This is absolutely amazing!

[AstralCody]

http://www.highexistence.com/water-experiment/

Just wanted to share this... This whole experiment kinda went unnoticed by the public from what I heard. You can read about it online there are tons of articles too.

Thought I would share this, as I thought it is astonishing. :D

[CFTraveler]

It didn't get unnoticed, it was debunked and further ignored. But here are two links in which the theory is discussed:

http://www.astraldynamics.com.au/showthread.php?408-What-the-Bleep-do-we-know&p=3426#post3426
http://www.astraldynamics.com.au/showthread.php?1484-What-the-bleep-do-we-know&p=20338#post20338


As you can see, I actually defended the Bleep movie, but the water thing is tricky, the way Dr. Emoto did the experiments.

[Sinera]

It didn't get unnoticed, it was debunked and further ignored.
Hm, well, do you mean by 'debunked' that the 'debunkers' are 'automatically' correct (skeptics often believe themselves to have the right of the 'last word')? I mean .. actually we can debunk anything we like, true? ;)
Personally, I believe the phenomenon is true and measurable but Emoto's conclusions were not right. The water maybe be shaped telepathically or energetically with the mind (anyway: it's mind over matter). Emoto just was wrong when he e.g. stated that classical music forms the nice shapes while metal does the ugly ones. It did maybe have more to do with the ideas the experimenter had about this kind of music and then projected it onto the water structure. Just my 2 cents.

[CFTraveler]

(skeptics often believe themselves to have the right of the 'last word')? I mean .. actually we can debunk anything we like, true? ;) That's a loaded and provocative question and I'll try to answer it as such.
Debunking is trying to find out if something is what it seems, and if the same results can be achieved by 'accepted' means.
If the process of investigation shows that there were shenanigans, then it means that that specific example is bunk (hence the term de/bunk/ed), but not necessarily that the thing isn't possible. So further investigation is necessary.
The second meaning of 'debunk' also doesn't prove something isn't true, it just means there are more than one ways to do something. Nowadays ghost hunters debunk all kinds of things, (as in, they repeat things that seem supernatural but can be done naturally) but don't automatically assume that the case was 'failed', just that it could have been faked. Eventually enough evidence can show whether the case is fake or real, but nothing should be assumed without further study.
Let's look at the case of what Dr. Emoto found. If you are truly openminded you read what he said he found, and what the skeptics said about him. If you didn't bother to read the data, then we have nothing more to discuss.
Going on, about the personal stuff:
Yes, I think it is possible to 'charge' water or any other physical or organic substance, as a part of my personal belief, not because someone did an experiment. I have practiced this (it's part of my hermetic practice, and christians and other faiths do this when they bless their food before eating it, so it's not a 'strange' practice or anything. I do it often, and have for years.

However, the way Dr. Emoto did it leaves a lot to be desired in terms or the scientific method- IIRC he programmed the water and froze it, and then took the pictures of the ice crystals. Freezing is necessary to 'measure' this, because the water only forms crystals when frozen, when liquid, it's, well, liquid. No crystals, no pretty structures.

One of the things that jumped out at me when I saw the Bleep movie and read the reports, is that the 'cursed' water appeared to be half-melted, which shows me that he manipulated the samples to get an effect. Now, as an artist, he had every right to do this- but if this is the case it shouldn't have been presented as an experiment that 'proved' something. An experiment needs to be repeatable to prove something, and the conditions need to be the same- all the samples, after going through the 'blessing' or cursing process, should have been photographed at the same temperature. Measured temp. If not, I couldn't accept the results from a scientific perspective.
I find this very alarming:

Hm, well, do you mean by 'debunked' that the 'debunkers' are 'automatically' correct No, I am saying that, when the results first came out, scientists spoke about what I just said, and most of them simply went on to something else. I am reporting why you don't see this in any scientific journal and it's not in the news.
I may be understanding what you wrote wrongly, but I get the impression that you have leapt to the conclusion that I think 'debunkers are always correct'. It's a big assumption that does not follow any logic, if you read any of my previous posts (http://www.astraldynamics.com.au/showthread.php?5657-What-s-wrong-with-skeptics&highlight=scofftics) about the difference between a real skeptic, a pseudo skeptic, and a 'believer'.

I consider myself a 'real' skeptic, as in, a person who doesn't believe everything they read or hear, who has to investigate further, before converting an observation into a belief, and I make no apologies about that.

[Sinera]

That's a loaded and provocative question
No, I don't think so.


I may be understanding what you wrote wrongly, but I get the impression that you have leapt to the conclusion that I think 'debunkers are always correct'. It's a big assumption that does not follow any logic, if you read any of my previous posts (http://www.astraldynamics.com.au/showthread.php?5657-What-s-wrong-with-skeptics&highlight=scofftics) about the difference between a real skeptic, a pseudo skeptic, and a 'believer'.
Well, you might know me so far that it did not refer to you personally, it's just the words as they are. I am not an English speaker so I am not aware of all denotations and connotations of the word 'debunk'.

Over the past 2-3 years, reading many websites on these topics mostly in English, it happened that I maybe became a little biased towards the use of the word, that's all. It's not about this topic in particular. It's not about necessary sceptical processes in the course of any scientific inquiry, of which I am always in favour. I posted some scientific topics myself recently here where these processes were upheld (Dean Radin, etc.)

The point is: The "unreal" / pseudo skeptics make over-use of this word, e.g. R@ndi or Shermer being the most famous 'debunkers' in their self-reference (or reference by their 'adherents'). So it's just about the word, nothing less and nothing more. It's somehow misused or has been captured by some people who misuse it for their purposes.

It smells for me of close-mindedness and has bad connotations. "It's been debunked!" is a sentence you read / hear so often from the close-minded sceptics who did or do not even care to really look into the matter. It's become an affirmation for them. So that's all. It's just the word itself. Mayby I became allergic to it. My fault. :?

Well, yes, and maybe it is about time for the open-minded part of society to re-claim it.


I consider myself a 'real' skeptic, as in, a person who doesn't believe everything they read or hear, who has to investigate further, before converting an observation into a belief, and I make no apologies about that.
Same applies to me, although I try not to put "any" labels on me anymore (I am this, I am that ...), but the description would fit my views about these things, too.

Calm down and relax.
:toast:

[CFTraveler]

The point is: The "unreal" / pseudo skeptics make over-use of this word, e.g. R@ndi or Shermer being the most famous 'debunkers' in their self-reference (or reference by their 'adherents'). So it's just about the word, nothing less and nothing more. It's somehow misused or has been captured by some people who misuse it for their purposes. Exactly. As I said on an earlier post, they call themselves skeptics, but they are usually materialists, not of the 'show me' kind, but as the 'materialism is my religion, and no evidence will dissuade me from my view' kind.
That's why I prefer the word 'pseudo skeptic', IMO it's more apt.