Notices
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 163 of 163
Like Tree23Likes

Thread: DNA Phantom Effect

  1. #101  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    9,956
    Quote Originally Posted by awptik View Post
    Results: EMF interactions with DNA are similar over a range of non-ionising frequencies, i.e., extremely low frequency (ELF) and radio frequency (RF) ranges. There are similar effects in the ionising range, but the reactions are more complex.
    Yes.
    That STILL doesn't say ANYTHING about "picking up" radio, or any other frequency. If you'd bothered to look the "interaction" is that it causes damage.
    And the source doesn't say anything about "obtaining" a signal 1 it states, specifically, electrical conductivity (wow, a fighter jet does that) and is self-symmetrical.
    What exactly does "obtaining" a radio signal do? How do you distinguish DNA obtaining this signal as opposed to, say, the shoes of the guy whose DNA is obtaining it being bathed in that signal?

    For a person who's forum name looks like they got it by rolling their face across the keyboard
    Is it my fault you're ignorant of Welsh?

    you talk a lot about reading and don't do any yourself.
    And yet I'm the one that points out what you miss. Or ignore.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Yes.
    That STILL doesn't say ANYTHING about "picking up" radio, or any other frequency. If you'd bothered to look the "interaction" is that it causes damage.
    And the source doesn't say anything about "obtaining" a signal 1 it states, specifically, electrical conductivity (wow, a fighter jet does that) and is self-symmetrical.
    What exactly does "obtaining" a radio signal do? How do you distinguish DNA obtaining this signal as opposed to, say, the shoes of the guy whose DNA is obtaining it being bathed in that signal?
    Now your arguing definitions of words. "These properties contribute to greater reactivity of DNA with EMF".

    As a genius this should be self evident, but I will help explain:

    re·ac·tive/rēˈaktiv/
    Adjective
    Showing a response to a stimulus


    Electrical conductivity results because two elements respond to each other. In order to respond they must somehow interact. In order to interact one must OBTAIN the signal. A fighter jet is a feat of science, its not surprising that instruments inside of it conduct electricity, but they must respond those signals. Electrical conductivity cannot occur in rubber because rubber resists obtaining electrical signals.

    Here is something for you to read: Electrical resistivity and conductivity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    I'm sorry if you have a problem with me using the words "pick up" or "obtain" on some personal level of word defintions. That doesn't make them wrong.

    *EDIT*
    Regarding the fact that obtaining the signal caused damage to the DNA. This does not discount that the DNA did obtain the EMF signals. You may know that some living organism can survive in hostile environments (some more reading for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemotroph). Yet, you or I could not survive in some of these environments, say a highly concentrated carbon-dioxide atmosphere. This is because of genetic differences between us and the organsisms that can. Understanding and learning why EMFs damage DNA would allow us to know if there are genetic possibilities that survive the EMFs and perhaps EMFs can then change the DNA to a more positive outcome (as stated in OP).
    *edit end*

    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Is it my fault you're ignorant of Welsh?
    No it's not your fault. Seeing as how you like to troll, I though a I would make a joke. Looks like you don't like trolling after all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    And yet I'm the one that points out what you miss. Or ignore.
    You do not point out anything except your own false inferences to clearly stated facts. I cannot be expected to know what you are thinking, let alone if it is something false created by your own though process.
    Last edited by awptik; August 9th, 2013 at 06:50 PM. Reason: added response to: "interaction" ... damage
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    9,956
    Quote Originally Posted by awptik View Post
    Now your arguing definitions of words.
    No. I'm trying to find out what you mean.

    In order to interact one must OBTAIN the signal.
    Yet, again, the guy's shoes (and tie etc) "obtain" the signal - they're bathed in it.

    A fighter jet is a feat of science, its not surprising that instruments inside of it conduct electricity, but they must respond those signals.
    Oops, I said fighter jet, NOT the instruments inside it.
    The SKIN of fighters displays electrical conductivity - that's what causes part of the radar reflection.

    No it's not your fault. Seeing as how you like to troll, I though a I would make a joke. Looks like you don't like trolling after all.
    Oh, it was joke?

    You do not point out anything except your own false inferences to clearly stated facts.
    Ah, there's your mistake.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by awptik View Post
    Now your arguing definitions of words.
    No. I'm trying to find out what you mean.
    Complete disambiguation of meaning in previous post.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    In order to interact one must OBTAIN the signal.
    Yet, again, the guy's shoes (and tie etc) "obtain" the signal - they're bathed in it.
    What do YOU mean? That because the shoes can obtain the signal this discounts the meaning of obtain? Not to mention, these tests are not done on people, they are done on strands of DNA. Where you pulled the "shoes" story from is beyond me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    A fighter jet is a feat of science, its not surprising that instruments inside of it conduct electricity, but they must respond those signals.
    Oops, I said fighter jey, NOT the instruments inside it.
    The SKIN of fighters displays electrical conductivity - that's what causes part of the radar reflection.
    Again, above is a link to Wikipedia explaining causes of electrical conductivity, the "Skin" of a fighter jet (which you could be more specific in you original example) is conductive because of metal properties. Is this first grade science? Why do you need this explained?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post

    No it's not your fault. Seeing as how you like to troll, I though a I would make a joke. Looks like you don't like trolling after all.
    Oh, it was joke?
    Yep.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post

    You do not point out anything except your own false inferences to clearly stated facts.
    Ah, there's your mistake.
    You typed words, yet, you said nothing. Please re-read my posts, as repeating myself would grow tiresome.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,066
    Moderator Comment: Please stop arguing about definitions and return to the meat of the matter.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,221
    Quote Originally Posted by awptik View Post
    [Also you completely made up that the fractal nature of DNA "enhances the damaging effect". They don't state this. Along with trolling, now lying is part of your techniques to derail a simple, public forum thread that you think you are the science-police of.
    The summary of the conclusions says:
    DNA appears to possess the two structural characteristics of fractal antennas, electronic conduction and self symmetry. These properties contribute to greater reactivity of DNA with EMF in the environment, and the DNA damage could account for increases
    (my bold)

    Which, by itself, suggests the damage is caused by the EMF.

    The Materials and Methods sections says:
    increased stress protein levels and DNA strand breaks due to EMF interactions, both of which are indicative of DNA damage
    Again, the meaning of the word "interaction" is obviously "to cause damage".
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,451
    In order to investigate what Wave Genetics is and what it offers to the scientific community, I decided to look it up:
    "Wave Genetics has shown that genetic traits can be changed, activated and disactivated by use of resonant waves, beamed at the DNA. The proponents of Wave Genetics have, through well-designed and implemented double-blind experiments, physically and clinically, repeatedly proven the ability of Wave Genetics technology to regrow vital internal organs, in vivo, without the requirement of difficult, dangerous and expensive surgical procedures. (...) In particular, we have found it possible to regenerate endocrine glands in animals. By the same means, we have significantly curbed the aging process in human cells and even grown new adult human teeth in individuals who had lost them."


    The severe lack of references in the article led me to Google Scholar.
    Articles concerning Quantum Intelligent Design and Wave Genetics are published in a journal called DNA Decipher Journal, which is edited by (mostly) the same people and written by (mostly) the same people.

    Since the journal started in 2011, I wanted to check its impact factor.
    It turns out that DNA Decipher Journal is not listed in the ISI Web of Knowledge and does not yield citations in CiteSeerX (it does not even have a Wikipedia entry). Furthermore, the articles are not listed in the databases JSTOR and ScienceDirect.

    The results of my search are explained by Robert N. Boyd in a letter to the Russian Academy of Science:
    "The recent suppressive dismantling of a hugely promising set of physically proved results in Genetics Research, which meet Popp's Criteria, called "Wave Genetics", by Krugliakov and the "Group to Combat Pseudoscience in Russia", is certainly not due to any proper scientific method. This group's agenda is highly questionable, and is certainly not in the best interests of Science, nor are these suppressive behaviors in the best interests of Life and Humanity."



    Sources:
    Wave Genetics - Holographic Archetypes, by Iona Miller, 2013
    Wave Genetics Research Targeted by Russian Academy 'Skeptics' - La Leva di Archimede (ENG)
    Last edited by Cogito Ergo Sum; August 11th, 2013 at 08:16 AM. Reason: Additional information required.
    Strange likes this.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange
    Again, the meaning of the word "interaction" is obviously "to cause damage".
    The mod just said to stop arguing about definitions and there you go again. The meaning of the word "interaction" is not "to cause damage", I'm not sure which dictionary you are using.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    In order to investigate what Wave Genetics is and what it offers to the scientific community, I decided to look it up:
    "Wave Genetics has shown that genetic traits can be changed, activated and disactivated by use of resonant waves, beamed at the DNA. The proponents of Wave Genetics have, through well-designed and implemented double-blind experiments, physically and clinically, repeatedly proven the ability of Wave Genetics technology to regrow vital internal organs, in vivo, without the requirement of difficult, dangerous and expensive surgical procedures. (...) In particular, we have found it possible to regenerate endocrine glands in animals. By the same means, we have significantly curbed the aging process in human cells and even grown new adult human teeth in individuals who had lost them."


    The severe lack of references in the article led me to Google Scholar.
    Articles concerning Quantum Intelligent Design and Wave Genetics are published in a journal called DNA Decipher Journal, which is edited by (mostly) the same people and written by (mostly) the same people.

    Since the journal started in 2011, I wanted to check its impact factor.
    It turns out that DNA Decipher Journal is not listed in the ISI Web of Knowledge and does not yield citations in CiteSeerX (it does not even have a Wikipedia entry). Furthermore, the articles are not listed in the databases JSTOR and ScienceDirect.

    The results of my search are explained by Robert N. Boyd in a letter to the Russian Academy of Science:
    "The recent suppressive dismantling of a hugely promising set of physically proved results in Genetics Research, which meet Popp's Criteria, called "Wave Genetics", by Krugliakov and the "Group to Combat Pseudoscience in Russia", is certainly not due to any proper scientific method. This group's agenda is highly questionable, and is certainly not in the best interests of Science, nor are these suppressive behaviors in the best interests of Life and Humanity."



    Sources:
    Wave Genetics - Holographic Archetypes, by Iona Miller, 2013
    Wave Genetics Research Targeted by Russian Academy 'Skeptics' - La Leva di Archimede (ENG)
    You mean this Robert N. Boyd? Maryland Sex Offender Registry Search
    I like your compilation of research but the conclusion that this is false because ^ this guy said it is... That's far reaching.

    You also point out as I did that this is very young science, and the recent articles and studies are a few years old, clearly there still needs to be more research done.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,221
    Quote Originally Posted by awptik View Post
    The mod just said to stop arguing about definitions and there you go again. The meaning of the word "interaction" is not "to cause damage", I'm not sure which dictionary you are using.
    My post overlapped with John's. I probably should have apologised for that, but I thought the timing made it obvious. Last word: I didn't use a dictionary; I read (and understood) the description of the research.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,677
    Quote Originally Posted by awptik View Post
    You mean this Robert N. Boyd? Maryland Sex Offender Registry Search
    Find a paedophile with a similar name and claim they are the same person.
    Is that the best you can do?
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post

    My post overlapped with John's. I probably should have apologised for that, but I thought the timing made it obvious. Last word: I didn't use a dictionary; I read (and understood) the description of the research.
    You go to great lengths to justify your falsehoods. The timing of 5 hours?

    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Find a paedophile with a similar name and claim they are the same person.
    Is that the best you can do?
    The article provided gives no explanation of details of who "Robert N. Boyd" (Robert Neil Boyd, per article) is. A google search of Robert Neil Boyd, shows only one uncreditable link to:Robert Neil Boyd PhD
    Claiming of a Robert Neil Boyd who lives in Tennesse, another search for such a Robert Neil Boyd in Tennesee brings: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...28iI73QeQOHXMA

    Tennessee crime year: 2011


    Looks like a skinner younger version of the Robert pictured here:
    Maryland Sex Offender Registry Search

    Maryland crime year: 2012

    No way to discern if any of the information listed as his "work" is true, as links to articles point to the directory: http://www.rialian.com/rnboyd/ which has been taken down. So far as I can tell, its the same person. No other "Robert Neil Boyd" comes up in searches.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,677
    Quote Originally Posted by awptik View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post

    My post overlapped with John's. I probably should have apologised for that, but I thought the timing made it obvious. Last word: I didn't use a dictionary; I read (and understood) the description of the research.
    You go to great lengths to justify your falsehoods. The timing of 5 hours?

    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Find a paedophile with a similar name and claim they are the same person.
    Is that the best you can do?
    The article provided gives no explanation of details of who "Robert N. Boyd" (Robert Neil Boyd, per article) is.
    So, with virtually no information about him, you decided to call him a paedophile.
    Can you guess what I think you are?
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    9,956
    Quote Originally Posted by awptik View Post
    No way to discern if any of the information listed as his "work" is true, as links to articles point to the directory: http://www.rialian.com/rnboyd/ which has been taken down. So far as I can tell, its the same person. No other "Robert Neil Boyd" comes up in searches.
    Hmm, for some reason I actually got an actual link the first time I tried it.
    So:
    considering there is no BP Aerospace UK - who he supposedly worked for - lends one to wonder.
    considering that Project Greenglow - which he supposedly worked on - was a BAe project but is ascribed to some other firm altogether on link I did get also gives cause for doubt as to credibility.
    and, lastly, being involved in a project on ORMUS causes grave doubt as to his sanity...
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,451
    Quote Originally Posted by awptik View Post

    I like your compilation of research but the conclusion that this is false because ^ this guy said it is... That's far reaching.

    You also point out as I did that this is very young science, and the recent articles and studies are a few years old, clearly there still needs to be more research done.

    I have not drawn the conclusion that this is false due to the allegations of Mr. Boyd.

    As you can see in my previous post, I quoted Iona Miller to summarize what Wave Genetics is.
    I think that this researcher is a good choice to present the case, since Miller has published some articles in the journal and has acted as a guest-editor.

    As Iona Miller stated, the consequences of this new science are profound: regrowth of vital, internal organs, regrowth of human teeth, etc.
    However, the impact factor of the journal is 0 (at least, according to CiteSeerX and ISI Web of Knowledge).
    Furthermore, the trials were already done before the first issue of DNA Decipher Journal was published, since the first source was written in January 2010.

    Whether or not Mr. Boyd is an investigator, it was the content of the letter that I wanted to stress.
    When we read his letter, he blames the RAS for the lack of impact of the articles due to their suppressive behavior.
    In retrospect, I find it hard to believe that the Russian Academy of Science has the power to suppress the publication of the articles in any peer-reviewed journal.

    If Wave Genetics can do what it claims, then where are these well-designed and implemented double-blind clinical experiments?
    Last edited by Cogito Ergo Sum; August 12th, 2013 at 02:53 PM.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    If Wave Genetics can do what it claims, then where are these well-designed and implemented double-blind clinical experiments?
    I'm not sure if these are double-blind, and probably not possible to tell but here are some experiments:
    Gariaev 06
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by awptik View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post

    My post overlapped with John's. I probably should have apologised for that, but I thought the timing made it obvious. Last word: I didn't use a dictionary; I read (and understood) the description of the research.
    You go to great lengths to justify your falsehoods. The timing of 5 hours?

    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Find a paedophile with a similar name and claim they are the same person.
    Is that the best you can do?
    The article provided gives no explanation of details of who "Robert N. Boyd" (Robert Neil Boyd, per article) is.
    So, with virtually no information about him, you decided to call him a paedophile.
    Can you guess what I think you are?
    With enough information to draw a valid conclusion. Its him. And I didn't call him pedophile, I simply linked a source asking if this is the man (since no other records of him are available), then I stated that the opinion of one man (especially that man) is not enough to tell me this isn't worth researching.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,677
    Quote Originally Posted by awptik View Post
    With enough information to draw a valid conclusion. Its him.
    No, it's not.

    Quote Originally Posted by awptik View Post
    And I didn't call him pedophile
    Well, you have now: "With enough information to draw a valid conclusion. Its him."

    At least you aren't shy about how dishonest you are.
    And I am sure that everything else you post is also moronic bullshit.
    You set the bar incredibly low and failed to reach it.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,451
    Quote Originally Posted by awptik View Post
    I'm not sure if these are double-blind, and probably not possible to tell but here are some experiments:
    Gariaev 06

    These experiments are not double-blind. As a matter of fact, the word is not even in the article.

    Furthermore, the only paragraph that resembles a claim of Iona Miller, is this one:
    "The combined statistics for all 3 series of experiments shows that almost 90% of the rats had their pancreas gland restored and consequently recovered."


    However, none of the three experiments is linked to a paper. And given the statement that follows, references are necessary:
    "In some of the experiments the bio-computer was modified to allow successful transmission of the healing information to sick rats at the distance of up to 20 kilometers. Note that no known physical fields have the capability to transmit such extremely week signals with such unbelievably powerful results."[sic]

    One claim (concerning curbing the aging process of human cells) is briefly mentioned at the end of the article, but no experiment is elucidated.
    The other (concerning the human teeth) is not mentioned at all.

    This article is published in 2006 in the peer-reviewed Journal of Non-Locality (previously JNLRMI);
    however, it is not clear why the JNL starts from Volume 1. Where did the previous volumes go from the journal?
    A quick glance at the articles reveals that P. Gariaev has not published a single article since the first publication of JNL.
    The only thing that links the DDJ with the JNL are i.a. author Matti J. Pitkänen and the editors.

    Furthermore, it turns out that, just as the DNA Decipher Journal, the journal is not listed in ScienceDirect nor in JSTOR, nor does it yield citations.

    In retrospect, if Wave Genetics makes extraordinary claims, it must present extraordinary evidence.


    Source:
    Journal of Nonlocality
    Last edited by Cogito Ergo Sum; April 9th, 2014 at 10:15 AM.
    Strange likes this.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by awptik View Post
    With enough information to draw a valid conclusion. Its him.
    No, it's not.
    Really, you stupid garbage hole, where is your proof its not him?

    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by awptik View Post
    And I didn't call him pedophile
    Well, you have now: "With enough information to draw a valid conclusion. Its him."

    At least you aren't shy about how dishonest you are.
    And I am sure that everything else you post is also moronic bullshit.
    You set the bar incredibly low and failed to reach it.
    How dishonest I am? You are a waste of cells. My conclusion is that he is the man pictured. I don't have to call him a pedophile and didn't because that's what the justice system does for me. You don't say that a person called Barack Obama black by showing you a picture of him from the NAACP website, troll. The only moronic bullshit you should be concerned about is that which you shovel down your own throat and try to regurgitate as thoughts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by awptik View Post
    I'm not sure if these are double-blind, and probably not possible to tell but here are some experiments:
    Gariaev 06

    These experiments are not double-blind. As a matter of fact, the word is not even in the article.

    Furthermore, the only paragraph that resembles a claim of Iona Miller, is this one:
    "The combined statistics for all 3 series of experiments shows that almost 90% of the rats had their pancreas gland restored and consequently recovered."


    However, none of the three experiments is linked to a paper. And given the statement that follows, references are necessary:
    "In some of the experiments the bio-computer was modified to allow successful transmission of the healing information to sick rats at the distance of up to 20 kilometers. Note that no known physical fields have the capability to transmit such extremely week signals with such unbelievably powerful results."[sic]

    One claim (concerning curbing the aging process of human cells) is briefly mentioned at the end of the article, but no experiment is elucidated.
    The other (concerning the human teeth) is not mentioned at all.

    This article is published in 2006 in the peer-reviewed Journal of Non-Locality (previously JNLRMI);
    however, it is not clear why the JNL starts from Volume 1. Where did the previous volumes go from the journal?
    A quick glance at the articles reveals that P. Gariaev has not published a single article since the first publication of JNL.
    The only thing that links the DDJ with the JNL are e.g. author Matti J. Pitkänen and the editors.

    Furthermore, it turns out that, just as the DNA Decipher Journal, the journal is not listed in ScienceDirect nor in JSTOR, nor does it yield citations.

    In retrospect, if Wave Genetics makes extraordinary claims, it must present extraordinary evidence.


    Source:
    Journal of Nonlocality
    Yes, a severe lack of research in this field. Would be nice to see some of the scientific skeptics of this field conduct experiments and show validated proof for or against it.

    Perhaps a few other studies worth noting:

    http://www.scientific.net/KEM.543.318
    and
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3617815/
    Last edited by awptik; August 12th, 2013 at 07:57 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,066
    Moderator Comment: Can we try and conduct the discussion with a little more decorum. We are all guests here. I'm sure you don't break china in your neighbours house, or vomit on their carpets. (If you do, the Christmas invite is off.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Moderator Comment: Can we try and conduct the discussion with a little more decorum. We are all guests here. I'm sure you don't break china in your neighbours house, or vomit on their carpets. (If you do, the Christmas invite is off.)
    Sorry, that was the third member who threw around insults first. A taste of their own medicine seemed to calm the other two, but i guess a "they did it first" isn't a good excuse.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,677
    Quote Originally Posted by awptik View Post
    Sorry, that was the third member who threw around insults first.
    You appear to be the common denominator....
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #124  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,451

    The first study states in its abstract:
    "The DNA molecules are coated with coherentwater shells having semiconducting properties. The electron energy levels when moving withinthe DNA water shells can be invoked to explain the broadcast and reception frequency spectraof the wireless bacterial systems."[sic]


    Unfortunately, I cannot access the full study without a subscription and without access,
    other people and I cannot analyse the findings, thus I ask you: what is the relevance of this study in this discussion?

    The second study seems, at first glance, interesting.
    I will read it and do some background research, and then I will draw conclusions concerning the link between this study and the DNA Phantom Effect.
    (if you return after your suspension, of course)
    Last edited by Cogito Ergo Sum; August 14th, 2013 at 09:55 AM.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #125  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by awptik View Post
    Sorry, that was the third member who threw around insults first.
    You appear to be the common denominator....
    Three men make a tiger.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #126  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post

    The first study states in its abstract:
    "The DNA molecules are coated with coherentwater shells having semiconducting properties. The electron energy levels when moving withinthe DNA water shells can be invoked to explain the broadcast and reception frequency spectraof the wireless bacterial systems."[sic]


    Unfortunately, I cannot access the full study without a subscription and without access,
    other people and I cannot analyse the findings, thus I ask you: what is the relevance of this study in this discussion?

    The second study seems, at first glance, interesting.
    I will read it and do some background research, and then I will draw conclusions concerning the link between this study and the DNA Phantom Effect.
    I think the relevance of this study is that it's about the DNA of the bacteria sending and receiving electromagnetic signals, wired and wireless, between themselves. If these signals are used for some kind of DNA communication then its along the same lines of claims Wave Genetics and Luc Montagnier make regarding DNA being capable of receiving electromagnetic signals that act as instructions to either a.) change, in the Peter Gariaev experiments or b.) replicate, in the Luc Montagnier experiments.

    That study works as a basic foundation that DNA can send and receive electromagnetic signals. This was the topic previously with the other study I posted, since there was a debate among whether the damage done to DNA in that study constituted the conclusion that DNA can actually receive these signals.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #127  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,677
    Quote Originally Posted by awptik View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by awptik View Post
    Sorry, that was the third member who threw around insults first.
    You appear to be the common denominator....
    Three men make a tiger.
    Yeah - it's not you, it's everyone else.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #128  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by awptik View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by awptik View Post
    Sorry, that was the third member who threw around insults first.
    You appear to be the common denominator....
    Three men make a tiger.
    Yeah - it's not you, it's everyone else.
    Clearly. Take some responsibility for your own posts. You also have this tendency to change words so they better suit your pointless posts. Not everyone, you, and anyone else who posts insults as an argument. Clearly you have a hard time understanding basic concepts, such as, a group =/= everyone, a reference =/= definition, post count =/= IQ.

    You provided no input to the conversation, attempted to derail it based on false premises, were subsequently proven wrong, have yet to justify your position, and still think you're posts are more than just troll drool. Please go back to inflating your post count with peanut gallery quips in other sections, it will make you feel better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #129  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,677
    Quote Originally Posted by awptik View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Yeah - it's not you, it's everyone else.
    Clearly.
    *prepares a straight jacket*

    Quote Originally Posted by awptik View Post
    were subsequently proven wrong
    Only in your deranged mind.

    I think I'll stick you on ignore, before I post what I truly think of you.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #130  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by awptik View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Yeah - it's not you, it's everyone else.
    Clearly.
    *prepares a straight jacket*

    Quote Originally Posted by awptik View Post
    were subsequently proven wrong
    Only in your deranged mind.

    I think I'll stick you on ignore, before I post what I truly think of you.
    Oh no, a pointless poster who can't comprehend anything outside his own diluted mind is going to ignore me and then post more insults?

    Good to know you have a straight jacket from your time at the institute, you will definitely need it, again.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #131  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,247
    awptic, a week off for your weak contributions, argumentative tone and trolling.

    Also moving this thread to pseudo, where it always belonged.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #132  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    13
    If I can return to the original post regarding that which states that the dna appears to leave a residual memory of it's previous presence within the vacuum. It seems that there would be significant consequences to both the pro & con camps if this result could be either proven or disproved through scientifically verified experiments. It is evident however that the skeptics would have more to lose than the 'pros', should it be subsequently verified through scientific experiments that the dna does indeed leave a 'memory' of it's previous existence. I am sure that the profound significance that it was proven to be true is not lost on the 'con' camp. It would shake their belief in a materialistic view of the universe to the core. Taken to it's ultimate logical conclusion it would also represent the final nail in the coffin of any belief in the existence of any cloud God deity. Is this the real reason for the apparent reluctance of mainstream science to conduct the experiment under controlled laboratory conditions?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #133  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    9,956
    Quote Originally Posted by imetheman View Post
    Is this the real reason for the apparent reluctance of mainstream science to conduct the experiment under controlled laboratory conditions?
    I'd suggest that the reluctance is due to the lack of any valid reason to perform those experiments.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #134  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    1,633
    If the "ghosts" of molecules do exit, then they should be no harder to detect than neutrinos and would already have been detected, if these "molecular ghosts" are any harder to detect than neutrinos then they have no significant ability to interact with ordinary matter.
    Neutrino - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #135  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    If the "ghosts" of molecules do exit, then they should be no harder to detect than neutrinos and would already have been detected, if these "molecular ghosts" are any harder to detect than neutrinos then they have no significant ability to interact with ordinary matter.
    We are not talking about any old molecule here. The significance is that it is a DNA molecule and it's interaction with a laser light. The experiment used to observe neutrinos is entirely different from that which observed the DNA 'ghost'. You are not going to observe the latter in a particle accelerator. So no point looking for it there.

    How can you make the assumption that the 'ghost' DNA molecule IS indeed harder to detect than neutrinos until you perform an experiment to find out the legitimacy of the statement? You are starting from the assumption that they ARE harder to detect. How do you know?
    Also, the statement that the 'ghost' DNA may have 'no significant ability to interact with ordinary matter' is of no relevance when we consider the fact that neutrinos themselves do not affect ordinary matter. The latter observation has no relevance to the fact that neutrinos exist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #136  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    13
    [QUOTE=PhDemon;456827
    Or could it be the fact that scientists are a) too busy[SUP]1[/SUP] and b) won't be funded2 to waste their time doing guff like this. Before you get to the stage where designing and building an experiment is required the basic idea has to have some merit, some theoretical justification and not be bat-shit crazy. This seems to fail on all three.QUOTE]
    A colourful personal opinion which you are quite rightly free to express.

    1. there are enough interesting,useful and important experiments to do. If there was anything in this the original work would have been published. The fact it either wasn't considered good enough for submission to a proper journal or failed peer review means it can safely be ignored.


    I suppose it depends on who is doing the considering.


    The journal Nature rejected Fermi's original 1934 paper on neutrinos, saying that the theory was "too remote from reality". Or that it was 'guff' as you would put it. However it provided a basis for future experimental work. It was fortuitous that not every scientist was of the opinion of Fermi's theory that 'it can safely be ignored'.

    2. although I'm hopeful my grant proposal on using unicorn shit to power a time machine will be funded.


    You are correct in saying that it is a given that any further research will certainly not be funded by any of the mainstream scientific institutions. No surprise there. Your comments appear to have a scatological theme running through it. So in keeping with the tone, I would suggest that when you do invent your shit run time machine, that you take yourself back to the time when everyone thought the Earth was flat. Then, armed with the knowledge you now have, you can then try and convince everyone on how wrong they are. However, be prepared for the ridicule you will undoubtedly receive and the denigration your theories will get. Your going to have to grow a pair if you wish to express your opinion. Also be prepared that the funding you are going to require to rebuild your shit powered time machine to get home again will certainly not be forthcoming. You'll be stuck in the past- where in order to be accepted by your peers, you'll have no other option but to blindly accept what you're told is the truth and not ask any awkward questions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #137  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,221
    Quote Originally Posted by imetheman View Post
    We are not talking about any old molecule here. The significance is that it is a DNA molecule and it's interaction with a laser light.
    Why is the fact that it is DNA significant? No molecule will leave a ghostly imprint as described. Assuming some sort of magical properties of DNA is just silly.

    You seem to have completely missed the point of the neutrino analogy (which isn't too surprising).

    If molecules had "ghosts" like this it would have been recorded by science before now. How could crystallography work if molecules leave a trace behind to interfere?
    PhDemon likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #138  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,221
    Quote Originally Posted by imetheman View Post
    you'll have no other option but to blindly accept what you're told is the truth and not ask any awkward questions.
    This is probably better than being so gullible as to believe any old crap you read. You should try and develop some critical thinking skills.
    PhDemon likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #139  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,451
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Why is the fact that it is DNA significant? No molecule will leave a ghostly imprint as described. Assuming some sort of magical properties of DNA is just silly.

    The practice of assigning non-scientific properties to DNA is egregious and despicable.
    It is almost as bad as denying the germ theory of disease.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    There's a reason this is in pseudoscience. (I'll give you a clue - it's because there is absolutely no evidence the effect exists).

    I thought that, after my debate with member awptik, I brought up enough evidence that the existence and validity of the "DNA Phantom Effect" is questionable.
    In vain.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #140  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post

    I thought that, after my debate with member awptik, I brought up enough evidence that the existence and validity of the "DNA Phantom Effect" is questionable.
    In vain.
    You have uncovered the phenomenon of selective blindness. The inability of cranks to see any evidence they don't like
    Cogito Ergo Sum didn't bring up any evidence, the user simply argued against evidence I brought forth.

    There are a few reasons why I stopped posting after being blocked from doing it for a week on this account by Lynx_fox.

    The first being that I realized in that moment what kind of community this is, even though my speculations were already set forth by the discussions that took place previously, at least now they were verified as truth.

    It speaks great depth about this community when you note that out of almost 35,000 members across almost 10 years, less than 90 have more than 1000 posts.

    It's a tightly knit, snobfest of overly egotistical trolls. Don't bother trying to discuss anything outside the box here.

    This is the type of community that claims to be a place for discussion, but it has clearly illustrated itself as a place for discussing only the things that the members with large post counts deem discussion worthy. It's also the kind of place where the moderator's will ban you from posting under completely arbitrarily defined reasons, that contradict other (read: high post count) members' actions. This alone would have been enough for me to flame away, but since I know the type of person Lynx_Fox is, I didn't bother.

    This is clearly not the place to discuss any interest in anything not already established and set forth by the mainstream science community, even though it claims to be a discussion place for all topics. Even now that this topic is in pseudoscience, it's not enough to make the high posters happy, they still have to come in here and derail any serious and reasonable discussion that can take place.

    It's strange that they take themselves so seriously as to discuss "only facts". I wonder why? Who will be taking anything posted at thescienceforum.com seriously? Do you expect someone will site your post as valuable evidence against or for some science? That seems to contradict the paradigm that most trolling high post members have here, peer reviewed sources.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #141  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    9,956
    Quote Originally Posted by awptik View Post
    less than 90 have more than 1000 posts.
    That should be "fewer than 90..."
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #142  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by awptik View Post
    less than 90 have more than 1000 posts.
    That should be "fewer than 90..."
    What a wonderfully wrong English lesson (what else do you expect out of these members than more fallacies and completely ignoring context) as there is no official rule for less or fewer but is a preference to prevent ambiguity, and there is nothing ambiguous about my statement. Here an English lesson for you: Hot Fuzz - Simon Pegg - Jog on! - YouTube
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #143  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    9,956
    Quote Originally Posted by awptik View Post
    What a wonderfully wrong English lesson (what else do you expect out of these members than more fallacies and completely ignoring context) as there is no official rule for less or fewer but is a preference to prevent ambiguity
    Oops, wrong again.
    Fewer is used when the object(s) of discussion can be individually enumerated.
    Less is for when it's something that can't be/ isn't.
    Still, it's only the Oxford Dictionary, the BBC, the Chicago Manual of Style etc. that says that, what would they know?

    I didn't so much ignore the context as treat it with the contempt it deserved.
    PS the word "than" in your sentence is incorrect. Perhaps you meant "other than", or "but".
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #144  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,451
    Quote Originally Posted by awptik View Post
    Cogito Ergo Sum didn't bring up any evidence, the user simply argued against evidence I brought forth.

    Correct. I did not bring up evidence in the sense that it refuted your claims. I was (and still am) in the position of doubt and questioned every evidence you gave me, and provided evidence for why I thought it is questionable (but not necessarily wrong):

    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    I thought that, after my debate with member awptik, I brought up enough evidence that the existence and validity of the "DNA Phantom Effect" is questionable.
    I am not obliged to accept anything until I have established the validity of the concepts that are mentioned.
    If I have made an error in my reasoning or if my approach was biased, feel free to indicate where I went wrong.

    The point is that, despite that your audience is a "tightly knit, snobfest of overly egotistical trolls", you have not brought up the evidence that might convince the "mainstream science community" that your ideas are "only facts".
    Last edited by Cogito Ergo Sum; November 23rd, 2013 at 09:15 AM.
    Strange likes this.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #145  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by awptik View Post
    What a wonderfully wrong English lesson (what else do you expect out of these members than more fallacies and completely ignoring context) as there is no official rule for less or fewer but is a preference to prevent ambiguity
    Oops, wrong again.Fewer is used when the object(s) of discussion can be individually enumerated.Less is for when it's something that can't be/ isn't.Still, it's only the Oxford Dictionary, the BBC, the Chicago Manual of Style etc. that says that, what would they know?I didn't so much ignore the context as treat it with the contempt it deserved.PS the word "than" in your sentence is incorrect. Perhaps you meant "other than", or "but".
    So sad and wrong please go back to school, English isn't just used in Wales and by your "rules": http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/def...n_english/less fewer in number:[as pronoun]:a population of less than 200,000

    And you ignore context, since you don't quote my entire post and address it completely and never have.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon
    Nah, it just means the people who post regularly like clear thinking and abhor sloppy minded woo peddled by cranks. The fact there are lots of members with not many posts just goes to show that people who make stuff up and make stupid assertions rather than actually understanding or wanting to learn anything don't last long.
    Another user who ignores context and other points made. There's no reason to repeat myself since the post is literally right there and you can try to read and quote it completely. To say that people want to discuss topics in the pseudoscience category are making stupid assertions is, of course, a hugely egotistical and megalomaniacal point of view. I'm not sure who you think you are saying that people interested in a discussion you have no interest in are stupid, but that's this community for you.

    Cogito ergo sum, still under the illusion that because people are interested in this topic and like myself, argue for research in it, somehow we are asking you to accept it. I don't think any one cares if you accept this or not, and if you did or didn't no one would care. You admit that you refute my claims with no evidence just skepticism. You're confusing a discussion on this topic and my advocation for real research for a debate on a deity or something. Never did I say that anyone has to accept the claims "as fact" and never did I say I wanted the mainstream science community to accept it. I only said that I thought there should be research in this topic because of my personal experiences, but like I said previously, apparently this isn't a place to discuss things. This goes all ~90 of you; it's only a place to raise your post count in safe topics where you and the other members don't add anything of value, just look through your post history, you don't start topics, you add quips to already establish science topics or express your contempt in pseudoscience topics. What makes you think your opinion is this important that you have to take over a .com community is beyond me, but it's clearly the truth. There is no reason to even discuss "only facts" here, as there are much more reliable and overall better communities.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #146  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,221
    Can you explain how x-ray crystallography works if molecules leave an indelible "ghost" in the machine? After testing the first sample, all other samples would be affected by the memory of that one.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #147  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    9,956
    Quote Originally Posted by awptik View Post
    So sad and wrong please go back to school, English isn't just used in Wales
    Oh dear. Wales?
    Could that be why I referenced the Chicago Manual of Style?
    Or you think that I'm under the impression that Chicago is a suburb of Llanfair?

    and by your "rules": less: definition of less in Oxford dictionary - American English (US) fewer in number:[as pronoun]:a population of less than 200,000
    Except that's not how you used it.

    And you ignore context, since you don't quote my entire post and address it completely and never have.
    Wrong again. As previously pointed out.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #148  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,451
    Quote Originally Posted by awptik View Post
    Cogito ergo sum, still under the illusion that because people are interested in this topic and like myself, argue for research in it, somehow we are asking you to accept it. I don't think any one cares if you accept this or not, and if you did or didn't no one would care. You admit that you refute my claims with no evidence just skepticism. You're confusing a discussion on this topic and my advocation for real research for a debate on a deity or something. Never did I say that anyone has to accept the claims "as fact" and never did I say I wanted the mainstream science community to accept it. I only said that I thought there should be research in this topic because of my personal experiences, but like I said previously, apparently this isn't a place to discuss things.

    Yes, I confirm (again) that I was (and still am) skeptical about the claims that have been made to demonstrate that the DNA Phantom Effect is valid.
    However, I have not refuted them (it is difficult to refute something without refuting your claims), I questioned them.

    If you want to advocate for further research, I can only encourage that if and only if you have demonstrated that, beyond reasonable doubt, the claims about the DNA Phantom Effect by WaveGenetics are scientifically validated.

    Quote Originally Posted by awpitik View Post
    This goes all ~90 of you; it's only a place to raise your post count in safe topics where you and the other members don't add anything of value, just look through your post history, you don't start topics, you add quips to already establish science topics or express your contempt in pseudoscience topics. What makes you think your opinion is this important that you have to take over a .com community is beyond me, but it's clearly the truth. There is no reason to even discuss "only facts" here, as there are much more reliable and overall better communities.

    It is not recommendable to resort to insults.
    Strange likes this.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #149  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by awptik View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post

    I thought that, after my debate with member awptik, I brought up enough evidence that the existence and validity of the "DNA Phantom Effect" is questionable.
    In vain.
    You have uncovered the phenomenon of selective blindness. The inability of cranks to see any evidence they don't like
    Cogito Ergo Sum didn't bring up any evidence, the user simply argued against evidence I brought forth.

    There are a few reasons why I stopped posting after being blocked from doing it for a week on this account by Lynx_fox.

    The first being that I realized in that moment what kind of community this is, even though my speculations were already set forth by the discussions that took place previously, at least now they were verified as truth.

    It speaks great depth about this community when you note that out of almost 35,000 members across almost 10 years, less than 90 have more than 1000 posts.

    It's a tightly knit, snobfest of overly egotistical trolls. Don't bother trying to discuss anything outside the box here.

    This is the type of community that claims to be a place for discussion, but it has clearly illustrated itself as a place for discussing only the things that the members with large post counts deem discussion worthy. It's also the kind of place where the moderator's will ban you from posting under completely arbitrarily defined reasons, that contradict other (read: high post count) members' actions. This alone would have been enough for me to flame away, but since I know the type of person Lynx_Fox is, I didn't bother.

    This is clearly not the place to discuss any interest in anything not already established and set forth by the mainstream science community, even though it claims to be a discussion place for all topics. Even now that this topic is in pseudoscience, it's not enough to make the high posters happy, they still have to come in here and derail any serious and reasonable discussion that can take place.

    It's strange that they take themselves so seriously as to discuss "only facts". I wonder why? Who will be taking anything posted at thescienceforum.com seriously? Do you expect someone will site your post as valuable evidence against or for some science? That seems to contradict the paradigm that most trolling high post members have here, peer reviewed sources.
    Awptik, I admire your bravery in sticking to your guns in the face of the extreme opprobrium which has been directed at you by the negativists. It has been nothing short of disgraceful. They should take a long time looking at themselves. ( Do they ever contribute any original ideas themselves?)The views and opinions of an open mind which thinks 'out the box' will never make a dent in any mind which is closed. Their intransigence is the result of swallowing the dogmas of science wholesale. They will never accept any views which threaten these dogmas. After only my 2nd post on this forum it was something which was patently obvious to me. I had already made the decision that I was wasting my time here. Do yourself a favour Awptik; don't waste any more of your own precious time on this forum. We must both discover a community where constructive criticism and positive discussion are the norm. We should leave these guys to their very important 'scientific research'. Millions of £'s of tax payer's money spent discovering why for instance traffic jams occur. The answer - traffic jams are caused by slow moving cars. Or how to make the perfect cup of tea. Or why some biscuits collapse when you dunk them in your perfect cup of tea. And why teaspoons to stir your perfect cup of tea disappear from university mess rooms. This is who you are dealing Awptik.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #150  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,677
    Quote Originally Posted by imetheman View Post
    Awptik, I admire your bravery in sticking to your guns in the face of the extreme opprobrium which has been directed at you by the negativists.
    I smell a sockpuppet...
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #151  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    9,956
    Quote Originally Posted by imetheman View Post
    Millions of £'s of tax payer's money spent discovering why for instance traffic jams occur. The answer - traffic jams are caused by slow moving cars.
    Really?

    And why teaspoons to stir your perfect cup of tea disappear from university mess rooms.
    Been done.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #152  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by imetheman View Post
    Millions of £'s of tax payer's money spent discovering why for instance traffic jams occur. The answer - traffic jams are caused by slow moving cars.
    Really?
    And why teaspoons to stir your perfect cup of tea disappear from university mess rooms.
    Been done.
    Hilarious, Imetheman, I'll take your advice, just look at scientist mcduck over here who didnt understand you were making a joke of the type of discussions they have and actually thought you were serious. Too bad just like all his posts he is flawed. Post two links to .com sites on topics that ment to illustrate the joke that is this community... Honestly it's a cosmic joke and Dywyddyr is the punch line! XD

    Btw Dywyddyr, http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/...orFewer01.html
    "However, less is idiomatic in certain constructions where fewer would occur according to the traditional rule. Less than is used before a plural noun that denotes a measure of time, amount, or distance: less than three weeks; less than $400; less than 50 miles."

    Damn that's gotta sting to be so wrong all the time yet perceive yourself as a seraph of science and truth, too funny!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #153  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,451
    Quote Originally Posted by awptik View Post
    Damn that's gotta sting to be so wrong all the time yet perceive yourself as a seraph of science and truth, too funny!

    It is advisable to stop attacking certain SF members.
    Ongoing hostility towards some (knowledgeable) members can be disadvantageous for your portrayal as member.
    Intervention of a moderator is a possibility when you violate the Forum Guidelines.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #154  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    9,956
    Quote Originally Posted by awptik View Post
    Hilarious, Imetheman, I'll take your advice, just look at scientist mcduck over here who didnt understand you were making a joke of the type of discussions they have and actually thought you were serious.
    Or perhaps you and he completely missed the point behind those studies.
    I.e. his post misrepresented them.

    Btw Dywyddyr, Less or Fewer?
    "However, less is idiomatic in certain constructions where fewer would occur according to the traditional rule. Less than is used before a plural noun that denotes a measure of time, amount, or distance: less than three weeks; less than $400; less than 50 miles."
    Notice the absence of people in there?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #155  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    1,633
    Quote Originally Posted by Urban Dictionary
    Pigeon Chess:
    Refers to having a pointless debate with somebody utterly ignorant of the subject matter, but standing on a dogmatic position that cannot be moved with any amount of education or logic, but who always proclaims victory.
    Origin:
    "Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory." -- Scott D. Weitzenhoffer (From an Amazon.com book review)

    Man, trying to explain to those moon landing deniers that the Apollo program was real is like playing pigeon chess -- all they do is knock the pieces over and crap on the board.
    It's sort of obvious to me who the pigeons are here; awptik, imetheman.

    Aw, I know, I've said a mean thing! Well, I'll apologize to the pigeons later. Really, there is nothing significant or rational to be said in this whole thread, as the non subject of this thread is neither significant or rational. I guess I could throw in this one little nice thing I have to say. Iawptikman, Your posting style suggests to me that you are not actually cognitively impaired, but that you are a willfully ignorant troll. That in your case it is a correctable behavior. That's good news? Right?
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #156  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,677
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    I remember reading somewhere that any sufficiently persistent troll is indistinguishable from a genuine nutjob.
    Sounds like a variation on Poe's Law.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Some posters here could be either (or both).
    *waves*
    PhDemon likes this.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #157  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,451
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    I remember reading somewhere that any sufficiently persistent troll is indistinguishable from a genuine nutjob.
    Sounds like a variation on Poe's Law.

    My thoughts exactly.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #158  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    I remember reading somewhere that any sufficiently persistent troll is indistinguishable from a genuine nutjob.
    Sounds like a variation on Poe's Law.

    My thoughts exactly.
    Great circle jerk you are having here. I see you are confirming my opinion of this community as fact. None of you have supplied any evidence of any experiments that show phantom DNA doesn't exist, yet still post in this thread, posts about nothing, just to increase your post count. Also you label me a troll for being defensive when you have first posted insulting or inflammatory remarks. Also to say that me and the other member are the same person just shows your depth of intelligence. Continue posting about nothing, don't worry about asking questions or looking into things yet discovered.

    "Science may set limits to knowledge, but should not set limits to imagination, unless you are thescienceforum.com, then you can't imagine anything because we said so..."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #159  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,221
    Quote Originally Posted by awptik View Post
    None of you have supplied any evidence of any experiments that show phantom DNA doesn't exist
    Well, it is rather hard to find experiments to prove that a non-existent effect, that no one would expect to exist, doesn't exist.

    But, if molecules had phantom images like this then it surely would have been recorded by science before now. After all people have been examining molecules of all types with a wide variety of frequencies, sensors, etc.

    Anyway, no one has addressed this question yet, asked a couple of times:

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Can you explain how x-ray crystallography works if molecules leave an indelible "ghost" in the machine? After testing the first sample, all other samples would be affected by the memory of that one.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #160  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,451
    Quote Originally Posted by awptik View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    I remember reading somewhere that any sufficiently persistent troll is indistinguishable from a genuine nutjob.
    Sounds like a variation on Poe's Law.

    My thoughts exactly.
    Great circle jerk you are having here. I see you are confirming my opinion of this community as fact. None of you have supplied any evidence of any experiments that show phantom DNA doesn't exist, yet still post in this thread, posts about nothing, just to increase your post count. Also you label me a troll for being defensive when you have first posted insulting or inflammatory remarks. Also to say that me and the other member are the same person just shows your depth of intelligence. Continue posting about nothing, don't worry about asking questions or looking into things yet discovered.

    "Science may set limits to knowledge, but should not set limits to imagination, unless you are thescienceforum.com, then you can't imagine anything because we said so..."

    It is quite odd to ask us to disprove your claims, without considering that the majority of claims that advocate for the existence of the DNA Phantom Effect, are based on highly questionable evidence.
    Yet, feel free to provide solid evidence for the claims of WaveGenetics (as pointed out in #118) and I assure that we will reconsider our doubts.

    However, if you continue being generous with personal insults, then I will refuse to take part in further debates.
    Last edited by Cogito Ergo Sum; September 10th, 2013 at 11:31 AM.
    Strange likes this.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #161  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by awptik View Post
    None of you have supplied any evidence of any experiments that show phantom DNA doesn't exist
    Well, it is rather hard to find experiments to prove that a non-existent effect, that no one would expect to exist, doesn't exist.

    But, if molecules had phantom images like this then it surely would have been recorded by science before now. After all people have been examining molecules of all types with a wide variety of frequencies, sensors, etc.

    Anyway, no one has addressed this question yet, asked a couple of times:

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Can you explain how x-ray crystallography works if molecules leave an indelible "ghost" in the machine? After testing the first sample, all other samples would be affected by the memory of that one.
    I don't have the means to do any of these experiments myself so I have to rely on other experiments as examples. I linked the white paper for Gariaev's experiments, and we are in agreement that they were not Double Blind, but the experiment is there to be replicated with double blind standards. That's all I'm advocating, that someone with the means reproduce the experiment and do so in a scientific way so that this debate can be put to a verified conclusion.

    The point on X-ray crystallography is a good one. Here's what I found looking more into it:

    In the white paper it stated:
    The sources of the excitation EM (electromagnetic) fields in the range from ultra-violet to infra-red ranges.

    X-rays are just above ultra-violet, so my speculation would be that the Phantom effect cannot be seen or has a much shorter duration when DNA is bathed in the frequency range of X-rays.

    They also note that in the phantom leaf experiment only 1 of the 3 removed sections showed a phantom. This could correlate with the idea that the duration of the effect is very short, and could be affected by the duration and frequency of the EM field.

    I also found this:
    Kirlian photography - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The phantom effect could be the Kirlian effect in play, or vise versa. I'm not saying the this is the cause or the explanation, I'm just adding it to the topic as I think its relevant. It's important to note that the Kirlian effect was studied scientifically with no conclusive results. But it make me wonder when looking at this photograph:

    File:Kirl66 g.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    If those effects are caused by water molecules on the surface before the picture was taken, shouldn't the patterns be more random?

    Found more information reading Kirlian's main article:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semyon_Davidovich_Kirlian

    L
    ooks like the effect is just coronal discharge caused by the initial charge of electricity through the coins/leaf/ect. Perhaps that is what happened here: http://www.emergentmind.org/new_pa6.jpg?
    Last edited by awptik; September 25th, 2013 at 07:01 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #162  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    So can you explain how IR and UV spectroscopy of DNA works if molecules leave an indelible "ghost" in the machine? After testing the first sample, all other samples would be affected by the memory of that one. THERE IS NO EFFECT.
    Duration of the effect, if it exists, could be the cause. I can't find any image of any spectroscopy of DNA.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #163  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,451
    Quote Originally Posted by awptik View Post
    I don't have the means to do any of these experiments myself so I have to rely on other experiments as examples. I linked the white paper for Gariaev's experiments, and we are in agreement that they were not Double Blind, but the experiment is there to be replicated with double blind standards. That's all I'm advocating, that someone with the means reproduce the experiment and do so in a scientific way so that this debate can be put to a verified conclusion.

    Go on.

    Quote Originally Posted by awptik View Post
    The point on X-ray crystallography is a good one. Here's what I found looking more into it:

    In the white paper it stated:
    The sources of the excitation EM (electromagnetic) fields in the range from ultra-violet to infra-red ranges.

    X-rays are just above ultra-violet, so my speculation would be that the Phantom effect cannot be seen or has a much shorter duration when DNA is bathed in the frequency range of X-rays.

    They also note that in the phantom leaf experiment only 1 of the 3 removed sections showed a phantom. This could correlate with the idea that the duration of the effect is very short, and could be affected by the duration and frequency of the EM field.

    I am not certain about your last statement, given the fact that the results of the Torn Leaf Experiment are not explained by the DNA Phantom Effect:
    "The coronal discharges identified as Kirlian auras are the result of stochastic electric ionization processes, and are greatly affected by many factors, including the voltage and frequency of the stimulus, the pressure with which a person or object touches the imaging surface, the local humidity around the object being imaged, how well grounded the person or object is, and other local factors affecting the conductivity of the person or object being imaged."
    (cf. Kirlian photography - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

    I support your take on this:
    Quote Originally Posted by awptik View Post
    Looks like the effect is just coronal discharge caused by the initial charge of electricity through the coins/leaf/ect. Perhaps that is what happened here: http://www.emergentmind.org/new_pa6.jpg?
    Quote Originally Posted by awptik View Post
    The phantom effect could be the Kirlian effect in play, or vise versa. I'm not saying the this is the cause or the explanation, I'm just adding it to the topic as I think its relevant. It's important to note that the Kirlian effect was studied scientifically with no conclusive results.

    The Phantom Effect and the Kirlian Effect have, in my opinion, no obvious connection.
    The former focuses on DNA and is incorporated in Wave Genetics , the latter focuses on animate and inanimate macroscopic objects such as fingers and coins.

    Furthermore, it is true that scientific research has been conducted (Pehek, J.O. et al., 1976), although the inconclusive results are from another study that tested a completely different hypothesis (Ciesielska, I.L., 2009).
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
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
  •