"Feelings" Affecting Water

[mooeypoo]

Hi all,

 

I'm not even sure this is the right place to put this thread, I was guessing according to the subject, sorry if I got it wrong, feel free to .. uhm.. relocate me..

 

I was watching (Again!) The movie "What the @$&^%^#!@ do we know" and there was something there that got me wondering about one of the things said there in particular.

 

In the movie, they showed an experiment done with water and different "moods" -- blessings, curses, words written on pages and such. The water looked different in the microscope in each different canister, even though their initial state was exactly the same.

 

Can that be possible? Is that a working experiment, or just a "movie-effect" thing? The movie seemed to be using scientific data to support some of its ideas, phylosophical as it may be, but this specific thing got me wondering about reprecussions, in case it really does exist.

 

Can "feelings" and "Attitudes" really affect the matter around us? Are we emmitting some sort of "wave" every time we "feel"?

 

Anyone knows perhaps?

 

Thanks

 

~moo

[ydoaPs]

why would you watch that trash more than once?

[JesuBungle]

In a way, yes we are emitting a wave and it affects everything around us. But not in any way the movie claims. When you act a certain way towards a person, that person is affected by the way you act, and that in turn will cause them to act a specific way towards other people or things. I have a hard time believing that water can get "vibes" off of us and change states because of it. But in short, yes, everything you do or feel affects the world around you, and maybe a lot of the world that you don't see. Feelings and attitudes affecting matter, an object that has no way to feel these feelings and attitudes? I don't think it can happen.

[insane_alien]

how exactly, can it look different under a microscope? as far as i know, molecules are not visible under a microscope. the only way we can view molecules is under an electron microscope and if you have an appreciable amount of water then its going to be a very very messy picture and certainly not a liquid.

[mooeypoo]

I actually liked that movie. I love phylosophy, and it seems to give some ideas (I didnt concider the movie scientific proofs ) about the connection between phylosophy and things we can't yet explain in science.

 

In any case, JesuBungle, I see what you mean, but I have to raise a question: If we 'emmit' some sort of "wave" or something of this sort around us that depends on our "feeling", then what difference does it make if the matter that we "affect" can feel or not?

When you use Radiation on biological matter, that can't produce that radiation by itself, you are still affecting it, and changing it.

 

Can it be done with "psychological" emmissions? Or.. bah.. whatever we do while "feeling"?

 

Plus, I don't presume to explain it, and I'm not a spiritual person either, but there is some weird effect in "feelings": Didn't it ever happen to you that you entered a room and emmediately FEEL the vibes in it? Anger, Confusion, whatever, you didn't have to actually see the faces in the crowd to emmediately feel SOMETHING. And the feeling we seem to get while someone's staring at us behind our backs.

 

There's gotta be some scientific explanation to these....

 

right?

 

~moo

[swansont]

Anything viewed under a standard electron microscope has to be conductive; you plate a layer or two of gold (or other conductor) onto it if it isn't naturally so. (IIRC if the material isn't conductive a charge builds up on it, quickly distorting the image and rendering the resolution of the EM worthless)

 

Molecules have been viewed under a scanning-tunneling electron microscope, but AFAIK they were solids.

 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and "I saw it on TV" doesn't even come close. BS until demonstrated otherwise, as far as I'm concerned.

[GutZ]

Today on Dr.Phil, is your water depressed?

 

"Plus, I don't presume to explain it, and I'm not a spiritual person either, but there is some weird effect in "feelings": Didn't it ever happen to you that you entered a room and emmediately FEEL the vibes in it? Anger, Confusion, whatever, you didn't have to actually see the faces in the crowd to emmediately feel SOMETHING. And the feeling we seem to get while someone's staring at us behind our backs."

 

There are lots of other factors that subconsiously you pick up, like sound or lack of sound, or more or less sound based on a specific situation. I am sure if they studied it extentively they would see scientific reason for it. It might be slight differences you cant really instantly rationalize, but your body picks up on it. like Stepping outside from inside and the temperature only being slightly (.5 degree or something) colder might give you an odd feeling, and you don't know exactly why.

 

Well atleast I would bet on it.

[mooeypoo]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and "I saw it on TV" doesn't even come close. BS until demonstrated otherwise, as far as I'm concerned.

I couldn't agree more, but I'm not claiming this is a proof, I"m trying to figure out if it's possible..

 

How can we explain this scientifically -- those "emotional emmissions" we all feel around us (person lookin at us behind our backs is quite the example) in a scientific way, then?

[insane_alien]

well... the only sort of effect i can think of is pheromones being given off by our bodies and then dissolving in the water. but then its not pure water anymore.

[mooeypoo]

Yeah, it wasn't pure water anymore after the "effects" or whatever it was.

 

So basically, theoretically.. it might be truely affecting our surroundings: if we're angry, we might be drinking different kind of water than if we're happy and in love? Interresting. Remind me not to order a glass of water from a gruntled waiter

 

~moo

[insane_alien]

its not as if the water has an emotion. its just whats dissolved in it. i doubt there would be high enough concentrations to alter the physical properties of the water anyway.

[mooeypoo]

I also looked up and found this site:

 

http://www.masaru-emoto.net/english/entop.html

 

Does this has any scientific basis or is this total crap?

 

~moo

[insane_alien]

total crap. i don't think its ever been repeated in a lab.

 

who wants emo water anyway.

[ydoaPs]

i want emo grass....that way, it cuts itself

[timo]

i want emo grass....that way, it cuts itself

Only grass with serious psychic problems does that.

[mooeypoo]

Hehe. Okay, well, it could've been a nice concept.

 

Thanks

[SmallIsPower]

I've watched that "trash" 4 times, because there is plenty of truth in the movie. Alas, while hado - the sending of good vibes to water appears not to have been replicated, therefore someone should, at least provisionally consider it invalid, the hydrogen bond has some unique qualities as zeropoint forces are comparable to chemical ones. Heavy water is toxic, which, to the best of my knowledge makes it unique among stable isotopes (this is the difference in the zeropoint energies of hydrogen and deuterium). here's a thread where some of the unusual qualites of water are discussed.

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=19846

[swansont]

Mildly toxic, due to the slowing or the chemical reactions from the larger mass. What do you mean by "zeropoint force" here?

[GutZ]

How can we explain this scientifically -- those "emotional emmissions" we all feel around us (person lookin at us behind our backs is quite the example) in a scientific way, then?

 

His or her breath. Probably very faint, but plausible if they were close. Other then that coincedence, A light shift, a vibration....

[Genecks]

I believe there may be some type of chemical signals that create emotions; thus, it would be possible to record the waves sent by such materials.

 

I think Kevin Warwick was working on mental emotions and the ability to transmit them.

[JesuBungle]

i want emo grass....that way, it cuts itself

 

Yeah, but then it's going to want you to listen to its stupid acoustic songs with whispered lyrics. gawd...

[SkepticLance]

One of the most useful tools in scientific thinking is the principle of Occams Razer.

 

"If you have various explanations for a particular phenomenon, the most likely to be correct is the simplest, with the fewest novel and unproven assumptions."

 

Here we have a phenomenon regarding water : Two possible explanations.

 

1. there is a brand new, staggering different effect, of a nature to turn all our scientific knowledge on its head, discovered by people who are scientific ignoramuses. Or...

 

2. A bunch of TV guys are pulling our leg.

 

Which do you think meets the principle of Occam's Razer?

[gcol]

This is not, of course a newly observed phenomenon. I came across it in principle and other guises in a 70's publication called "The secret life of plants" by Peter Tomkins and Christopher Bird. It seemed well researched, and had an extensive bibliography.

 

The effects, it is acknowledged, were resistant to consistent reproduceability

under standard conditions of laboratory rigour, being largely observed by their effect upon the growth of plants, which as any gardener knows, can be stubbornly cantankerous in their growth habits.

 

Being difficult to reproduce and quantify by standard measurement techniques if only through the difficulty of isolating individual experimental parameters, these effects are likely to resist the investigations of standard science.

 

As a side note;

1., who is not aware that plant growth is affected by different audio frequencies and types of music.

 

2., "Fringe" experiments conducted on seeds germinated in a sealed and sterile environment in which [/u]all the chemicals have been quantified.

When fully grown, the plant and growth medium residue showed not only a greater quantity of material, but also the presence of elements not originally included.

So perhaps the scientific method is not sufficiently refined to investigate these effects, or because there is little or no commercial and military gain to be had, the investigative will is not there.

 

The jury will be out for a long, long time.

[Locrian]

Anything viewed under a standard electron microscope has to be conductive; you plate a layer or two of gold (or other conductor) onto it if it isn't naturally so. (IIRC if the material isn't conductive a charge builds up on it, quickly distorting the image and rendering the resolution of the EM worthless)

 

This is typically how it is done. However, some SEM's - including the one I typically work with - can operate at higher pressures, allowing the small amount of gas in the chamber to remove this charge. We regularly take pictures of non-conductive plastics, and even have some interesting picutres of organic matter.

 

Sort of off topic, but I thought you might want to know in case you ever needed it!

[swansont]

This is typically how it is done. However' date=' some SEM's - including the one I typically work with - can operate at higher pressures, allowing the small amount of gas in the chamber to remove this charge. We regularly take pictures of non-conductive plastics, and even have some interesting picutres of organic matter.

 

Sort of off topic, but I thought you might want to know in case you ever needed it![/quote']

 

I wasn't aware of that. Thanks.