mooeypoo

We would also very much love to have him on the forum, in case he wants to discuss his research and how it does (or does not) fit the movie, if you want to invite him here to a larger context forum.

It's a rather known experiment, we saw a demo in lab, it's very cool. What drove me crazy abotu that part was the intro to it, where the moviemakers presented it as if scientists are completely baffled by this phenomenon, and are gathering to figure it out... Also, the fact they're mixmashing crap is extremely annoying. What does that have to do with water memory? Are you now suggesting water "remembers" its neighbor and is attracted to it? And lastly, their statement that water then "CLIMBS UP!" was the kicker. I stopped watching around that point. Should I go on? Michael suggested he writes the Professor and ask him. That might be a good idea.

I was thinking the same thing. But no one is claiming you can learn about messages from history from snowflakes.... :\ The scientific papers are incredibly interesting. The movie seems to be an offensive twist of the intention of those papers, though... Maybe I should keep on watching, but that first part was so incredibly pseudoscientific I couldn't bear it.

A couple of quick comments that Michael and I have discussed before he posted the video, it may help others help me too. So, I watched the video and some things were major major red flags while some were only small red flags. As far as I'm concerned, here's the general rundown: Their account of "water memory" is not scientific in the least. It's not just claiming that water might have properties that *allow* it to "remember" (store information, whatever) but they claim that the water in the river has the information about the river's path because it 'collects' that information as it goes. What a load of crock. Unless, of course, they're refering to whatever chemicals/compounds that the river water "picks up with it" as it goes, and can tell us where the river passed. Sure, why not, take a sample at the end of the river and you can likely know if the water were contaminated -- but that is a far cry from actual "memory". Total crap statement. The samples of water that they're discussing and showing how wonderfully "organized" the "information" is inside the structures was also, in the past and multiple times, shown to be bunk. First, that is usually not just water, it's usually the contaminants IN the water, and since they didn't say if the water was purified or not, it's a big problem. The experiment *itself* is completely unscientific:It was NOT double blinded. It wasn't even blinded at all. The sample size was ridiculously low. There were no controls to speak of. There was no proper hypothesis. They told people to look for patterns and found them. Whoopdidoo. The conclusion doesn't follow the actual experiment. People checked for patterns, and patterns were found in crystal formation (we already know these are pretty and symmetric, and we know WHY they're that. Big whoop?) From that they concluded that water has information in it. Huh? As for the scientific papers: I read the abstract of Dr. Ben Jacob's papers and let me tell you -- his premise, hypothesis, method and conclusion are not even CLOSE to what they're claiming in this video. It's quite offensive, honestly. The moviemakers claim water has memory, like a little harddrive computer, it seems. And yet, here's a quote of the abstract from one of Dr. Ben Jacob's papers: What *he* is doing is forcibly trying to create structures in water. He's using a method of eradeation to examine the anomalous structures that are created. As far as I could see, he does NOT say anything about storing data or even refers to any of this as data at all. He simply states you can create stable crystaline structures in nanobubbles in the water using eradeation or acoustic treatment. The main difference here is that it's not that he "discovered" the memory/data inherent in the water, but rather he *created* some structure in the water itself. It's a cool notion because *maybe* we can use it to deliver data (no clue, it was a bit over my head this part, honestly) but the water don't just automatically 'save' data from the environment and then keep it like a memory. It's like saying electricity has data in it because we can use it to deliver information, so every lightening has a message from our ancestors in it. Huh? The entire thing sounds like a complete waste of youtube space. It won't be the first time a movie twists scientists' work for their own agenda. That said, I have *not* watched the other parts of the movie, so I don't know if Dr. Ben Jacob proposes water has memory in the movie itself, I can only judge from his published papers, where he does no such thing. The actual method in the papers is extremely interesting, but it's a bit over my head, so if a physicist/chemist can go over the papers briefly, that will help -- they actually seem to be really really cool and the effect is even cooler. Hope that helps, ~mooey

So does orgasm.

Instead you put 100% of your faith in a ridiculous deadly claim that has *no* evidence, and was shown to be a fraud. Yeah, that makes total sense.

They're answering your non-scientific non-peer review links by GIVING EVIDENCE. You should read again.

Here's the article in the BMJ (which CNN refers to) about Wakefield and his fraud: http://www.bmj.com/c.../bmj.c5347.full He should tell that to the kids and elderly who died from Measles, Rubella and Pertussis in the past few years (Deaths from these diseases are INCREASING in the modern world. Where are the anti-vaxxers to insist on correlation with causation now??) Nothing angers me more than callous people letting children die. ~mooey How 'bout you read what I posted, half of those have explanations about vaccines with (SHOCKER) multiple research ilnks in them. This goes two-ways, Sammy, we're not here to post so you ignore our posts. You ignored John Cutbher's points and then posted another post as if no one has challenged you (quite rude, honestly) and then you have the audacity to demand *we* should read what we post first. Seriously, now. Also, it seems YOU are the one making the claim (that vaccines cause autism) and therefore YOU are the one in need of providing evidence. Did you read the fraudulent data that Wakefield published FRAUDULENTLY? You should. ~mooey Anti-vaxxers aren't really an informed crowd. That is, they are NOT peer reviewed publication, so "proving them wrong" with a peer reviewed publication is not quite a relevant demand here. About the effectiveness of vaccines: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/vaccines-didnt-save-us-intellectual-dishonesty-at-its-most-naked/ About vaccine ingredients: http://silencedbyageofautism.blogspot.com/2012/04/demystifying-vaccine-ingredients.html Before you say anything about peer reviewed publication (double standard as it is) please READ THOSE ARTICLES. They are both analyzing actual scientific research, so the study is there. Show us you don't just post here for nothing, and you actually care about the debate by participating in it, reading what we answer you, and arguing with some intellectual honesty. ~mooey

Copied over from the closed duplicate thread: The study that started this whole DANGEROUS charade about supposed connection between immunization and autism is FRAUDULENT: http://www.cnn.com/2...ines/index.html The fact is that people get less vaccines because of this dangerous movement to rush to dangerous conclusions and convince people to literally put their children at harm's way. And guess what? There's a whooping cough (Pertussis) outbreak. One of those deadly ilnesses that were almost unheard of in the modern world *because* of vaccines is coming back, double time. http://children.webmd.com/vaccines/features/california-whooping-cough-epidemic So what you're saying, really, is that a single correlation between 2 UNRELATED statistical results trump everything *actual doctors* say, and *actual studies* say. Whooping cough outbreak in Boulder http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/04/09/whooping-cough-outbreak-in-boulder/ Pertussis epidemic in California linked to vaccination gaps http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2010/07/26/prl10726.htm And, finally, the Jenny McCarthy body count, a site that includes actual research with the claims it's making. Imagine that. http://www.jennymccarthybodycount.com/Jenny_McCarthy_Body_Count/Home.html Please read those before you urge parents to put their children at harm, and hurt herd immunity. ~mooey

The study that started this whole DANGEROUS sherade was a hoax: http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/06/autism.vaccines/index.html The fact is that people get less vaccines because of this dangerous movement to rush to dangerous conclusions and convince people to literally put their children at harm's way. And guess what? There's a whooping cough (Pertussis) outbreak. One of those deadly ilnesses that were almost unheard of in the modern world *because* of vaccines is coming back, double time. http://children.webmd.com/vaccines/features/california-whooping-cough-epidemic So what you're saying, really, is that a single correlation between 2 UNRELATED statistical results trump everything *actual doctors* say, and *actual studies* say. Whooping cough outbreak in Boulder http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/04/09/whooping-cough-outbreak-in-boulder/ Pertussis epidemic in California linked to vaccination gaps http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2010/07/26/prl10726.htm And, finally, the Jenny McCarthy body count, a site that includes actual research with the claims it's making. Imagine that. http://www.jennymccarthybodycount.com/Jenny_McCarthy_Body_Count/Home.html Please read those before you urge parents to put their children at harm, and hurt herd immunity. ~mooey

! Moderator Note Athena, no matter how right you believe you are, and no matter how much truth you hold in your statements, insults, personal attacks, and Godwin Laws are against etiquette and against our rules. Now, everyone in this thread (and this is really meant for multiple people on this long subject): There are getting to be way too many moderation notes here, all surrounding the general issue of behavior towards one another. Stop making assumptions and stop trying to "win" the argument; instead, take a step back, a deep breath, and come back trying to show and explain your stance. If you change your attitude from "I'M RIGHT NO ONE ELSE KNOWS ANYTHING HERE'S HOW IM RIGHT" to "hey, here's what I think.." everyone will have a much merrier time here. This is meant for more than just one poster in this thread, so don't derail it by posting a response. Also, if you think someone's being mean or rude, use the report button, it's what it is there for.

I think the question is a definition of reason. Hobbes, for instance, separate personal reason (more or less meaning "what's beneficial for the individual's survival") from communal reason. Also, his way of constructing what "reason" means in general is more similar to a process rather than a conclusion. I highly recommend reading Leviathan, by the way, but here's a good short summary of the reason quote: Source: http://www.sparknote.../section2.rhtml The biggest challenge isn't necessarily agreeing that a society should go by reason, it's deciding what that reason means. The fact many people consider a specific issue at hand does not mean they are making the "right" decision at the end, we've seen this throughout history. Not too long ago the vast majority of the US thought african americans and blacks should not marry white caucasian partners. I'm not sure if we'd define that as a reasonable conclusion, though, even though it was "strictly" democratic (majority rules). Democracy, at least in my eyes, is more than just majority rule, it's protection of the minority. Doing that is not easy, though, because individuals in society are often not directly in "contact" with minorities and are often unable to really consider the rights of these groups. Also, there's a lot ot be said about "Self evident" truths in Jefferson's writing. I agree that it's a self evident truth that all men are created equal, but not all society agrees with that. There are people on the extreme that believe some "races" are not inherently equal to others, and some people on the not-so-extreme that believe wholeheartedly that some sexual orientations do not deserve equal tretment either. Whose "self evident truth" do we go by in a democracy? Also, how do you control for groups or people who convince others with twisted "logic"? Politics (maybe sadly) is not like science, there's no "scientific method" for politics that makes people step away from their subjective opinions and feelings to deduce a rational result that is then peer-reviewed. It's more a balance of multiple sides of the spectrum where there might be more than one good answer. Democracy goes by reason as much as reason is the decision made by the majority, while still having provisions to preserve basic the rights (or supposedly so) of the minorities. The fact that it doesn't always work shows that reason isn't as simple as Jefferson and the founding fathers made it. I, by the way, think that is part of the problem of the constitution. It seems to be quite vaguely spelled out in some cases which leads people to argue both sides of the point as the original intent. Either the founding fathers wanted to make it broad enough to satisfy many groups in society, or they thought the underlying truths are so 'self evident' that no one would misread them, but people do, and people argue about the meanings and conclusions of those self-evident truths as well as the truths themselves. It seems to me there's a bit more grey-area to democracy than strictly going by a somewhat vague statement of 'reason'. ~mooey P.S Consider as an example the statement "We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights". Men in society before the 1920s used this to prevent women from voting ("men" are equal, not women) Religious folk in this country up to this day claim that this is evidence for some religious affiliation by the founding fathers because of the mentioning of the Creator, and since it says that these rights were endowed by the creator, many of them use that to say that we should go by the biblical law. I (and I assume many others) disagree with both points, but these points are not as easy to dismiss based on the text ALONE. They show that "reason" is (a) subjective and depends on the group that makes the decision and (b) evolving with time.

Omg, I'm so totally doing that...

.... I completely didn't think abut that, it makes so much more sense now. I don't know why I had this weird idea that the force is diminshed the higher up it goes, as if it is only effective when it "hits" the ground.. that's totally false and against Newton's 3rd law. And yet, I was so confused because I knew the contraption with a model plane will not launch into space, right? it would hover somewhere.. Now it makes sense. The weight of the hoses! Ah, I feel like an idiot Seriously, there are rocket launch formulas that involve how a rocket gets *lighter* as it goes up because it loses the weight of the used fuel, and yet in this case with the model plane and hoses, it's exactly the opposite, it "gains" weight the higher it goes! Bah, I feel silly now! Thanks for the answers guys, it helps a lot, and thanks for snapping me back to reality, Capn ~mooey

Okay, let me organize my question better. I want to recreate this effect in my back yard with garden hozes and a model airplane. Yes, I know that water is not the same as jet fuel gas, but the principle should be more or less the same -- force downwards lifting the little toy up. To make it balanced, I'll put the toy on a square plate and 4 hoses, one in each side, so it's more or less balanced. Let's ignore the balance for a moment though (theoretically speaking if all 4 hoses are equal, I hve equal forces on all sides, reality be damned) Obviously, if I have a low stream in the hose nozzle (lower pressure coming out) the contraption will go to some relatively low height, and if I increase the flow (pressure through the nozzle) it will soar HIGHER. I know this from observation. I'm trying to see if I can calculate *how high* it can go based on how *strong* my flow is through the garden hose, knowing the mass of the toy plane. Does this make sense?

Hi guys, I had a discussion with a friend about the Harrier jet and how far up it could go compared to the propulsion of the jet, and if we could calculate this mathematically. Before I go on, the Harrier jet is a pretty cool attack plane that can lift off vertically. See example here: Theoretically speaking, if instead of gas propulsion we had water jets going downwards (powerful ones) and we know the weight of the jet, we should be able to calculate at what distance above the ground the forces of the thrust from the propulsion equals the force of gravity from the plane's weight. So we could tell how far up it would go based on the initial pressure out of the nozzle. I know this is possible to calculate, I'm just having trouble implementing this. How would I go about calculating it? If I want to build my own small model with garden hoses and a tiny jet (on a little plate or something), I would then have the exact pressure out of the nozzle of the garden hose, and the weight of the model plane + plate, how would I calculate how far up the model plane would go? I'm a bit confused, I'm not sure how to start this. Bernoulli's equation doesn't seem to help because it requires an enclosed flow and this is not one of those, so I went with jet propulsion equations, like in this resource form NASA. But that seems to speak about horizontal propulsion, and not quite about vertical one. Any help? If we know initial pressure from the nozzles and weight of the model plane, how do you start calculating the equilibrium equation? Thanks! ~mooey

I disagree with half the logic you're using, but regardless, I think the main issue here is your premise. You *start* with the assumption that there IS a god, when there is no evidence to suggest this at all. Then, you "eliminate" arbitrarily according to your own logic. That is, if you speak to a wiccan, they not only will disagree with your logic, they'll likely offer an equally compelling reason why you should take THEIR angle. I know, I used to believe in it, and this above would not even begin to convince me, not by a long shot. On top of that, your claim that the abrahamic religions "coincide" with scientific knowledge is a stretch at best, and depends on an interpretation of the biblical text. If you read it literally, it goes *against* science, with claims that make little sense in terms of biology, evolution and physics. From the creation of light *after* stars (completely against physics) to the idea that rabbits are carnivors. It doesn't fit. You may, of course, interpret the bible differently, and then make sure the biblical account fits science, but that is a manipulation of the text. You can't say that the text fits science, you can say that your BELIEF makes the INTERPRETATION of the text fit science. Finally, that too is irrelevant. I can show you how Stargate SG-1 fits science very nicely, as well as quite large parts of Star Trek, not to mention Battlestar Galactica. Does it mean we came from a hybrid of alien and cyborgs? Does it even count as a remotely plausible logical case? You need to first establish that God's existence is plausible, then that this PARTICULAR god is plausible, then that this god requires some sort of worship, etc. You can't start with the conclusion and fit everything in. Not only is that not good science, it's not critical thinking. I actually think the idea that there are multiple gods is much more plausible than having a single one. It can explain the problem of evil, it can explain problems with subjective and social-dependent morality, as well as different mythos for different cultures. As far as I'm concerned, Xena's world seems a lot more plausible to me than Abraham's single all-loving-till-he-kills-everyone-he-is-angry-at God. There's zero evidence for either story, and I don't quite see how either premise is required, so I remain an agnostic atheist. If I had to choose, though, and the world was a false dichotomy (as you seem to present it fro your initial quote above, ignoring the possibility there are *other* options than the ones you presented, eh? then Xena's world seems more plausible to me than the offered alternative. It has the same amount (if not more) of "evidence", written ancient texts, and ancient believers. If those are the criteria, I can't see how you can dismiss it off hand. ~mooey False dichotomy, anyone? There are quite a number of other options, Villain. To name a few, there's a possibility that there is a god but he/she isn't what we think it is, or that there's no god but evolution made us lean towards the spiritual (which makes us want to believe regardless of fact, and also makes religious folk not "broken") and.. well, quite a number of other possibilities. I would stay away from "either or" in these cases. That said, I would be careful of your final sentence. You are saying "without the need for constant empirical evidence", you know what? I'll settle for a ONE TIME empirical evidence that stands to scrutiny, I don't need this issue to keep being reaffirmed if the evidence it has are strong enough. Then again, if god actually real, evidence would just naturally "fall" to our laps, as happens constantly with things like General Relativity and gravity. We're not constantly trying to prove these theories, not anymore, they're fairly well established, but everywhere we look, we find evidence, because they are real events and reality "can't avoid it". It is the way things work. I consider it a problem that there are no continuous "incidental" evidence for God's existence, I really do, that makes me wonder if he exists at all, and I think it should make everyone wonder that, especially in light of the fact that there are no evidence at all without have "continuous" ones.

Wha..? The question is simple: What if Zeus is the REAL god, but we worship the judeo-christian God. That only makes Zeus madder and madder because we worship the wrong god. You keep dancing AROUND this question, questionposter, but it's very important, especially in light of evidence and its definition -- it really asks what do you use to dismiss some claims as false (like the existence of Zeus) and accept others as true (like the existence of God) when you don't use the methodology of science. How do *you* decide what's true and what isn't, and how do you know for sure that you're right? Lacking a system of judgment about removing bias and measuring evidence in relation to reality, while having quite a number of elaborate stories and myths about different gods, how do YOU judge which God-story is true? Please answer this.

I asked the question earlier in the thread about Zeus and how would the "hypothesis" of Zeus (which is equal if not MORE abundant actually than that of the biblical god) is bunk while god isn't. Didn't get an answer on that, and I think it touches on what evidence is. Why is it that the fact Zeus is described in hundreds and hundreds of tablets and stories from many people over a large period of time is NOT enough to believe Zeus and worship him, but the biblical account is enough to believe in God? In my eyes both are equally non evidence, because both are equally not representing facts, hence both of thse are equally unreal, unless some evidence is presented to the contrary. Actual evidence.. the type we can test and see as factual. Otherwise, well..

Because it doesn't discuss a fact, zapatos. The burden of proof is on the claimant, isn't it? If it's "neither here nor there", it's not a fact, and it's not evidence.

Who said anything about numbers? .... your logic is weird, man. There are tons of weird wrong things that 99% of the population believes in, as they have throughout history. You start by complaining about numbers and then state a completely odd statement about the number games. If this is a number game, my friend, you need to go Muslim.

I get the same feeling when I meditate, and yet I don't attach any external omnipotent invisible fatherly figure to it. Doesn't mean it's right. "Science" can't prove the unicorn wrong, or Zeus wrong. Does that mean you're going to Zeus temple tomorrow with a rainbow-colored saddle?

You don't refer to it as evidence at all to begin with... because it's not evidence.

Sure. But then we don't infer the existence of a mythical creature based on an event in the past, do we? If we have 5 accounts of the same event telling us how a group of people met to worship the sun god and that day there was an eclipse, then we can assume the event actually happened, but to assume the sun god exists is a bit of a leap, wouldn't you say? As Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Not all claims are equal. "Yesterday, I went to lunch" is not equal in the range of needing evidence with the claim that "Yesterday, I was abducted by aliens". Don't you agree? To prove the first, I can simply give you a receipt, and if you insist, we can talk to some people in the coffee shop. It's probably enough for that type of claim because you know that coffee shops exist, that they exist closeby to me, that i go to them occasionally, that it's not all that insane that I would go to one, etc. But the second claim is a bit more out there, because it requires more assumptions, so it also requires a lot more scrutiny. You will likely not be convinced with the same amount (or type) or evidence that I could produce for the first claim, and I wouldn't blame you. What I think people tend to miss here, is that the claim that God exists is very similar to the claim that Zeus exists, and the claim that dragons exist. They all have multiple accounts telling events and adventures about them, from multiple people. It may seem to you that God is such a logical answer, but I *really* honestly truly do not see the difference. If I dismiss the concept of Zeus, why not do the same to God if they share the same type of evidence and the same type of plausibility to people who didn't grow up in the belief. ~mooey

Evidence. From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence From Merriam Webster: http://www.merriam-w...ionary/evidence It appears Evidence is about a *truth*, about a fact. I said the legal system abuses this word because the way the legal system works (especially in the US legal system), legal evidence "depend" on perspective and the rhetoric used by the lawyer. It's not necessarily a truth, but rather a presentation of some fact the lawyer tries to use to either show guilt or non-guilt. Evidence are then *examined* and scrutinized. If they stand the test of scrutiny, we can say they're evidence, if they fail, they fail. That doesn't change the fact that evidence demonstrates a truth. That said, evidence is somethign that is proposed and then examined. It remains evidence if it "passes" the test, and fails if it doesn't. "Here's evidence that rob murered bob" can either remain evidence for the matter because no one could refute it, or can change to non-evidence when someone refuted it. Same goes to science. "Here's an evidence for the big bang" remains evidence until someone refutes it. "Here's evidence for god" was evidence until it was refuted. If you can come up with an evidence for God that cannot be refuted, we could start discussing the merits of the God theory. So far, attempts at evidence were presented, and all failed scrutiny. ~mooey