The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums:
Religion & Philosophy

Dr. Masaru Emoto effect of thought on water

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
Pages: << · 1 2 3 ...8 9 10 11 · >>
jonnythan On August 02, 2014
Bringer of rad mirth


Deleted



Here and there,
#136New Post! Aug 26, 2011 @ 01:31:45
Ah, Bruce Lipton. More bulls***, non-peer-reviewed pseudoscience. And quantum mechanics has nothing to do with the "everything is full of nothing" stuff. That's from classical particle physics. Quantum mechanics actually goes a long way to explaining how that "empty space" is indeed not empty space.
LovetheProcess On October 19, 2015




Plymouth, Massachusetts
#137New Post! Aug 26, 2011 @ 01:34:20
@jonnythan Said

Ah, Bruce Lipton. More bulls***, non-peer-reviewed pseudoscience. And quantum mechanics has nothing to do with the "everything is full of nothing" stuff. That's from classical particle physics. Quantum mechanics actually goes a long way to explaining how that "empty space" is indeed not empty space.



Your right it is part of the matrix....I am sorry I reference scientists you don't agree with, but again that's where personal perception come into play. I get your on the main stream side, I get that you need a lot of proof and in time it will be there. We can agree to disagree you know. No harm in that.
jonnythan On August 02, 2014
Bringer of rad mirth


Deleted



Here and there,
#138New Post! Aug 26, 2011 @ 01:38:56
You don't reference scientists I disagree with. You reference "scientists" who aren't doing actual science. Science is repeatable and peer-reviewed. There's a reason these ideas aren't mainstream or accepted - it's because they're essentially made-up and not supported by actual science.
LovetheProcess On October 19, 2015




Plymouth, Massachusetts
#139New Post! Aug 26, 2011 @ 01:44:47
@jonnythan Said

You don't reference scientists I disagree with. You reference "scientists" who aren't doing actual science. Science is repeatable and peer-reviewed. There's a reason these ideas aren't mainstream or accepted - it's because they're essentially made-up and not supported by actual science.



That is called a theory...now that they are known they will be tested by many interested "real" scientist all over the world. If you have to wait for their words to understand that, is absolutely your right. Isn't it nice to have free will
jonnythan On August 02, 2014
Bringer of rad mirth


Deleted



Here and there,
#140New Post! Aug 26, 2011 @ 01:47:04
Theory? Not a theory. General relativity is a theory. Gravity is a theory. These are not theories, they are abstract mystical ideas not supported by any evidence or observation.
LovetheProcess On October 19, 2015




Plymouth, Massachusetts
#141New Post! Aug 26, 2011 @ 01:52:56
@jonnythan Said

Theory? Not a theory. General relativity is a theory. Gravity is a theory. These are not theories, they are abstract mystical ideas not supported by any evidence or observation.



ok Sir this is when I have to agree to disagree as this will get us no where.
I am very happy, I know why.
LovetheProcess On October 19, 2015




Plymouth, Massachusetts
#142New Post! Aug 26, 2011 @ 01:54:14
A man once said the world was round and everyone laughed at him
jonnythan On August 02, 2014
Bringer of rad mirth


Deleted



Here and there,
#143New Post! Aug 26, 2011 @ 01:56:53
@LovetheProcess Said

A man once said the world was round and everyone laughed at him


Indeed.

They also laughed when Einstein published Electrodynamics.

The difference between these people and guys like Emoto and Lipton is that these guys made these claims based on real, actual data. Lipton and Emoto are just making the stuff up.

Science is observe and experiment then come up with theories that explain the observations and results. That's not what these guys are doing. It is, simply, not science.
LovetheProcess On October 19, 2015




Plymouth, Massachusetts
#144New Post! Aug 26, 2011 @ 02:07:45
@jonnythan Said

Indeed.

They also laughed when Einstein published Electrodynamics.

The difference between these people and guys like Emoto and Lipton is that these guys made these claims based on real, actual data. Lipton and Emoto are just making the stuff up.

Science is observe and experiment then come up with theories that explain the observations and results. That's not what these guys are doing. It is, simply, not science.



There inlays the problem your assuming they just made this stuff up. You assume there could be no possible inspiration other then fast cash. I am lucky to have discovered their methods myself.
Einstein first had to believe something to come up with that idea. It meant being outside the box. Not all his ideas were a success nor were they all respected.
jonnythan On August 02, 2014
Bringer of rad mirth


Deleted



Here and there,
#145New Post! Aug 26, 2011 @ 02:09:54
Inspiration -> theory is not science.

Einstein didn't start with an idea and then build a scientific theory around it. Einstein began by examining scientific data and attempting to fit a mathematical framework around the data.

That is not what Lipton and Emoto are doing, at all. They are starting first with romantic mystical ideas and then basically stopping there.
LovetheProcess On October 19, 2015




Plymouth, Massachusetts
#146New Post! Aug 26, 2011 @ 02:12:04
@jonnythan Said

Inspiration -> theory is not science.

Einstein didn't start with an idea and then build a scientific theory around it. Einstein began by examining scientific data and attempting to fit a mathematical framework around the data.

That is not what Lipton and Emoto are doing, at all. They are starting first with romantic mystical ideas and then basically stopping there.



Again you do not understand non-mainstream ideas of energy. Due to this you can not understand why a theory, that is made from a less known source, is relevant.
jonnythan On August 02, 2014
Bringer of rad mirth


Deleted



Here and there,
#147New Post! Aug 26, 2011 @ 02:14:22
@LovetheProcess Said

Again you do not understand non-mainstream ideas of energy. Due to this you can not understand why a theory, that is made from a less known source, is relevant.


They're not mainstream because they're made-up and not supported by anything remotely resembling scientific data.

"Non-mainstream" is a euphemism for bulls*** pseudoscience. It has nothing to do with anything being "less known." If their ideas were supported by actual data and evidence, they would become mainstream.

Actual scientists aren't prone to rejecting quality data just because it's not well known or they don't like it.
LovetheProcess On October 19, 2015




Plymouth, Massachusetts
#148New Post! Aug 26, 2011 @ 02:14:35
Here is the missing link Energy Vortex
jonnythan On August 02, 2014
Bringer of rad mirth


Deleted



Here and there,
#149New Post! Aug 26, 2011 @ 02:15:52
Holy s*** you have an entire website devoted to feel-good quackery.
LovetheProcess On October 19, 2015




Plymouth, Massachusetts
#150New Post! Aug 26, 2011 @ 02:15:59
@jonnythan Said

They're not mainstream because they're made-up and not supported by anything remotely resembling scientific data.

"Non-mainstream" is a euphemism for bulls*** pseudoscience. It has nothing to do with anything being "less known." If their ideas were supported by actual data and evidence, they would become mainstream.

Actual scientists aren't prone to rejecting quality data just because it's not well known or they don't like it.



That is why I am excited. I know many people who are now looking at these theory's. Soon enough, I am so excited!
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>
Pages: << · 1 2 3 ...8 9 10 11 · >>

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Be Respectful of Others

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   Rants & Raves
Wed Dec 29, 2010 @ 22:02
13 1311
New posts   Site Support
Wed May 06, 2009 @ 04:24
15 2645
New posts   US Elections
Fri Jul 24, 2020 @ 23:24
77 25049
New posts   Random
Mon Feb 11, 2008 @ 17:53
15 2485
New posts   Random
Thu Jun 07, 2007 @ 18:39
4 1100