Notices
Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Bionic bands

  1. #1 Bionic bands 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3
    Ok, so I am just using this forum hopefully to get some help with an issue that probably won't interest many if any of you, and I apologise unreservedly if coming on here to ask for help with this is not the sort of thing the forum is for.

    I am a scientific numpty, I was useless at school in science. However, I have recently seen a debate about the Bionic Band, and the science behind it, and wondered if anyone would possibly be able to tell me whether what the company quote is correct and applicable to the human body, or had any other science that they think may be relevant to the topic. Anyway here is the link to the website and the claims of how it works, any contributions welcome, apologies again if this is completely not what the site is for.

    http://hjm.bionicfamily.com/Web/us/en/geekstuff.dhtml


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    Congratulations! You're not a scientific numpty.


    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Smells like spam.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3
    Sorry if it came across as Spam. The forum debate I have read is on eightlane a track and field forum for the UK, on which the distributor for the UK is using the defence of try it and see it will work for you and I am tryng to ask him for evidence that it actually works.

    The promo stuff for Bionic band seems to me to be garbage. Sure they cite Einstein, but they also make massive jumps. For example apparenlty Einstein said that a microvoltage attached to a metal when subjected to a body of water will transfer all ot that microvoltage to the entire body of water. They then jump to the conclusion that since we are 70% water the microvoltage will pass to your whole body. Doesn't sound right to me.

    Then there is the idea that they could have tested the alignemtn of the protons, really? And if they can't then how cna they prove that the microvoltage is passed to the body?

    Then there is the lack of any evidence that having your protons aligned is of any benefit. A ridiculously basic problem to me is that in his second video on the science Dr Pederson says that when not balanced the protons are pulling in different directions, so surely when aligned they are pulling in the same direction, woudl that not create a greater imbalance, as rather than the average pull in any one direction being countereacted by ones pullign in another direction, you would have a single pull one way?

    The there is their claim that a frequency of 7hz is the bodies "natural" frequency, how is that possible to measure if it is altered by EMF, since EMF predates humans, so there has never been an opportunity to measure a "natural" EMF.

    Then there is the question of whether increased frequenceis (for their sport version) actually have any positive effect at all.

    Let alon the idea that a microvoltage can be imprinted into silicone.

    I have so many avenues of thought that say this must surely be bs, but I don't know enough about science to cite anything that shoot down the theory.

    So I thought I'd try to find some people on the net who did know enough about science, sorry if you think it's spam.

    PS Harold is there anyway of proving I am not spamming but am actually looking for people to help me out with some science on this?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by fangio
    PS Harold is there anyway of proving I am not spamming but am actually looking for people to help me out with some science on this?
    Well I'm convinced. Spammers don't usually hang around for a discussion. They do get pretty clever a disguising their spam, though.

    As far as the Bionic Band is concerned though, it is completely laughable. It is not even a good attempt at pseudoscience. There is no such thing as aligning protons, nor do protons vibrate or resonate, nor do the cells in your body vibrate or resonate with electromagnetic fields.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Lol, yeah, those things are total nonsense. It is just another example of unscrupulous people making money off of the gullible. Don't buy into it.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3
    Don't worry I have never had any intention of buying into it, however, I don't know any scientific principles that totally blow their sciene out of the water. So instead I am left asking questions like the ones above.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by fangio
    Don't worry I have never had any intention of buying into it, however, I don't know any scientific principles that totally blow their sciene out of the water. So instead I am left asking questions like the ones above.
    Fair enough. The thing is that the rebuttal of their level of "science" is to just say: bollocks. Really, it is just as utterly preposterous as it would have been had they cited fairies, unicorns and pixie dust as the sources of power for their bands.

    Take a look here:

    Pseudoscience

    The Scientific Method

    Peer Review

    The "technology" cited for those bands' power and the power itself, is undoubtedly pseudoscience. What they are doing is utilizing scientific sounding buzzwords and assigning their own meaning to them to make their nonsense sound legitimate. It is not. The "science" they describe does not even come close to being worthy of the name.

    Well done on enquiring about this and not simply believing everything someone tells you, no matter how or where you hear it.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9 more questions... 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    England
    Posts
    2
    this is another company making, in essence, the same thing. They just describe the science behind it differently.

    What are the thoughts of this one....

    http://www.balanceband.com/technology/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10 cont.... 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    England
    Posts
    2
    sorry, should have said, I'm not a spammer either. But I'm also read the same forum about the BB. it seems the science is flawed, so that means is it that

    a) the band is bs
    b) the science sales patter is bs
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    or c) they are both bullshit.

    I'm going to have to go with c
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12 Misinformed AGAIN 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    4
    YES, EVERYTHING has a frequency and that is SCIENCE!! The earth has a natural frequency of 7.83 hz (varies with solar influence)!! And the human brain and body, in fact EVERYTHING has and is frequency and that is science. Here is white paper explaining some of it: http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/Schumann.html


    The claim that it is pseudoscience with no exposure or knowledge of the band is prejudicial at best. Is that how a scientist works? Have a preconceive opinion and make your "test" fit your thought?? Do you also believe that the world is flat?? Holistic medicine and practices have been around a lot longer than the pseudoscience of western medicine.

    The band and it’s frequency IS totally related to the body’s frequency, because our world HAS a natural frequency but our world is contaminated with radio, cell, tv, and other harmful frequencies. But because people can’t physically see it (the contamination), they don’t want to believe it. I bet you have never seen your brain, but I am sure it is there. I have never seen gravity, but I can see its effects all around me. Well, I have also seen the effects that the Bionic Band has on the human body and it is real. That is why people feel the balance, focus, coordination and energy.

    Without experience of the band or with preconceived thoughts you detract from the possibility that something might actually work. Detractors want to name call and bash something that they have not seen or experienced which is very sad.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13 Re: Misinformed AGAIN 
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by tazod0
    YES, EVERYTHING has a frequency and that is SCIENCE!! The earth has a natural frequency of 7.83 hz (varies with solar influence)!! And the human brain and body, in fact EVERYTHING has and is frequency and that is science. Here is white paper explaining some of it: http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/Schumann.html


    The claim that it is pseudoscience with no exposure or knowledge of the band is prejudicial at best. Is that how a scientist works? Have a preconceive opinion and make your "test" fit your thought?? Do you also believe that the world is flat?? Holistic medicine and practices have been around a lot longer than the pseudoscience of western medicine.

    The band and it’s frequency IS totally related to the body’s frequency, because our world HAS a natural frequency but our world is contaminated with radio, cell, tv, and other harmful frequencies. But because people can’t physically see it (the contamination), they don’t want to believe it. I bet you have never seen your brain, but I am sure it is there. I have never seen gravity, but I can see its effects all around me. Well, I have also seen the effects that the Bionic Band has on the human body and it is real. That is why people feel the balance, focus, coordination and energy.

    Without experience of the band or with preconceived thoughts you detract from the possibility that something might actually work. Detractors want to name call and bash something that they have not seen or experienced which is very sad.
    Why did you revive a dead thread with a BS pseudoscientific post?
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    4
    And you revive the typical close minded response based on name calling rather than attempting to understand and learn. I am confident in many forms of science, including natural remedies, treatment and cures.

    Theculture of western medicine is to run loads of test and in the end, give you a pill!! Just watch TV for an hour and see how many drug adds you see.

    All that I have read from this people commenting to the request, was name calling, conjecture and opinion. Then when I produce a published white paper, that you might disagree with, you again resort to name calling (BS pseudoscientific).

    Produce a scientifically opposing report, article, something more than guessing!!

    I thought this was a “Science Forum”?? Bring on the science, not the conjecture!! Come on.

    You say you want to “spur conversation”? How about spurring SCIENTIFIC conversation, and not simple gossip? People can go anywhere for that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    416
    Quote Originally Posted by tazod0
    And you revive the typical close minded response based on name calling rather than attempting to understand and learn. I am confident in many forms of science, including natural remedies, treatment and cures.

    Theculture of western medicine is to run loads of test and in the end, give you a pill!! Just watch TV for an hour and see how many drug adds you see.

    All that I have read from this people commenting to the request, was name calling, conjecture and opinion. Then when I produce a published white paper, that you might disagree with, you again resort to name calling (BS pseudoscientific).

    Produce a scientifically opposing report, article, something more than guessing!!

    I thought this was a “Science Forum”?? Bring on the science, not the conjecture!! Come on.

    You say you want to “spur conversation”? How about spurring SCIENTIFIC conversation, and not simple gossip? People can go anywhere for that.
    as much as i hate to indulge pseudoscientists, i feel i should at least make a mockery of this in the fashion that you asked us to.

    from your paper:

    Just as a tuning fork has natural frequencies for sound,
    the planet Earth has natural frequencies,
    called Schumann resonances,
    for electromagnetic radiation.

    The Human Brain also has natural frequencies
    for electromagnetic radiation.
    and you said that science should not be based on:

    name calling, conjecture and opinion.
    okay, well now. what merriam webster defines science as is:

    knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
    okay, so what is the scientific method? oh, merriam defines that too:

    principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses
    so, in the scientific method, and in a scientific paper one must first ask a question, then conduct research, followed by constructing a hypotheses, then one must conduct an experiment that one can collect data from which supports or disproves your hypotheses. once you have collected this data you must analyze it and draw a conclusion either that your hypothesis is wrong, or it might be right. one must then communicate their data if their hypothesis might be right so that others can repeat their experiment and test their hypothesis in other ways. if any examples are found where the hypothesis is wrong, then it is an incorrect hypothesis. there is not proof of a hypothesis, only disproof. support comes from numerous attempts to disprove that failed.

    so, what about this "paper"? well the first thing he does is not to ask a question, but to make an assumption. and all of this "paper's" tests are based on no experiments whatsoever. there is no empirical evidence to support that the maths he does are anything at all. one cannot throw in the speed of light and divide it by the circumference of the earth. the two have no relation. it is like clocking a nerf dart at 100cm per second. then spinning a top that moves at 4cm/cycle and saying that the top must have a "natural frequency" of 25 cycles per second. it just isn't correct.

    so your paper has no question, a busted hypothesis. terribly flawed research. no experiement. purposefully stupid analysis. this alone should have shown that the paper should not have been communicated to the scientific community. but it was, and now the final step in the scientific method is complete in my logical testing of the "data" that this person provides, and telling you through logical reasoning that... it's pseudoscience.
    physics: accurate, objective, boring
    chemistry: accurate if physics is accurate, slightly subjective, you can blow stuff up
    biology: accurate if chemistry is accurate, somewhat subjective, fascinating
    religion: accurate if people are always right, highly subjective, bewildering
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    @tazod0

    I do believe you have a misconception. It is not that science is right and pseudoscience is wrong. It has to do with the method, and the papers you have referenced do not follow the scientific method.

    It is quite possible that certain traditional medicine practices are effective. That does not make it science, at least not until the practice has been proven using scientific methods.

    Schumann resonances exist. Brain waves also exist. Even if they have the same frequencies that does not mean that there is any interaction, or if there is, it certainly does not prove anything about the bionic band.

    If someone is going to claim that protons align, they should be able to say how they measured the alignment of the protons. If you think the cells in your body vibrate along with radio waves, then you should be able to show how you measured the vibration, or at least come up with some plausible mechanism using known electromagnetic principles. Then you are going to have to show some way that the vibrations interact with the bionic band to accomplish the claimed health benefit.

    None of the things you have offered so far come close to being science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    4
    @ Harold14370, First off, not all papers follow the "scientific method" especially since the resonance “was confirmed in 1954 when measurements by German physicist Professor Schumann and Dr. König detected resonances at a main frequency of 7.83 Hz. In the years following this discovery, several investigators worldwide have researched "Schumann resonance" and a number of properties and characteristics have now been established.” The existence of the Schumann Resonance is an established scientific fact and has been since many of the properties and characteristics were confirmed in the 70’s.

    The paper was not an experiment of a new question so scientific method does not apply to critique the information. The paper is an explanation of the properties and characteristics.

    Using your statement " then you should be able to show how you measured the vibration, or at least come up with some plausible mechanism using known electromagnetic principles." There are so many things in science that can't be definitively measured but are in fact educated guesses. That is why the science community continues to adjust values. A simple example of that will be the chicken egg. For years they stated that the egg had a large amount of "cholesterol”, but a few years ago, they back down from the claim and lowered the value. Now I am not saying that an egg had anything to do with the Bionic Band, but I am simply demonstrating that science is in fact fluid. What we know now we didn’t know 50 years ago.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    4
    @saul

    You state:

    “so, in the scientific method, and in a scientific paper one must first ask a question, then conduct research, followed by constructing a hypotheses, then one must conduct an experiment that one can collect data from which supports or disproves your hypotheses.”
    But you apparently don’t understand that “papers” are not always about a new idea or question. The scientific method only applies when beginning a new question.

    Making the below statement,

    “so your paper has no question, a busted hypothesis. terribly flawed research. no experiement. purposefully stupid analysis. this alone should have shown that the paper should not have been communicated to the scientific community.”
    only shows your complete lack of scientific knowledge, since the Schumann Resonance was discovered in 1952 and the properties and characteristics have been proven in the 70’s.

    Here is an expert of the required mindset need to attend and study at a collegiate Physics department. Notice that it includes the word “theoretical and applied aspects "

    “thorough understanding of both the theoretical and applied aspects of chemistry that are well founded in basic sciences and mathematics.”
    Science and Pyhcis is not a yes or no, but can be a maybe. That is what makes it so cool. The possibilities.

    The only pseudoscience here is your lack of understanding of scientific papers and how they are produced. The purpose of the paper must first be understood. New question, expansion of an existing idea, thought or question, explanation of an existing held aspects of science. Only then, maybe you can critique it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •