White Powder Gold

[toastywombel]

I don't know site the peer reviewed studies and how about everyone here take a go at attempting to find flaws in the ways the studies were conducted. Oh yeah, there are no peer reviewed studies on the subject, well I would love you to site any study supporting these claims.

[Saint Germain]

To see more on what Quackwatch says about the Institute of Noetic sciences here is a link to their article: http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/nonrecorg.html

 

Thanks for the link.

 

There are just a few criteria and a list with Institute of Noetic Sciences - I see no actual critics addressed to IONS in specific.

 

When one looks at the criteria, the first one is interesting:

1. Are its ideas inside the scientific mainstream? - the very definition of cutting edge science is to be outside the mainstream

 

I see no real credible review, just suspicions.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I don't know site the peer reviewed studies and how about everyone here take a go at attempting to find flaws in the ways the studies were conducted. Oh yeah, there are no peer reviewed studies on the subject, well I would love you to site any study supporting these claims.

 

I have Dean Radin's book "The Conscious Universe" here with me, filled with such studies.

 

What would satisfy you?

 

Would perception through time be suitable?

Edited December 16, 2009 by Saint Germain
Consecutive posts merged.

[toastywombel]

Where did you get that from?

 

I formulated that argument based on my basic understanding of the brain and how it works.

 

The brain is comprised of of about 100 billion neurons connected together by 100 trillion synapses. Synapses are key in the transfer of electrical signals through neurons. The electrical signals travel along the synapses than release a neurotransmitter to transfer the data to the neurons.

 

This is from wikipedia:

 

"Neurotransmitters are endogenous chemicals which relay, amplify, and modulate signals between a neuron and another cell.[1] Neurotransmitters are packaged into synaptic vesicles that cluster beneath the membrane on the presynaptic side of a synapse, and are released into the synaptic cleft, where they bind to receptors in the membrane on the postsynaptic side of the synapse. Release of neurotransmitters usually follows arrival of an action potential at the synapse, but may follow graded electrical potentials. Low level "baseline" release also occurs without electrical stimulation."

 

So using my basic knowledge of the brain I concluded that the transfer of signals (which are essentially your thoughts) between neurons depend on a link through synapses and the release of chemical neurotransmitters. Without synapses and chemical neuro-transmitters the transfer of though/electrical signals between neurons would be impossible.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I have Dean Radin's book "The Conscious Universe" here with me, filled with such studies.

 

Anyone can write anything in a book. I have an open mind, but I remain skeptical of anything, especially if it has not passed the peer-review process. The peer review-process has successfully carried us from the days of horse transportation to the world of cell-phones, cars, planes, space-flight, the Internet, transistors, and nano-technology which we live in today. So I would say the peer-review process has served us very well.

 

This is off topic though and maybe more appropriate for another thread, this thread is intended for the discussion of monatomic gold/ white powder gold.

Edited December 16, 2009 by toastywombel
Consecutive posts merged.

[Phi for All]

Can we stay on topic, please? Chasing red herrings about noetics and telepathy will only cloud a reasonable discussion of scientific testing of the claims of white powder gold.

 

Thank you.

[Saint Germain]

I formulated that argument based on my basic understanding of the brain and how it works.

 

The brain is comprised of of about 100 billion neurons connected together by 100 trillion synapses. Synapses are key in the transfer of electrical signals through neurons. The electrical signals travel along the synapses than release a neurotransmitter to transfer the data to the neurons.

 

This is from wikipedia:

 

"Neurotransmitters are endogenous chemicals which relay, amplify, and modulate signals between a neuron and another cell.[1] Neurotransmitters are packaged into synaptic vesicles that cluster beneath the membrane on the presynaptic side of a synapse, and are released into the synaptic cleft, where they bind to receptors in the membrane on the postsynaptic side of the synapse. Release of neurotransmitters usually follows arrival of an action potential at the synapse, but may follow graded electrical potentials. Low level "baseline" release also occurs without electrical stimulation."

 

So using my basic knowledge of the brain I concluded that the transfer of signals (which are essentially your thoughts) between neurons depend on a link through synapses and the release of chemical neurotransmitters. Without synapses and chemical neuro-transmitters the transfer of though/electrical signals between neurons would be impossible.

 

Ok, Wikipedia and your the conclusions of your basic understanding seem enough for you to prove that many studies are flaws???

 

Mmmh, it seems to me that someone is defending a belief, not facing the facts...

 

More seriously

 

An example could be studies from Prof Joseph Banks Rhine and his colleagues Duke University.

Someone stands before 25 different cards shuffled - and then "send" the symbol to someone - results are high above chance levels.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Can we stay on topic, please? Chasing red herrings about noetics and telepathy will only cloud a reasonable discussion of scientific testing of the claims of white powder gold.

 

Thank you.

 

True.

 

I have fun with people defending an obsolete mechanistic worldview - totally unworkable in the present level of science, but so deeply rooted in our minds, refusing to face the facts and trying to defend a belief...

 

Where were we?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Anyone can write anything in a book. I have an open mind, but I remain skeptical of anything, especially if it has not passed the peer-review process.

 

By "such studies" I meant peer-reviewed.

 

I think one is in trouble when he lets others do the thinking...

 

The peer review-process has successfully carried us from the days of horse transportation to the world of cell-phones, cars, planes, space-flight, the Internet, transistors, and nano-technology which we live in today. So I would say the peer-review process has served us very well.

 

I have profound respect for peer-reviewing - I just don't think the majority is always right.

Edited December 16, 2009 by Saint Germain
Consecutive posts merged.

[toastywombel]

No, quite on the contrary I am defending the facts based on how the brain works. It is one thing if one can show strange coincidences of "telepathy". I would like to see any of these studies explain how these strange phenomena happen, in a scientific manor.

 

For telepathy to be proven as an actual scientifically sound pehnomena, one would need to explain how an electrical signal travels from a neuron from person A's brain to a neuron in person B's brain without the use of synapses or neurotransmitters. Studies showing telepathy happening do not suffice, you have to explain how this happens.

 

This is off topic though and more appropriate for another thread so I suggest we stay on topic at hand (monatomic gold).

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Furthermore, I would appreciate it if you stop attacking me personally by statements such as, "someone is defending a belief, not facing the facts".

 

If anything is wrong with the facts I have told you about the brain point them out in a specific, scientific manor. Also you said, "I think one is in trouble when he lets others do the thinking..."

 

The only way I can take that statement as a direct insult at my intelligence suggesting I do not think for myself. Ask anyone on this forum, I admit when I am wrong, I am kind and I don't partake in personal attacks. I even wrote an extensive blog on the subject.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

The problem I have with you answering the thread about white powder gold is that you are retarding the knowledge of the questioner by advocating for something that is a scam.

Edited December 16, 2009 by toastywombel
Consecutive posts merged.

[Saint Germain]

No, quite on the contrary I am defending the facts based on how the brain works. It is one thing if one can show strange coincidences of "telepathy". I would like to see any of these studies explain how these strange phenomena happen, in a scientific manor.

 

For telepathy to be proven as an actual scientifically sound pehnomena, one would need to explain how an electrical signal travels from a neuron from person A's brain to a neuron in person B's brain without the use of synapses or neurotransmitters. Studies showing telepathy happening do not suffice, you have to explain how this happens.

 

It seems you are mistaking the phenomena for the theory.

 

Here is roughly how the scientific method works:

 

1. You observe and describe a phenomenon.

 

2. You create an hypothesis to explain your observation.

 

3. You use the hypothesis to predict other phenomena - or results of new observations.

 

4. You experiment to prove/disprove the generalization.

 

Now if you do observe the phenomena (which is being made by peer-reviewed studies) - you have to suggest an hypothesis to explain.

 

For example, we all agree gravity exists.

 

Now Newton has suggested that it was because masses attracted each-other.

Einstein suggested that it was due to space-time curvature...

Same phenomenon, different theories (linked together though - you can find that Newton's theory is a special case of Einstein's).

 

Furthermore, I would appreciate it if you stop attacking me personally by statements such as, "someone is defending a belief, not facing the facts".

 

If anything is wrong with the facts I have told you about the brain point them out in a specific, scientific manor. Also you said, "I think one is in trouble when he lets others do the thinking..."

 

The only way I can take that statement as a direct insult at my intelligence suggesting I do not think for myself. Ask anyone on this forum, I admit when I am wrong, I am kind and I don't partake in personal attacks. I even wrote an extensive blog on the subject.

 

No offense was intended.

 

I was just pointing out that "the obvious physical flaws of telepathy" is the expression of a belief that unnecessarily discredits genuine scientific studies done though years of hard work were not coming from an educated opinion.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

The problem I have with you answering the thread about white powder gold is that you are retarding the knowledge of the questioner by advocating for something that is a scam.

 

Again, how educated is this judgement?

 

It's easy to call something a scam - where does it come from? Scrupulously forged opinion or a mere impression?

 

Second, I am not advocating for something, I am just offering my perspective - this has now been stated more than three times in my posts. Also, let me repeat that I do not intend to convince or prove.

 

I am answering, from an educated perspective, the question of someone who has shown interest in a domain.

Edited December 16, 2009 by Saint Germain
Consecutive posts merged.

[toastywombel]

It seems you are mistaking the phenomena for the theory.

 

Here is roughly how the scientific method works:

 

1. You observe and describe a phenomenon.

 

2. You create an hypothesis to explain your observation.

 

3. You use the hypothesis to predict other phenomena - or results of new observations.

 

4. You experiment to prove/disprove the generalization.

 

Now if you do observe the phenomena (which is being made by peer-reviewed studies) - you have to suggest an hypothesis to explain.

 

For example, we all agree gravity exists.

 

Now Newton has suggested that it was because masses attracted each-other.

Einstein suggested that it was due to space-time curvature...

Same phenomenon, different theories (linked together though - you can find that Newton's theory is a special case of Einstein's).

 

 

 

No offense was intended.

 

I was just pointing out that "the obvious physical flaws of telepathy" is the expression of a belief that unnecessarily discredits genuine scientific studies done though years of hard work were not coming from an educated opinion.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

 

Again, how educated is this judgement?

 

It's easy to call something a scam - where does it come from? Scrupulously forged opinion or a mere impression?

 

Again, off topic. By a belief I guess your referring to the belief on how the brain works. Which has much more scientific backing than any study of telepathy. But this is off topic, if you want to start a new thread about how the brain works I would be happy to respond to it.

[Saint Germain]

Again, off topic. By a belief I guess your referring to the belief on how the brain works. Which has much more scientific backing than any study of telepathy. But this is off topic, if you want to start a new thread about how the brain works I would be happy to respond to it.

 

No, by belief, I am referring to assumptions based upon one version of the mechanics of the brain.

 

I am not developing a new topic, I am illustrating elements that I have used and that some have attempted to ridicule by playing on belief-based elements such as "the obvious physical flaws of telepathy."

 

If this is a science forum - let's look at the facts, studies, theories, let's have an open mind and not draw early conclusions - this is my message.

[UC]

I am answering, from an educated perspective, the question of someone who has shown interest in a domain.

 

Is the name Vlad perhaps familiar to you?

 

http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=4700

[Saint Germain]

Is the name Vlad perhaps familiar to you?

 

http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=4700

 

Not that I know...

 

He seems to be making a white powder from the pictures I've seen.

 

Why the question?

[Phi for All]

What is a non-natural phenomena?

In this instance, I refer to anything that is not explainable by mainstream science. Test results which professed to show something that doesn't agree with accepted physics would require further tests to determine what is causing such super-natural results. If further testing concludes that the test subject behaved in a manner outside of what we know should happen, then the results can be peer-reviewed so others can come to the same conclusion, or point out where the testing was flawed.

 

You here share the method - not an actual experiment set-up.

Can you set up this experiment:

We put our powder into a graphite vessel, covered it all with graphite powder and then heated it at 1400 Celsius for 24-36 hours. Then the tiny metallic particles produced during this time and the remaining powder were assayed – and guess what, the mixture assayed as silica, gold, copper, magnesium, potassium, chromium, iron, sulphur, etc. When it is done in an inert atmosphere and not just under air, the results are somewhat different. The result of this method somewhat changes depending on reaction time and temperature. In some cases, the reduced powder contained some rhodium, platinum, etc.

... as a double-blind trial where the experimenters test several "white powders" without knowing which is "white powder gold" and also without knowing what results are expected? In this fashion you would eliminate any bias on the part of the observers and you would also elicit different approaches to solving why they see something extraordinary about the reactions of one of those "white powders", and new experiments could be conducted under equal peer-review.

 

In our case, what type of prediction would you be making?

If your test results can be reproduced every time, then any of the results would be predictable. Predict that the elemental nature of the subject will change, or its mass will be affected.

[toastywombel]

As fun as this been SaintGermain seems as if he/she does not accept known science, such as how the brain works and about monatomic gold. I am now going to withdraw from this conversation as it seems he/she will advocate for monatomic gold no matter what evidence is presented to the contrary.

[Saint Germain]

In this instance, I refer to anything that is not explainable by mainstream science. Test results which professed to show something that doesn't agree with accepted physics would require further tests to determine what is causing such super-natural results. If further testing concludes that the test subject behaved in a manner outside of what we know should happen, then the results can be peer-reviewed so others can come to the same conclusion, or point out where the testing was flawed.

 

Ok, so you do realize our current understanding is a limited approximation of reality and that "un-natural" can very well be natural in another understanding.

 

Can you set up this experiment:

... as a double-blind trial where the experimenters test several "white powders" without knowing which is "white powder gold" and also without knowing what results are expected? In this fashion you would eliminate any bias on the part of the observers and you would also elicit different approaches to solving why they see something extraordinary about the reactions of one of those "white powders", and new experiments could be conducted under equal peer-review.

 

If your test results can be reproduced every time, then any of the results would be predictable. Predict that the elemental nature of the subject will change, or its mass will be affected.

 

Sure - put any white powder - NaOH under the study of spectroscopy, and the machine will tell show you the rays and you will be able to conclude that this is indeed NaOH.

 

Now the spectroscopy has been performed more than once, at Cornell, in Russia (don't know the exact university though) and in private labs.

 

We used X-ray analysis with 8 different X-ray heads, tunneling microscopy, diffraction, fluorescent microscopy, all these wonderful technologies, and the spectroscopist confirmed the presence of iron, silica and aluminum. Once again, we worked to remove these elements from the sample. When they no longer showed up on the spectroscopic analysis, the spectroscopist pronounced that there was now nothing, yet there was still material present.

 

According to the Soviet Academy of Sciences, proper spectroscopic analysis requires a 300 second burn instead of the 15 seconds as done in the US. When you do this, you have to sheath the electrode with an inert gas to remove all oxygen and prevent the electrode from burning away too fast. The equipment was setup to use argon as the inert gas so they could achieve a 300 second burn.

 

Using this process, within the first 15 seconds, we got the standard readings of iron, silica and aluminum and sometimes traces of calcium. After that, nothing else was read until 90 seconds into the burn, where palladium began to read, at 110 seconds, platinum began to read, at 130 seconds, ruthenium began to read, at 140-150 seconds rhodium began to read, at 190, iridium began to read, at 220 osmium begins to read.

 

All the italic writings come from here http://www.treasurealchemy.com/further-scientific-proofs-of-its-exotic-nature

 

Now double bind experiments are indeed useful in domains in which the human factor plays a major role (in such cases as medicine testing) but also coming in so called "hard sciences" with quantum theory with the observer effect.

 

As you can imagine, the equipment has been checked - the experiences repeated to find what was causing these strange behaviors, and of course the experiences have been repeated, in various labs.

 

The predictions can be made regarding the weight - and regarding which element it will be tested as depending on the temperature, as illustrated in the text in italic.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

As fun as this been SaintGermain seems as if he/she does not accept known science, such as how the brain works and about monatomic gold. I am now going to withdraw from this conversation as it seems he/she will advocate for monatomic gold no matter what evidence is presented to the contrary.

 

On the contrary my friend.

 

I know that science works with models, and that models are limited approximations that evolve through time.

 

With the present understanding, the greatest mysteries of the brain, that is memory and consciousness, still remain unexplained.

 

Which illustrates that the current model is at best highly incomplete.

 

Now for the fifth time, I offer a perspective, I do not advocate, intend to convince or anything.

 

It seems that many are insisting to prove that it is a fraud, a scam, with discredit such as your above suggestion.

Edited December 16, 2009 by Saint Germain
Consecutive posts merged.

[toastywombel]

Ok, so you do realize our current understanding is a limited approximation of reality and that "un-natural" can very well be natural in another understanding.

 

 

 

Sure - put any white powder - NaOH under the study of spectroscopy, and the machine will tell show you the rays and you will be able to conclude that this is indeed NaOH.

 

Now the spectroscopy has been performed more than once, at Cornell, in Russia (don't know the exact university though) and in private labs.

 

We used X-ray analysis with 8 different X-ray heads, tunneling microscopy, diffraction, fluorescent microscopy, all these wonderful technologies, and the spectroscopist confirmed the presence of iron, silica and aluminum. Once again, we worked to remove these elements from the sample. When they no longer showed up on the spectroscopic analysis, the spectroscopist pronounced that there was now nothing, yet there was still material present.

 

According to the Soviet Academy of Sciences, proper spectroscopic analysis requires a 300 second burn instead of the 15 seconds as done in the US. When you do this, you have to sheath the electrode with an inert gas to remove all oxygen and prevent the electrode from burning away too fast. The equipment was setup to use argon as the inert gas so they could achieve a 300 second burn.

 

Using this process, within the first 15 seconds, we got the standard readings of iron, silica and aluminum and sometimes traces of calcium. After that, nothing else was read until 90 seconds into the burn, where palladium began to read, at 110 seconds, platinum began to read, at 130 seconds, ruthenium began to read, at 140-150 seconds rhodium began to read, at 190, iridium began to read, at 220 osmium begins to read.

 

All the italic writings come from here http://www.treasurealchemy.com/further-scientific-proofs-of-its-exotic-nature

 

Now double bind experiments are indeed useful in domains in which the human factor plays a major role (in such cases as medicine testing) but also coming in so called "hard sciences" with quantum theory with the observer effect.

 

As you can imagine, the equipment has been checked - the experiences repeated to find what was causing these strange behaviors, and of course the experiences have been repeated, in various labs.

 

The predictions can be made regarding the weight - and regarding which element it will be tested as depending on the temperature, as illustrated in the text in italic.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

 

On the contrary my friend.

 

I know that science works with models, and that models are limited approximations that evolve through time.

 

With the present understanding, the greatest mysteries of the brain, that is memory and consciousness, still remain unexplained.

 

Which illustrates that the current model is at best highly incomplete.

 

Now for the fifth time, I offer a perspective, I do not advocate, intend to convince or anything.

 

It seems that many are insisting to prove that it is a fraud, a scam, with discredit such as your above suggestion.

 

Really everyone on this forum is aware that it is a scam, I was attempting to show you that monatomic gold is a scam, but you are not interested in hearing that.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Saint Germain, the point is that the results of all these "studies" done on this mysterious substance should be published in a journal of chemistry. Peer-review does not exist to suppress weird results; it exists so that other chemists can notice "but you forgot to account for the reaction that occurs when you do x, so the sample would be contaminated" and you can improve your experiments.

 

The fact that this research has not been published hints at a lack of merit. (Of course, it doesn't mean the research really is flawed -- just that it hasn't been provided to anyone so they can determine if it is. Science is a fan of openness.)

 

I suppose one of our resident chemists can look at the claims made on the websites you linked to and see if they notice anything amiss.

[Saint Germain]

Really everyone on this forum is aware that it is a scam, I was attempting to show you that monatomic gold is a scam, but you are not interested in hearing that.

 

Yeah, the "everyone" card huh?

 

When a scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong. - Arthur C. Clarke

 

Rail travel at high speed is not possible because passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia. - Dr Dionysys Larder (1793-1859), professor of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy, University College London.

 

Flight by machines heavier than air is unpractical and insignificant, if not utterly impossible. - Simon Newcomb - The Wright Brothers flew at Kittyhawk 18 months later.

 

Everything that can be invented has been invented. - Charles H Duell, Commissioner U.S. Office of Patents, 1899

 

A rocket will never be able to leave the Earth's atmosphere. - New York Times, 1936.

 

There is practically no chance communications space satellites will be used to provide better telephone, telegraph, television, or radio service inside the United States. - T. Craven, FCC Commissioner, in 1961 - The first satellite for commercial communications went into service in 1965

[UC]

Yeah, the "everyone" card huh?

 

When a scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong. - Arthur C. Clarke

 

Rail travel at high speed is not possible because passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia. - Dr Dionysys Larder (1793-1859), professor of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy, University College London.

 

Flight by machines heavier than air is unpractical and insignificant, if not utterly impossible. - Simon Newcomb - The Wright Brothers flew at Kittyhawk 18 months later.

 

Everything that can be invented has been invented. - Charles H Duell, Commissioner U.S. Office of Patents, 1899

 

A rocket will never be able to leave the Earth's atmosphere. - New York Times, 1936.

 

There is practically no chance communications space satellites will be used to provide better telephone, telegraph, television, or radio service inside the United States. - T. Craven, FCC Commissioner, in 1961 - The first satellite for commercial communications went into service in 1965

 

That's not even an argument. Proof or stfu is basically what it comes down to.

[Saint Germain]

Saint Germain, the point is that the results of all these "studies" done on this mysterious substance should be published in a journal of chemistry. Peer-review does not exist to suppress weird results; it exists so that other chemists can notice "but you forgot to account for the reaction that occurs when you do x, so the sample would be contaminated" and you can improve your experiments.

 

The fact that this research has not been published hints at a lack of merit. (Of course, it doesn't mean the research really is flawed -- just that it hasn't been provided to anyone so they can determine if it is. Science is a fan of openness.)

 

I suppose one of our resident chemists can look at the claims made on the websites you linked to and see if they notice anything amiss.

 

Otherwise, I agree - IF one's intent was to convince the masses - this would be the approach.

 

The reasons why these are not made public are only speculation.

 

Lack of merit is a possibility, and so are flaws...

 

But the fact that these studies are being made by private parties rather than universities says a lot.

 

This type of material isn't here to shine as a scientific truth - and so convince people who hold so tightly on their worldview - but to do as it has always done, serve those in the know - and who focus on the use.

 

I will close here the discussion.

 

More effort is spent on dismissing attacks than on constructive exchange. I must confess I expected more open-mindness from people who gather in the name of science.

 

My bottom message is no different than what I have stated first.

 

Not everything is meant to be understood in the scientific perspective - my intention was not to convince, prove or disprove, but to answer the initial question of this thread.

 

Best to you.

[Phi for All]

Proof or stfu is basically what it comes down to.

There is absolutely no need to discard diplomacy or common courtesy, regardless of how you feel about a person's claims. You only lend merit to claims of persecution when you attack with this attitude, and weaken the logical stance of your peers.

[Mr Skeptic]

I must confess I expected more open-mindness from people who gather in the name of science.

 

We are more open-minded than you. We are willing to entertain the possibility that you are right (hence we ask for peer reviewed studies rather than just laughing at you), whereas you are completely unable to accept that you may be wrong. But, we do not discard things we know based on things someone suspects. Whereas you hold on to what you suspect, in the face of what others know.

[toastywombel]

We are more open-minded than you. We are willing to entertain the possibility that you are right (hence we ask for peer reviewed studies rather than just laughing at you), whereas you are completely unable to accept that you may be wrong. But, we do not discard things we know based on things someone suspects. Whereas you hold on to what you suspect, in the face of what others know.

 

I second that.

[iNow]

I suppose it's time to share this again.

 

 

T69TOuqaqXI

[Saint Germain]

Thanks for the video, it's an interesting perspective, but still rooted in the context of an objective reality which existence is independent of all subjectivity (which modern physics has shown to be valid in a limited context only) - and therefore assumes the predominance of reasoning and logic - which also have their limitations, as the Gödel's theorem has demonstrated.

 

The Incompleteness Theorem of Kurt Gödel:

 

-A logical system is always based on axioms.

-A logical system can not prove the consistency of its own axioms and can - hence not prove whether itself is true.

-No logical system will ever be able to prove everything.

-Truth can not be reached by logic.

-Truth is singular (Truth is One).

 

I ask you to consider the fact that Mathematics and Logic cannot be proven by themselves. They are tools used in the scientific method. Science presumes them to be true and has not proven them to be true. If one were to take away mathematics and logic, they would be unable to prove them without using logic.

 

In a similar manner, string theory is purely theoretical, and has never been proven whatsoever, yet it is considered as a scientific discipline.

 

The video also suggests the existence of "supernatural" phenomena - which is a perspective I don't share. To me, "supernatural" only means that something is not understood in the present scientific context, which again evolves through time.

 

Nevertheless, the video rightfully points out that judging too quickly, and calling things "scam" or "obvious flaws" can only point out to conclusions rooted in ignorance - not the scientific open-mindedness that some claim to follow.

 

At best, if something remains unexplained, it is just that, unexplained - this is not a reason to dismiss its existence. To claim otherwise is scientism, not science. As psychologist Charles Tart has noticed, scientism, from a psychological point of view is a form of belief.

 

 

Again, and I will state this for the last time - the white powder is not meant to be understood (or used) in the scientific context. It is not meant to shine as a scientific truth, to convince the masses, or to be imposed. No one is asking you to believe anything, so stop acting like it is the case.

 

This answer was to help the initial question, not to feed the "peer-reviewing hungry people" who, from what I have read, are more interested in a crusade to fight things they don't understand (mostly, outside materialism) than to follow a humble curiosity to try to understand a subject.

 

All the best to you.

Edited December 17, 2009 by Saint Germain

[Sisyphus]

You're asserting something is true. If you're not "asking anyone to believe anything," then what is the purpose of the assertion? And how is asking for an explanation or any kind of evidence "trying to fight something you don't understand?" I think people here have shown themselves to be extremely open-minded, but you've treated even the questioning of it as some kind of religiously motivated persecution. What is that you want from people here?