minutes, perhaps we could have talked about it. You bring nothing to the table in this conversation.
Structured Water
- Thread starter ElfoodStampo
- Start date
ElfoodStampo
Well-Known Member
NO, others are doing exactly what I was hoping for, posting other video's, sharing bias, all that stuff. I don't expect anything in particular. I have no knowledge of the subject, and showing by the lack of data on the forum, nobody else here does either. I'm perfectly fine with that considering that 4/5 of the video is from the mouths of foreign scientists. Its obvious to me that this is not a topic suited to the US educational system, nor the depths of Roll it up at this time.
The video was my first look at the topic, I was sharing my interest in the topic and wanted to know if anyone had access to published studies agreeing or disagreeing with this hypothesis; Also, if anyone has had personal experience using sound to add structural integrity to water for the purpose of growing plants and people. That sort of stuff.
The video was my first look at the topic, I was sharing my interest in the topic and wanted to know if anyone had access to published studies agreeing or disagreeing with this hypothesis; Also, if anyone has had personal experience using sound to add structural integrity to water for the purpose of growing plants and people. That sort of stuff.
ElfoodStampo
Well-Known Member
1 whether or not it works....???
2 As long as they arent lying, there's lots of science in the video. It then becomes a question of repeating the results.
3 The argument that water has memory and can change with its environment.
4 If your experience has lead you to the same concision I have reached, then yes agreement would be in orde
5 Sure its a fucking discussion, the exchange of words between two people is a fucking discussion. If i tell you the grass is green and you grunt at me that is a conversation. Not a long one. But it counts.
Doer
Well-Known Member
Well, I see. Thanks for that. And, I might add, you have also brought some rather broad critique embedded in your speech. It is these giant assumptions that bring us to attention more than the "subject." First you say you have no knowledge, your first look at the subject and you wish to discuss it, but the big stinky fish is this.
"...not a topic suited to the US educational system, nor the depths of Roll it up at this time. "
There is no depth in this Structured Water commercial claim. "...to add structural integrity..." Water is a most structurally stable molecule. It is the basis of Life as we know it. If it was not stable already, we would not have Life.
However, you want to begin the discussion with false arguments. When we point out the false arguments, you take it personally. You talk about High School Science as if that has any meaning in the Real Science world.
It doesn't. It is a simplified basis to begin. Again, I am very familiar with the peer review process. And like cn, I preferr, let's say require, written papers that can be explored and compared for false argument. So, there are many bogus ideas, many bogus conspiracy paranoias, but only one cauldron of Science. Studying the various structures of molecules is Science.
Selling devices to "fix water" and fix pollution is just the latest form of Snake Oil. I looked up the peer review. There is none.
"...not a topic suited to the US educational system, nor the depths of Roll it up at this time. "
There is no depth in this Structured Water commercial claim. "...to add structural integrity..." Water is a most structurally stable molecule. It is the basis of Life as we know it. If it was not stable already, we would not have Life.
However, you want to begin the discussion with false arguments. When we point out the false arguments, you take it personally. You talk about High School Science as if that has any meaning in the Real Science world.
It doesn't. It is a simplified basis to begin. Again, I am very familiar with the peer review process. And like cn, I preferr, let's say require, written papers that can be explored and compared for false argument. So, there are many bogus ideas, many bogus conspiracy paranoias, but only one cauldron of Science. Studying the various structures of molecules is Science.
Selling devices to "fix water" and fix pollution is just the latest form of Snake Oil. I looked up the peer review. There is none.
Doer
Well-Known Member
Now you are getting mad. My grunting is not discussion. Just ask my wife.
But, why rule out lying? Science does not. Was someone outright lying about Cold Fusion? Yes.Is lying part of selling? As a long time sales guy, I'll tell you. The answer is Yes. If there was science to go with this, there would not be this video. It is that simple. No peer review, is just selling. There is no argument without peer review. Water having a memory has been proved Wrong. In that, there is no experiment that can prove it does. That is why there is this video, only.
If the guys could prove it they would not have to be selling it on a video. They would have the Nobel Prize. But, they surely lack the math. All charlatans lack the math. No truth in Science, only Math.
PetFlora
Well-Known Member
It is extremely difficult to awaken hundreds-of-millions who were intentionally dumbed down. They simply cannot think outside their externally imposed limited awareness.
Science? Whose science?
Explain how this could possibly be good science. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZSQ-dp1sV5w
Science? Whose science?
Explain how this could possibly be good science. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZSQ-dp1sV5w
Doer
Well-Known Member
If you can explain what gravity is.....so is the water being manipulated or is the water manipulating the moon? Both don't make sense. And gravity sense is far from Structured VORTEX!!! (buy one here) Water. There is no good science and bad science in that context. And just because there is a weird machine with weird, unproven claims, just means we are so weird we fall for anything. Science is peer review, based on Math
If you are having a hard time understanding Science, think about it this way. No Math, no Science. If you are against Science as some kind of conspiracy, you just lack the math.
What you are actually talking about in this thread is Tech, not Science. And this is woo tech, IAC. No one can prove that it works. There are MARKETING CLAIMS!!!! (don't miss out)
But, no Math. And as a couple of us have said, we are not into reviewing random videos for folks that start to talk down on us, forum mates. It is obvious that discussion is not wanted but only validation. So be it. These ideas are INVALID.
If you are having a hard time understanding Science, think about it this way. No Math, no Science. If you are against Science as some kind of conspiracy, you just lack the math.
What you are actually talking about in this thread is Tech, not Science. And this is woo tech, IAC. No one can prove that it works. There are MARKETING CLAIMS!!!! (don't miss out)
But, no Math. And as a couple of us have said, we are not into reviewing random videos for folks that start to talk down on us, forum mates. It is obvious that discussion is not wanted but only validation. So be it. These ideas are INVALID.
Doer
Well-Known Member
So, Science is not a religion. It is a Method. There is only one Method. If it can't result in math that can be peer reviewed and the experiments done in a way that can be repeated by anyone qualified, then it is NOT Science. To seek truth is religion. Religion has to be enforced by Fear. This is the Science Section.
"What is Truth? Is mine the same as yours?" Jesus Christ Superstar
See. No Math. But, your ego stance, here, is you are the Enlightened One.. You somehow can think outside your own externally imposed limited awareness. But, you have no Math, alas. It is woo. It can be sold as science. But, it is ego alone that drives you to think you somehow have secret knowledge, beyond Science.
But, Science is not for sale. And I agree we are dumbed down. But, it is not science that's the problem. There will always be Woo Tech, always was.
We are dumbed down Politically, Geographically, Socially, intensionally. Most people today don't know shit from Shinola in their personal lives.
Murfy
Well-Known Member
you -
cannot do the proof, for a tornado. most, sure. not all.
funny that it's twisty. anyway, if you've ever had your house wrecked down by one, the only math you give a fuck is where am i gonna sleep tonight. there is much we don't understand.
my old buddy zahet, where are you now? ever put a gallon of water ont eh ground in a milk jug for a day? i did, and when i use it for clones, they show in three days. math, smath.
cannot do the proof, for a tornado. most, sure. not all.
funny that it's twisty. anyway, if you've ever had your house wrecked down by one, the only math you give a fuck is where am i gonna sleep tonight. there is much we don't understand.
my old buddy zahet, where are you now? ever put a gallon of water ont eh ground in a milk jug for a day? i did, and when i use it for clones, they show in three days. math, smath.
Doer
Well-Known Member
As a matter of fact there is new math about tornado and tornado process. Storm chasers have new data every season. Computational Fluid Dynamics has advanced to use the finer grain data. It is all math, my poor son. Everything you take for granted has been produced with math precision.
If you can prove by double blind experiment this "a gallon of water ont eh ground in a milk jug for a day..." effect, that would do. But, please believe me, if there is an effect, it can be qualified and quantified. That's math. It must be repeatable under exactly the same conditions to be at all meaningful, communicated by the precision of math.
So, you believe the Sun will come up for you. Don't need math for emotions. But, how does the Sun shine? That is math. BTW, Mr. Z certainly knows the difference between woo and Science.
If you can prove by double blind experiment this "a gallon of water ont eh ground in a milk jug for a day..." effect, that would do. But, please believe me, if there is an effect, it can be qualified and quantified. That's math. It must be repeatable under exactly the same conditions to be at all meaningful, communicated by the precision of math.
So, you believe the Sun will come up for you. Don't need math for emotions. But, how does the Sun shine? That is math. BTW, Mr. Z certainly knows the difference between woo and Science.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I already demonstrated that they did. This disqualifies the premise unless they can clean up the presentation and remove the obvious nonsense. You're ignoring me because I am disagreeing. cn
RyanTheRhino
Well-Known Member
I was so happy when they opened this section of the forum but i got tired of it really fast............. sigh
I did the same thing you are doing except with "magnetic water" always a post to another you tube video as their response.
a ton of feathers is lighter then a ton of bricks
I did the same thing you are doing except with "magnetic water" always a post to another you tube video as their response.
a ton of feathers is lighter then a ton of bricks
RyanTheRhino
Well-Known Member
If the basis of my study was 2+2 = fish. then my theory of cultivating fishing with arithmetic must be correct
ElfoodStampo
Well-Known Member
What are you disagreeing with? I'm not ignoring you.
O.K. your right about the first 5 minutes. What did you think about the remainder of part 1 and parts 2 through 8?
ElfoodStampo
Well-Known Member
If you based your study on 2+2+fish, you need to put your fish down and step back from the computer.
I can see why you sigh at the forum.. I did the same.
RyanTheRhino
Well-Known Member
the base for their study is incorrect so anything they build off of it is also flawed from the get-go. That's what my other post was pointing at
all theory starts with an assumption. unless it is shown empirically, but then you don't need a theory to support it because it supports itself.